Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2115/71384

Various arguments exist regarding the safety of new commodities that have been created with modern biotechnology, such as genetically modified foods and related pesticides. Amidst this situation, the establishment of complete “risk evidence” has been more difficult, and transparency with regard to food safety is diminishing, because most of the fruits of natural scientific research have been denied or have undergone changes. These circumstances allow loose restraints on the production, circulation, and labeling of those commodities. On the other hand, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement persists with“ scientism,” meaning to request objective and scientific evidence in the field of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The text of the TPP agreement does not allow for priority to be given to the protection of human health over the promotion of trade, and“ scientism” is given the role of imposing sanctions on any barrier that would restrict the trade of foods that are very opaque in terms of safety by working together with Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) articles. This is how “scientism” leads to a situation in which people find it difficult to exclude or avoid imported goods that are opaque in terms of safety. Because of this, the effects of“ scientism” may cause major damage to food security and confidence in Japan.