Rachel's Precaution Reporter #101
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
From: International Center for Technology Assessment ......[This story printer-friendly]
July 31, 2007
URGENT CALL FOR STRONG OVERSIGHT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
[Rachel's introduction: An international coalition of non- governmental organizations has just published a set of principles to guide the development of nanotechnology in a precautionary fashion. Other sign-ons are welcome.]
Washington, DC -- With the joint release today of Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, a broad international coalition of consumer, public health, environmental, labor, and civil society organizations spanning six continents called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products.
The manufacture of products using nanotechnology -- a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order to alter properties -- has exploded in recent years. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials may pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed.
As Chee Yoke Ling of the Third World Network explained, "Materials engineered at the nano-scale can exhibit fundamentally different properties -- including toxicity -- with unknown effects. Current research raises red flags that demand precautionary action and further study." She added, "As there are now hundreds of products containing nanomaterials in commerce, the public, workers, and the environment are being exposed to these unlabeled, and in most cases, untested materials."
George Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment continued, "Since there is currently no government oversight and no labeling requirements for nano-products anywhere in the world, no one knows when they are exposed to potential nanotech risks and no one is monitoring for potential health or environmental harm. That's why we believe oversight action based on our principles is urgent."
This industrial boom is creating a growing nano-workforce which is predicted to reach two million globally by 2015. "Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained, or control measures to be implemented," explained Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO. "This technology should not be rushed to market until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety."
"Nanomaterials are entering the environment during manufacture, use, and disposal of hundreds of products, even though we have no way to track the effects of this potent new form of pollution," agreed Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth. "By the time monitoring catches up to commerce, the damage will already have been done."
Ron Oswald, General Secretary of international trade union IUF, highlighted the importance of defending against the massive intrusion of nano-products into the global food chain, pointing out that "hundreds of commercially available products--from pesticides to additives to packaging materials incorporating nanotech--are already on the market or just a step away. Workers, consumers, and the environment must be adequately protected against the multiple risks this development poses to the global food system and the women and men who produce the food we all depend on."
"The makers of these materials are winning patents based on novelty and uniqueness, but industry then turns around and says their nano- products do not need to be regulated differently because they are the same as bulk materials," pointed out Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group, an international civil society organization based in Ottawa, Canada. "This contradiction benefits industry, but it cannot stand. Mandatory, nano-specific regulatory oversight measures are required."
"Although governments worldwide spent over $6 billion on nanotech R&D last year, research spending on risks and social effects comprises only a 'nano' portion of that," noted Rick Worthington of the Loka Institute an organization that promotes public participation in all matters related to science and technology. "We've seen the outcome of unregulated 'miracle technologies' such as synthetic chemicals before in the toxic pollution of entire communities. A portion of the nano research on social and environmental issues should involve active participation by communities, whose insights can help us avoid the catastrophic problems experienced in the past."
The coalition's declaration outlines eight fundamental principles necessary for adequate and effective oversight and assessment of the emerging field of nanotechnology.
I. A Precautionary Foundation: Product manufacturers and distributors must bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the safety of their products: if no independent health and safety data review, then no market approval.
II. Mandatory Nano-specific Regulations: Nanomaterials should be classified as new substances and subject to nano-specific oversight. Voluntary initiatives are not sufficient.
III. Health and Safety of the Public and Workers: The prevention of exposure to nanomaterials that have not been proven safe must be undertaken to protect the public and workers.
IV. Environmental Protection: A full lifecycle analysis of environmental impacts must be completed prior to commercialization.
V. Transparency: All nano-products must be labeled and safety data made publicly available.
VI. Public Participation: There must be open, meaningful, and full public participation at every level.
VII. Inclusion of Broader Impacts: Nanotechnologys wide-ranging effects, including ethical and social impacts, must be considered.
VIII. Manufacturer Liability: Nano-industries must be accountable for liabilities incurred from their products.
"We're calling upon all governmental bodies, policymakers, industries, organizations, and all other relevant actors to endorse and take actions to incorporate these principles," said Beth Burrows of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization dedicated to education about environment, technology, and intellectual property rights. "As new technologies emerge we need to ensure new materials and their applications are benign and contribute to a healthy and socially just world. Given our past mistakes with 'wonder technologies' like pesticides, asbestos, and ozone depleting chemicals, the rapid commercialization of nanomaterials without full testing or oversight is shocking. It is no surprise that the public of the 21st century is demanding more accountability."
The complete document is available at numerous endorsing organizations websites, including www.icta.org.
The initial endorsing organizations are:
Accion Ecologica (Ecuador)
African Centre for Biosafety
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (U.S.)
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union
Beyond Pesticides (U.S.)
Biological Farmers of Australia
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Center for Biological Diversity (U.S.)
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (U.S.)
Center for Food Safety (U.S.)
Center for Environmental Health (U.S.)
Center for Genetics and Society (U.S.)
Center for the Study of Responsive Law (U.S.)
Clean Production Action (Canada)
Ecological Club Eremurus (Russia)
EcoNexus (United Kingdom)
Edmonds Institute (U.S.)
Environmental Research Foundation (U.S.)
Essential Action (U.S.)
ETC Group (Canada)
Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security (India)
Friends of the Earth Australia
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth United States
GeneEthics (Australia)
Greenpeace (U.S.)
Health and Environment Alliance (Belgium)
India Institute for Critical Action-Centre in Movement
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (U.S.)
Institute for Sustainable Development (Ethiopia)
International Center for Technology Assessment (U.S.)
International Society of Doctors for the Environment (Austria)
International Trade Union Confederation
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations
Loka Institute (U.S.)
National Toxics Network (Australia)
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (U.S.)
Science and Environmental Health Network (U.S.)
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (U.S.)
Tebtebba Foundation -- Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Philippines)
The Soils Association (United Kingdom)
Third World Network (China)
United Steelworkers (U.S.)
Vivagora (France)
Visit our sister organization, The Center for Food Safety.
Copyright 2007 International Center for Technology Assessment. Privacy Policy Site Map
Press Contacts:
George Kimbrell, ICTA (202) 547-9359, gkimbrell@icta.org; Bill Kojola, AFL-CIO, (202)-637-5003, bkojola@aflcio.org; Peter Rossman, IUF, +41 22 793 2233, peter.rossman@iuf.org; Ian Illuminato, Friends of the Earth U.S., (202)- 222-0735, IIlluminato@foe.org; Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group, (613) 241-2267 etc@etcgroup.org; Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network, +6012 3768858, yokeling@myjaring.net; Rick Worthington, Loka Institute, (909) 607-3529, RKW14747@pomona.edu
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Asbury Park Press (Neptune, N.J.) (pg. B1) .........[This story printer-friendly]
December 7, 2006
PESTICIDE-FREE PARKS LEAD TO SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS
[Rachel's introduction: Across the country, people are realizing that they can take precautionary action to reduce their children's exposure to chemical pesticides. It means persuading your parks department to adopt new habits and it's happening widely now. Here's one example.]
By Alison Herget, Keyport Bureau
Parents bringing their children to township park playground areas now may feel a bit safer knowing those grounds are pesticide-free.
An integrated pest management policy recently adopted by the Township Committee allows for playground areas in the township's nine parks to be managed without chemical pesticides.
Hazlet is joining an increasing number of municipalities in the state that have such a policy, including Wall and Brick, according to Jane Nogaki, pesticide program coordinator for the Belmar-based New Jersey Environmental Federation.
Nogaki said the federation started a campaign in March to get as many towns as possible to designate pesticide-free zones in parks. Some counties have even opted to join in. Burlington county has designated pesticide-free zones in its parks, she said.
Hazlet mom Rhonda Soviero, 38, who brings her two sons -- ages 3 and 7 -- to Veterans Memorial Park weekly said she likes the new policy in her municipality.
Now that the playground property is pesti-cide-free, she feels more comfortable letting her sons play. She also said managing areas without pesticides is a good idea not only for the children, but for the wildlife.
Mayor Michael C. Sachs said the township adopted the plan for safety reasons.
Nogaki said studies have measured low levels of pesticides in children in their blood and urine.
"We don't really know what the consequences are," she said. "But knowing that by nature pesticides are toxic substances designed to kill living organisms it's not really the best thing to have in our drinking water or in the bodies of our kids.' "
She said the chemicals easily get on skin, clothes and shoes, and can be tracked indoors to contaminate furniture and carpets. There are several benefits to using pesticide-free methods, she said.
"Using natural methods and avoiding pesticides preserves the beneficial organisms that can maintain healthy grass and plants naturally," she said.
Using a good-quality organic fertilizer, mowing grass at 2 to 3 inches high to decrease weed growth and watering infrequently are natural ways pests can be controlled without using chemicals, she said.
Not using chemical pesticides creates a healthier lawn and avoids the issue of pesticide-runoff, which can lead to contaminated drinking water, she said.
The environmental federation's goal is to get homeowners to follow suit.
"We're hoping there's a take-home message with this," she said. "If people see this being done in parks, hopefully they will want to go pesticide-free at their homes."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Metaphor Project ...............................[This story printer-friendly]
July 31, 2007
THE GOAL: AN ECOCIDE-FREE ECONOMY
[Rachel's introduction: Ecocide is unfolding all around us. The tragedy is that none of this ecocidal activity is really necessary. We already know how to create an ecologically sound economy based on products and processes in harmony with natural law.]
By Susan C. Strong, Ph.D.
Right now there's a lot of serious talk about being carbon-free (see http://www.AlGore.com). The idea of shrinking our ecological footprint down to something our planet can handle is also gaining ground in government and business circles worldwide (see http://www.globalfootprintnetwork.org).
"Greening the economy" and "green tech" are being boosted too these days. But there's a make or break big goal that includes and goes beyond all these vital efforts -- getting to an ecocide-free global economy. That would be an entire economy operating in harmony with natural processes, providing only new kinds of goods and services that are created, used, and recycled in ways that stay in step with what our ecosystems and bodies (our personal ecosystems) can process in a normal way. To get there, we need to name and embrace this big, all- inclusive goal now.
I know -- getting our carbon emissions down to something that can hold the line on the climate crisis, plus greatly reducing the quantities of Earth resources we use and waste may already seem like huge, nearly impossible goals for our scrappy species. So why do we have to take on something that seems vastly more complicated and really, really out of reach?
Just what is ecocide? It's the destruction of an ecosystem (or the biosphere) as the result of human activities. That includes pollution of all kinds (or too much carbon or nitrogen), using up other natural resources, wasting and dumping more than the biosphere can recycle, much conventional industrial processing, plus preparing for and making war, among a host of other sources.
Today, ecocide is unfolding all around us and inside us too. Human "body burden" testing (via biomonitoring) shows we are increasingly carrying around a stew of unnatural substances in our own bodies from pollution of our water, air, soil, food, clothing, utensils, and even soap. See: http://www.bodyburden.org/, Environmental Working Group: http://www.ewg.org/, and Pesticide Action Network: http://www.panna.org/ for more information.)
The tragedy is that none of this ecocidal activity is really necessary. We already know how to create an ecologically sound economy based on products and processes in harmony with natural law -- the work of Janine Benyus, author of Biomimicry, shows the way, along with the myriad other pioneering experts whose work can be tapped via the Bioneers website: http://www.bioneers.org There's honest money to be made and new kinds of jobs to be created too, and not a moment to lose. Although economic change this big gets resisted hard by all those benefiting from business as usual, we won't get where we need to go without setting ourselves the biggest goal-an ecocide-free global economy made up of many local, regional, and national ecocide-free economies, all applying a "precautionary principle" to everything they do See: http://www.earthethics.com/precautionary_principle.htm.
Of course, to get this "ecocide-free economy campaign" rolling it would really be great to have an "Al Gore" type leader -- a political/media star. But a good resource to start people talking about the whole ecocide issue is a recent documentary called The Beloved Community, about the impact of the petroleum industry on citizen health in a town called Sarnia on the U.S.-Canadian border: http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0196 Step 2 is starting a big push for more human biomonitoring and body burden testing everywhere. In the meantime, we can keep on voting with our dollars and notifying firms that we are doing it because we want that ecocide- free economy!
==============
Susan C. Strong, Ph.D. is the founder and executive director of The Metaphor Project, http://www.metaphorproject.org; the Project helps progressive activists mainstream their messages about sustainability, peace, and justice.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Nutraingredients.com ................................[This story printer-friendly]
July 30, 2007
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE LEFT OUT BY CODEX
[Rachel's introduction: Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and other giant food, chemical, and biotechnology corporations, aided by the U.S. Treasury, State Department, and Department of Agriculture have won a major victory, keeping the precautionary principle out of international food standards.]
By Alex McNally
[Rachel's introduction: Codex Alimentarius, or Codex for short, is an agency of the World Health Organization, set up in 1963 to develop international food safety standards and to standardize (or "harmonize") the food standards of various national governments. For the past six months a ferocious debate has been going on within Codex over adoption of the precautionary principle. Can a national government protect its people by taking precautionary action to set a food standard, or must it have internationally-agreed-upon scientific proof of harm before action can be taken? The European Union favored the precautionary approach. The U.S. government favored a requirement for scientific proof. The U.S. won the debate. This is a major victory for Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and other giant food, chemical, and biotechnology corporations.]
Codex has agreed to exclude the controversial precautionary principle in its risk analysis standards, marking the end of a long battle between the EU and trade groups.
The final decision was made at the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting in Rome this month when the 'Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments' was finally adopted, excluding the precautionary principle.
The controversial plan would have allowed governments to take certain preventative measures for foods in cases where scientific evidence on the safety of the food is uncertain, but were seen by many governments and organisations as a tool to create unjustified trade barriers.
The principle, which has already been formally established by the European Commission (EC/178/2002), granted food risk managers the ability to take measures to protect health if they feared an unacceptable level of health risk exists. These measures ranged from a total ban on the substance, to food manufacturer's being ordered to carry out further safety tests.
The International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations (IADSA) and the US Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN USA) both feared the precautionary principle would create unfair trading opportunities around the globe if it was adopted.
It was omitted from the set of principles for risk analysis adopted by Codex in 2003. However, since then a number of countries have tried to introduce it into Codex texts, to no avail.
David Pineda, IADSA's manager of regulatory affairs, said: "Despite the numerous attempts to introduce this principle into the text, there has again been sufficient resistance from both governmental and non- governmental organisations to prevent it from happening."
Pineda added that consumers were not being put at risk by the exclusion of the precautionary principle.
He told NutraIngredients.com this morning: "Scientific evaluations are carried out when there are justified doubts about the safety of a food product and therefore there are systems in place to protect the health of the consumers. However, the use of the precautionary principle is often abusive in cases where there is no scientific proof of the unsafety of a food product.
"It is encouraging for the dietary/food supplement associations that this principle is not adopted by Codex and therefore not being applied worldwide."
There have been three unsuccessful attempts by the EU and other countries to include the principle in key Codex documents.
In April, the full Codex Committee of General Principles (CCGP) debated the new draft and, after rallying of both government and non- governmental organisations -- notably the CRN [Council for Responsible Nutrition] USA -- agreed to omit the precautionary principle.
Copyright 2000/2007 -- Decision News Media SAS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Malta Star ..........................................[This story printer-friendly]
July 28, 2007
EUROPE NOT HUNGRY FOR GM POTATOES
[Rachel's introduction: The European Union (EU) has rejected a proposal to allow a new genetically modified potato to be grown in Europe. The recent decision to exclude precaution from Codex Alimentarius may make it more difficult for the EU to sustain its precautionary stance toward genetically modified organisms -- which of course was the point of excluding precaution from Codex.]
Friends of the Earth Malta [FoE Malta] welcomed EU [European Union] member states' rejection of the latest application to grow GMOs [genetically modified organisms] in Europe, as the EU Agriculture Council has failed to approve the commercial growing of a genetically modified potato.
There have now been no new GMOs grown in the EU for ten years. Today's vote was on an application to grow the genetically modified potato for use in industrial processes like making paper. The producer -- German chemicals giant BASF -- has also applied for approval to use the same potato in food and animal feed and acknowledges that contamination of the food chain is possible.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave the GM potato the green light, but has been criticised for overlooking several important health and environmental risks:
1. Antibiotic resistance marker gene: the potato contains a gene, which can convey resistance to antibiotics. Under EU law, the end of 2004 should have phased out genes of this kind. EFSA acknowledges that the cultivation of this potato could lead to antibiotic resistance, yet argued that this did not pose a "relevant" risk to human health or to the environment.
2. The risk assessment, required under EU law, fails to fulfil legal requirements. Basic information on the health and environmental safety of the GM potato is missing; in particular there is only an analysis of effects of surrounding wildlife on the potato, rather than looking at the impact of the GM potato on the environment.
3. Effects on health have not been sufficiently investigated. A number of irregularities, including toxicological differences that could have serious implications for food safety, have simply not been probed either by BASF or by EFSA. BASF admits that food contamination is likely: the potato has been genetically modified by the chemical giant BASF to increase its amylopectin content, which is used to produce starch. Although it is not intended to enter the food chain, BASF have issued a separate application for use in human food and animal feed, stating that "it cannot be excluded that amylopectin potato, may be used as or may be present in food".
The risk of contaminating future crops is ignored. As they grow underground, it is virtually impossible to harvest all potatoes from a crop. Potatoes therefore grow back the following years and future crops could be contaminated with the genetically modified variant.
The big GMO companies claim that using genetically modified potatoes in industrial processes is an environmentally friendly option, but this is absurd considering the associated health and environmental risks
There is also a strong evidence to indicate the danger of GMOs. Many of the studies made so far have pointed out the risks of growing and consuming GMO products. Yet, in most cases, companies would not be liable for any environmental, consumer health or economic damage resulting from GMOs.
FoE (Malta) is grateful to those who put the safety of European citizens and their environment before the financial interests of biotech giants. FoE (Malta) also commends the Maltese Government for wisely applying the precautionary principle, and will hopefully continue to do so, especially on such a sensitive issue.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Times Online (London, UK) .......................[This story printer-friendly]
July 27, 2007
ONLY A RECKLESS MIND COULD BELIEVE IN SAFETY FIRST
[Rachel's introduction: You'll enjoy this attack on the precautionary principle because it's more carefully crafted than most, though ultimately it's as baseless and silly as all the other attacks on precaution that we have published.]
By Jamie Whyte
[Rachel's introduction: This attack on the precautionary principle may sound plausible to some people at first, but it is not. The argument breaks down because the author concludes that, when the outcomes of a decision are unknown, we cannot take precautionary action. Obviously this is false -- precautionary action can be as simple as "Try to learn more before deciding," or "Favor a decision that is reversible in case it turns out that you're wrong." There is ALWAYS a way to take sensible precautionary action if you have reasonable suspicion that harm is occurring or is about to occur. On the web you can find some intelligent responses (as well as some dumb ones) to this simple- minded and wrongheaded attack on precaution. --RPR Editors]
Worrying was considered foolish when I was growing up in New Zealand. Let your fretting show and you received the classic Kiwi response: "She'll be right, mate." When in doubt, just press on and set your mind at ease.
Times have changed. You never hear "she'll be right" these days, except said ironically. And this new pessimism is not restricted to New Zealand. Across the West, the "she'll be right" principle has been replaced by the so-called precautionary principle. When in doubt, stop and divert your efforts towards minimising the risks.
Indeed, precaution is now explicitly endorsed by the UN, the EU and Tony Blair, who has claimed that "responsible science and responsible policymaking operate on the precautionary principle". From the genetic modification of crops to speed limits for trains to carbon dioxide emissions, the right policy is claimed to be the careful one.
Yet the precautionary principle is not really a maxim of good policy. In fact, it is meaningless. It can provide no guidance when making difficult decisions. Those who invoke it in support of their favoured policies do not display their prudence; they reveal groundless biases.
To understand the precautionary principle and its foolishness, we must first distinguish between what economists call "risk" and what they call "uncertainty". An outcome is risky when it is not guaranteed but we know its probability. An outcome is uncertain when we do not even know its probability. That a tossed coin will land heads is thus a matter of risk, while the destruction of an ecosystem from the introduction of GM crops is a matter of uncertainty.
Making decisions under risk presents no problem for which the precautionary principle could provide a solution. Suppose that, in return for an annual premium of £1, someone promises to pay you £1 million if you are abducted by aliens (such insurance exists). You should pay up if your chance of being abducted is greater than one in a million because then the policy is worth more than $1. The right decision can be determined from the numbers alone, with no help from caution, recklessness or any other attitude.
But suppose that, for all you know, the chance of being abducted could be well under one in a million or well over. What should you do? You lack the information required to know if the insurance is a good deal. It is in such situations of uncertainty that the precautionary principle is supposed to apply.
What does the principle tell you to do? Those who advocate precaution typically favour incurring costs now to reduce the chance of incurring greater costs in the future. That is their reason for wanting to limit carbon emissions, ban GM crops and slaughter livestock with some unknown chance of contracting foot-and-mouth disease.
Applied to our insurance conundrum, this principle tells you to buy the ticket. You should incur the £1 cost of the premium if there is any chance that it will save you from the greater cost of experiencing an uncompensated alien abduction. Whenever the prize is greater than the bet, and you do not know the odds, the principle says you should gamble. Bookmakers must dream of the day when punters bring such wisdom to the racetrack.
Better safe than sorry. This is the verity that the precautionary principle is supposed to bring to policymaking. But the difficult question is never whether it is better to be safe than sorry. Of course it is. The serious question is always which options are safe and which sorry.
The big lie behind the precautionary principle is the idea that we can identify safe options even when we are profoundly ignorant of the probable outcomes. It is nonsense to claim that betting or buying insurance is the safe option whenever you do not know the odds. And it is equally foolish to claim that slaughtering livestock is the safe option when you do not know by how much this will reduce the chance of an epidemic, or that banning GM crops is safe when you do not know its likely ecological effect.
For, as with insurance, such measures are costly. Those currently popular with the cautious lobby run into the billions and, in the case of limiting carbon emissions, perhaps the trillions. It is a strange kind of caution that recommends spending such sums when the chance of success is unknown.
Or, if it is crass to set mere monetary costs against risks to the environment or future generations, then consider the deaths such measures will cause. Banning GM crops, for example, will increase starvation in the third world. More generally, any serious economic cost will cause death because, among other things, less wealth means less nutrition and less healthcare. Economists have estimated that a life is lost for every £10 million of cost imposed by regulation. Sacrificing thousands of lives for uncertain gains takes a very particular notion of caution.
The precautionary principle is either uncalled for, because we know the relevant probabilities, or useless, because we do not know them and so cannot tell whether any policy is a safe or a sorry proposition. So we should hear no more of it. Not only does it lend bogus support to the policies it is fashionable, if arbitrary, to label precautionary. It also promotes the pernicious idea that ignorance is not a serious problem, that a wise policymaker can know that an action is right even when he does not know its likely effects.
Jamie Whyte is the author of Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::