1. Precautionary Principle

2. 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”

3. 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.”

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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’?

14. 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): Finnoff, D., J. F. Shogren, et al. (2007). "Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders." Ecological Economics 62(2): Foster, K. R., P. Vecchia, et al. (2000). "Risk management - Science and the precautionary principle." Science 288(5468): Goudey, R. (2007). "Do statistical inferences allowing three alternative decisions give better feedback for environmentally precautionary decision-making?" Journal of Environmental Management 85(2): 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):