The Precautionary Principle for Environmental Management: A Defensive-expenditure Application

The Precautionary Principle has emerged in response to the need for an effective method for dealing with risks and uncertainties in environmental management. In essence, the Principle requires action to prevent serious and irreversible damage even before harm can be scientifically demonstrated or economically assessed. Proponents argue that the Principle should be applied in situations where both the probability and value of irreversible damage are unknown. The lack of these particular data prevent a full cost–benefit analysis, but permit application of the Principle through the defensive-expenditure approach. How much would the community be required to pay to fund alternatives to maintain the environment and so defend existing levels of utility? Through the application of risk analysis and the stochastic dominance technique, a range of options and outcomes can be examined incorporating the using available information within a framework consistent with economic rationality. An extended risk simulation is applied to an environmental issue where there is a risk of serious and irreversible damage to the environment, namely, protection of the Barmah-Millewa forest-wetland in Australia.     

Fitness Landscapes and the Precautionary Principle: The Geometry of Environmental Risk

The Precautionary Principle is a legal mechanism for managing the environmental risk arising from incomplete scientific knowledge of a proposal's impacts. The Precautionary Principle is applied to actions that carry with them the potential for serious or irreversible environmental change. The model proposed in this paper draws on methods used in a range of disciplines for modeling (potentially highly nonlinear) interactions between multiple parts of a complex system. These methods have been drawn together under the common mathematical umbrella of Fitness Landscape Theory. It is argued that the model, called “Environmental Impact Fitness Landscapes,” allows statements about the sensitivity of the gross effect from a set of impacts to be made when the number of impacts in the set, and/or their degree of interaction, is varied. It is argued that this can be achieved through identification of “meta” or “emergent” properties of the set itself, without reference to the specific causal chains determining behavior in specific instances. While such properties are very general, they may at least allow for the parameterization of the effects of sets of impacts where interactions are highly uncertain and empirical data severely limited, i.e., situations that would typically invoke the Precautionary Principle.     

Between Precautionary Principle and “Sound Science”: Distributing the Burdens of Proof

Opponents of biotechnology ofteninvoke the Precautionary Principle to advancetheir cause, whereas biotech enthusiasts preferto appeal to ``sound science.' Publicauthorities are still groping for a usefuldefinition. A crucial issue in this debate isthe distribution of the burden of proof amongthe parties favoring and opposing certaintechnological developments. Indeed, the debateon the significance and scope of thePrecautionary Principle can be fruitfullyre-framed as a debate on the proper division ofburdens of proof. In this article, we attemptto arrive at a more refined way of thinkingabout this problem in order to escape from theexisting polarization of views between ``guiltyuntil proven innocent' and ``innocent untilproven guilty.' This way of thinking alsoenables a critical review of currentdemarcations between risk assessment and riskmanagement, or science and politics, and of themorally laden controversy on the relativeimportance of type-I and type-II errors instatistical testing.     

GM Crops: Patently Wrong?

This paper focuses on the ethical justifiability of patents on Genetically Modified (GM) crops. I argue that there are three distinguishing features of GM crops that make it unethical to grant patents on GM crops, even if we assume that the patent system is in general justified. The first half of the paper critiques David Resnik’s recent arguments in favor of patents on GM crops. Resnik argues that we should take a consequentialist approach to the issue, and that the best way to do so is to apply the Precautionary Principle, and that the Precautionary Principle, in this case, supports patents on GM crops. I argue that his argument in favor of a consequentialist treatment is invalid; his Precautionary Principle in any case appears to be incompatible with consequentialism; and his conception of reasonable precautions is too ill-defined to have any argumentative purchase. In the second half of the paper, I argue against GM crop patents, on three grounds. First, there is insufficient evidence to say whether allowing patents on GM crops will make research go faster than not having patents, whilst there is a good reason to think that, other things being equal, a society that allows patents on GM crops will be less just than one that does not. Second, even assuming that patents on GM crops will increase the pace of GM crop research, there is no social need to do so. Third, patents on GM crops will frequently have ethically unacceptable side effects.     

The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release

Commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have sparked profound controversies concerning adequate approaches to risk regulation. Scientific uncertainty and ambiguity, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessmentshave become apparent. The objective of this article is to discuss the policy and practical implementation of the Precautionary Principle. A major conclusion is that the void in scientific understanding concerning risks posed by secondary effects and the complexity ofcause-effect relations warrant further research. Initiatives to approach the acceptance or rejection of a number of risk-associated hypotheses is badly needed. Further, since scientific advice plays a key role in GMOregulations, scientists have a responsibility to address and communicate uncertainty to policy makers and the public. Hence, the acceptance of uncertainty is not only a scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves an ethical dimension.     

Precaution and the Methodological Status of Scientific (Un)certainty

An effective application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP) hinges on thestipulation that, ``a lack of scientificcertainty shall not be used as a reason forpostponing measures.' The practicalconsequences of this expression are presentlynot clear enough in most contexts of use toenable constructive communication and thereforethe PP is not sufficiently operational now. Apragmatic and fundamental methodology forunderstanding scientific (un)certainty indifferent practical contexts needs to be put inplace to create a communicative basis foreffective precaution. Lack of clarity aboutproblem definition and problem ownershipcreates artificial controversies that willobstruct a precautionary approach. Given thefact that different practical contexts ofscientific (un)certainty exist, it may seemfrom one context as if no precaution iswarranted whereas concerns from anotherrelevant context may suggest otherwise.Therefore, an integrative methodologicalframework for communicating about scientific(un)certainty is sorely needed in internationalpolicy-making. By putting a focus on therelevance of specified research questions forthe objective of taking precaution, acommunicative methodology may be adopted thatis dedicated to the design properties of asustainable future. Precaution cannot beoperationalized without a methodological basisthat allows for effective transparency andevades the stalemates of artificialcontroversy. Existing debate methodologies haveso far not managed to accommodate thesepressing demands.     

Putting Precaution to Debate – about the Precautionary Principle and Participatory Technology Assessment

Technology assessment (TA) as aninstitution was introduced nearly thirty yearsago as an instrument to render possible themaking of responsible decisions concerning newtechnological options. Another recentdevelopment however has been the introductionof participatory technology assessment (pTA),mainly connected to the growing insight thatthe evaluation of technological options withrespect to their risks and benefits, is not –only – a scientific question. This paper willfocus on the questions, to what degree theideas of technology assessment and thePrecautionary Principle are connected and how.Without naming it explicitly, the PrecautionaryPrinciple is put to debate in the``TA-arrangement on the cultivation oftransgenic herbicide resistant crops,'organized by the Science Centre, Berlin. Fromthe perspective of ethical clarification, someunique features concerning theconceptualization of the discoursive procedureand reconstruction of the argumentation processin order to come to results have to beanalyzed. Finally the performance and resultsof the pTA-arrangement are reflected in thelight of the Precautionary Principle andconclusions are drawn.     

A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science

The commercial introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has revealed a broad range of views among scientists and other stakeholders on perspectives of genetic engineering (GE) and if and how GMOs should be regulated. Within this controversy, the precautionary principle has become a contentious issue with high support from skeptical groups but resisted by GMO advocates. How to handle lack of scientific understanding and scientific disagreement are core issues within these debates. This article examines some of the key issues affecting precaution as a legal standard and as an approach to the use of science in decision-making processes. It is pointed out that there is a need for reflection over the level of scientific evidence required for applying the precautionary principle as well as who should have the burden of proof when there are uncertainties. Further, an awareness of the broader scientific uncertainties found in GMO risk assessment implies that a precautionary approach must be elaborated: both for acknowledging uncertainties and for identification of scientific responses. Since precaution is an important issue within the sustainable development framework, it is suggested that sustainability can provide a normative standard that can help to reveal the influence and negotiate the importance of the various forms of uncertainty. Wise management of uncertainties and inclusion of normative aspects in risk assessment and management may help to ensure sustainable and socially robust GMO innovations at present and in the future.     

The Introduction of the Precautionary Principle in Danish Environmental Policy: The Case of Plant Growth Retardants

In this paper, we investigate the Precautionary Principle (PP) in action. Precaution is a fairly new concept in environmental policy. It emerged back in the 1960s but did not consolidate until the 1980s, as it formed part of the major changes taking place in environmental policies at that time. The PP is examined in three contexts. Firstly, we look at the meaning of the concept and how it is disseminated through the media and public discourses to the political arenas of Denmark. Then we examine how the idea is adopted to the political level. Thirdly, we look briefly at the first Danish translation of the principle into a practical context, which includes translations into concrete scientific practices. It is concluded that if the PP shall be more than a simple “idea” or a frequently used “term,” emphasis must be put on the transformation of the concept into concrete practices, like e.g., the alternative testing regimes that we show in the case of plant growth-retarding pesticides presented in this paper.     

Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: Precautionary Science and Conflicts of Interests

Risk governance of GM plants and GMfood products is presently subject to heatedscientific and public controversies. Scientistsand representatives of the biotechnologyindustry have dominated debates concerningsafety issues. The public is suspicious withregard to the motives of scientists, companies,and political institutions involved. Thedilemmas posed are nested, embracing valuequestions, scientific uncertainty, andcontextual issues. The obvious lack of data andinsufficient information concerning ecologicaleffects call for application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP). There are,however, divergent opinions among scientistsabout the relevance of putative hazards,definition of potential ``adverse effects,' andwhether actions should be taken to preventharm. The reliance on the concept ofsubstantial equivalence in safety evaluation ofGM food is equally controversial. Consequently,value assumptions embedded in a scientificframework may be a barrier for employment ofthe PP. One of our major conclusions is thatprecautionary GMP usage requires riskassessment criteria yet undeveloped, as well asbroader and more long-term conceptions of risk,uncertainty, and ignorance. Conflicts ofinterest and public participation are otherissues that need to be taken intoconsideration. GMP governance regimes that arejustifiable from a precautionary and ethicalpoint of view must transcend traditionalscientific boundaries to include alternativescientific perspectives as well as publicinvolvement.     

Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning

The exploitation of shale gas resources is a significant issue of environmental justice. Uneven distributions of risks and social impacts to local site communities must be balanced against the economic benefits to gas users and developers; and unequal decision-making powers must be negotiated between local and central governments, communities and fracking site developers. These distributive and procedural elements are addressed in relation to UK policy, planning, regulatory and industry development. I adopt an explicitly normative framework of policy evaluation, addressing a research gap on the ethics of shale gas by operationalising Shrader-Frechette’s Principle of Prima Facie Political Equality. I conclude that UK fracking policy reveals inherent contradictions of environmental justice in relation to the Conservative Government’s localist and planning reform agendas. Early fracking policy protected communities from harm in the wake of seismic risk events, but these were quickly replaced with pro-industry economic stimulation and planning legislation that curtailed community empowerment in fracking decision-making, increased environmental risks to communities, transferred powers from local to central government and created the conditions of distributive injustices in the management of community benefit provisions. I argue that only by “re-localising” the scale of fracking governance can political equality be ensured and the distributive and procedural environmental injustices be ameliorated.     

Beyond the Prevention of Harm: Animal Disease Policy as a Moral Question

European animal disease policy seems to find its justification in a “harm to other” principle. Limiting the freedom of animal keepers—e.g., by culling their animals—is justified by the aim to prevent harm, i.e., the spreading of the disease. The picture, however, is more complicated. Both during the control of outbreaks and in the prevention of notifiable, animal diseases the government is confronted with conflicting claims of stakeholders who anticipate running a risk to be harmed by each other, and who ask for government intervention. In this paper, we first argue that in a policy that aims to prevent animal diseases, the focus shifts from limiting “harm” to weighing conflicting claims with respect to “risks of harm.” Therefore, we claim that the harm principle is no longer a sufficient justification for governmental intervention in animal disease prevention. A policy that has to deal with and distribute conflicting risks of harm needs additional value assumptions that guide this process of assessment and distribution. We show that currently, policies are based on assumptions that are mainly economic considerations. In order to show the limitations of these considerations, we use the interests and position of keepers of backyard animals as an example. Based on the problems they faced during and after the recent outbreaks, we defend the thesis that in order to develop a sustainable animal disease policy other than economic assumptions need to be taken into account.     

Novel Foods and Consumer Rights: Concerning Food Policy in a Liberal State

In the public debate concerning novel foods, someconsumer groups claim a consumer right to have accessto certain kinds of food in the market. To discusssuch statements, the paper identifies the reasons thatmay justify liberal states to regulate food. Althoughit defends certain paternalistic activities, itfavours an autonomy-centred food policy. Autonomy andconsumer sovereignty require that certain conditionsare fulfilled. It may be argued that one suchcondition is that the consumer should have choices.Against this position, the paper defends the view thatliberty rights to choose are limited to areas whichare of great importance for personal identity and thegood life. Local decisions in the area of foodconsumption do not have such importance, though globalones may have it. But even if this were true,government activity to protect such liberties shouldbe limited to the guarantee of formal conditions forthe good life of persons. It is not a legitimate taskof the government to safeguard specific conceptions ofthe good life.     

“Conflict over Risks in Food Production: A Challenge for Democracy”

When it comes to conflict over risk management priorities in food production, a number of observers, including myself, have called for some sort of public deliberation as a means of resolving the moral disagreements underlying such conflicts. This paper asks how, precisely, such deliberation might be facilitated. It is shown that representative democracy and the liberal regulation that most Western democracies adhere to place important constraints on public deliberation. The challenge is to find forums for public deliberation that can operate within these constraints while still making a constructive contribution.     

The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food

It is suggested that the Harm Principle can be viewedas the moral basis on which genetically modified (GM) food iscurrently regulated. It is then argued (a) that the concept ofharm cannot be specified in such a manner as to render the HarmPrinciple a plausible political principle, so this principlecannot be used to justify existing regulation; and (b) that evenif the Harm Principle were a plausible political principle, itcould not be used alone in the regulation of GM food, since itdoes not express a concern for the expected benefits of suchfood.     

论预防性环境民事公益诉讼中"重大风险"的司法认定

针对"具有损害社会公共利益重大风险的污染环境、破坏生态行为"提起的民事公益诉讼是为预防性环境民事公益诉讼,有助于将预防为主环保原则落实于诉讼程序.但在司法实践中,作为核心要素的"重大风险"仍存在内涵模糊、认定主体错位、认定路径不清等认定困境.为此,应逐一做以下完善:通过界定基础对象和划定程度要求,进而明确内涵;矫正认定主体,澄清法院是唯一决定性认定主体,但同时为行政机关和专家辅助认定设计制度渠道;最后,还应适宜地构建具体认定路径.     

Deepening A Precautionary European Policy

In regulatory practice, the principle of precaution is hardly linked to the ideal of sustainable development. In this article, we argue that it should be. We argue that sustainable development is the sense of an ethics of co-responsibility, while precaution is the attitude needed to realize this sense. From this perspective, we comment on some regulatory practices within the European context regarding authorization requests for deliberate releases of genetically modified crops and show some problems that are popping up there, for example, the difficulties in interpreting the meaning of harm” (and of benefit”), the symptomatic gap between regulatory rule and political practice. Finally, we suggest that, in order to respond to such problems, precaution should find an appropriate translation in the fields of both research and innovation policy, of authorization policy and of economic policy.     

西湖和东苕溪沉积物重金属化学形态分析

不同赋存形态重金属的环境行为和生态效应不同,水体沉积物中重金属的迁移转化及其潜在环境危害更大程度上取决于其赋存形态。本研究在西湖和东苕溪设置12个采样点采集沉积物样品,采用改进BCR分步提取法,提取了重金属污染物的4种化学形态,分别为弱酸提取态、可还原态、可氧化态及残渣态。结果表明:沉积物中Cd以弱酸提取态为主,对外界环境的变化极其敏感,并易于发生迁移转化,生态风险较高。Cu离子对有机质表现出极强的亲和力导致Cu的可氧化态含量较高也有一定的生态风险。Pb会被Fe-Mn氧化物所吸附导致Pb的可还原态含量较高,存在较高的潜在生态危害。Mn的弱酸提取态、可还原态和残渣态含量都较高,在迁移的过程中变化地较快,能够逐渐降低Mn对自然环境的危害。其他各重金属(As、Cr、Zn)则都以残渣态为主,潜在危害较低。     

The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet

Based on his theory of animalrights, Regan concludes that humans are morallyobligated to consume a vegetarian or vegandiet. When it was pointed out to him that evena vegan diet results in the loss of manyanimals of the field, he said that while thatmay be true, we are still obligated to consumea vegetarian/vegan diet because in total itwould cause the least harm to animals (LeastHarm Principle, or LHP) as compared to currentagriculture. But is that conclusion valid? Isit possible that some other agriculturalproduction alternatives may result in leastharm to animals? An examination of thisquestion shows that the LHP may actually bebetter served using food production systemsthat include both plant-based agriculture and aforage-ruminant-based agriculture as comparedto a strict plant-based (vegan) system. Perhapswe are morally obligated to consume a dietcontaining both plants and ruminant(particularly cattle) animal products.     

How Should Death Be Taken into Account in Welfare Assessments?

That death is not a welfare issue appears to be a widespread view among animal welfare researchers. This paper demonstrates that this view is based on a mistaken assumption about harm, which is coupled to ‘welfare’ being conceived as ‘welfare at a time’. Assessments of welfare at a time ignore issues of longevity. In order to assess the welfare issue of death, it is necessary to structure welfare assessment as comparisons of possible lives of the animals. The paper also demonstrates that excluding the welfare issues of being deprived of life from the ethical assessment of killing distorts the ethical considerations.