Precautionary Principle risk assessment

K. von Moltke, The Precautionary Principle, Risk Assessment, and the World Trade Organization, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 2000. 

Farrow, S. (2004). Using risk assessment, benefit-cost analysis, and real options to implement a precautionary principle. Risk Anal. 24(3) 727-738. 

O Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. 1995. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, London Earthscan Publications. RAF. 2006. The United States Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) website. http /cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/index.cfm... 

Another approach to risk-based decision-making is the precautionary principle. The risk assessment and risk management approach used in the United States places a heavy reliance on the certainty of the data. The precautionary principle emphasizes that there is always some uncertainty and that decisions should be based on recognizing the possibility of harm. When in doubt, be cautious until adequate data are available to show that there is little potential for harm. Action to reduce exposure to hazardous agents should begin even if there is some uncertainty in the data. 

The partition coefficient (K ) was used for the conversion of TBT concentrations in sediment and SPM to TBT concentrations in water. This Kp for TBT was calculated by multiplying the organic carbon partition coefficient (K ) with the measured fraction organic carbon (f ). Consequently, the K value has a strong impact on the final results of the risk prognosis. Generally, in risk predictions the lowest K value is applied to calculate concentrations in water (EC, 2003). This results in a worst-case water concentration, in accordance with the precautionary principle. However, with literature values for the K of TBT ranging from 3.0 - 6.2 (Lepper, 2002), it is more appropriate to base an assessment on local measured values. In this study the... 

In Chapter 7 I will examine how risk assessment of chemicals is carried out. In this chapter I take a closer look at the concept of risk as it is used both in technical risk assessments and in everyday life. I suggest that rather than trying to assess the risks of a technology we should ask how risky the technology is. Riskiness is a way to think about the uncertain threat that the precautionary principle refers to. I also discuss the importance of the context of the risky situation in risk evaluation and attitudes to risks. 

Science and risk assessment, with all their flaws, take time, cost money, and leave some participants unsatisfied. The precautionary principle, which originated among German Greens in the 1970s, is offered as an alternative. It has no definitive definition. At least twenty can be found in treaties, laws, journal articles and books, and Cass Sunstein has placed them on a scale from weak... 

Improvement will not come from policies based on the precautionary principle or any similar principle, which ignores the specifics of different risks and the benefits that accompany the substance or process that is being examined. Good policy cannot be derived by skipping over the fact that we live in a world of trade-offs and that actions have consequences. A regulatory and policy system that produces greater value for society must have a foundation of credibility. Far better to emphasize science in the risk assessment process and to examine the process and evaluate how well it works than to chase after lofty aspirations embodied in a principle without definition. 

I. M. Goklany, The Precautionary Principle. A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment (Washington, D.C. Cato Institute, 2001). 

The risk assessments was unfavorable The risk assessment indicates some risks. Production was stopped on the basis of precautionary principles. 

The basic premise of the Precautionary Principle is that decision makers should implement regulatory measures to prevent or restrict actions that may harm humans or the environment, even though there is incomplete scientific evidence to assess the significance of the potential harm. It has been used as an underlying rational in several international treaties and declarations. There are various definitions of the Precautionary Principle that are represented as better safe than sorry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines it as, When information about potential risks... 

The U.S. EPA and many other organizations point out that, when information about potential risks is incomplete, basing decisions to avoid unnecessary health risks is potentially the best option.8 When a good set of scientific data is available on a material, then the Precautionary Principle is not appropriate. Scientific data generated in the EU Risk Assessments or under risk assessment programs, such as REACH, that deem materials safe for continued use should effectively rule out the use of Precautionary Principle. 

Applegate, J. S. (2000) The precautionary preference An American Perspective on the Precautionary Principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6, 413 143. 

Ashford, N. (2007) The Legacy of the Precautionary Principle in US Law The Rise of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment as Undermining Factors in Health, Safety and Environmental Protection. In de Sadeleer, N. (ed.) Implementing the precautionary principle. Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London Earthscan. 

Sandin, P. (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, 889-907. 

UNCED (1993) Report of the Conference of the United Nations on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, vol. 1-3. New York United Nations, von Moltke, K. (1988) The Vorsorge-Prinzip in West-German Policy. In Twelfth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Annex 3. London H.M. Stationery Office. Wagner, W. E. (2000) The Precautionary Principle and Chemicals Regulation in the U.S. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6, 459 177. 

The European-Commission definition of the precautionary principle should be distinguished from the use of uncertainty factors during risk assessment or margins of safety during risk management46 [255]. Assessment factors account for assumptions made during the risk assessment process, such as when deriving no-effect levels. 

J. de Bruijn, B. Hansen and S. Munn, Role of the Precautionary Principle in the EU Risk Assessment Process on Industrial Chemicals, 2003, 75,11-12, 2535. 

The third and final aspect of the precautionary principle refers to the burden of proof for improving damage to health and the environment. It is typically regulators who are responsible for conducting risk assessments and ensuring a high level of health and environmental protection. The new EU chemicals policy seeks to reverse the burden of proof , requiring companies to do risk assessments and thereby demonstrate safe use for all chemicals (Section 2.4.1). 

The example of saccharin shows how the risk assessment for a food additive is carried out, and the precautions taken by the regulatory authorities, using large safety factors and always erring on the side of caution (the precautionary principle). In this case there was human data available, unusually for a food additive. Today a new food additive would not be used in food for human consumption until it had been evaluated for safety in animals. 

Another view explores the limits of the risk assessment-based approach to decision-making and what a precautionary paradigm might look like. The precautionary principle calls for preventive actions when there is reasonable scientific evidence of harm, although the nature and magnitude of that harm may not be fully understood scientifically. While a highly contentious term, proponents of the precautionary approach see this as a means to make better, more health protective decisions in the face of highly uncertain and complex risks. 

Precaution and Environmental Science. When the precautionary principle is discussed in its relationship to science, it is often portrayed as an antiscience or a risk-management principle that is only used after undergoing conventional scientific processes. As discussed earlier, in practice the limitations of science to characterize complex risks show that precaution is not at odds (Kriebel et al., 2001). Further, precaution is not just about additional safety factors or changing risk assessment default assumptions. Research by U.S. EPA scientists has demonstrated that many of the EPA s Reference Doses - or conservative safe exposures - may correspond to risks of greater than 1 in 1000, meaning that safety factors alone may not protect health (Castorina and Woodruff, 2003). 

---