Talk:Precautionary principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.
|
Contents |
[edit] Top
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: the principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects or side effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted. It has mainly been used to prohibit the importation and distribution of genetically modified organisms and food. The recent introduction of large numbers of products into the marketplace which utilize "nanoparticle" technologies before these products have been clinically tested for adverse effects could be held as a violation of the precautionary principle and therefore immoral. JB.
What is a NGO? Non Government Organization perhaps? Could someone spell out the acronym? Thanks. Wesley
It is probably just me but what does this mean:
"From the rule of abstention, according to three criteria: reference to zero damage necessity to avoid the worse situation necessity to include a shift in the burden of proof in dispute settlements proceedings This rule is usually considered unenforceable as, on one hand there may never be any absolute certainty, nor zero risk, and on the other hand, defining the best of many worse scenarios is a matter of controversy."
This is the central definition of the term but I can't make heads or tails of it. What is the "rule of abstention"? What is a worse scenario? (Maybe worst-case scenario?) Why is the precautionary principle never stated just talked about? I can see that it refers to zero damage, avoiding some kind of bad scenario, and shifting the burden of proof from some unstated party to another unstated party but I am not told what the principle is. Very confusing. Rmhermen 15:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Very deeply sorry Rmhermen. I probably should not have tried doing this one. Apologies if it is messy and not understandable. I tried my best then. If nothing good can be salvaged of it, just entirely rewrite it please. It was my first article ever here :-( User:anthere
- Perhpas you could rewrite it as I have no expertise on the subject and don't know what it is tring to say. Rmhermen 19:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Well...perhaps. But I found out it was a topic I knew not enough to explain it well then :-( Also, a lot of terminology that I am not familiar with in english. In short, that was tough. I might try again one day (I thought of improving the carthagena protocol...), but would be *very* happy if other people try also...User:anthere
-
'Supporters of the precautionary principle DO NOT concede that safe levels are possible, when ANY higher level EVER causes harm.'
I entirely disagree with you. Supporters of the precautionary principle definitely concede that low levels of risky substances can be safe. However, when nothing has been proved, say for instance in the case of mobile phone tower emissions, it might not be safe to have these things erected, for example, near hospitals or schools where volnerable sections of our populations are at potential risk everyday. As far as I understand it, the precautionary principle is all about basing your decisions on evidence, and when there is no evidence, err on the side of caution.
I have several problems with the last paragraph. a. "low levels of risky substances can be safe." Without any safety data, 1. how do you know they are 'risky' and 2. how do you know lower levels are safe? Under the precautionary principle, the statement is self defeating b. "might not be safe...where volnerable sections of our populations" Without any safety data, how do you know who is more vulnerable? Babies, young, addolecent, middle aged, elderly, male, female, pregnant, black, white? Who in the list is more vulnerable when each have their own medical issues. (Or more to the point, which of these groups will declare themselves to be in the less vulnerable group.) c. "when nothing has been proved, say for instance in the case of mobile phone tower emissions". 1. Plenty of tests have shown little or no effects, none have shown a definitive link to any definitve health effect. 2. Consider for the sake of argument that mobile phone tower emissions are actually safe. How exactly do you prove it is safe when there will be never be any proven direct links to health effects no matter how may tests or studies are done. So - what is acceptable proof? How much non-proof do you need before proof is established once and for all? d. "when there is no evidence, err on the side of caution" How far do you err? How much do you restrict? What is 'cautious' and what is 'reckless'?
There unfortunatly is only one 'safe' answer. "Ban it all - just in case!" and that is the legacy of the precautionary principle. That is why I agree with the previous statement 'Supporters of the precautionary principle DO NOT concede that safe levels are possible..'
[edit] Biased article
This entry looks to me like having been written by a strong defender of "wise use" etc. That starts at the very beginning:
Since when is "German Democratic Socialism" known as National Socialism or Nazism? Saying something like that is a gross offence to all Social Democrats who have suffered in Nazi Concentration Camps. And when you look up the entry "Democratic Socialism" you will see quickly that the "Social Democrats" have nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler and the Nazis!
This article seems very biased to me; its way of contrasting the concept of a free country with "the European style of thought" is merely insulting.
Contrast this article with the German article "Vorsorgeprinzip"; it is shorter, but contains more solid facts (on various uses of the principle, includes some interesting references) and no biased political ramblings.
Prospect77 Completely biased. Yep, I snipped the most blatant attempts to discredit the PP. If people disagree with the PP there is an extensive criticism section already, or also http://blogspot.com
[edit] Risk
- Re. risk theory -- the principle is a philosophy by which decisions are made when risk cannot be calculated. It is not part of standard risk theory.
"The essence of the principle is that when probabilities cannot be calculated with reasonable precision (i.e. it is a situation of uncertainty), then decisions that could potentially lead to great harm should be postponed or avoided." <-- this phrase is redundant with the first lines of the definition. (User:Emcee)
Emcee said: I'm finding your continual revision of the Precautionary Principle to be biased towards putting the principle in a wholly positive light and making it seem as if it has been around for centuries and is a widely accepted best practice. What I'm working for is to make the definition as neutral (and contemporary) as possible, while relegating more controversial interpretations and connections to the criticism or other sections.
You seem to want to link the precautionary principle to medical precepts and legal standards that actually are not related and also preceded the principle by thousands of years... quote:
"Methodologies related to the precautionary principle may also be found in medicine ("first, do no harm") and law (convict when guilt is shown "beyond a reasonable doubt")."
They have nothing to do with the precautionary principle. It is not being applied when pharmeceutical companies do clinical trials -- if you want to make this connection, show show significant documentation. It is not being applied in the courtroom either. If you want to say that it grew out of those philosphies, then do so in your "medicine and law" section, but not in the definition -- and again, provide some references for your theories. You cannot, however, say that doctors (including those working for pharmaceutical companies) or judges are applying the precautionary principle, because they are not.
Secondly, deleting the section on the active implementation of the precautionary principle is also incorrect. I provided documentation to the 6 principles that have been defined by various organizations as the core of the principle; they are defined by organizations that believe in the principle, so it's not perjorative. You say this in your edit summary:
"preventative anticipation" is a pointless neologism; it's nearly always interpretable as the standard PP)
Yet, when you delete it, the definition in the article only describes a passive interpretation of the principle -- only "it is better to avoid that action" and not it is better to take action now than be sorry later.
A couple of style points:
1.) many of your edits have had little or no edit summary (sometimes when they are significant deletions, additions, or revisions)
2.) I think it defeats the point of defining a term when you feel the need to insert pithy colloquialisms into the first line or two of a definition. We are trying to give the reader a balanced and nuanced view of a term that has a significant amount of controversy and divergence of
==
Emcee, let's both be more careful about our edits.
- You were right about the Hippocratic Oath, which led me to nail down the relationship with "first, do no harm". But I had to follow the footnote in the external link you gave to understand that (an external link which was also slightly broken).
- Proactionary Principle is a clear breach of Wikipedia rules. The fact that it wasn't deleted on vfd merely illustrates why there is a big debate about Wikipedia:Deletion reform. In the mean time, let's not compound the error by giving it the status of a "see also", a section meant for significant related topics, not neologisms.
- "Preventative anticipation" is a neologism, and we don't want those on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who coined or whether it's useful - which incidentally I don't think it is, it's just the result of woolly thinking in situations where the possibly harmful action is already ongoing. This situation should be explained better in the article, but not by introducing neologisms in the intro.
- You wrote various things denying any connection between the "precautionary principle" and its substance being applied in areas such as medicine and law. The philosophy underlying the principle has been around for centuries, and is embodied in medical and legal concepts. The concept has a wide range of interpretations and, does not require reference to the words "precautionary principle" for its substance to be applied.
- You also wrote "It is not being applied when pharmeceutical companies do clinical trials". Your statement is ambiguous; I'd said it was embodied in the policy of requiring clinical trials, which I think is fair. Again, reference to the phrase is not required for its substance to be applied.
The article still needs plenty of work, especially in application and criticism. I think "criticism" needs to disappear as a separate section - articles are always better when critical points are in the body of the article, not least since doing so often requires a better structure. Rd232 09:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to be clear about the burden (and standard) of proof of safety as the fundamental issue for the substance of PP. Discussion of difference between PP in context of possibly harmful action already ongoing, versus being planned, may also be helpful as it seems to confuse people. It may also clarify the clash of priorities/interests that is key to the debate about applying PP (eg trading off your profits vs risk to my child).Rd232 09:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Proactionary Principle is not a breach of Wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits (e.g. Google)." This principle has a ton of hits on Google, and was voted to stay. Until there's some "deletion reform" that changes this, you have to accept it.
Additionally, based on the way you are defining the Precautionary Principle, as a recently-created term to reword old terms and concepts, the Precautionary Principle itself is a neologism and shouldn't be in Wikipedia:
"A neologism is word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." (Wikipedia definition)
Deleting the reference to the Proactionary Principle is like trying to prevent readers from being aware of criticisms and contemporary context of the Principle. More info == good. If Wikipedia does not even delete this as a separately defined term, it's just plain wrong to delete it as a minor "see also" reference. If you disagree with this, let's seek arbitration.
You say: "The philosophy underlying the principle has been around for centuries, and is embodied in medical and legal concepts. The concept has a wide range of interpretations and, does not require reference to the words "precautionary principle" for its substance to be applied."
That's fine if you think that, but if you can't provide significant documentation showing a clear link of how the principle grew out of those traditions, then it shouldn't be included. This documentation does have to reference the term "Precautionary Principle," otherwise, this is your own original theory or research. There is a clear and significant difference between similar approaches in other fields, and an actual historical antecedent with clear relevance to the modern principle. We are trying to define the term "Precautionary Principle," and referring to similar ideas with no direct or causal relationship just muddies the waters.
Emcee 03:28, 28 August 2005 (PST)
[edit] changes to laws affecting societal norms
Before commenting on my inclusion of this subtopic, please go to my link on the decision. It is from my personal blog because the link to the full decision is in HTTP mode with no page numbers and I can not direct the reader to the opinion I am referencing. Sosman articulated the Precautionary principle quite specifically, almost to the point of making this very emotional decision seem bloodless. Note her analogy to a mechanical device in her opinion. Arodb 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, so be kind
- On my brief reading of your contribution, it seems reasonable (though I'm not familiar with the specific case). Economist John Quiggin has also discussed the broader use of the precautionary principle. --Robert Merkel 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thx to all, incl Arodb for the contribution! (How's that for kind...?). Several changes to "Change of laws" section:
- I removed some text that reads like it should be in talk, not the article:
- Same sex marriage, although a continuation of the gay rights movement that began in America in the 1960s, is arguably qualitatively different. This issue is so contentious that the ideal of exposition without a point of view NPOV is difficult to achieve. This issue has become so enmeshed in the “culture wars” between left and right, that the very words used, and the focus of the essay, almost invariably betray the writers bias.
- I removed Arodb's link because not only are blogs not proper sources to begin with, but the subtitle of this one reads,
- This is a blog of fiction, with a difference. These are public figures, whom I just tweak a bit. It makes me feel good, which has me a bit worried. But if our President can create his very own realty, with things going just great in Iraq, the ecomomy just dandy, in spite of structual deficits about to explode, then why can't I.
- This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia source. I agree re the accessibility problem with the original source (<http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/same-sex.htm>), so maybe someone can find a better one, but it's still superior for verification.
- I'm not attached to the exact wording, but i edited for simplicity. And for NPOV: "rare dispassionate consideration" is POV and arguably false, as is "ignored". In case anyone thinks they're true, since they're questionable and charged, they should be cited.
- Thx again; hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I inserted the link to the actual full decision, so people can read it, if they want to make the effort of finding it. Even though my blog was fictional, a version of alternative history, as you pointed out; the specific link was the actual transcript of her dissent, which I think makes it more valuable then the complete decision, but I won't argue the point. Hope the extra line, which is a brief summary of her precaution is acceptable. Arodb 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Precautionary principle and conservatism
- One observation that I'd make that's been widely discussed in the blogosphere is that the precautionary principle is really Burekean conservatism dressed up in modern language. Has anybody seen a non-blogosphere source that makes this point? --Robert Merkel 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Precautionary Principle (A logical fallacy)
The Precautionary Principle posits a proposed action and consequences arising from the proposed action that are not known with certainty or exact precision. The Precautionary Principle advocates that the burden of proof that the activity will not cause undue harm rests with the proponents of the activity.
[edit] Precautionary Principle Difficulties in Application:
A major obstacle in understanding and applying the Precautionary Principle is that is not a homogeneous concept. That has not stopped various versions of the principle from being enacted in European, American and Canadian law. The Precautionary Principle is believed to by some to be a principle of international law. The following citations demonstrate problems in applying the precautionary principle.
Sandin catalogues 19 different interpretations of the Precautionary Principle. [Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, 889 -]
Jonathan B. Wiener and Michael D. Rogers identify the following three stereotypical versions in their paper entitled “Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe” Journal of Risk Research 5 (4), 317–349 (2002) http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/solutions/documents/PP-EU-USpaperJRR2002final.pdf
“Version 1: Uncertainty does not justify inaction. In its most basic form, the PP is a principle that permits regulation in the absence of complete evidence about the particular risk scenario. “[L]ack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation” (Bergen Declaration 1990). But there is never “full scientific certainty”; we must always make decisions under uncertainty. This version of the PP rebuts the contention that uncertainty precludes regulation, but does not answer the real question: what action to take, given inevitable uncertainty.
Version 2: Uncertainty justifies action. This version of the PP is more aggressive. “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” (Wingspread Statement 1998, in Raffensberger & Ticknor 1999 at 353). But cause and effect is never “fully established.” And if it is unclear what causes the harm, it is unclear what “measures” would prevent it. Again, the real question is what action to take, given the uncertainty.
Version 3: Uncertainty requires shifting the burden and standard of proof. This version of the PP is the most aggressive. It holds that uncertain risk requires forbidding the potentially risky activity until the proponent of the activity demonstrates that it poses no (or acceptable) risk. For example, “the applicant or proponent of an activity or process or chemical needs to demonstrate . . . that the environment and public health will be safe. The proof must shift to the party or entity that will benefit from the activity and that is most likely to have the information” (Raffensberger & Ticknor 1999 at 345-346). This shift in the burden of proof may elicit information from the least-cost provider, but if the standard of proof is too demanding it may amount to over regulation.”
Problems applying the precautionary principle arise from differing versions and ambiguity within each definition. Gary E. Marchant and Kenneth L. Mossman in their paper entitled “Arbitrary and Capricious – The Precautionary Principle in the European Courts” International Policy Press , (Full text PDF file available http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.787/book_detail.asp) state:
“The inconsistencies among different versions of the precautionary principle are compounded by the ambiguity in any specific formulation of the precautionary principle. No version of the precautionary principle is clear on when the precautionary principle applies and, just as important, when the principle does not apply.41 Moreover, every version of the precautionary principle is ambiguous as to what it requires when it does apply.42 As U.S. law professor Cass Sunstein recently commented, the biggest problem with the precautionary principle is not that “it leads in bad directions, but [rather], read for all it is worth, it leads in no direction at all.”43”
Marchant and Mossman suggest that the ambiguity inherent in the precautionary principle is intentional and the source of the precautionary principle’s political power.
“In short, the precautionary principle has not been fully specified because the proponents of the principle recognize that the power of the principle lies in its ambiguity.57 If the precautionary principle is better defined to simply state that regulators must apply some degree of precaution, while also considering countervailing factors, such as economic costs and risk-risk trade-offs, the principle would represent little change from existing practice and disappoint many of those who seek more fundamental changes from the status quo. Alternatively, if the precautionary principle is construed much more absolutely, as its most ardent proponents would likely prefer, few if any governments could credibly maintain even symbolic adherence to such an extreme measure. Accordingly, the precautionary principle is necessarily ambiguous, because if it were to be made more specific, it would become enmeshed in the existing regulatory controversies and lose much of its superficial appeal.”
Marchant and Mossman argue that the application of the precautionary principle by European Union courts has been inconsistent.
“Through February 2004, the precautionary principle has been cited in sixty decisions of the European Union courts.1 A table listing these decisions is provided in the appendix. The role the precautionary principle played in these decisions varied considerably, from insignificant in some cases to central to the outcome in others. As shown in the appendix, the precautionary principle played a major role in fourteen cases, playing only a minor role in forty-six cases. In those cases in which the precautionary principle played a major role, the court decided the case in favor of the party relying on the precautionary principle in half of those cases (7/14). In contrast, in the cases where the precautionary principle played a minor role and the court issued a decision on the merits of the issue for which the precautionary principle was invoked, approximately 75 percent (25/34) of the decisions were in favor of the side asserting the precautionary principle.2 These summary statistics suggest that the precautionary principle received very mixed and inconsistent treatment by the EU courts.”
The current version (23 Feb 2006) of the Wikipedia article states “In deciding how to apply the principle, analyses may use a cost-benefit analysis which factors in both the opportunity cost of not acting, and the option value of waiting for further information before acting. This implies that potentially harmful action can be taken before there is complete certainty about future consequences (which is in practice rarely attainable).”
I doubt that Marchant and Mossman would agree with the above assertion. Marchant and Mossman state in the above cited paper:
“Another important difference in the numerous versions of the precautionary principle is whether and how costs are to be considered in making regulatory decisions. Perhaps the most-cited version of the precautionary principle is that included as Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides, “Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”37 This formulation expressly indicates that costs should be considered to ensure that any precautionary actions are “cost-effective.” In contrast, the formulation of the precautionary principle favored by many U.S. public-interest proponents, the Wingspread Statement, makes no mention of economic considerations. This version of the precautionary principle states, “When an activity raises threats of harms to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”38 The European Commission has offered yet a third variation with respect to consideration of costs under the precautionary principle. In its communication explaining the precautionary principle, the commission stated that the precautionary principle incorporates the principle of proportionality, in that “[m]easures based on the precautionary principle must not be disproportionate to the desired level of protection and must not aim at zero risk, something which rarely exists.”39 Implementation of this proportionality requirement in applying the precautionary principle “should include an economic cost-benefit analysis where this is appropriate and possible,” as well as a wider consideration of noneconomic factors.40 Other significant differences exist between different versions of the precautionary principle. For example, the Rio Declaration applies by its terms only to actions that would result in “environmental degradation,” whereas the Wingspread Statement is broader, applying to actions that would harm either the environment or human health. The Rio Declaration imposes no affirmative duty to act but simply states that uncertainty shall not preclude the possibility of regulation, while the Wingspread version is phrased in terms of a positive obligation to act. The combined effect of these differences could easily result in inconsistent regulatory outcomes in many cases.”
Pinnell 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
"The precautionary principle is the idea that if the consequences of an action are potentially severe or irreversible, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used to prevent action." To me, this seems to mean: "Be brave, and willing to act in less than complete confidence." However, the rest of the article seems to contradict this, saying, "Be as careful as you possibly can." Perhaps someone could clear up this muddle? NeonMerlin 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- There are different flavors of the PP just like there are different interpretations of 'conservatism' or 'Islam' Both definitions are valid. But you're right the article is confusing. I made a few edits to clarify it a little bit. Removed uncited rambles, etc.Prospect77 21:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
| A classic example of application of the principle was Dr. John Snow's removal in 1854 of the handle of a water pump in Broad Street, London, in order to prevent a cholera outbreak from the infected well. (At the time, the science on the spread of cholera through contaminated water was not yet conclusive.) |
How the heck is that an application of the PP? Dr. Snow was either acting in the full knowlege of the risks and benefits, or was acting contrary to the PP by taking action which would cause definable harm (cutting off water supply to people) without proof of the benefits. Argyriou (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that this is not an ideal example. Snow was being proactive, not based on a full knowledge of risks and benefits, as Argyriou suggests, but based on a novel hypothesis. Since proactivity is not generally considered under the precautionary principle, however, the example should be removed unless a good justification is provided.--StN 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental activism
The only context I've ever heard the precautionary principle in, has been when justifying environmental activism. Notions such as requiring hands-free cell phones (to keep the transmitter away from your head); moving cell phone towers (or military radar) away from communities; opposition to power-transmission lines in residential neighborhoods; opposition to electric blankets (!); removing asbestos insulations from walls and ceilings; and most famously, restrictions on "ozone-killing CFS" and "global warming causing" carbon dioxide.
The principle says that not being sure is no reason not to take action against something.
The controversy stems from complaints that some of the bans or "remedies" are worse than the supposed risks of doing nothing. These complainers assert that the precautionary principle is being used as a mere pretext, by campaigners with an axe to grind.
Let's find out more about this and put it into the article. For example, on asbestos abatement, has anyone followed up to find out whether removing asbestos from school buildings has increased or decreased the number of asbestos fibers in the inside air?
Or on trace poisons (like dioxin or cyanide), has anyone studied the effects of very small doses? (see linear no-threshold hypothesis). --Uncle Ed 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation bias
It seems to me that a strong proponent of the principle has gone through the entire "criticism" section, adding requests for citations without reason. For example I don't think the statement that "every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences" needs any citations to back it up. This is an encyclopaedia article people, not a usenet flamewar! Alex.g 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
