CRITIQUES OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND THE RESPONSE OF SAN FRANCISCO Mary O'Brien Annual Fall Conference Western Regional Pollution Prevention Network October 16, 2003

Alternatives Assessment Considering the pros and cons of a full range of alternatives to harm

Precautionary Principle A commitment to valuing health over harm amid uncertainty

For every NO to harm there is a YES to health

Five critiques of the Precautionary Principle are common: The Precautionary Principle is vague The Precautionary Principle is vague The PP is a value, not science The PP is a value, not science The PP stifles progress The PP stifles progress The PP requires a risk-free world The PP requires a risk-free world The PP throws out risk assessment; alternatives might cause more harm The PP throws out risk assessment; alternatives might cause more harm

Critique #1: The Precautionary Principle is vague Response : San Francisco clearly states regarding the Precautionary Principle: WhyHow WhoWhere WhatWhen

WHY General welfare "...that individuals and communities can live healthy, fulfilling, and dignified lives"

Who Government Government Residents Residents Citizen Groups Citizen Groups Businesses Businesses

What City ordinances and decisions

How A public process A public process Make choices among available alternatives based on questions of: Make choices among available alternatives based on questions of: necessity of hazardous activities options necessity of hazardous activities options least possible damage least possible damage

Where "...such areas as transportation,construction, land use, planning,water,energy, health care, recreation, purchasing, and public expenditure."

When Historically Historically Now Now With a three year review With a three year review

Critique #2: The Precautionary Principle is a value, not science Response: The San Francisco Precautionary Principle is value and science ●Value "Individuals and communities living healthy, fulfilling, and dignified lives" ●Science "Careful assessment of available alternatives using the best available science"

Critique #3: The Precautionary Principle stifles progress Response:The San Francisco Precautionary Principle encourages: ●Technological progress ●Behavioral progress

TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS "Science and technology are creating new solutions to prevent or mitigate environmental problems"

BEHAVIORAL PROGRESS "Achieving a society living respectfully within the bounds of nature will take a behavioral...revolution"

Critique #4: The Precautionary Principle requires a risk-free world Response: The San Francisco Precautionary Principle requires less harm: ●"Select the alternative with the least potential impact on human health and the environment“ ●"A duty to consider all the reasonably foreseeable costs [of alternatives]"

Critique #5: The Precautionary Principle throws out risk assessment; alternatives might cause more harm Response: The San Francisco Precautionary Principle assesses risks and benefits of alternatives: ●"The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives" ●"Short and long-term benefits and time thresholds should be considered"

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF PRECAUTIONARY POLICY [regardless of what it is called] Giving health the benefit of doubt Giving health the benefit of doubt Public participation Public participation Alternatives assessment Alternatives assessment Scientific and technological information Scientific and technological information

"How do we care for all the children, of all the species, for all time?" -- William McDonough