Are we really free? Independent?
This chapter of the book Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Public Policy edited by Joel Tickner, very well explains ban on Maggi but no attention to equally and more dangerous killers and by that fooling mass.
The main objective of a scientific exercise to determine the potential threats of harm from chemicals is to protect health and the environment.Yet this fundamental objective is often forgotten or ignored in the appraisal of risks inherent in the production, distribution, and use of potentially harmful chemical products. Dominant forces in the scientific community and regulatory agencies impose an evaluation system that relies heavily on numerical data and on the “smoking gun” type of evidence of harm that presumes the chemical to be innocuous until proven otherwise.
This supposedly “science-based” risk assessment methodology has proven to be more effective in protecting vested interests rather than protecting health and the environment. In fact, risk assessment is not the decisive factor in determining the regulatory status of a toxic chemical. The reality is that economic interests and political expediency are generally the dominant considerations influencing regulatory decisions pertaining to toxic chemicals, especially in southern countries where financial, technical, human, and other resources are sorely lacking and where sociopolitical circumstances are particularly conducive for powerful chemical companies to exert influence and manipulate public policy (Quijano 2000).
Independence Day? 😀