TPP's Orwellian Definition of "Science" in its Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Chapter

[bananas]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/tpps-orwellian-definition-of-science-in-its-sanitary-and-phytosanitary-sps-chapter.html

TPP’s Orwellian Definition of “Science” in its Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Chapter

Posted on November 19, 2015 by Lambert Strether

<snip>

But what does Graiber really mean by science? And what does TPP mean? Not — hold onto your hats here, folks — what scientists mean. Or you.

Science vs. The Precautionary Principle

“Science,” as one might expect, is a loaded word in trade policy. For example, here’s Democratic Senator Max Baucus questioning a previous USTR, Ron Kirk. From the Eyes on Trade live blog:

Baucus : SPS?

Kirk: We will press EU to get SPS measures based on sound science, and not fear.

“Sound science” is, of course, a phrase invented by the public relations business as part of the tobacco industry’s campaign against second-hand smoke regulation. So what Kirk is really saying is that trade in cancer sticks is jake with the angels, especially when tobacco-industry funded shell groups say that smoking cancer sticks is jake with the angels. Consider rereading the lofty wording of the USTR FAQ with that perspective, and keep this in mind as we look at SPS in more detail.

<snip>

“Science” Based on “Confidential Information”

Most of us think that the essence of science is the free interchange of information; that is, after all, how scientists check each other’s work. (Imagine that Newton had written Principia Mathematica, and then treated it as confidential and proprietary information. The court alchemists of Newton’s day did just that; but not scientists.) The drafters of the TPP do not take this view. From Article 17.6 of Chapter 7:

<snip>

“Science” Based on “Economic Feasibility”

Most of us also think that the practice of science doesn’t take feasibility into account. For example, Watson and Crick (and Franklin) didn’t say to themselves: “Well, let’s forget this double helix thing; we don’t have any DNA machines to decode it anyhow, so proceeding further would violate the scientific method.” The TPP drafters disagree. From Article 17.9 of Chapter 7:

<snip>

“Science” Assumes an Infrastructure for Doing Science

Most insidiously, the practice of science depends on an infrastructure: Laboratories, scientists, trained technicians, a budget. But the infrastructure of science is under assault. The IATP once more:

For example, since the Congress refuses to fund the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), including its import provisions, inadequately funded and staffed SPS measures of the FSMA are not “economically feasible” to implement and enforce. Because the food and agribusiness industry does not want to pay the fees to expedite trade under the FSMA, they appeal to the presidential Office of Management and Budget to do a “cost-benefit” analysis to delay levying of fees.

<snip>

Conclusion

My watchword is always that corrupt language signals corruption. The language of TPP, and the language of TPP advocates, is as corrupt as it can be; the word “science,” to them,” means something completely different from what it means to dull normals like us. Orwell would be proud. You eat food, hence you’re a buyer. Beware!

<snip>