Why is it that some problems – soil pollution, or work-related cancers for example – remain durably invisible? Why is it that public decision-making bodies seem to wait for a major scandal before being apparently forced to come up with answers? How can we explain this persistent disinterest for certain subjects, to the point where they become "non-issues", while others are readily addressed?
Political scientist and sociologist Emmanuel Henry draws on numerous cases to show how industry implements veritable strategies to exclude subjects that threaten its activities from the public debate. The goal of these strategies is to conceal the risks for citizens by producing scientific ignorance (tobacco), by fighting against new information by influencing funding (asbestos), by making subjects more technical so as to discretely establish new norms in collaboration with state experts (chemical products), and by generally cultivating indifference by relying on social inequalities to maintain the status quo. As a result, the non-issues are piling up.