Thesis ID: CBB707506393

Toxic Rules: Chemical Regulation, International Trade, and the Epistemic Consequences of Standardized Practices (2023)

unapi

This dissertation is a study of regulatory epistemology: the practices of managing knowledge, expertise, and evidence in regulatory decision-making. Using chemical regulation as a case study, it examines science at the intersection of commodity trade, regulation, and safety. I demonstrate how the desiderata of bureaucratic efficiency and free-flowing trade have shaped how the U.S. and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed norms and practices to know and regulate risk. Since 1900, over 10 million new chemicals have been synthesized; 150,000 have been used in plastics, drugs, foods, and pesticides. Many are known to be harmful. Yet regulatory action has generally been weak and slow, despite robust evidence demonstrating the environmental and health consequences of chemicals in everyday products. This dissertation investigates why many governments have failed to regulate chemicals widely considered toxic: because regulatory agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have relied on partial knowledge. They have done so to make chemicals governable and to facilitate international trade, reflecting the fact that the epistemic demands of governance and market capitalism are different from those of public health and environmental protection. In the 1970s, fraudulent studies submitted to regulatory agencies cast doubt on the integrity of chemical safety data—and hence the safety of approved drugs, pesticides, and other chemical products. U.S. regulators formulated quality assurance and reporting standards called Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). The rules were ostensibly adopted to assure the integrity of toxicology data. This dissertation shows that, at least in the U.S., government officials knew they would never achieve this goal. The aim was not to make laboratory practices and the resultant knowledge good, but rather to make them governable. As part of the goal of governance, a question that was previously understood as the domain of science—“how do we determine if this chemical is safe?”—became reframed as a matter of economic policy and international governance. In 1981, the twenty-four industrialized nations of the OECD adopted GLPs and Test Guideline protocols as part of their Mutual Acceptance of Data framework. The OECD hoped to protect public safety by ensuring data quality, but their primary aim was to facilitate international trade by creating uniform standards. Namely, the OECD hoped to avoid trade barriers due to conflicting national rules, which would otherwise require companies to test substances multiple times, impeding economic growth. The standards achieved those narrow aims. But over time, reliance on them has restricted the evidence for regulatory action to a subset of studies: standardized studies, generally performed and funded by industry. Most academic studies have been excluded. In many cases, this has meant ignoring evidence from precisely those studies that suggest a need for stronger regulation. This dissertation highlights a problem with science in regulation writ large: a weakness in how the state knows. Regulatory bodies have invoked procedural fairness and rational management as defenses against charges of public interference in private affairs. Those rationales, in turn, informed how regulators know. The way that they do so—based on standard protocols and credentialed experts—benefits business and government. But does it make scientific sense, and does it protect people or the environment? I argue that the answers are “no.” These frameworks constrain the evidence and expertise used to govern by impeding the uptake of knowledge about and urgently needed action on toxics.

...More
Citation URI
data.isiscb.org/p/isis/citation/CBB707506393

This citation is part of the Isis database.

Similar Citations

Article Colleen Lanier-Christensen; (September 2021)
Creating Regulatory Harmony: The Participatory Politics of OECD Chemical Testing Standards in the Making (/p/isis/citation/CBB606231580/) unapi

Article Frohlich, Xaq; (Spring 2022)
Making Food Standard: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Food Standards of Identity, 1930s–1960s (/p/isis/citation/CBB979639865/) unapi

Book James B. McSwain; (2018)
Petroleum and Public Safety: Risk Management in the Gulf South, 1901-2015 (/p/isis/citation/CBB127804806/) unapi

Article Angela N. H. Creager; (September 2021)
To Test or Not to Test: Tools, Rules, and Corporate Data in US Chemicals Regulation (/p/isis/citation/CBB745420064/) unapi

Article David Demortain; (2024)
Mistrust of the black box: The public auditing of private models in the chemicals regulatory space (/p/isis/citation/CBB384424304/) unapi

Article Anne-Marie Coles; (2021)
Emergence of a techno-legal specialty: Animal tests to assess chemical safety in the UK, 1945–1960 (/p/isis/citation/CBB493149696/) unapi

Article Julia R. S. Bursten; Catherine Kendig; (2021)
Growing Knowledge: Epistemic Objects in Agricultural Extension Work (/p/isis/citation/CBB028916046/) unapi

Article Kuchinskaya, Olga; (February 2013)
Twice invisible: Formal representations of radiation danger (/p/isis/citation/CBB984772144/) unapi

Article Russell, Andrew Lawrence; James L. Pelkey; Loring Robbins; (Spring 2022)
The Business of Internetworking: Standards, Start-Ups, and Network Effects (/p/isis/citation/CBB136746708/) unapi

Book Schueler, Judith; Fickers, Andreas; (2008)
Bargaining norms, arguing standards: Negotiating technical standards (/p/isis/citation/CBB001180794/) unapi

Article Grace Ballor; (Spring 2022)
CE Marking, Business, and European Market Integration (/p/isis/citation/CBB954430091/) unapi

Article Christine Hauskeller; Nicole Baur; Jean Harrington; (2019)
Standards, Harmonization and Cultural Differences: Examining the Implementation of a European Stem Cell Clinical Trial (/p/isis/citation/CBB953736485/) unapi

Article Henri Boullier; Emmanuel Henry; (2022)
Toxic Ignorance: How Regulatory Procedures and Industrial Knowledge Jeopardise the Risk Assessment of Chemicals (/p/isis/citation/CBB183545703/) unapi

Article Emmanuel Henry; Valentin Thomas; Sara Angeli Aguiton; Marc-Olivier Déplaude; Nathalie Jas; (September 2021)
Introduction: Beyond the Production of Ignorance: The Pervasiveness of Industry Influence through the Tools of Chemical Regulation (/p/isis/citation/CBB736985993/) unapi

Book Hay, Amy M.; (2021)
The Defoliation of America: Agent Orange Chemicals, Citizens, and Protests (/p/isis/citation/CBB039979128/) unapi

Article Scott Gabriel Knowles; (2017)
Private Standards, Public Goods: Underwriters Laboratories and American Safety Engineering in the Consumer Era (/p/isis/citation/CBB401083567/) unapi

Book Michelle Follette Turk; (2018)
A History of Occupational Health and Safety: From 1905 to the Present (/p/isis/citation/CBB386875990/) unapi

Article Marcus, Gail H.; (Fall 2001)
Technology, Safety, Human Resources, and Nuclear Power (/p/isis/citation/CBB400599084/) unapi

Authors & Contributors
Henry, Emmanuel
Valentin Thomas
Baur, Nicole
Creager, Angela N. H.
Fickers, Andreas
Frohlich, Xaq
Journals
Science, Technology, and Human Values
Science as Culture
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Business History Review
The Bridge: Journal of the National Academy of Engineering
Historia Scientiarum: International Journal of the History of Science Society of Japan
Publishers
Louisiana State University Press
STT
University of Alabama Press
University of Nevada Press
Concepts
Regulation
Standards and standardization
Chemical industry
Science and technology studies (STS)
Safety regulations
Technology and politics
Time Periods
21st century
20th century
20th century, late
Modern
Places
United States
Europe
United Kingdom
Vietnam
European Union
Nevada (U.S.)
Institutions
United States. Environmental Protection Agency
United States. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment