The goal of transparency and democracy in making decisions about technologies. The idea of shifting to proponents of a technology the responsibility for demonstrating its safety and The notion of seeking alternatives to harmful technologies (The negatives in this last statement echo the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.")Īs the principle has been elaborated recently, it nearly always implies three additional ideas, beyond "harm" and "scientific uncertainty": shall not prevent the Party of import, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects, from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question." The JanuCartagena Protocol on Biosafety says: "Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information. The FebruEuropean Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle notes: "The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU." At the core of each statement is the idea that action should be taken to prevent harm to the environment and human health, even if scientific evidence is inconclusive.įor example, the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizes the principle this way: "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 Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network.) Although some statements of the principle are more detailed than others, there are no major conflicts among them. This is not uncommon in international customary law. The precautionary principle is worded differently each time it is articulated. "The precautionary principle is vague and has conflicting definitions." Many of these ideas were articulated in a January 2000 meeting of precautionary principle advocates and in discussions following the meeting.ġ. The Science and Environmental Health Network offers the following responses to stimulate the thinking of others on these statements and on the precautionary principle. In these discussions and in a growing number of media reports on the principle, certain criticisms and qualifications, enumerated below, have been repeated with some frequency. As a result, it has stirred criticism as well as interest. The precautionary principle has taken center stage in a number of recent international discussions on trade, the environment, and human health.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |