Workshop The Science and Politics of Glyphosate

The dissensus among prominent scientific bodies complicates straightforward policy recommendations and regulatory action. Central to this debate, are not only scientific questions of fact-finding, but also the social questions of which facts and studies carry weight, and which do not. Law, policy, and corporate influence may be determinative in coproducing and providing legitimacy to the scientific methods through framing and selecting scientific questions and procedures. Questions of conflict of interest have been raised by experts as well as investigative journalists regarding the processes leading regulatory agencies’ findings.

Such considerations raise systemic questions regarding the regulatory infrastructure through which chemical substances such as glyphosate are authorised: What interests are represented in the process? Are there systemic conflicts of interest? How does the type and provenance of studies reviewed or omitted affect regulatory outcomes? What would a “firewall” between industry-funded science and policy look like? As the mandate of public regulatory bodies is to protect the public interest, is this reflected in procedures, aims, and independent science reviewed by these regulatory agencies? And, in what ways, if any, are private interests protected by the rules, procedures and practices of regulatory agencies? What happens when regulatory bodies cease to have the power to regulate companies and chemicals in protection of the public interest, and instead become partners working together with the very industries they were formed to regulate? Is there an onus of proving safety or is the regime assuming safety of chemicals? More generally, what are the rules that shape the de facto burden of proof in the development and use of chemicals? And finally, what needs to happen politically to rehabilitate environmental regulatory institutions so that they can fulfill their mission to protect public health?