Epistemic policies and governance. A comparative analysis of the North American and European health claims regulations

Abstract

This article analyzes North American and European health claims regulations. By making use of the concept of epistemic policy, we show that the European regulation is committed to a monistic assessment approach, which favors a certain scientific methodology, while the North American regulation is committed to a pluralist epistemic policy. The comparative analysis of both regulations shows that each epistemic policy depends on particular regulatory objectives. We conclude that there is no single epistemic policy that serves to achieve different regulatory objectives. Moreover, we conclude that the choice of one epistemic policy or another entrenches the objectives of regulation, sets the trajectory of technological innovation and it entails other socio-political implications. In particular, we show how the European epistemic policy is compatible with a hard governance mode, while the North American one is more compatible with a softer governance mode. Finally, we hold that our conclusions are extensible to current evidence-based policy proposals. It is not reasonable, in accordance with our results, to think that there is one single type of scientific evidence useful for all public policies objectives. Committing to one or another epistemic policy would lead to think that only a certain type of political interventions would have supporting evidence.