The regulation of health and environmental risks has generated transatlantic controversy concerning precaution and the precautionary principle (PP). Conventional wisdom sees the European Union endorsing the PP and proactively regulating uncertain risks, while the United States opposes the PP and waits for evidence of harm before regulating. Without favouring either approach, this paper critically analyses the conventional depiction of transatlantic divergence. First, it reviews several different versions of the PP and their different implications. Second, it broadens the transatlantic comparison of precaution beyond the typical focus on single-risk examples, such as genetically modied foods. Through case studies, including hormones in beef and milk production and mad cow disease in beef and in blood donations, as well as reference to a wider array of risks, the paper demonstrates that relative precaution varies enormously. Sometimes the EU is more precautionary than the US (such as regarding hormones in beef), while sometimes the US is more precautionary than the EU (such as regarding mad cow disease in blood). Thus, neither the EU nor the US can claim to be categorically 'more precautionary' than the other. The real pattern is complex and risk-speci c. Third, the paper seeks explanations for this complex pattern in ve sets of hypotheses: optimal tailoring on the merits, political systems, risk perceptions, trade protectionism, and legal systems. None of these hypotheses fully explains the observed complex pattern of relative transatlantic precaution. The paper concludes that differences in relative precaution depend more on the context of the particular risk than on broad differences in national regulatory regimes.

No abstract

The European Commission has proposed a radical new policy for the regulation of chemicals in the EU in the form of a White Paper. The current system has separate regulatory provisions for "new" chemicals (introduced to the market since September 18, 1981) and "existing" chemicals (on the market before September 18,1981). The proposed future policy will have a single unified regulatory system for all chemicals, which should result in better regulation of chemicals in the EU single market. It will be better because risk assessments will be targeted at the chemicals of greatest concern. Furthermore, the system will be streamlined, making regulatory decisions faster, and thus reducing the so-called burden of the past (the large number of chemicals that have never been assessed for their risks to human health or the environment). The new system incorporates the precautionary principle, which will be applied where there is an early indication of unacceptable risk or where there is undue delay in the regulatory process. Moreover, the new strategy is intended to promote greater transparency for all stakeholders.

No abstract

This paper argues that the EU regulatory practice in the food area may be unnecessarily applying the Precautionary Principle by focussing on upper intake limits for naturally occurring nutrients, while not controlling the quality of the ingredients used in commercial products even though precedents of public health issues arising from adulterated ingredients do exist. Risk governance depends heavily on expert evidence and the case of amino acid supplements is used to document an industry-supported effort to strengthen the science database and thus enhance the regulatory process: Thus ensuring that amino acid use in the EU is safely and proportionately regulated. Scientific work conducted in the last decade by the not-for-profit association, the International Council on Amino Acid Science (ICAAS) is used as a simple case study highlighting the role of proactive clinical research in an era characterized by precaution in risk management, and by the escalating costs of scientific research, and the growing influence of the internet.