================== Electronic Edition ==================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #586
---February 19, 1998---
HEADLINES:
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.org
==========
All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to
info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message.
Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org/
To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to
listserv@rachel.org with the words
SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message.
=================================================
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.[3]
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;
----------------------------------------------
Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly is a
publication of the Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD
21403. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet:
erf@rachel.org. Back issues available by
E-mail; to get instructions, send Email to
INFO@rachel.org with the single word HELP in
the message. Subscriptions are free. To
subscribe, E-mail the words SUBSCRIBE
RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to:
listserv@rachel.org 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