Precautionary Principles

A generally accepted definition of the Precautionary Principle has never been brought forward. According to a popular definition (Wikipedia 2006) The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable.  

At international level, the precautionary principle was first recognized in the World Charter for Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982 (EU 2000). It was subsequently incorporated into various international conventions on the protection of the environment. 

In 2000, the European Commission issued a communication on the precautionary principle (EU 2000), in which it adopted a procedure for the application of this concept. The precautionary principle is not defined in the treaty, which prescribes it only once - to protect the environment. But in practice, its scope is much wider, beyond that of environmental policy, and, specifically where preliminary objective 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 for the Community. The precautionary principle is implemented, for example, in the EU food law and also affects, among others, policies relating to consumer protection, trade and research, and technological development. 

The issue of when and how to use the precautionary principle, both within the EU and internationally, is giving rise to much debate, and to mixed, and sometimes contradictory views. Thus, decision-makers are constantly faced with the dilemma of balancing the freedom and rights of individuals, industry, and organizations with the need to reduce the risk of adverse effects to the environment, human, animal, or plant health. Therefore, finding the correct balance so that the proportionate, nondiscriminatory, transparent, and coherent actions can be taken, requires a structured decision-making process with detailed scientific and other objective information. 

The United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) website, http /w w w. atsdr.cdc. go v/ 

The EU approach to chemicals control is based on a stepwise process of hazard assessment, risk assessment, and risk management. This process assists a rational prioritization in the allocation of limited resources to achieve a high level of health and environmental protection. Because this process often involves uncertainties due to insufficient or inconclusive scientific evidence, the precautionary principle may need to be applied in cases where there are indeed reasonable grounds for concern that health or the environment may be seriously endangered. The precautionary principle was first recognized in international law in the World Charter for Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992. At the Rio Conference on the Environment and Development, Principle 15 states that in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by 

States according to their capability. 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. In the EU there is a reference to the precautionary principle, in the context of the environment, in Article 174 of the 1992 EC Treaty, but the principle is not defined. In 1999 the Council of Ministers adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to consider the principle when preparing proposals for legislation. 

Overly zealous application of the precautionary principle could have a serious impact on the chemical industry and deprive society of the benefits of products without counterbalancing improvements in health and safety. The issue by the European Commission of a Communication [41] on the use of the precautionary principle affirms that it is neither the politicization of science nor the acceptance of zero-risk. This Communication states that measures based on the precautionary principle should be  

---

T. O Riordan and J. Cameron, Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Eaithscan, London, 1994. 

Not all cyanobacterial blooms and scums contain detectable levels of toxins. Indeed, the incidence of toxicity detection by mouse bioassay, and toxin detection by HPLC among environmental samples, ranges from about 40% to However, in view of this high occurrence, it is the policy of regulatory authorities and water supply operators in some countries to assume that blooms of cyanobacteria are toxic until tested and found to be otherwise. In the absence of available analytical facilities or expertise or for logistical reasons, this precautionary principle should be regarded as sensible and prudent. 

Because of the great importance of drinking water for human health, quality standards for pesticides in water were developed at Community level based on the precautionary principle. Toxicological considerations were not taken into account to derive the general limit for pesticides. 

Article 6 of the RoHS Directive (recast 2011 [9]) says 1. With a view to achieving the objectives set out in Article 1 and taking account of the precautionary principle, a review, based on a thorough assessment, and amendment of the list of restricted substances in Annex II shall be considered by the Commission before 22 July 2014, and periodically thereafter on its own initiative or following the submission of a proposal by a Member State. .. . 

A lot of people do not realize that this leaves the evaluation completely on the negative side. The worst effect of the overestimation of the PA promoted as a principle is its absolute focus on the negative aspects of biotechnology. This has been summarized by Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, and aptly sums up the shortcomings of the precautionary principle [24]. 

H. Miller, G. Conco, Precautionary Principle Stalls Advances in Foodlichnd-... 

Kuntz-Duriseti K (2004) Evaluating the economic value of the precautionary principle using cost benefit analysis to place a value on precaution. Environ Sci Policy 7 291-301 Lai R, Follett RF, Kimble J, Cole CV (1999) Managing US cropland to sequester carbon in soil. 

Prebaked carbon electrodes, 12 752, 755 Prebaked cathode blocks, 12 765-766 Prebaked electrodes, 12 758 Precautionary Principle (PP), 10 245-246, 24 188... 

A review is presented on European regulatory initiatives focussing on products containing chemicals, which are potential sources of environmentally hazardous materials. Particular attention is paid to brominated flame retardants in the light of the European Commission s official position in relation to the Precautionary Principle. 18 refs. EUROPEAN COMMISSION... 

This chapter is presented unashamedly from a European perspective. It is after all in this continent that phrases like the Precautionary Principle have gone beyond their existence as an ecological mantra and have become established as part of law-making. But let no one imagine for one moment that the problems and the challenges are unique to Europe or that they could be confined safely within its boundaries. 

With knowledge regarding concentrations and the fate of surfactants it should be possible to identify areas at risk and to design the most appropriate countermeasures. By applying the precautionary principle, the protection of sensitive aquatic freshwater and coastal ecosystems and of a sustainable supply of drinking water in areas with high population densities should be ensured. 

For all future activities, and in order to achieve sustainable management of water resources, including related soil and sediment compartments, the strategy to be followed should involve (i) the precautionary principle, (ii) polluter pays principle and (iii) application of the best available techniques (BATs) and best environmental practices, including where appropriate, clean technologies. 

It implements the Precautionary Principle. Arguments against the Precautionary Principle commonly centre on what degree of evidence of harm is necessary before action is taken to restrict the use of a substance. When applying the Substitution Principle, it is not necessary to wait for cancers, reproductive disorders or genetic defects and elusive evidence of cause and effect. If alternatives with less hazardous intrinsic properties are available, use of the hazardous substance is not permitted. The potential for harm is then reduced or avoided altogether. 

The first warning against the use of phthalates in toys was the Recommendation adopted by the European Commission on 1 July 1998 concerning toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth by children under three years of age, made of soft PVC and containing phthalates. The Commission Decision of 7 December 1999 (1999/815/EC) [58] made it possible to prohibit the use of certain phthalates on the basis of the legislation on general product [59]. Since 1999, The Commission Decision 1999/815/EC [58] was extended more than 20 times in the name of the precautionary principle until the adoption of Directive 2005/84/EC [60]. This Directive restricted the use of DEHP, DBP, and BBP in the manufacmre of toys and childcare articles intended for children and DiNP, DiDP, and DnOP are limited only in toys and childcare articles which can be placed in the mouth. The restriction states that the amount of phthalates may not be greater than 0.1% by mass of the plasticized material part of the toys. The member states of the EU applied this directive from 16 January 2007. 

Certain regulations contained in the air legislation and also in the annexes to the Waste Water Ordinance include the substitution of hazardous substances as the best available technology and thus attempt to put into operation the precautionary principle (cf UBA texts 88/99, Guidance Manual for Formulators and Other Professional Users of Chemicals). 

Remaining lack of knowledge and remaining uncertainties even after applying scientific methods. One reaction to this is to out the precautionary principle into operation. 

Work in the [riw] program coincided with a far-reaching reform of European chemicals policy. This opened up extensive opportunities for not only an analytical, but also consultative (interventional) accompaniment of this extensive institutional innovation . For SubChem this was primarily a matter of developing some fundamental correlations and founded (quahtative) arguments regarding possible ecological, health and economic opportunities and risks arising from the EU Commission s proposals for a new chemicals policy. Contributions for operationalisation of the precautionary principle and the economic effects of the REACH process to be expected were particularly in demand. 

We had originally planned to formrrlate an improved system for chemical assessment and evalrration, by taking all dimensions of sustainability into account and with the avoidance of simply shifting the problems. However, we in the Sub-Chem project resolved to develop more appropriate forms of dealing with deficiencies in knowledge and better ways to put the precautionary principle into practice. 

---