Remaining critical of the health and safety guidelines provided by governmental agencies (interview with stephen tan of cascadia law)
Stephen Tan is a partner at the environmental law firm, Cascadia Law Group, where his practice centers around environmental litigation. In addition, he also writes and speaks about environmental and conservation policy, responsible organizations, and board governance, and is an active member of the nonprofit community.
In this podcast episode, Stephen sheds light on the role of litigation in shaping and influencing environmental policy; why we need to remain critical the credibility of conventional authorities, such as governmental agencies; and more.
To start, get a glimpse below into the conversation between Stephen and Green Dreamer Podcast's host, Kamea Chayne.
“The guidance that the federal government gives to people on what is a supposedly healthy way to live and eat is largely driven by corporate and industrial interests.”
If you feel inspired by this episode, please consider donating a gift of support of any amount today!
This is a conversation on Green Dreamer with Kamea Chayne, a podcast and multimedia journal illuminating our paths towards ecological balance, intersectional sustainability, and true abundance and wellness for all. This preview has been edited for clarity. Subscribe to Green Dreamer Podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or any podcast app to stay informed and updated on our latest episodes.
On how industrial interests shape governmental food policy:
"The guidance that the federal government gives to people on what is a supposedly healthy way to live and eat is largely driven by corporate and industrial interests, rather than what I think it ought to be based on—good science and what actually serves the interest of public health and individual health.
And that's a function of the way that we let commercial interests dominate our economy.
These companies are doing what they're meant to do, which is to succeed, make money, get bigger, and generate income for their shareholders. So it's hard to challenge them on that level—they are successful companies.
But unfortunately, the consequences of their success are very detrimental to our quality of life.”
On shifting the dialogue on genetically-engineered food:
“I do think it is possible to produce dangerous food through genetic engineering. But the fact of genetic engineering does not make a food necessarily unsafe. That issue has dominated the conversation, even though it's not really an issue.
What's ignored is: What are the other consequences of allowing those foods to be produced without regulation, without labeling, and without consumers knowing?
When genetical engineering was first developed, the promise was that it was going to improve yields, create drought-tolerant plants, improve flavor, or improve shelf-life. These are all consumer-oriented, ecosystem-oriented goals.
Well, it's taken a very different direction than that.
The genetic engineering that has been applied to foods in our food system has almost exclusively been herbicide and pesticide-resistance, meaning that you insert a gene in a seed that allows you to douse your fields with herbicides to kill everything besides that plant.
These seeds are produced by agricultural giants—we are centralizing the power of our food supply in these giant corporations that dominate the food supply.”
On questioning guidelines given by governmental agencies:
“The vast majority of people in this country are unaware, and therefore, unconcerned, about how their food is produced.
I think people have more faith in the advice and recommendations given by the government than they really should.
When I started to realize the extent of the influence that corporate giants have over food policy, nutritional recommendations, food guidelines, and things like that, it made me feel very naive.
You have this assumption that these agencies are acting in the interest of consumers and citizens.
As it turns out, those agencies are composed of people, and a lot of those people come from industry. As with any agency, there's this revolving door between industry and government, where people go back and forth.”
Final words of wisdom:
“Do what you can. Honestly, we are facing some significant problems in our impact on the planet, society, and public health. So, do what you can meaning try to live a responsible life—a life that recognizes that those problems are occurring, a life that minimizing your impacts that might exacerbate those problems.
And also, do something. It's about both individual action and also supporting those in positions of authority and power who have more power than we do as general citizens to have influence over big decisions that might change the course we're on."
