Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are potentially severe or irreversible, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used to prevent action.^*

In practice the principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human civilization or new technology on the ecosystem, as the environment is a complex system where the consequences of some kinds of actions are often unpredictable.

The formal concept evolved out of the German socio-legal tradition in the 1930s, centering on the concept of good household management. ^* In German the concept is Vorsorgeprinzip, which translates into English as precaution principle. The concept includes risk prevention, cost effectiveness, ethical responsibilities towards maintaining the integrity of natural systems, and the fallibility of human understanding. It can also be interpreted as the transfer of more generally applied precaution in daily life (e.g. buying insurance, using seat belts or consulting experts before decisions) to larger political arenas.

Origins and theory

The substance of the precautionary principle is not really new. The essence of the principle is captured in cautionary aphorisms such as 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure', 'Better safe than sorry', and 'Look before you leap'.The precautionary principle may be interpreted as a generalisation of the ancient medical principle, associated with Hippocrates, of "first, do no harm".[http://www.isde.org/precautionary_principle.htm

In economics, the precautionary principle has been analysed in terms of the effect on rational decision-making of the interaction of irreversibility and uncertainty. Authors such as Epstein (1980) and Arrow and Fischer (1974) show that irreversibility of possible future consequences creates a quasi-option effect which should induce a risk-neutral society to favor current decisions that allow for more flexibility in the future. Gollier et al (2000) conclude that "more scientific uncertainty as to the distribution of a future risk — that is, a larger variability of beliefs — should induce Society to take stronger prevention measures today."

Application

The application of the precautionary principle is hampered by the wide range of interpretations placed on it. One study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in treaties and nontreaty declarations.^*

This variation in the burden of proof on whether to proceed with an action, however, interacts with varying perspectives on the validity and manner of trading off the action's costs and benefits, particularly when they fall on different groups. This introduces an ethical dimension - for example on the impact on future generations - which falls outside the domain of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment and in the domain of politics.

In deciding how to apply the principle, analyses may use a cost-benefit analysis which factors in both the opportunity cost of not acting, and the option value of waiting for further information before acting. This implies that potentially harmful action can be taken before there is complete certainty about future consequences (which is in practice rarely attainable). One of the difficulties of the application of the principle in modern policy-making is that there is often an irreducible conflict between different interests, so that the debate cannot involve merely a neutral application of scientific risk assessment, but necessarily involves politics. This politics can affect the scientific judgements themselves, especially in the way that people wishing to achieve particular objectives may fund (or fail to fund) scientific research and whether the results are widely publicised or not.

International agreements and declarations

The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and among other international treaties and declarations ^* is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development).

On 2 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a communication on the precautionary principle,in which it defined this concept and explained how it intended to apply it. It is also defined in Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe [http://europa.eu.int/futurum/constitution/part3/title3/chapter3/section5/index_en.htm" target="_blank" >^*:

Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

After the adoption of the Communication of the European Commission on the precautionary principle, the principle has become in the EU a requirement for all EU policy, although an overall definition of the precautionary principle was never formally adopted. In all new relevant EU legislation the precautionary principle will be taken into account,going far beyond the area of environmental policy. It is implemented in the EU food law and affecting among other also consumer protection, trade and research and technological development policies.

Environment/health

An oft-cited early modern application of the principle was John Snow's 1854 removal of the handle of a water pump in Broad Street, London, in order to prevent a cholera outbreak from the infected well. (At the time, the science on the spread of cholera through contaminated water was not yet conclusive.) However an alternative view is that Dr Snow was absolutely sure about the infected water and an empirical experiment proved him right. Some might argue that the precautionary principle would advocate not having any water pumps at all until society could be abolutely sure that no contaminents could be transmitted in that way.

The German Duke of Wuerttemberg and Teck had as early as 1778 banned the use of lead pipes for drinking water, 200 years before the scientifically grounded WHO guidelines on the toxicity of lead.^* The application of the principle can be seen in the public policy of requiring pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical trials to show that new medications are safe, as well as effective.

Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:

Persistent or acute pollution (asbestos...)
Extinction of species
Introduction of new and potentially harmful products into the environment, threatening biodiversity
Threats to public health, due to new diseases and techniques (e.g., AIDS transmitted through blood transfusion)
Food safety (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)
High energy physics and possibly catastrophic experiments
Other new biosafety issues (e.g., artificial life, new molecules)

The precautionary principle is often applied to biological fields because changes cannot be easily contained; they affect everyone. The principle has less relevance to contained fields such as aeronautics, where the few people undergoing risk have given informed consent (e.g., a test pilot). In the case of technological innnovation, containment of impact tends to be more difficult if that techology can self-replicate. Bill Joy emphasized the dangers of replicating genetic technology, nanotechnology, and robotic technology in his article in Wired Magazine, "Why the future doesn't need us," though he does not specifically cite the precautionary principle.

Application of the principle modifies the status of innovation and risk assessment: it is not the risk that must be avoided or amended, but a potential risk that must be prevented. Thus, in the case of regulation of scientific research, there may be a third party beyond the scientist and the regulator: the consumer. On the one hand, consumer reactions and fears that do not rely on scientific facts are often considered irrational or purely emotional, and so are not considered in final decisions; on the other, however, many countries choose to consider consumer points of view and media reporting, making politicians, experts and journalists answerable to other actors (e.g. consumer associations, juridical authorities).

In an analysis concerning application of the precautionary principle to nanotechnology, Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder posit that there are two forms of the principle, which they call the "strict form" and the "active form". The former "requires inaction when action might pose a risk", while the latter means "choosing less risky alternatives when they are available, and ^* taking responsibility for potential risks." This refinement offers the possibility of clearer communication and closer understanding between proponents and opponents. Further clarification of the content of the precautionary principle is needed — in and out of the WTO system — in particular on the subject of multilateral agreements on environmental issues.

Change of laws controlling societal norms

Associate justice Martha Sosman's dissent ^*in the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that mandated legalization of same sex marriage is an example of the Precautionary principle as applied to changes in culturally significant social policy. She describes the myriad societal structures that rest on the institution of marriage, and points out the uncertainty of how they will be affected by this re-definition. The disagreement of the majority illustrates the difficulty of reaching agreement on the value of competing perspectives.

Criticisms

Do no harm

The principle of "first, do no harm", while correctly applied by a doctor who may have a significant effect an individual patient's life or death, does not apply to forcing others to do things in wide government policies.

"Do no harm", in fact, can be applied more directly to "don't violate natural rights and damage economies" when faced with a mere "maybe", a "threat" not even proven to exist. A principle of democratic government is that the benefit of the doubt is given to the people, not government authority to control them.

Lack of perspective

Since imposition of the precautionary principle involves assuming things not yet proven, it cannot soundly weigh risk versus benefit. Essentially, the principle focuses on size of the consequences, rather than the chance of it happening.

Critics of the principle argue that it is impractical, since every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences.
- Proponents counter that the principle is not an absolute rule, it is a conceptual tool to clarify arguments, and especially an issue of where the burden of proof lies. Someone in a debate regarding a proposal can say, I oppose this proposal on the grounds of the precautionary principle, without necessarily invoking the precautionary principle for other proposals.
  - However, such selectivity in its use is in itself criticised, because it leaves open the possibility that it will only be used in the context of technologies that advocates of the principle typically oppose - such as nuclear fission or genetically modified organisms. Indeed, selective application of principles in government are considered a fundamental form of injustice, which is why selective enforcement is considered an abuse of power.

The precautionary principle, as stated, does not take into account the potential positive benefits of a technology, which may be substantial. Thus, it assumes a zero lost opportunity cost, or that there is no cost associated with doing nothing. Studies to prove safety can cost a lot of money, and if it is assumed (or can be shown) that even the most overwhelming proof of safety would be fruitless since it could be dismissed by a sufficient number of determined objectors, these studies would be viewed as a waste of money and not performed - even if the studies really would have shown that the proposal was unsafe.

This leads to a further criticism: using the precautionary principle, as opposed to risk assessment or similar approaches, actually impairs safety in practice, even if one ignores any opportunity costs.

Motivation

Another standard criticism of the precautionary principle is that it is only applied to new technologies, not the existing technologies that the new technology might supersede.
- Proponents of the principle argue that this is a misapplication of the principle, and that it should be applied to existing as well as new technologies.
  - But, in application, it ends up being an argument for the status quo in the absence of sufficient information to guarantee that change will be for the better ("better the devil you know").

Its use is often interpreted as protectionism (such as the case of beef fed with hormones, as dealt with by the World Trade Organisation), or as Neo-luddism in the case of opposition to genetic engineering, nanotechnology, stem cell research and related therapy, or even development of wilderness areas.

Likewise, the precautionary principle is almost always being presented by those who will profit from the government force involved for example: government agencies seeking the power to expand their control, or scientists whose funding has become based upon fear of some frightening scenario like global warming or asteroid impact.

Yet again, by definition its invocation involves the imposition of government force against the natural rights of the people, and so is often seen as a tool of authoritarian government, socialists, Liberals, et cetera, in an assault on freedom of choice.

Michael Crichton, in his book State of Fear, says that the precautionary principle is "self-contradictory", in that the principle itself might have irreversible and unpredictable consequences, and as such might on its own terms be the wrong course of action.

See the Proactionary Principle, a less-restrictive alternative to the precautionary principle, which shifts the burden of proof to those who propose restrictive measures.

References

Arrow, K.J. and Fischer, A.C. (1974), "Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility", Quarterly Journal of Economics 88(2):312-319.
European Union (2002), European Union consolidated versions of the treaty on

European Union and of the treaty establishing the European community, Official Journal of the European Union, C325, 24 December 2002, Title XIX, article 174, paragraph 2 and 3.

Epstein, L.S. (1980), "Decision-making and the temporal resolution of uncertainty", International Economic Review 21(2):269-283.
Christian Gollier, Bruno Jullien and Nicolas Treich (2000), "Scientific Progress and Irreversibility: An Economic Interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Principle’", Journal of Public Economics 75(2):229-253.
Harremoës, Poul, David Gee, Malcolm MacGarvin, Andy Stirling, Jane Keys, Brian Wynne, Sofia Guedes Vaz. The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings, Earthscan, 2002. Review, Nature, 419, Oct 2002, 433
O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (1995), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Earthscan Publications, London.

External links

A Small Dose of Toxicology
Appell, David, Scientific American, "The New Uncertainty Principle", Jan 2001
The Times, 15 January 2005, "What is . . . the Precautionary Principle?"
Mismanaging risk - Adam Smith Institute Blog
European Environment Agency (2001), Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000
Applying the Precautionary Principle to Nanotechnology, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology 2004
1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle
Science and Environmental Health Network, The Precautionary Principle in Action - a Handbook
Gary E. Marchant, Kenneth L. Mossman: Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts. American Enterprise Institute Press 2004, ISBN 08-4474-189-2; free online PDF

Ethics | European Union law | Risk analysis | Risk

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Precautionary principle