What is the precautionary principle?
A comprehensive definition of the precautionary principle was spelled out in
a January 1998 meeting of scientists, lawyers, policy makers and
environmentalists at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation in
Racine, Wisconsin. The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle,
which is included in full at the end of this fact sheet, summarizes the
principle this way:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human
health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically."
Key elements of the principle include taking precaution in the face of
scientific uncertainty; exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions;
placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims
or potential victims of the activity; and using democratic processes to carry
out and enforce the principle-including the public right to informed consent.
Is there some special meaning for
"precaution"?
It's the common sense idea behind many adages: "Be careful."
"Better safe than sorry." "Look before you leap."
"First do no harm."
What about "scientific uncertainty"?
Why should we take action before science tells us what is harmful or what is
causing harm?
Sometimes if we wait for proof it is too late. Scientific standards for
demonstrating cause and effect are very high. For example, smoking was strongly
suspected of causing lung cancer long before the link was demonstrated
conclusively that is, to the satisfaction of scientific standards of cause and
effect. By then, many smokers had died of lung cancer. But many other people had
already quit smoking because of the growing evidence that smoking was linked to
lung cancer. These people were wisely exercising precaution despite some
scientific uncertainty.
Often a problem-such as a cluster of cancer cases or global warming-is too
large, its causes too diverse, or the effects too long term to be sorted out
with scientific experiments that would prove cause and effect. It's hard to take
these problems into the laboratory. Instead, we have to rely on observations,
case studies or predictions based on current knowledge.
According to the precautionary principle, when reasonable scientific evidence
of any kind gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology or
substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm. If we always wait for
scientific certainty, people may suffer and die, and damage to the natural world
may be irreversible.
Why do we need the precautionary principle
now?
Those who issued the Wingspread Statement and many others believe that the
effects of careless and harmful activities have accumulated over the years. They
believe that humans and the rest of the natural world have a limited capacity to
absorb and overcome this harm and that we must be much more careful than we have
been in the past.
There are plenty of warning signs that suggest we should proceed with
caution. Some are in human beings themselves-such as increased rates of learning
disabilities, asthma and certain types of cancer. Other warning signs are the
dying off of plant and animal species, the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and
the likelihood of global warming. It is hard to pin these effects to clear or
simple causes-just as it is difficult to predict exactly what many effects will
be. But good sense and plenty of scientific evidence tell us we must take care,
and that all our actions have consequences.
We have lots of environmental regulations.
Aren't we already exercising precaution?
In some cases, to some extent, yes. When federal money is to be used in a
major project, such as building a road on forested land or developing federal
waste programs, the planners must produce an "environmental impact
statement" to show how it will affect the surroundings. Then the public has
a right to help determine whether the study has been thorough and all the
alternatives considered. That is a precautionary action.
But most environmental regulations, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act and the Superfund Law, are aimed at cleaning up pollution and
controlling the amount of it released into the environment. They regulate toxic
substances as they are emitted rather than limiting their use or production in
the first place.
These laws have served an important purpose they have given us cleaner air,
water and land.
But they are based on the assumption that humans and ecosystems can absorb a
certain amount of contamination without being harmed. We are now learning how
difficult it is to now what levels of contamination, if any, are safe.
Many of our food and drug laws and practices are more precautionary. Before a
drug is introduced into the marketplace, the manufacturer must demonstrate that
it is safe and effective. Then people must be told about risks and side effects
before they use it .
But there are some major loopholes in our regulations and the way they are
applied. If the precautionary principle were universally applied, many toxic
substances, contaminants, and unsafe practices would not be produced or used in
the first place. The precautionary principle concentrates on prevention rather
than cure.
What are the loopholes in current regulations?
One is the use of "scientific certainty" as a standard, as
discussed above. Often we assume that if something can't be proved
scientifically, it isn't true. The lack of certainty is used to justify
continuing to use a potentially harmful substance or technology.
Another is the use of "risk assessment" to determine whether a
substance or practice should be regulated. One problem is that the range of
risks considered is very narrow-usually death, and usually from cancer. Another
is that those who will assume the risk are not informed or consulted. For
example, people who live near a factory that emits a toxic substance are rarely
told about the risks or asked whether they accept them.
A related, third loophole is "cost-benefit analysis" -determining
whether the costs of a regulation are worth the benefits it will bring. Usually
the short-term costs of regulation receive more consideration than the long-term
costs of possible harm-and the public is left to deal with the damages. Also,
many believe it is virtually impossible to quantify the costs of harm to a
population or the benefits of a healthy environment. The effect of these
loopholes is to give the benefit of the doubt to new and existing products and
technologies and to all economic activities, even those that eventually prove
harmful. Enterprises, projects, technologies and substances are, in effect,
"innocent until proven guilty."
Meanwhile, people and the environment
assume the risks and often become the victims.
How would the precautionary principle change
all that without bringing the economy to a halt?
It would encourage the exploration of alternatives --better, safer, cheaper
ways to do things -- and the development of "cleaner' products and
technologies. Sometimes simply slowing down in order to learn more about
potential harm -- or doing nothing -- is the best alternative. The principle
would serve as a "speed bump" in the development of technologies and
enterprises.
It would shift the burden of proof from the public to proponents of a
technology. The principle would ensure that the public knows about and has a say
in the deployment of technologies that may be hazardous. Proponents would have
to demonstrate through an open process that a technology was safe or necessary
and that no better alternatives were available. The public would have a say in
this determination.
Is this a new idea?
The precautionary principle was introduced in Europe in the 1980s and became
the basis for the 1987 treaty that bans dumping of persistent toxic substances
in the North Sea. It figures in the Convention on Biodiversity. A growing number
of Swedish and German environmental laws are based on the precautionary
principle. International conferences on persistent toxic substances and ozone
depletion have been forums for the promotion and discussion of the precautionary
principle.
Interpretations of the principle vary, but the Wingspread Statement is the
first to define its major components and explain the rationale behind it.
Will the countries that adopt the
precautionary principle become less competitive on the world marketplace?
The idea is to progress more carefully than we have done before. Some
technologies may be brought onto the marketplace more slowly. Others may be
stopped or phased out. On the other hand, there will be many incentives to
create new technologies that will make it unnecessary to produce and use harmful
substances and processes. These new technologies will bring economic benefits in
the long run.
Countries on the forefront of stronger, more comprehensive environmental
laws, such as Germany and Sweden, have developed new, cleaner technologies
despite temporary higher costs. They are now able to export these technologies.
Other countries risk being left behind, with outdated facilities and
technologies that pollute to an extent that the people will soon recognize as
intolerable. There are signs that this is already happening.
How can we possibly prevent all bad side
effects from technological progress?
Hazards are a part of life. But it is important for people to press for less
harmful alternatives, to exercise their rights to a clean, life-sustaining
environment and, when they could be exposed to hazards, to know what those
hazards are and to have a part in deciding whether to accept them.
How will the precautionary principle be
implemented?
The precautionary principle should become the basis for reforming
environmental laws and regulations and for creating new regulations. It is
essentially an approach, a way of thinking. In coming years, precaution should
be exercised, argued and promoted on many levels-in regulations, industrial
practices, science, consumer choices, education, communities, and schools.
Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary
Principle
The release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of resources, and
physical alterations of the environment have had substantial unintended
consequences affecting human health and the environment. Some of these concerns
are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer, birth defects and
species extinctions; along with global climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion and worldwide contamination with toxic substances and nuclear
materials.
We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions,
particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect adequately
human health and the environment the larger system of which humans are but a
part.
We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and the
worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new-principles
for conducting human activities are necessary.
While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must
proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations,
government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other
individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.
Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an
activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically.
In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should
bear the burden of proof.
The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed
and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also
involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.
Wingspread Participants:
(Affiliations are noted for identification purposes only.)
-
Dr. Nicholas Ashford' Massachusetts Inst. Of Technology,
-
Katherine Barrett, Univ. of British Columbia
-
Anita Bernstein, Chicago-Kent College of Law
-
Dr. Robert Costanza, University of Maryland
-
Pat Costner, Greenpeace
-
Dr. Carl Cranor, Univ. of California, Riverside
-
Dr. Peter deFur, Virginia Commonwealth Univ.
-
Gordon Durnil, attorney
-
Dr. Kenneth Geiser, Toxics Use Reduction Inst., Univ. of Mass., Lowell
-
Dr. Andrew Jordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the
Global Environment, Univ. Of East
-
Anglia, United Kingdom
-
Andrew King, United Steelworkers of America,
-
Canadian Office, Toronto, Canada
-
Dr. Frederick Kirschenmann, farmer
-
Stephen Lester, Center for Health, Environment and Justice
-
Sue Maret, Union Inst.
-
Dr. Michael M'Gonigle, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
-
Dr. Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation
-
Dr. John Peterson Myers, W. Alton Jones Foundation
-
Dr. Mary O'Brien, environmental consultant
-
Dr. David Ozonoff, Boston Univ.
-
Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network
-
Dr. Philip Regal, Univ. of Minnesota
-
Hon. Pamela Resor, Massachusetts House of Rep.
-
Florence Robinson, Louisiana Environmental Network
-
Dr. Ted Schettler, Physicians for Social Responsibility
-
Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
-
Dr. Klaus-Richard Sperling, Alfred-Wegener- Institut, Hamburg, Germany
-
Dr. Sandra Steingraber, author
-
Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition
-
Joel Tickner, University of Mass., Lowell
-
Dr. Konrad von Moltke, Dartmouth College
-
Dr. Bo Wahlstrom, KEMI (National Chemical Inspectorate), Sweden
-
Jackie Warledo, Indigenous Environmental Network
Science and Environmental Health Network
Rt. 1 Box 73
Windsor North Dakota 58424
701-763-6286
E-mail: 75114.1164@compuserve.com
| If
you have come to this page from an outside location click
here to get back to mindfully.org |
No comments:
Post a Comment