UNDERSTANDING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS THREAT TO HUMAN WELFARE

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 378-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Sterling Burnett
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
The Past ◽  
Novel Technology

Over the past three decades, the Precautionary Principle (PP) has become popular in discussions of public policy, especially in relation to health and environmental policy. Though there are a number of different versions of the principle, the genesis of the idea is that it is better to be safe than sorry. In terms of public policy, proponents of the PP argue that being safe means that, if there is a possibility of harm from a new activity or novel technology, even if the scientific evidence concerning the harm is absent or uncertain, precautionary actions should be taken. In one version or another, the PP has been incorporated into a number of laws and treaties. Yet arguments for the PP are unconvincing, the PP itself is vague and when enacted in law, results in arbitrary regulations that pose a threat to human welfare. As a result, the PP should be rejected as a basis for public policy.

scholarly journals Applying the Precautionary Principle to Private Persons : Should it Affect Civil and Criminal Liability?

2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Pardy
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
The Past ◽  
Precautionary Action ◽  
Domestic Law

The precautionary principle, developed in international environmental law, is a prospective concept. It can be used to decide what should be allowed to occur in the future. The question addressed in this article is whether, in domestic law, the precautionary principle should be applied retrospectively. Should precautionary behaviour be used as a standard to apply to the past actions of private persons, so as to judge whether those persons have acted legally ? In the civil realm, the answer is « yes ». Applying the precautionary principle in civil cases removes foreseeability requirements, and transforms liability based on fault into strict liability. In the criminal sphere, retrospective application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate. To require precautionary action on the part of an accused in an environmental prosecution transforms strict liability into absolute liability, and creates the potential for criminal punishment in the absence of culpability.

Late lessons from early warnings: towards precaution and realism in research and policy

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Gee ◽  
M.P. Krayer von Krauss
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
False Positives ◽  
False Negatives ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Value Judgements ◽  
Bradford Hill Criteria ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Early Warnings

This paper focuses on the evidentiary aspects of the precautionary principle. Three points are highlighted: (i) the difference between association and causation; (ii) how the strength of scientific evidence can be considered; and (iii) the reasons why regulatory regimes tend to err in the direction of false negatives rather than false positives. The point is made that because obtaining evidence of causation can take many decades of research, the precautionary principle can be invoked to justify action when evidence of causation is not available, but there is good scientific evidence of an association between exposures and impacts. It is argued that the appropriate level of proof is context dependent, as “appropriateness” is based on value judgements about the acceptability of the costs, about the distribution of the costs, and about the consequences of being wrong. A complementary approach to evaluating the strength of scientific evidence is to focus on the level of uncertainty. If decision makers are made aware of the limitations of the knowledge base, they can compensate by adopting measures aimed at providing early warnings of un-anticipated effects and mitigating their impacts. The point is made that it is often disregarded that the Bradford Hill criteria for evaluating evidence are asymmetrical, in that the applicability of a criterion increases the strength of evidence on the presence of an effect, but the inapplicability of a criterion does not increase the strength of evidence on the absence of an effect. The paper discusses the reason why there are so many examples of regulatory “false negatives” as opposed to “false positives”. Two main reasons are put forward: (i) the methodological bias within the health and environmental sciences; and (ii) the dominance within decision-making of short term economic and political interests. Sixteen features of methods and culture in the environmental and health sciences are presented. Of these, only three features tend to generate “false positives”. It is concluded that although the different features of scientific methods and culture produce robust science, they can lead to poor regulatory decisions on hazard prevention.

Taming the Precautionary Principle in EC Law: Lessons from Waste and GMO Regulation

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 468-483
Author(s):  
Ilona Cheyne
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Gmo Regulation ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe precautionary principle is a cornerstone of the EC's environmental policy and one of the guiding principles in the Waste Directive and GMO legislation. However, there appears to be a shift away from the use of the principle in these policy areas and a re-evaluation of the relationship between it and the commercial activity that it helps to regulate.

Precautionary Principle in the Court Settlement of Civil Environmental Cases

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Cecep Aminudin ◽  
Efa Laela Fakhriah ◽  
Ida Nurlinda ◽  
Isis Ikhwansyah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Weak Version ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Civil Courts

In recent years, the precautionary principle has begun to enter legal decision-making in Indonesian civil courts. This introduction is in line with environmental cases that often involve much scientific evidence. This article aims to describe theoretical elaboration and, to a certain extent, legal developments in the application of the precautionary principle in the settlement of civil environmental cases in Indonesia. The precautionary principle provides a framework for environmental decision-making in the event of scientific uncertainty. The theoretical elaboration shows a wide dimension of influence of the precautionary principle on the system of liability and proof. In comparison, the court cases also show the application of the precautionary principle in the liability system and proof despite still in its weak version.

scholarly journals Australian Veterinarians’ Perceptions Regarding the Zoonotic Potential of Mycobacterium avium Subspecies Paratuberculosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamal R. Acharya ◽  
Karren M. Plain ◽  
Richard J. Whittington ◽  
Navneet K. Dhand
Keyword(s):  
Mycobacterium Avium ◽  
Causative Agent ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Mycobacterium Avium Subspecies Paratuberculosis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Animal Origin ◽  
The Precautionary Principle

Public concerns over exposure to Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) or MAP components via foods of animal origin could have negative trade consequences, despite the absence of conclusive scientific evidence of a causal association between Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) and Crohn’s disease (CD). This study was conducted among Australian veterinarians to understand (a) their perceptions regarding the role of MAP in the causation of CD (an ordinal outcome), and (b) their consideration of the adoption of the precautionary principle against Johne’s disease (JD; a binary outcome). Ordinal and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of explanatory variables with the above outcomes, respectively. Almost one-third of the respondents (32.2%) considered that MAP was likely to be involved in the causation of CD whereas more than two-thirds (69.8%) agreed with the adoption of the precautionary principle against JD. Veterinarians who were concerned about exposure to and/or getting infected with MAP were more likely to consider MAP as a causative agent of CD (odds ratio: 7.63; 95% CI: 1.55, 37.63) and favor the adoption of the precautionary principle against JD (odds ratio: 6.20; 95% CI: 1.90, 20.25). Those perceiving MAP as a causative agent of CD were also more likely to favor the adoption of the precautionary principle against JD (odds ratio: 13.2; 95% CI: 1.26, 138.90). The results suggest that Australian veterinarians, particularly those who consider MAP as a causative agent of CD are concerned about exposure to MAP and favor the adoption of the precautionary principle against JD. These findings can be useful for animal health authorities for designing JD control programs and policies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document