THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The precept that an action should not be taken if the

consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous



The principle and the main components of its implementation are stated this way in the 1998
Wingspread Statement on 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." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998

Sometimes if we wait for certainty it is too late. Scientific standards for demonstrating cause and
effect are very high. For example, smoking was strongly suspected of causing lung cancer long
before the link was demonstrated conclusively. By then, many smokers had died of lung cancer. But
many other people had already quit smoking because of the growing evidence that smoking was
linked to lung cancer. These people were wisely exercising precaution despite some scientific
uncertainty.
When evidence gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology, or substance may be
harmful, we should act to prevent harm. If we always wait for scientific certainty, people may suffer
and die and the natural world may suffer irreversible damage.
Precaution does not work if it is only a last resort and results only in bans or moratoriums. It is best
linked to these implementation methods:
exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions, especially clean technologies that
eliminate waste and toxic substances;
placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims or potential
victims of the activity;
setting and working toward goals that protect health and the environment; and
bringing democracy and transparency to decisions affecting health and the environment.
Q. Why do we need the precautionary principle now?
A. The effects of careless and harmful activities have accumulated over the years. Humans and the
rest of the natural world have a limited capacity to absorb and overcome this harm. There are plenty
of warning signs:
Chronic diseases and conditions affect more than 100 million men, women, and children in the
United Statesmore than a third of the population. Cancer, asthma, Alzheimer's disease,
autism, birth defects, developmental disabilities, diabetes, endometriosis, infertility, multiple
sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease are becoming increasingly common.
In laboratory animals, wildlife, and humans, considerable evidence documents a link between
levels of environmental contamination and malignancies, birth defects, reproductive problems,
impaired behavior, and impaired immune system function. Scientists' growing understanding
of how biological systems develop and function leads to similar conclusions.
Other warning signs are the dying off of plant and animal species, the destruction of
ecosystems, the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and the likelihood of global warming.

Five Key Elements of the Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle represents a paradigm shift in decision-making. It allows
for five key elements that can prevent irreversible damage to people and nature:
1. Anticipatory Action: There is a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm.
Government, business, and community groups, as well as the general public, share
this responsibility.
2. Right to Know: The community has a right to know complete and accurate
information on potential human health and environmental impacts associated with
the selection of products, services, operations, or plans. It is the responsibility of the
proponent of change to demonstrate that there is no risk; it is not the responsibility of
those who are concerned to demonstrate that there is risk.
3. Alternatives Assessment: An obligation exists to examine a full range of
alternatives and select the alternative with the least potential impact on human health
and the environment, including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Full Cost Accounting: When evaluating potential alternatives, there is a duty to
consider all the reasonably foreseeable costs, including raw materials,
manufacturing, transportation, use, cleanup, eventual disposal, and health costs even
if such costs are not reflected in the initial price. Short and long-term benefits and
time thresholds should be considered when making decisions.
5. Participatory Decision Process: Decisions applying the Precautionary Principle
must be transparent, participatory, and informed by the best available science and
other relevant information.



Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming
December 12, 2000
The "precautionary principle" says that when an activity may threaten human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken -- even if some cause and effect relations are not established
scientifically.
However, using this principle could increase risks to public health and the environment if it is only applied to
the potential harms, but not the possible consequences of the precautionary measures themselves.
For instance, requiring developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming
may retard economic growth, leading to greater hunger, poorer health and higher mortality.
And higher oil and gas prices could increase hunger and delay the switch from solid fuels to more
environmentally benign fuels for heating and cooking.
To ensure that policies do not create greater harm than the harm avoided, say experts, we need some criteria to
evaluate potential threats. Thus,
Threats to human health, especially the threat of death, should take precedence over threats to the
environment.
More immediate threats should be given priority over threats that could occur later.
Threats of harm that have a higher certainty should take precedence over those that are less certain.
For threats that are equally certain, more weight should be given to those that have a higher expected cost --
which might be measured in expected deaths or lost biodiversity, for instance.
If the technology is available to adapt to the adverse consequences of a policy, the harm can be discounted to
that extent.
Irreversible or persistent potential harms should be given greater priority over temporary or reversible ones.
When applied to global warming, these criteria indicate we should focus on solving current problems that may
be aggravated by climate change, and on increasing society's adaptability and decreasing its vulnerability to
environmental problems.
Source: Indur M. Goklany, "Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming," Policy Study Number
158, November 2000, Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University, Campus Box 1027,
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Mo., 63130, (314) 935-5630.