Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy

Ian Wylie Toal is a Martindale-based freelance science writer.

Is it possible for science to provide unambiguous and impartial advice
to government regulatory agencies that will allow them to make firm
decisions regarding the safety of new technologies? For those involved
in the science of risk assessment, the answer is yes. For the authors of
this book, however, the answer is no—even supposedly impartial
arbitrators carry a set of social assumptions that affect how they
interpret data. The authors suggest that risk debates “are
intrinsically political” and not scientific.

These conclusions were reached after a thorough analysis of the debate
over the herbicide alachlor, which was banned in Canada in 1985. The
cancellation was based on data supplied by the manufacturer, Monsanto,
which appealed the decision. The Alachlor Review Board conducted 41 days
of public hearings, and recommended that the ban be lifted. The
government did not follow this recommendation, and alachlor remains
unregistered in Canada.

At every stage of this process, “value frameworks” played a role.
For example, the Review Board had a distinct “view of rationality . .
. of economic values and of technology and its place in our lives,”
and “these presuppositions shaped the Board’s deliberations and its
conclusions.” Ultimately, the authors feel that making scientific risk
assessments the sole arbiters of risk debates “is in effect to allow
one value framework within the social conflict represented in the risk
debate to settle the issue in its favour.”

This is a fascinating book, with stunning social implications. Although
hard to read because of the wealth of detail and complex arguments, it
is clearly written and well structured. It suffers somewhat from having
a limited glossary and no index. Terms that, like “instrumental
rationality,” are not found in the glossary are defined in the
text—somewhere. There is also inconsistency in the presentation of
additional reading material: some subjects have a number of references,
while others have none, even when “a large literature” is mentioned.

These points aside, this is a valuable book that should be required
reading for anyone interested in how we assess the safety of new
technologies and products.