The Precautionary Principle

While playing Sunday morning detective for the previous post, I came across a reference to the "precationary principle" and decided that, since I can't go fishing today, I'd do a little review of something that seems to be guiding environmental policy. An example of the writings on the precautionary principle can be found here. In summary it might be defined as "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." The statement is hard to disagree with. Gosh, if the activity is harmful, then do something about it. Except, the precautionary principle is to be applied if someone thinks the activity may be harmful.

Just how do the proponents describe the "science" of the precautionary principle?
In the "New Uncertainty Principle" (Scientific American, January 2001, David Appell says, "Observe before you project yourself on a parabolic trajectory. The weight of 28.35 grams of prevention is worth 454 grams of cure. Science certainly has much to say on taking precautions. But for the enormously complex and serious problems that now face the world--global warming, loss of biodiversity, toxins in the environment--science doesn't have all the answers, and traditional risk assessment and management may not be up to the job. Indeed, given the scope of such problems, they may never be." It sounds very good, except that Mr. Appell knows, or should know, that the principles of parabolic trajectories have been studied and restudied for hundreds of years. One doesn't need great scientific research to predict with no little precision the results of propelling a mass at a known angle with a known velocity and momentum. (Us old cannon cockers do it with great precision). He argues that we may never know, because of the complexity of diverse biological and environmental conditions, we must do something. Appell takes something that has been studied to death and puts it beside wishful thinking to give the precautionary principle some psuedo-scientific basis. The other argument comes under the heading as sound science. Mr. Appell argues that some actions are necessary, if someone suspects they may have adverse consequences and we really don't even need to study it.
Other examples of the argument fromHo : "In the same way, the precautionary principle requires us to assign the burden of proof to those who want to introduce a new technology, particularly in cases where there is little or no established need or benefit and where the hazards are serious and irreversible. It is up to the perpetrators to prove that the technology is safe 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We cannot expect the precautionary principle by itself to tell us what to do about GM crops or any other new technology. Like a jury, we have to weigh up the evidence, and like a jury we have to come to a decision. " Notice the use of the word "perpetrator."

Other papers on the site biotech info site use the arguments that farm tools are different from household tools. All, go to "sustainable development" and saving the earth. Gee, everyone is for that.

The precautionary principle seems to be a way to get at environmental chemical and biotech phobia by requiring that something be proven "absolutely" safe, which is impossible. The proponents of the principle do not like risk analysis, which takes a look at risks, benefits and (oh migosh) costs. One will never prove something is absolutely safe. In fact, the precautionary principle would ban water and oxygen (reducto ad absurdem) since we all know that exposure to water kills and destroys and a pure oxygen environment can be deadly.

The precautionary principle is for scientists who "believe" but cannot prove, either from laziness, lack of ability or just the facts as they stand, that what they believe is bad really is. The EU is going heavily toward the precautionary principle, and we seem to be going that way. It will be a sad say for human development and progress if it really takes hold.