THERE is, says New Democrat MP Charlie Angus, a growing disconnect between consumers and folks who produce and regulate their meat supply.
Consumers increasingly want reassurance from universal testing for BSE. The cattle industry and government regulators resist, insisting science requires far less than universal testing to guarantee food safety.
Scientific rules, they say, must trump ill-informed public opinion.
All of which leads to a question: could science-based rules be used to clean up other messy parts of our country?
Imagine, for example, this fanciful discussion within Elections Canada about how to make the Canadian electoral system more efficient and science-based.
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?
********
- *******
John Peter Queensly (JPQ), chief electoral officer: Since we are under pressure to reduce costs and increase democratic deficit efficiency, I have a proposal that will eliminate the need for voters and elections. It is a science-based electoral system. I thought of it after listening to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tell consumers they are wrong to demand more testing.
Democratic Foot Soldier 1 (DFS1): Eh? Science-based democracy?
JPQ: Indeed. That’s the brilliance of it. Public opinion polls predict within the margin of error how elections will turn out so let’s let political science determine the outcome. It will eliminate the messiness of election days, but more importantly, the cost. Elections cost $60 million or more. Let’s let science determine the outcome, spend $500,000 on the poll and make the system more efficient.”
DFS2: Your plan has much to commend it, sir. We all crave science-based rules that eliminate the uncertainty of politics but I believe political consumers … excuse me, voters … will insist in a direct say about who governs them.
JPQ: That is why we are following the CFIA plan of dealing with popular dissent. It politely tells consumers they don’t know what they are talking about.
Many consumers insist that with BSE around, all cattle should be tested after slaughter, just to be sure. The CFIA, supported by the cattle industry, insists science and not the customer is always right. Science dictates that a selective testing program is sufficient to meet the standard required. Total testing is unnecessary. End of discussion. It’s brilliant. Who can argue with science?
DFS1: So how exactly does this relate to elections?
JPQ: Well, if the customer isn’t always right, if the customer who wants mandatory GMO labeling or universal BSE testing is ignorant of the science that says neither is required, then the voter who insists on a vote even when political science has indicated the winner is equally out of line. It’s the same principle. If there is a more modern, scientifically based way to determine who people want to govern them, why would we not embrace it rather than sticking with horse-and-buggy methods?
You use science-based assumptions to make predictions. If you don’t have to test every cow to prove it does not have BSE, then you don’t have to poll every voter to know how he would vote.
Canadians might resist at first but I’m confident once they think about it, they’ll understand this will simply bring democracy into the 21st century. We have the scientific knowledge. Let’s put it to work.
