Transcript The Precautionary Principle

Presented by Kirstin Wagner, Sara Raue,
Harry Blackwood, and Nick Campbell





B.A. with Distinction in
Political Science, Stanford
University, 1975
M.A., Princeton University,
1979
Ph.D., Princeton University,
Dept. of Politics, 1983
Professor of Government at
Franklin and Marshall
College
Author of Divided Natures:
French Contributions to
Political Ecology and
Merleau-Ponty and the
Foundation of an Existential
Politics


1) Defining Scientific-Based Risk Assessment
and the Precautionary Principle
2) Comparing SBRA and PP
◦ Case-Study: GMO’s


3) Why the Precautionary Principle should be
the preferred method of policy-making
4) How the Precautionary Principle could be
implemented
What are SBRA and the PP?
Science-Based Risk
Assessment

Science-based risk
assessment is a
process by which the
potential risk of an
action is assessed
based on scientific
experimentation to
obtain proof of public
or environmental
harm.
Precautionary Principle

The precautionary
principle is a moral and
political principle which
states that if an action or
policy might cause
severe or irreversible
harm to the public or the
environment, in the
absence of a scientific
consensus that harm
would not ensue, the
burden of proof falls on
those who would
advocate taking the
action.
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach
shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
– Rio Declaration, 1992
“The lack of certainty… must not delay the adoption of effective and
proportionate measures that aim to prevent a risk of serious and
irreversible damage to the environment.”
– France Barnier Law, 1995
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some
cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
- Wingspread Statement, 1998
“Better Safe Than Sorry”
SBRA versus the Precautionary Principle
SBRA





Precautionary Principle
Use of scientific experimentation to
prove the harmfulness of an action/
policy
Use of scientific experimentation to
prove the safety of an action/policy
Use of cost-benefit analysis to
establish grounds for action
Use of philosophy, history, and
sociology to establish grounds for
action
Results are quantitative
No tangible results
Driven by marginalist economic
reasoning
Driven by desire to protect the public
and environmental well-being
Technocratic in its political
implications
Democratic in its political implications

GMO’s: What are they?
◦ Genetically modified organisms
 Organisms that have been modified by genetic engineering, a process
by which DNA corresponding to a particular gene is extracted from one
organism – bacteria, plant, or animal- and transplanted into the cells of
a target organism.
◦ Why genetically engineer crops?
 Increased shelf-life, increased vitamin content, higher crop yields, more
resistance to adverse environmental conditions, ripening control, more
resistance to herbicides/pesticides, etc.

What are Transgenic Soybeans?
◦ Soybeans that have been genetically modified to resist
herbicide.

What happened?
1) United States tried to introduce genetically modified
soybeans into Europe.
2) Europeans refused to have GMOs introduced into their
food supply before more investigation.

Reasons for European Precaution
◦ Shortened time frame between discovery and
commercialization
 leads to less understanding of health and environment
effects
◦ Transferred DNA is not placed in specific place in the
cell
 Causes different desired results
 No complete understanding of DNA structure and function
 Traits require interaction of multiple genes
◦ Change nature of food supply
 Transgenics replace nontransgenic species in markets
 Impossible to keep transgenics from the environment

Risks of growing and consuming transgenic
crops-Long-term safety to health and
environment
◦ Genetic engineering can produce unwanted effects
 Health
 Allergy provoking genes without consumer knowing
 Antibiotic-resistant, pest-protected
 Environment
 Herbicide resistant, biopesticide production
 Genes emerge by process of natural selection
 Pollen of transgenic crops harmful to species
◦ Biodiversity effects
 Genetically engineered plants have higher survival rate
 GMOs replace native species and destroy natural reserves






Use of SBRA
Little testing on animals, humans, or fields
Rush to bring product to market
Limit range of scientists evaluating GMOs
Decisions based on extrapolated data
“substantial equivalency”=same food so no need
to label GM foods
◦ Cannot detect danger of GM food is food is mixed

Unlabeled and untracked
◦ Cannot trace problems back to source

Tested relative to conditions in U.S. not globally

Use of Precaution
GMOs not handled with same regulations as traditional
food
Advise from commissions

Different types of GMOs categorized





◦ Health risks, nutritional value, probability of cross-breeding,
scientific procedures, classifies by degree of risk, laboratory,
production, transportation, disposal
◦ Degree of environmental danger
◦ Expertise diversity in evaluations
◦ Safety levels, confinement levels
Assessors do not act with interest of state or industry
Consesus conferences=public opinions about regulations,
citizens question scientists about uncertainty
Mandate labeling and traceability

The United States tends to favor Sciencebased Risk Assessment while Europe tends to
favor use of the Precautionary Principle. This
often places the U.S. and Europe at odds in
matters of trade.

“Precautionary situations fit poorly into
established patterns of thought.”
◦ Political theory is aimed at problems with
immediate impacts
◦ People should “know” when they are in distress
◦ Politics have always functioned around
geographically localized problems
◦ No one can be held individually responsible for
global problems
◦ Nature has always been thought to be resilient to
human action
Which method of risk assessment is
preferable? SBRA or the PP?




Effects on the scale of climate change or the depletion of the
ozone layer confound existing approaches to risk management.
Damages from new risks can take many years to become evident
and then their effects can last for generations, therefore,
precautionary action is needed to avoid these effects.
Sometimes a technology is so novel that there has not been
enough time to completely test its effects in all the
circumstances it will be used.
The PP appeals to one’s moral sensibilities
◦ “The fundamental logic for precaution is this: the fear of serious consequences,
combined with uncertainty about the conditions under which they might materialize,
creates a moral obligation to take precautions.”




A technology or practice should only be regulated if there is
scientific evidence that it has a causal relationship to an
identified problem.
Studies must be objective—influenced as little as possible by
people’s emotions or by special interests; therefore, they should
be based purely on science.
Risk-management should be cost-effective. Priority should be
given to regulatory measures which bring the greatest net social
benefits.
The use of SBRA provides concrete and material costs that can be
measured in tangible units, whereas the precautionary principle
calls for preemptive action, so there is no way to concretely
measure the possible costs and benefits.







Precaution is actually more science-based than the traditional
approach because there are fewer political or economic
pressures.
There is nothing admirably “scientific” about “science-based risk
management” if the resulting information is false.
Many opponents of the precautionary principle argue that the
Earth is resilient to recover from all human-made disturbances,
but this is hardly scientific.
The precautionary method examines and discusses links
between nature and humans.
It opens environmental issues to a discussion of uncertainties.
It mandates trans-disciplinary research.
It promotes the public interest, and the interests of future
generations, as opposed to the immediate interests of a
particular group.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
Clean Air Act (1970 and 1977)
Clean Water Act (1972)
Endangered Species Act (1973)
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)
Pollution Prevention Act (1990)
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1992)

*Anticipatory Environmental Action*

Use of precaution on a case-by-case basis, where judgment
is a matter of official discretion.






◦ Example: Canadian mad cow


Latour’s Vision of Government
Setting up research programs to gather information
about the risk posed by new products and
technologies before they are put into use.

Long-term environmental and health monitoring.

Systematically favoring “green” measures and
technologies.

Reinforcing the independence of regulatory bodies.

Community-based research
◦ Woburn, Massachusetts

Consensus conference model
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Representativeness
Educative process
Neutrality and objectivity
Findings and policy-recommendations
Publicity

Globalization

Environmental social learning

Global world-view