IT IS remarkable how often I have heard the phrase “unscientific” or “not based on science” applied to recent sanctions on Canadian beef.
In a recent Western Producer article (Jan. 8, p.11) Stuart MacDiarmid suggests that banning Canadian and U.S. beef after two cases of BSE “is akin to medieval witch burning. It is deeply irrational,” he said.
It is true that the danger to humans from BSE, while real, is extraordinarily low. Britons ate millions of meals from BSE-infected cattle over the last 25 years, including meat taken from the spine. Only 143 Britons have become infected with a BSE-related disease.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Compare that to 600 to 1,200 cases per year of E. coli infection from ground beef (1992-1996 UK figures), a significant number of which are fatal, especially for young children. No one, here or there, is banning hamburger because of E. coli.
I share Canada’s outrage at the world’s apparently irrational reaction to BSE. But I’m also surprised by our Canadian assumption that we ought to, or even could, make our decisions on the basis of science. Science can give us important clues to what is going on but it can’t tell us how to react. It can provide some of the “facts;” it can’t tell us which ones really matter. That’s the job of culture – our beliefs, values and relationships.
For example, a grain farmer told me he would make much more money if he went organic. He’d checked the numbers. But he also realized that there would then be weeds in his fields. He loves a clean field and so does his community. What would the neighbours say? His reputation would be shot. To him, reputation was more important than profit so he stuck with conventional farming.
Like all of life, the world reaction to BSE is shaped by values and relationships. We want to maintain our reputation in the world market. Others want to keep a strong competitor out of business for a while.
Consumers want pristine perfection in their foods. Sorting out the values is the key to dealing with the crisis.
Look at our government’s response. It has promised to increase the annual BSE testing from 4,000 to 32,000 animals. On the surface that’s because we value safety in our food. But still only one animal out of hundreds will be tested, hardly full protection from a safety perspective.
So what is really behind the increase? I think it is a desire to regain our “honour” in the international market. Well, if international honour is what we value most, is increased testing the best way to gain it? Perhaps diplomacy would work better.
To solve our pressing economic problems, we must pay more attention to the way beliefs and relationships function in our economy. Many millions of dollars have been poured into scientific studies of agriculture. Very little has gone into looking at how our beliefs, values and relationships around food are shaped, or how to change them.
Why aren’t philosophers and sociologists, clergy and diplomats on the front lines of this crisis? Why isn’t someone asking them how we go about changing our beliefs or taking care of our social networks? Why aren’t business leaders and politicians training in ethics and social analysis? We will only begin to heal our food economy when we start attending to those matters.
Cam Harder is associate professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran TheologicalSeminary in Saskatoon. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Western Producer.
