Public and Technical Interdependence: Regulatory Controversy, Out-Law Discourse, and the Messy Case of Olestra

Abstract

This essay characterizes regulatory controversy through communicative practices that bridge the technical and public spheres of argument. The case of Procter & Gamble's efforts to gain approval and consumers for the fat substitute olestra, opposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, serves as a vehicle for exploring the nature of regulatory controversy and the interdependence of public and technical argument. Out-law discourse, a discourse of dissent, ignores conventional standards of argument and is invited in regulatory controversy when extant arenas for argument are not flexible enough to accommodate dissent. This out-law discourse is explored through the tactics of objection and counteranalysis, and the essay concludes that regulatory controversy actually places a greater burden on corporate actors than on their out-law opponents.