THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
A new principle for guiding human activities, to
prevent harm to the environment and to human health, has been
emerging during the past 10 years. It is called the "principle
of precautionary action" or the "precautionary principle"
for short. (See REHW #257, #284, #319, #363, #378, #423, #539,
#540.)
An international group of scientists, government
officials, lawyers, and labor and grass-roots environmental activists
met January 23-25 at Wingspread in Racine, Wisconsin to define
and discuss the precautionary principle.[1] After meeting for
two days, the group issued the following consensus statement:
Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle
"The release and use of toxic substances, the
exploitation of resources, and physical alterations of the environment
have had substantial unintended consequences affecting human health
and the environment. Some of these concerns are high rates of
learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer, birth defects and species
extinctions, along with global climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion and worldwide contamination with toxic substances and
nuclear materials.
"We believe existing environmental regulations
and other decisions, particularly those based on risk assessment,
have failed to protect adequately human health and the environment
--the larger system of which humans are but a part.
"We believe there is compelling evidence that
damage to humans and the worldwide environment is of such magnitude
and seriousness that new principles for conducting human activities
are necessary.
"While we realize that human activities may
involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been
the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities,
organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must
adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.
"Therefore, it is necessary to implement the
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
an 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." [End of statement.]
Thus, as formulated here, the principle of precautionary
action has 4 parts:
1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action
to prevent harm. (As one participant at the Wingspread meeting
summarized the essence of the precautionary principle, "If
you have a reasonable suspicion that something bad might be going
to happen, you have an obligation to try to stop it.")
2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology,
process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with
the general public.
3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical,
or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine
"a full range of alternatives" including the alternative
of doing nothing.
4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle
must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must
include affected parties."
The precautionary principle is not really new. The
essence of the principle is captured in common-sense aphorisms
such as "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,"
"Better safe than sorry," and "Look before you
leap." However, environmental policy in the U.S. and Europe
for the past 70 years has been guided by entirely different principles
perhaps best reflected in the aphorisms, "Nothing ventured,
nothing gained" and, "Let the devil take the hindmost."
Participants at the Wingspread meeting came from
the U.S., Canada, Germany, Britain, and Sweden.
"Precaution is natural in our lives," said
Gordon Durnil, a lawyer from Indianapolis, Indiana and author
of THE MAKING OF A CONSERVATIVE ENVIRONMENTALIST. (See REHW #453.)
"From my perspective as a conservative Republican, this
is a conservative principle." During the Bush administration,
Durnil served as chairperson of the International Joint Commission
(IJC), established by treaty to resolve Great Lakes problems between
the United States and Canada. (See REHW #284, #378, #505.)
Joel Tickner of the University of Massachusetts at
Lowell, said "Current decision-making approaches ask, 'How
safe is safe? What level of risk is acceptable? How much contamination
can a human or ecosystem assimilate without showing any obvious
adverse effects?' The approach stemming from the precautionary
principle asks a different set of questions: 'How much contamination
can be avoided while still maintaining necessary values? What
are the alternatives to this product or activity that achieve
the desired goal? Does society need this activity in the first
place?'"[2]
Participants noted that current policies such as
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of
the doubt to new products and technologies, which may later prove
harmful. And when damage occurs, victims and their advocates
have the nearly-impossible task of proving that a particular product
or activity was responsible.
Carolyn Raffensperger, coordinator of the Science
and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) says, "The role of
science [in decision-making] is essential. But the public must
be fully involved. Informed consent is just as essential."
Author Sandra Steingraber (see REHW #565) told the
Wingspread meeting that the precautionary principle suggests certain
kinds of arguments that grass-roots activists might use at the
local level:
1) When toxic chemicals enter our bodies --or the
bodies of our children --without our informed consent, it is a
toxic trespass. Such a trespass is wrong and almost everyone recognizes
that it is wrong.
2) A recent study by the Harvard Center for Cancer
Prevention concluded that only 2% of cancer deaths are caused
by industrial toxins released into the environment. Steingraber
points out that, if we accept such an estimate at face value,
this 2% represents the painful deaths of nearly 11,000 individuals
each year in the U.S. alone --the annual equivalent of wiping
out a small city, thirty funerals every day. And these deaths
represent a form of homicide. Such homicides are wrong and almost
everyone recognizes that they are wrong.
3) We all have a fundamental human right to enjoy
our environment free of fear. Those who put toxics chemicals
into the environment --whether as wastes or as products --deny
us this human right. Almost everyone recognizes that such a denial
of human rights is wrong.
At the policy level, Wingspread participant Robert
Costanza of the University of Maryland has suggested an "assurance
bond" --which he has dubbed the "4P approach to scientific
uncertainty." (See REHW #510.) The "4P" stands
for "the precautionary polluter pays principle." Using
the "4P" approach, before a new technology, process
or chemical could be introduced, the worst-case damage would be
estimated in dollar terms. Then the proponent of the new activity
would be required to post a bond for the full amount before startup.
Such "assurance bonds" are common in the
construction industry today, to assure that a job will be completed
on schedule. A "4P" bond would effectively shift the
burden of proof onto the proponent --if harmlessness could be
shown as time passed, some or all of the bond would be returned
(with interest). A "4P" bond would also give the proponent
powerful financial incentives to reduce the worst case damages
by, for example, adopting intrinsically less-damaging alternatives.
The "4P" bond would also give the proponent a financial
incentive to continually examine the effects of the new activity
--if damages could be shown to be less than the worst-case estimate,
part of the bond could be returned (with interest) but the burden
of proof for such a showing would remain with the proponent.
It seems unlikely that the precautionary principle
will replace the risk assessment approach to environmental protection
in the U.S. any time soon. Opposition from the chemical industry
alone would probably be sufficient to prevent that. A number
of advisors to the chemical industry have called the precautionary
principle unscientific and dangerous. For example, Jack Mongoven
of the public relations firm MBD (Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin
in Washington, D.C.), has advised the chemical industry to "mobilize
science against the precautionary principle." (See REHW #496.)
Mr. Mongoven says the precautionary principle is
antagonistic to science, has its origins in instinct and feeling,
and "threatens the entire chemical industry."[2]
True, the precautionary principle does shift the
burden of proof for harmlessness onto the producers of toxic chemicals.
Most people readily accept such a shift in the case of the pharmaceutical
industry, which must show safety and efficacy before marketing
a new drug. The rationale for placing such requirements on the
drug corporations was that humans would be directly exposed to
drugs, so safety had to be shown and the need for the new drug
established. Today we know that all landfills leak, incinerators
don't fully destroy toxic chemicals, and humans are therefore
exposed to low levels of essentially every industrial chemical
released into commercial channels (whether as waste or as product).
Therefore, the rationale for U.S. pharmaceuticals policy would
logically lead to the conclusion that all industrial chemicals
should be treated the same as drugs: the burden of proof of harmlessness
(and proof of need) should fall on the producer.
To assure that producers have confidence in their own estimates of harmlessness, the worst-case "4P" bond would serve nicely. (The 4P bond simply asks the chemical corporations claiming "no problem" to put their money where their mouths are.) If the producer's estimate of harmlessness turned out to be wrong, the large bond would be forfeited to pay the incurred costs. Those who say they favor market-based solutions to environmental problems should warmly embrace such an efficient and fiscally-responsible precautionary proposal.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
===============
[1] Wingspread participants (affiliations are noted
for identification purposes only): Nicholas Ashford, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; Katherine Barrett, University of British
Columbia; Anita Bernstein, Chicago-Kent College of Law; Robert
Costanza, University of Maryland; Pat Costner, Greenpeace; Carl
Cranor, University of California, Riverside; Peter deFur, Virginia
Commonwealth University; Gordon Durnil, attorney; Dr. Kenneth
Geiser, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Mass., Lowell;
Dr. Andrew Jordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on
the Global Environment, University Of East Anglia, Britain; Andrew
King, United Steelworkers of America, Canadian Office, Toronto,
Canada; Frederick Kirschenmann, farmer; Stephen Lester, Center
for Health, Environment and Justice; Sue Maret, Union Institute;
Dr. Michael M'Gonigle, University of Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada; Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation; John
Peterson Myers, W. Alton Jones Foundation; Mary O'Brien, environmental
consultant; David Ozonoff, Boston University; Carolyn Raffensperger,
Science and Environmental Health Network; Pamela Resor, Massachusetts
House of Representatives; Florence Robinson, Louisiana Environmental
Network; Ted Schettler, Physicians for Social Responsibility;
Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition; Klaus-Richard Sperling,
Alfred-Wegener Institut, Hamburg, Germany; Sandra Steingraber,
author; Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition; Joel
Tickner, University of Mass., Lowell; Konrad von Moltke, Dartmouth
College; Bo Wahlstrom, KEMI (National Chemical Inspectorate),
Sweden; Jackie Warledo, Indigenous Environmental Network.
[2] Bette Hileman, "Precautionary Principle,"
CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS [C&EN] February 9, 1998, pgs.
16-18.
[3] Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, "Harvard
Report on Cancer Prevention," CANCER CAUSES AND CONTROL Vol.
7, Supplement 1 (1996), pgs. 3-59.
Descriptor terms: precautionary principle; wingspread;
regulation; meetings; wingspread statement on precaution; risk
assessment; jack mongoven; mbd; chemical industry; gordon durnil;
ken geiser; carolyn raffensperger; science and environmental health
network; sehn; ijc; joel tickner; sandra steingraber; harvard
center for cancer prevention; robert costanza; 4p assurance bonding;
assurance bonds; burden of proof; alternatives assessment; pharmaceuticals
policy;
################################################################
NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation
provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT &
HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization
considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue
to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible
contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00).
Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036.
Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.
--Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################