Different Philosophies on Risk Assessment: Case Study of the United States and European Union :: Politics

Different Philosophies on Risk Assessment: Case Study of the United States and European Union Introduction â€Å"Science-based regulation should never be misunderstood to mean science converted, at its face value, into regulation.†[1] Hence, regulation based entirely on ‘sound’ science, as the United States urges its trading partners to adopt, is only theoretically possible. The values of a society will ultimately affect the outcome of science-based risk assessment. The origin of facts is contingent on what the society deems is most important for research, how it is researched, and which of the research matters in the final assessment. The interpretation of facts will be determined by regulatory institutions, official expertise, economic models, and assumptions on what constitutes a desirable society.[2] The risk assessment methodologies and risk management approaches of the United States and the European Union towards genetically modified foods demonstrate this truth, and this situation will be explored as a case study of science – based regula tion. In science lies the facts, but the origin and interpretation of the facts cannot be separated from political, social, and cultural influences. Background The European Union and the United States have different risk assessment and management policies which arise from political and socioeconomic differences within these two societies. From a political and cultural standpoint, the clout of strong consumer unions and farmers in the European Union and similar pull from the industrial sector in the United States cannot be separated from the decision-making process. Socially, we find that risk perception between the two societies is quite different. American society exhibits consumer acceptance and the European Union exhibits consumer recalcitrance towards GM-foods. More importantly, the differing philosophies in risk assessment are structured so that either entity can have their risk assessments arrive at their desired outcomes. The United States insists that risk assessment of genetically modified foods be based on ‘sound’ science and rules. Though the European Union does not directly counter this position, it did recently make clear in The EU Communiquà © on the Precautionary Principle[3] that it would reserve its sovereign right to exercise the precautionary principle when the known facts surrounding the risks of a particular GM-food were not enough to establish the food as safe for human consumption. Different Philosophies on Risk Assessment: Case Study of the United States and European Union :: Politics Different Philosophies on Risk Assessment: Case Study of the United States and European Union Introduction â€Å"Science-based regulation should never be misunderstood to mean science converted, at its face value, into regulation.†[1] Hence, regulation based entirely on ‘sound’ science, as the United States urges its trading partners to adopt, is only theoretically possible. The values of a society will ultimately affect the outcome of science-based risk assessment. The origin of facts is contingent on what the society deems is most important for research, how it is researched, and which of the research matters in the final assessment. The interpretation of facts will be determined by regulatory institutions, official expertise, economic models, and assumptions on what constitutes a desirable society.[2] The risk assessment methodologies and risk management approaches of the United States and the European Union towards genetically modified foods demonstrate this truth, and this situation will be explored as a case study of science – based regula tion. In science lies the facts, but the origin and interpretation of the facts cannot be separated from political, social, and cultural influences. Background The European Union and the United States have different risk assessment and management policies which arise from political and socioeconomic differences within these two societies. From a political and cultural standpoint, the clout of strong consumer unions and farmers in the European Union and similar pull from the industrial sector in the United States cannot be separated from the decision-making process. Socially, we find that risk perception between the two societies is quite different. American society exhibits consumer acceptance and the European Union exhibits consumer recalcitrance towards GM-foods. More importantly, the differing philosophies in risk assessment are structured so that either entity can have their risk assessments arrive at their desired outcomes. The United States insists that risk assessment of genetically modified foods be based on ‘sound’ science and rules. Though the European Union does not directly counter this position, it did recently make clear in The EU Communiquà © on the Precautionary Principle[3] that it would reserve its sovereign right to exercise the precautionary principle when the known facts surrounding the risks of a particular GM-food were not enough to establish the food as safe for human consumption.