 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why a More Precautionary Approach Is Needed
Because biological and ecological systems are so complex, it is often difficult or impossible to scientifically prove that an activity is harmful. This difficulty has allowed regulations to justify inaction in far too many cases, with potentially severe consequences to health and the economy.
The precautionary principle calls for taking thoughtful, scientifically sound action as appropriate to protect human health and the environment even when there is no scientific certainty. The principle was characterized in the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle as: “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.” The statement listed four central components of the Principle: (1) taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; (2) shifting burdens onto proponents of potentially harmful activities; (3) exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and (4) increasing public participation in decision-making. Precaution is underscored by a duty to uphold the basic human right of each individual (and future generations) to a healthy, life-sustaining environment.
Over the past several years, the precautionary principle has been increasingly referred to in international debates over complex environmental and health risks, such as global warming, toxic substances, biodiversity, and biotechnology. However, there are few specific examples of how in can be incorporated in the practice of science and decision-making. Efforts are growing to define how precaution can be implemented at the international, national, and local levels.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
