Precautionary Principle

What is PP? Is there an agreed upon definition? Beyond cliché and colloquialisms “Look before you leap” “better safe than sorry” Up to 14 different versions Burden of proof shifted Applied when consequences are unknown or unpredictable and possibly dire Not enough information for Risk Assessment “minimum allowable harm” vs “minimum possible harm”

What is PP? Commonly invoked with issues related to human health or the environment Wingspread Statement (1998) is commonly used as an acceptable definition by proponents: “Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. “In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof. “The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

What is PP? In general, “strong” and “weak” versions Strong Requires absolute proof of safety before moving forward Critics argue no new technology would ever meet standards GMO activists Weak/lenient Greater flexibility and compromise Allows for innovation to minimize risk while maximizing benefits Allows for some cost/benefit Kyoto Protocol

Burden of Proof Reasonable certainty of no harm Precautionary Principle Lack of certainty of harm ‘Bodies-in-the-street’ principle Post market regulation tends to be less precautionary than Pre-market approval

Guidelines for Using PP Proportionality Goal for risk level should not be zero Measures should be proportional to desired level of protection Nondiscrimination Similar situations should be treated similarly Consistency Measures taken for new situations should be comparable to similar situations where scientific data is available Cost/Benefit of Action/No Action Either economic analysis or other method Provisional on scientific developments Measures should be provisional More data should always be sought Foster et al. 2000

Controversial or Common Sense Critics argue has been used inappropriately Trade barriers “Irrational” risk choices Driving vs. pollution risk Already used in some form Product testing New drugs Food safety regulations Some risks sufficiently dire despite low probability? GMOs Mad Cow

Controversial or Common Sense Peterson (2007) argues: PP would rule out all clinical trials, mobile phones, and GM foods Focuses on risks alone – offers no implications for what ought to be done Qualitative – refuses to assign expected utility to outcomes Incompatible with rational decision making Suggests it is better as an epistemic principle Assume dangerous until evidence of safety Believing something dangerous when safe is rarely catastrophic

PP and Risk Aversion Meaning of Precaution- Biological Invaders Ecologist- Prevention activities first, then control if necessary Economist- Risk aversion – maximize welfare given a set of risk reduction technologies Control measures (benefits certain) Prevention measures (uncertain benefits) Finnoff et al. 2007

PP and Risk Aversion Biological Invasion The more risk averse manager favors control over prevention Outcome per dollar spent is more certain Societal consequences of this are higher risk of invasion Economic “risk neutrality” accepts and accounts for scientific uncertainty May be most consistent with PP Finnoff et al. 2007

PP Discussion topic “Are Anti-microbial Soaps Breeding Tougher Bugs?” (Washington Post Nov. 13th 2007) Triclosan – common additive to soaps, cleansers, plastics, sponges, clothing Health benefits have not been demonstrated (compared with traditional soap) Possible negative health consequences Antibiotic resistance Weaker immune systems and increased allergies in kids Alter beneficial flora

PP Discussion topic Anti-microbial soaps (cont…) Negative (health) consequences also not substantiated Resistance has been shown in labs – no evidence for your kitchen Possible environmental consequences Anti-microbial ingredients found in 60% of NA streams and rivers (USGS 2002) May also be a source of dioxin Triclosan + chlorine + sunlight = dioxin

PP Discussion topic Anti-microbial soaps (cont…) We have a widely used product with Uncertain benefits Possible, yet uncertain risks What, if anything, should be done? And who should have the burden to ‘prove their case’?

References Carter, L. (2007). "A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world." Science and Engineering Ethics 13(1): 69-82. Finnoff, D., J. F. Shogren, et al. (2007). "Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders." Ecological Economics 62(2): 216-222. Foster, K. R., P. Vecchia, et al. (2000). "Risk management - Science and the precautionary principle." Science 288(5468): 979-981. Goudey, R. (2007). "Do statistical inferences allowing three alternative decisions give better feedback for environmentally precautionary decision-making?" Journal of Environmental Management 85(2): 338-344. Mishori, R. (2007). “Are antimicrobial soaps breeding tougher bugs?” Washington Post November 13th, 2007 Peterson, M. (2007). "The precautionary principle should not be used as a basis for decision-making." EMBO Reports 8(4): 305-308.