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

Science-Based Risk Assessment Precautionary Principle  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.  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. What are SBRA and the PP?

“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”

SBRAPrecautionary Principle  Use of scientific experimentation to Use of scientific experimentation to prove the harmfulness of an action/ prove the safety of an action/policy policy  Use of cost-benefit analysis to Use of philosophy, history, and establish grounds for action sociology to establish grounds for action  Results are quantitative No tangible results  Driven by marginalist economic Driven by desire to protect the public reasoning and environmental well-being  Technocratic in its political Democratic in its political implications implications SBRA versus the Precautionary Principle

 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 ◦ Health risks, nutritional value, probability of cross-breeding, scientific procedures, classifies by degree of risk, laboratory, production, transportation, disposal  Different types of GMOs categorized ◦ 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 Science- based 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