Implications of the Precautionary Principle: Is it a Threat to Science?

Abstract

Scientific research is of proven value to protecting public health and the environment from current and future problems. We explore the extent to which the Precautionary Principle is a threat to this rôle for science and technology. Not surprisingly for a relatively simple yet still incompletely defined concept, supporters of the Precautionary Principle come from different viewpoints, including a viewpoint that is at least uneasy with the rôle of science, and particularly its use in risk assessment. There are also aspects of the Precautionary Principle that inherently restrict obtaining and using science. The Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) provisions in the US Clean Air Act Amendments are an example of the Precautionary Principle, which both shifted the burden of proof so that the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless, and required maximum available control technology (MACT) instead of a primarily risk-based approach to pollution control. Since its passage in 1990 there has been a decrease in research funding for studies of HAPs. Other potential problems include that once MACT regulations are established, it may be difficult to develop new technological approaches that will further improve air pollution control; that by treating all regulated HAPs similarly, no distinction is made between those that provide a higher or lower risk; and that there is a perverse incentive to use less well studied agents that are not on the existing list. As acting on the Precautionary Principle inherently imposes significant costs for what is a potentially erroneous action, additional scientific study should be required to determine if the precautionary action was successful. If we are to maximize the value of the Precautionary Principle to public health and the environment, it is crucial that its impact not adversely affect the potent preventive rôle of science and technology.

Advances in Risk Assessment and Communication

“…(See below for a discussion of risk perception). Those most wary of the precautionary principle are North American businesses who have seen the precautionary principle used adroitly by the European Union (EU) to develop a multitude of trade barriers with little or no risk-based scientific justification (46). Carruth and I have also raised the concern that the precautionary principle will lessen the likelihood of obtaining the appropriate science needed for protecting public health and the environment (44,47).…”

“…The case of genetic modification in general and genetically modified (GM) foods specifically has been subject to much evaluation in the riskassessment literature. Authors have focused on a variety of different subjects, including the generally accepted idea that the Monsanto Corporation's marketing of its initial GM products frightened many Europeans, and attempts to understand differences between the European and U.S. perceptions of GM substances as being based on cultural factors and on recent causes of European distrust of government science (45,46,80). As with the beef hormone and other U.S.-European differences, a common U.S. perception is that Europe is simply reacting to their competitive disadvantage in the science of genetic manipulation and is using trade barriers as a means to protect their less-efficient agriculture.…”

Carcinogens in Food: Opportunities and Challenges for Regulatory Toxicology

“…But being responsive to public and political concerns may require much time and effort, even though any risk appears small on scientific grounds [1]. More cynical views maintain that by acting on such precautionary principles significant costs are spent on what is a potentially erroneous action [2], or even that putting large amounts of money into small hypothetical risks damages public health by diverting resources and distracting the public concern from major risks [3]. However, we agree with Tomatis et al [4] that a complete dismissal of carcinogens with weaker evidence cannot be a prudent public health policy.…”

Development of a guide to applying precaution in local public health

“…We were cognizant of the debate and caveats on the possible misuse of precaution and the sentiment among some experts that it is not adequately evidence based. 26,27 We therefore sought a coherent, explicit, and transparent way to apply precaution in order to ensure comprehensiveness, consistency, and accountability. The paper describes the process involved in consulting the literature, developing a framework, reviewing cases in which TPH applied precaution and iteratively discussing our findings and modifying the framework, until the production of our guide to applying precaution.…”