Reverse burden of proof

Reversed Burden of Proof. In each of the four core elements operationalised above, the precautionary principle favours placing the so-called burden of proof on the operator, which thereby bears the responsibility for convincingly showing that stat-... 

House of Representatives.41 The proposals are inspired by REACH and include a proposal for an additional part under TSCA, Title V - Child Safe Chemicals as well as proposals for a number of amendments on existing sections in TSCA. The aim is to reduce exposure of children, workers and consumers to toxic substances , and the main elements include safety statements for manufacturers (i.e. partly reversed burden of proof), explicit safety standards and priority lists (including for prenatal exposure) and provisions in the direction of no data, no market , substitution and improved access to information (H. R. 2008 S 2008 see also Scott 2009 and Sachs 2009). A similar development is taking place on the state level, for instance in California, Maine and Washington (Scott 2009 Sachs 2009 Ditz 2007). 

In the given situation of reversed burden of proof, it was of course an easy matter to turn all the many investigative problems, which are well to be expected in such a very late trial, against the accused - especially those set out in Sections 2a-c. 

The principle of reverse onus, or reverse burden of proof, says that when there are scientifically based suspicions of harm about a chemical or product or process, the burden is on the producer or user to convince government authorities, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the product or process should not be restricted and that it is the least-damaging alternative available. This principle was recommended for adoption by the US and Canada in 1990 by the International Joint Commission (IJC, created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to oversee international matters in the Great Lakes). To date, the United States and Canada have not acted on the IJC s recommendation, but Sweden adopted the principle of reverse onus for chemicals in 1990. 

In Sweden there is a principle of reverse burden of proof ie, every substance is suspected of dangoous effects until it is proved that the suspicion is not correct. 

Hansson, S.O. (1997) Can we reverse the burden of proof Toxicology Letters 90 223-228. Hansson, S.O. (1999) The moral significance of indetectable effects. Risk 10 101-108. 

But the reversal of the burden of proof, accepted so matter-of-factly by the press, is no mere slip of the judicial tongue. The closer one examines the trial documents, the more clear it becomes how much the Court allowed its own bias to guide it. In any normal trial the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and any uncertainty dictates the maxim when in doubt, acquit . In Wuppertal this was not so. 

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). 

As a general rule the NOEL/NOAEL is a dose from a controlled animal experiment where no adverse effect (i.e., an effect not considered harmful) is noted. The experiment does not establish that no effect can possibly occur at that dose under any conditions - it only denotes that none of the effects looked for in the experiment was observed. Since a statistical significance test is typically used to establish whether or not an effect occurred, the NOEL/ NOAEL will tend to diminish as the sensitivity of the measurement or the number of observations increases. Since the burden of proof is on science to show that an effect has occurred, greater uncertainty tends to raise the level of exposure that is deemed accept-able/tolerable. The selection of the effect that is considered adverse is a matter of societal values (i.e., localized, reversible, mild discomfort versus frank, irreversible systemic toxicity). That is, establishing that an effect has occurred is a separate consideration from how much one cares if it will occur or not. 

A key element has been introduced through a reversal of the onus of proof in respect of the good reason which can justify a disqualification period. Now it is the unemployed person who must prove the facts within his or her sphere of activity and scope of responsibility - and not the administrative authority, which only bears the burden of proof under the general rules of evidence. 

In connection with fault-based liability pursuant to All 823 para. 1 of the German Civil Code, the burden of proof for the cause of damage has been reversed in German jurisdiction if the damage was caused by the operation of an industrial installation. 

---