Today there is considerable disagreement between the US and the EU with respect to food safety standards. Issues include GMOs, beef hormones, unpasteurized cheese, etc. In general, it is usually asserted that Europeans argue for the precautionary principle (with exceptions such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement where “substantial equivalence,” a form of familiarity, is used) while Americans defend risk analysis or what is sometimes described as the familiarity principle. This is not to suggest that EU member countries agree on how the precautionary principle should be applied; considerable differences exist among nations as will be noted below. In this paper I review both positions arguing that they are best understood as variants of the homiletics of risk rather than as differing scientific positions. I conclude that while science must necessarily enter into the formulation of food and agricultural standards, state policy, private economic interests, and the interface between the two (e.g., when democratic states are successfully lobbied to support particular private interests), play important roles in determining how particular risks will be treated. Moreover, I argue that the role of science must necessarily be limited if its credibility is to be preserved.
