Volatility

July 31, 2015

Case Study in the Corporate “Science” Paradigm

<

Here’s a textbook case, punctuated with a small victory.
.
1. Under the corporate science paradigm, standard practice for regulators is to consider only secret corporate “studies” in their assessments, and to do nothing but rubber-stamp these. Independent science is rejected out of hand. In 2009 the European Parliament passed a law requiring the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA, a typical pro-corporate regulator) to consider in its pesticide assessments not only non-scientific, fraudulent and secret corporate “science” the way regulators prefer, but that it must consider independent science as well.
.
2. EFSA dodged this by issuing a guidance in 2011 applying a special corporate standard as the single yes-or-no standard for admitting a study to the assessment. This is the “Klimisch criterion”, named after the head of a gang of BASF operatives who promulgated it in 1997. In 2012 the European Commission’s Science and Health Committee concurred. Perversely, the Klimisch standard is a pure example of the tendentious corporate “science” whose unchallenged reign the Parliament wanted to end. The single standard for assessment it asserts is called, Orwell-fashion, “Good Laboratory Practice” (GLP).
.
GLP is a classic example of a pedantic regulation which has nothing to do with quality control, but which is fraudulently put forward by the corporation and the regulator as being a rigorous control. Rather, it is meant to set up procedural hurdles which wealthy corporations can easily overcome, but which would be too onerous for many independent studies. In theory GLP was supposed to apply only to corporate studies, not independent science, which instead is supposed to be held accountable by the peer review system. Therefore independent studies are not designed to conform to GLP, nor are they supposed to in principle.
.
There we see another nefarious purpose of GLP. It’s supposed to justify “secret science”, as comprising an alleged alternative to publicity and peer review.
.
So the EFSA and EC turned the Parliament’s intent completely inside out, parrying the attempt to force regulators to take science into account by imposing a corporate standard which dictates which “science” is allowed to be assessed. It’s standard corporate regulatory whack-a-mole.
.
3. A scientist consultant to the EFSA, Geoff Frampton, recommended against adoption of GLP but had his submission censored and his recommendation changed by secret EFSA bureaucrats. When the public interest groups Client Earth and Pesticide Action Network Europe asked EFSA for the names of these bureaucrats, the EFSA refused to tell.
.
The two groups sued, and the European Court of Justice (Second Chamber) has ordered EFSA to divulge the names. If EFSA complies, we’ll certainly find that they are or have been corporate employees, operatives of the exact same corporations whose products are being “regulated”.
.
We’ll see if the EFSA obeys this judgement, or else what kind of trick or outright defiance it’ll try next. The only thing certain is that they’ll never give up and never change until GMOs and the Poisoner regime are abolished.
.
For now science continues to face a harsh struggle to get its findings acknowledged and considered, indeed it faces a harsh struggle to exist at all, as the overwhelming preponderance of wealth, power, and cadre commitment is dedicated to the corporate “science” paradigm and to corporate power as such.

<

Advertisements

1 Comment

  1. […] method), who performed the research, and who paid for it. . At the same time the practitioners assert protocols for rationalizing corporate secrecy where it comes to adverse data. From any reality-based point of view there’s no such thing as […]

    Pingback by The Abdication of Establishment Science | Volatility — August 2, 2015 @ 3:14 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: