Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Precautionary Principle vs Risk Management

Expand Messages
  • ChasMauch@aol.com
    The article copied below is the best explanation I have seen of a way of approaching a lot of problems that have bothered me for a long time, such as global
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The article copied below is the best explanation I have seen of a way of
      approaching a lot of problems that have bothered me for a long time, such as
      global warming, genetically altered food, "safe" levels of poisons in our
      food and water, and even the defense budget.

      For instance
      , the EPA establishes allowable (presumably safe) levels of
      poisons in our water - so many ppm of arsenic, so much heavy metals, etc, but
      I kind of wonder if there really is a non-zero limit that is "safe." Frankly,
      I doubt it. They have a bad habit of saying "uh oh" from time to time and
      revising these numbers downward by several orders of magnitude. The same
      reasoning applies to a lot of things.

      Charlie

      Here is the article:

      What do you do when you want to move fast but the way ahead is dark, possibly
      dangerous and almost entirely unknown? Accelerate? Proceed with moderation?
      Slow way down? Stop?

      That question underlies most environmental regulations. We are not sure what
      pesticides are doing to soils, waters, other creatures, or ourselves. We have
      only a vague idea what our rising greenhouse gas output will do to the
      climate. We're in the dark about the consequences of genetic engineering. So
      should we go ahead? How fast?

      U.S. policy, and that of most other countries, has ranged from acceleration
      to moderation. Often the cost has been revealed only decades later, in the
      form of poisoned wells, sickened rivers, unhealthy air, dying wildlife,
      deformed babies. Now some governments are saying it makes more sense to slow
      down or stop.

      The go-slow policy is hotly discussed in Europe and in the United Nations,
      but it is rarely mentioned in the U.S. news. It is called the "precautionary
      principle." The basic idea is familiar to everyone. An ounce of prevention is
      worth a pound of cure. Look before you leap. If you can't afford to lose,
      don't gamble.

      Or as a scientific gathering in 1998 put it: "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."

      Or as Christine Todd Whitman put it, two months before George W. Bush
      appointed her to head the Environmental Protection Agency: "We must
      acknowledge that uncertainty is inherent in managing natural resources,
      recognize it is usually easier to prevent environmental damage than to repair
      it later, and shift the burden of proof away from those advocating protection
      toward those proposing an action that may be harmful."

      If she meant that, she may be a historic EPA director.

      U.S. environmental policy is based not on the precautionary principle, but on
      "risk management." That means balancing risks against benefits. If the
      benefits seem to outweigh the risks, full steam ahead. If a pesticide will
      give cancer to only one person in a million, but make a corporation a hundred
      million bucks, go for it.

      It is astonishing how much we don't know about what we are doing.

      There are two big problems with risk/benefit policy. The first is that those
      who bear the risk are rarely the ones who get the benefits. The second
      problem is that the benefits are usually much better known than the risks. It
      is astonishing how much we don't know about what we are doing.

      For example, an article by seventeen scientists from six countries in a
      recent Science magazine summarizes the literature on climate change. It cites
      facts like this: in the past 100 years human fossil fuel burning has raised
      the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide higher than it has been for
      the previous 420,000 years -- and we're still accelerating.

      The article repeats over and over that we do not know what that means for the
      planet. "As we drift further away from the domain that characterized the
      preindustrial Earth system, we severely test the limits of our understanding
      of how the Earth system will respond," say the authors. And "humans have
      affected virtually every major biogeochemical cycle, but the effects of these
      impacts on the interactions between these elemental cycles are poorly
      understood."

      So, push the accelerator pedal to the floor?

      Another Science article in December surveys what we know about the effects of
      genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). This article is another ode to
      uncertainty. "Neither the risks nor the benefits of GEOs are certain or
      universal." "Our ability to accurately predict ecological consequences,
      especially long-term higher-order interactions, increases the uncertainty
      associated with risk assessment." "Additional or unidentified benefits and
      risks may exist that published data do not yet address."

      Should we turn hundreds of GEOs out of our labs and plant them on millions of
      acres of land?

      Yet another recent Science article summarizes the findings of an expert panel
      on endocrine disrupters -- hormone-mimicking chemicals, including many
      pesticides and plasticizers. The panel concluded that incredibly tiny
      concentrations of these chemicals -- concentrations virtually all of us are
      exposed to -- can cause development problems in rat and mouse embryos. The
      findings are especially disturbing, because they contradict the basic
      assumption underlying all toxics policy: that a low enough dose of any poison
      is essentially harmless.

      But the studies were done on lab animals. "How these results may relate to
      disease late in life in animals, let alone humans, is uncertain," says the
      article.

      Shall we go on cranking out the chemicals?

      Yes, say those who make money from them. No, says the precautionary
      principle. Plastics, pesticides, fossil fuels, gene-modified crops may make
      someone money and may save us all time or increase our convenience. But there
      are ways to proceed, probably more slowly, without them or with much less of
      them. It's not worth risking human health or the planetary functions that
      sustain us, just to keep going fast.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.