Hexa-Sabbath. Foreign Matter and Vital Substances, Experts and the Critical Consumer in the FRG during the 1950s and 1960sIn the late Fifties and early Sixties the regulation of food additives represented a remarkable turning point in German consumer politics, establishing a debate about decision making and policy advice, altering the discourse of purity and contamination, and inaugurating a new political actor, the organized critical consumer. The amendment of the Food Law in December 1958 functioned as a negotiation process between representatives (...) of science, industry and the state, which was institutionalized in the Senate Commissions of the German Research Foundation. While these Commissions for preservatives, foreign matter and colorants worked behind closed doors, a public discourse about the “toxic condition” of modern life and the negative role of the pharmaceutical and chemical industry gained strength.The debate about the admission of hexamethylenetetramine (hexa) took part at a crucial moment. Hexa was used as a preservative in the fish industry. But its anti microbial effectiveness was caused by the decomposition of hexa to formaldehyde. Despite the commission’s verdict against hexa, the lobbying activities of the industry granted it a reprieve. In the media, the case of hexa was seen as a touchstone for the capacity of negotiated decision making and the ability of rational scientists to resist the demands of industry. Finally, in 1963 it was the new political actor of the organized critical consumer, heir and successor to the housewife federations as well as to “purists” advocating life reform, who, supported by the media, enforced the prohibition of hexa as a preservative. (shrink)

Slippery slope‐, taboo‐breaking‐ or Nazi‐analogy‐arguments are common, but not uncontroversial examples of the complex relationship between bioethics and the various ways of using historical arguments in these debates. In our analysis we examine first the relationship between bioethics and medical history both as separate disciplines and as argumentative practices. Secondly, we then analyse six common types of historical arguments in bioethics (slippery slope‐, analogy‐, continuity‐, knockout/taboo‐, ethical progress‐ and accomplice‐arguments), some as arguments within the academic debate of bioethics, others as (...) arguments within political and public debates over bioethical issues. We conclude by suggesting to bioethicists to better understand historical arguments as socially and culturally embedded practices of critical reflection of power, medical and government paternalism and possible future scenarios. More interdisciplinarity between ethicists and medical historians is needed to appropriately rationalize and understand the different legacies. (shrink)

Abstract152 S., zahlreiche Abb., € 25,00. ISBN 978-3-7030-0830-6.