Those who are proponents of the Precautionary Principle (PP) feel that it is our ethical responsibility to take action to prevent harm if evidence suggests, even in the face of scientific uncertainty, that an activity, technology, or substance may be harmful.
Waiting for Scientific Certainty Can Be Deadly
Proving cause and effect is a difficult undertaking. Consider the example of asbestos and mesothelioma. Asbestos was suspected of harming human health as far back as 1906. In 1911, studies of asbestos on rats suggested harm. In the 1930s and 1940s cancer cases were reported in workers involved in the manufacture of asbestos. Not until 1998-1999 was there a complete ban on asbestos in the European Union and France. A Dutch study estimated that 34,000 lives could have been saved in the Netherlands alone if precautionary measures had been taken in the 1960s when it was deemed likely, but was still unproven, that asbestos caused mesothelioma, as noted in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's March 2005 publication "The Precautionary Principle".
Precautionary Principle: A Common Sense Approach
The idea behind the PP is embraced in a variety of old sayings. Look before you leap. Better safe than sorry. The principle emerged from the German concept of Vorsorge, or "forecaring", and was introduced in the 1970s as part of a bill to ensure clean air. It has since appeared in treaties, declarations, and protocols the world over.
The Problem with Risk Analysis
The "risk analysis" model is the one that has long been used in the United States. It attempts to calculate the mathematical likelihood that any new technology or substance will cause harm to the public or the environment. The trouble is that it has not been very effective in predicting effects within complex systems. Too often, harm has occurred long before the science catches up.
Precautionary Principle as a Radical Shift
"If introduced into American law, the precautionary principle would fundamentally shift the burden of proof," says Michael Pollan in his December 2001 The New York Times Magazine article "The Year in Ideas: A to Z; Precautionary Principle." According to the Science and Environmental Health Network's January 1998 publication "The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle", the proponent of an activity ought to bear the burden of proof rather than the public.
The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle
In 1998, a group of activists, scholars, and scientists from several continents convened, calling for implementation of the PP in decision-making by government, corporations, communities, and scientists. A portion of the statement reads: "We believe there is such 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."
Criticisms of the Precautionary Principle
Some claim the PP to be anti-scientific or based on emotion rather than science. But according to UNESCO, "some form of scientific analysis is mandatory; a mere fantasy or crude speculation is not enough to trigger the PP. Grounds for concern that can trigger the PP are limited to those concerns that are plausible or scientifically tenable."
The Precautionary Principle has been useful in guiding governments toward more ethical and safer outcomes. Individual lifestyle choices can also be guided by the PP.
 |
