Understanding risk and regulatory reform

There are few areas in regulation likely to cause more controversy than where risk, science and politics collide. While the case of Thalidomide shows that it is by no means an exclusively recent concern, David Vogel's work confirms that it is an enduring theme of contemporary debate. Vogel has maintained that, while the American regulatory regime of the 1960s and 1970s may have been intensely contested, its European counterpart now displays significant similarities, so that the Tortoise has now caught up with the Hare. This article challenges such a view, suggesting that he has overstated the role of Precaution in European regulation, where it is qualified by other regulatory principles (BATNEEC, Proportionality and Subsidiarity) that embrace other socially valued objectives: economic growth, technological innovation and employment. Moreover, while the rhetoric of European regulation may evoke a concern with the role of science in regulation (often at the cutting edge, where precaution demands the evidentiary bar to intervention is lowered) in practise, its role (through risk assessments) has ensured that it is elevated.