Precautionary Principle

Concept
Human life is full of risks which we have to deal with. Science and technology can help in diminishing some risks of nature, as it is the case for example with life expectancy. On the other hand, science and technology have also contributed to the creation of new threats to human existence or quality of life. The emergence of increasingly unpredictable, uncertain, and unquantifiable but possibly catastrophic risks has confronted societies with the need to develop an anticipatory model in order to protect humans and the environment against these uncertain risks of human action: the precautionary principle.

Origins
The precautionary principle traces its origins to the early 1970s in the German principle Vorsorge, or foresight, based on the belief that the society should seek to avoid environmental damage by careful forward planning. The Vorsorgeprinzip has been developed into a fundamental principle of German environmental law and was invoked to justify the implementation of robust policies to tackle acid rain, global warming, and North Sea pollution. The precautionary principle then flourished in international statements of policy. The principle was introduced in 1984 at the First International Conference on Protection of the North Sea. Following this conference, it was integrated into numerous international conventions and agreements (Bergen declaration on sustainable development, Maastricht Treaty of the European Union, etc.).

On a national level, several countries have made the precautionary principle guides to their environmental and public health policy. In the United States, the precautionary principle is not expressly mentioned in laws or policies. However, some laws have a precautionary nature, and the principle underpins much of the early environmental legislation in this country (The National Environmental Policy Act, The Clean Water Act, The Endangered Species Act).

Definitions
The precautionary principle is based on the adage that ―it is better to be safe than sorry‖. However, there is no universally accepted definition of the principle. Despite the fact that the precautionary principle has formulated in many different ways in many different places, the definition in the Rio Declaration is the one most often referred to:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. (Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 15).

This definition is rather weak, calling for the consideration of precautionary intervention rather than requiring such intervention. A stronger definition can be found in an EU communication that demands intervention to maintain the high level of protection required by the EU.

It states that:
The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU (EU, 2000).

Despite the lack of consensus on definition, each formulation of the precautionary principle shares the common prescription that scientific certainty is not required before taking preventive measures. Moreover, most versions involve some degree of burden shifting to the promoter of an activity or product. Finally, all the definitions lack to answer the question of the amount of precaution to apply in a given circumstance.

Relevance
The precautionary principle is relevant to many issues, especially those of environment and public health; global warming or sharp climate change, extinction of species, introduction of new and potentially harmful products into the environment that threaten biodiversity (e.g. genetically modified organisms), threats to public health due to new diseases or techniques (e.g. AIDS transmitted through blood transfusion), persistent or acute pollution (asbestos, endocrine disruptors, etc.), food safety (e.g. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), and other new bio-safety issues (e.g. artificial life, new molecules).

Controversy and critiques
Besides its apparent simplicity, the principle has given rise to a great deal of controversy and criticisms.

• The precautionary principle is said to not be based on sound science. In this sense, critics claim that decision-makers are sometimes selective in their use of the precautionary principle, applying it for political reasons, rather than scientific reasons.
• When applying the principle, society should establish a threshold of plausibility or scientific certainty before undertaking precautions. Indeed, no minimum threshold is specified across the definitions so that any indication of potential harm could be sufficient to invoke the principle. Most times, a ban on the product or activity is the only precaution taken.
• Another often raised criticism points to the potentially negative consequences of its application; for instance, a technology which brings advantages may be banned because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized.
• Some say that the precautionary principle is impractical since every implementation of a new technology carries some risk of negative consequence.

The debate on the precautionary principle indicates its growing prominence in policy-making about risks to human health and the environment.