Children's Environmental Health: A Case Study in Implementing the Precautionary Principle

Tickner, Joel; Hoppin, Polly

doi:10.1179/oeh.2000.6.4.281

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, the public needs to be seen as a legitimate partner and be involved in both the risk assessment and the risk management process [70]. Past experiences have shown that the public can contribute substantially to a scientific decision-making process [71]. This is supported by the results of a 1979 survey conducted by the European Commission on consumer acceptance related to technological developments.…”

Section: Lay Responses To (Metaphysical) Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework

Senjen¹,

Hansen²

2011

Comptes Rendus. Physique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses in the context of nanotechnology whether current concepts of chemical risk assessment can be used to assess nanorisk. Nanorisk can be defined from the narrow (eco) toxicological perspective to the broader sense to include societal/cultural impacts or even to the fundamental philosophical level i.e. questioning societies need for the technology. We outline here the limitations of chemical risk assessment and other recent proposed risk governance paradigms in relation to nanotechnology and nanomaterials, including, its inability to include societal risks (ownership, privacy, security, nanodivide 1 , convergence of nano-, bio-, etc.) and metaphysical risk (including the lay persons perspective on the risks of nanotechnology). Finally, we outline the fundamental principles and criteria that an alternative comprehensive framework should be based on. Keywords: nanotechnology, nanomaterials, risk appraisal framework, types of knowledge, types of risk, metaphysical risk Résumé Ce papier est une discussion sur la viabilité des concepts habituellement utilisés dans le cadre du risque chimique, lorsqu'il s'agit d'évaluer les « nanorisques ». Le nanorisque peut être défini suivant des perspectives variées de celle, restreinte, du risque eco-toxicologique à celle plus large de l'impact sociétal ou culturel, voire même sous l'angle plus philosophique du questionnement de la pertinence du besoin en technologies de la société. Nous résumerons les limitations des évaluations du type "risque chimique" et de celles d'autres schémas de gouvernance récemment proposés en relation avec les nanotechnologies ou les nanomatériaux, en particulier leur incapacité à prendre en compte le risque « sociétal » (propriété de technologies, vie privée, sécurité, « nanodivide » 2 , convergence nano-bio, etc ..) et le risque « métaphysique » (notamment l'avis du profane sur ces risques). Finalement, nous définirons les principes fondamentaux et les critères sur lesquels un cadre prenant en compte l'ensemble de ces questions devrait être fondé.

show abstract

Section: Lay Responses To (Metaphysical) Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework

Senjen¹,

Hansen²

2011

Comptes Rendus. Physique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a minimum, this situation of environmental inequity should not be further aggravated by future expansion plans. The issue of children's environmental health has been used as the quintessential example for making the case to support environmental justice and the precautionary principle in environmental regulation and policy making (Bullard 1994;Tickner and Hoppin 2000). The persistent and tragic problem of childhood lead poisoning highlights the need to better integrate both of these frameworks to better protect children's environmental health.…”

Section: Environmental Justice and The Framework For Precautionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Environmental Justice and the Precautionary Principle in Research and Policy Making: The Case of Ambient Air Toxics Exposures and Health Risks among Schoolchildren in Los Angeles

Morello‐Frosch

Pastor

Sadd³

2002

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two policy frameworks, environmental justice and the precautionary principle, have begun to transform traditional approaches to environmental policy making and community organizing related to public health. Despite having several important overlapping policy goals, little effort has been made to purposefully integrate these two frameworks. This article discusses preliminary research on environmental inequality in ambient air toxics exposures and associated health risks among schoolchildren in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Results indicate that children of color, namely, Latinos and African Americans, bear the highest burden of estimated cancer and noncancer health risks associated with ambient air toxics exposures while they are in school. The implications of these study results for controversial policy decisions related to school siting and construction in urban districts are discussed within the context of environmental justice and the precautionary principle.

show abstract

“…13 Some jurisdictions have argued that precautionary thinking should be set through participatory decision-making processes, enabling representation of the more vulnerable. 3, 14 Several writers emphasize the flexibility in application of the PP when evidence on harms and exposures is limited or contested, making risk assessment calculations challenging. 15 Other authors argue that decisions must be based on precaution rather than on risk because of inherent and fundamental failures in the current risk assessment paradigm.…”

Section: Nature Of the Precautionary Principle (Pp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a guide to applying precaution in local public health

Hau

Cole

Vanderlinden

et al. 2013

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The precautionary principle (PP) urges actions to prevent harm even in the face of scientific uncertainty. Members of Toronto Public Health (TPH) sought guidance on applying precaution. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases (yield 60 articles from 1996 to 2009 and 8 from 2009 to 2011) and Google (yield 11 gray literature sources) for material relevant to local public health. From these sources, we extracted questions until saturation was reached (n555). We applied these questions retrospectively to eight case studies where TPH felt precaution was applied. We ranked questions for their importance in applying precaution. Results: Our final guide included 35 questions in five domains: context, assessment, alternative interventions, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Importance rankings varied across cases, but the role of stakeholders in driving precautionary action was consistent. Monitoring and evaluation components could have been strengthened across cases. Conclusion: The TPH guide can assist municipal environmental health practitioners in applying precaution in a more transparent manner.

show abstract

Children's Environmental Health: A Case Study in Implementing the Precautionary Principle

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework

Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework

Integrating Environmental Justice and the Precautionary Principle in Research and Policy Making: The Case of Ambient Air Toxics Exposures and Health Risks among Schoolchildren in Los Angeles

Development of a guide to applying precaution in local public health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About