Issue One: Precautionary Principle

“Is the Precautionary Principle a Sound Basis for International Policy?”

Authors: Nancy Myers and John D. Graham

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. precautionary principle – “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. In this context the proponent of the activity, rather than the public, should bear 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.” p. 12

b. risk management – a concept that covers many disciplines and is basically the process of knowing what the risk is and how to best compensate in case that risk occurs.

c. cost-benefit analysis – a process of analyzing the costs and the benefits of a situation or product and deciding if the benefit is substantial enough to bear the costs.

d. draconian interpretation – a very severe interpretation.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

We have, in the past, just been reactionary to environmental problems. In this manner, it is the responsibility of the citizens to find the cause so the effect can be stopped. The precautionary principle was first initiated in Germany in the 1970s. It requires the responsibility of the company to first prove the safety of their chemicals, processes, etc. Internationally, it has been widely accepted. And many countries include it in their legislation.

The precautionary principle is a godsend for environmentalists because it allows communities to block corporations from starting the practice in question even when scientifically, the result is uncertain.

The basic argument comes down to two opposing points:

- If suspicion exists, caution is required; the environment is not to be risked.

- No action is needed until the scientific evidence is convincing. And even then, the value of the service should be weighed against the harm done to the environment.

So is the environment expendable? Would progress stop if we protected the environment? Consenters say yes, that technology innovations have always had some element of risk to them, whether it is risk to the public, the environment, or both. To implement the precautionary principle is to bring our progress to a screeching halt.

Mr. Graham, the author of the opposing side and a government employee through the Office of Management and Budget, argues that the United States government does not believe the Precautionary Principle exists. It is too ambiguous to be considered a law. He uses Reverend Thomas Malthus’s theory as one of his examples.

As you might recall, Rev. Malthus used mathematics to realize that, if the population grew exponentially, the human race would run out of food and living standards would become substandard. Now, that didn’t happen because of technological innovations that allowed us to produce more food and shelter more people.

But Mr. Graham uses it to his advantage as an example of a prediction of doom, based in science that never occurred. He argues that there are many ‘scares’ that are scientifically, though most are incorrect science, based. To prevent the progress of our nation because of a “chance” of something happening based on science that is questionable, or because of a perceived risk, is bad for the economy, nation, and progress.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

While reading the affirmative argument, I was reminded of the movie Erin Brockovich, and thinking how if the citizens of that town could have used the Precautionary Principle to prevent the practices of the company, they would have never suffered so many health ailments. It seems like a good idea, but the implementation of the Precautionary Principle seems to be vague. It allows citizens legal rights to stop or delay a business for fear of environmental or health risk. A great part of the Precautionary Principle is that it requires the business in question to defend itself, not as it normally is, where the citizens had to provide the proof. The business is on the defensive instead of the citizens, in other words.

Ms. Meyes, the author of the affirmative, provided several human disease examples that seem to be increasing problems we are facing. But when I read this list, I thought that (1) most of the diseases were unknown years back (ADHD, Alzheimer’s), (2) cancer screenings are more capable now, and (3) our diets have a greater effect on health than the environment but that is not mentioned. Is it not possible that genetic disorders, mental disorders, behavioral disorders, and cancer existed in the same capacity years ago, but doctors were unable to test for such things or were unaware these things existed? She admitted that other factors could have played a role, but seemed to jump to the conclusion that these were more environmentally influenced.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I agree that companies and governments have too often turned a blind eye to the environment and the health of the general population when their bottom line is at stake. And a change such as the Precautionary Principle would force them to answer earlier rather than later, for any risk involved.

However, the Precautionary Principle is too loose in its interpretation and implementation. Theoretically everything could be questioned and blocked from occurring. This is bad for progress and business. There has to be a line.

The main question, then, is: where’s the line? The European Commission issued their line, which I agree with, in their February 2000 Communication. Here it is:

1. Precaution is a necessary and useful concept but it is subjective and susceptible to abuse by policymakers for trade purposes.

2. Scientific and procedural safeguards need to be applied to risk management decisions based on precaution.

3. Adoption of precautionary measures should be preceded by objective scientific evaluations, including risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis of alternative measures.

4. There are a board range of precautionary measures, including bans, product restrictions, education, warning labels, and market-based approached. Even targeted research programs to better understand a hazard are a precautionary measure.

5. Opportunities for public participation – to discuss efficiency, fairness and other public values – are critical to sound risk management. (p. 17)