POLITICS VERSUS SCIENCE: APPORTIONING ... - Buffalo State

Of the three factors conditioning debate and compromise in the European food
safety regime—divergent socialization and rewards of scientists and policymakers,
institutional opportunism, and Member State prerogatives—this study focuses on the first
two. Accordingly, we might ask, how have the different orientations of scientists and
policymakers shaped the debate and their respective recommendations? Second, to what
extent might institutional (EFSA’s establishment) and split competences (among the
Commission, EFSA, and Member State food safety authorities) either enhance or
diminish the effectiveness and legitimacy of food safety regulation? Third, how can we
evaluate food safety policy within the broader framework of regulatory governance in the
European Union? Specifically, does the creation of food safety policy networks within a
scheme of multi-level governance serve as an effective alternative to the central
regulatory authority of the modern state? Fourth, what is the expected impact, if any, of
EU’s regulatory regime in the on-going construction of an international regulatory regime
for food safety? To these thematic questions we add a fifth: with the accession in 2004
of 10 new Member States will the EFSA and DG Health and Consumer Protection be up
to the task of ensuring EU standards throughout the EU-25?
SCIENCE CONFRONTS POLITICS: PROBABILITIES AND ZERO
RISK
How have different orientations of scientists and policymakers shaped the debate over
food safety policy in Europe? While at times the scientist is, by virtue of high-level
government appointment to regulatory agencies and committees, a policymaker, in the
main politicians legislate and enforce policy. In any case, the reward structure shifts
3