Doxastic Precautionary Principle as Political Encroachment

The paper investigates the development of the institutional basis for the present modes of chemicals regulation and management, with special attention to interrelations with the precautionary principle. The paper elucidates on how the precautionary principle has been shaped in relation to chemicals regulation and management since Carson's Silent Spring (years before the principle was confirmed as a policy-principle in German and European legislation. Furthermore, it is examined how the precautionary principle interacted with the development of the present chemicals regulatory regime, in a complex interplay within the OECD and Member Countries. The present modes of precaution in the new EU chemical legislation--REACH--are investigated with respect to the precautionary principle, and tested against two contemporary problems; brominated flame retardants and endocrine disrupting substances. The analysis demonstrates the changing character of the integration of the precautionary principle. The main tendencies are from implicit to more explicit precaution and from a closed expert-orientation towards a more deliberative approach to scientific knowledge and uncertainty. The results demonstrate that the precautionary principle is manifest in both the design of the testing strategy and in policy provisions. In particular, the substitution of hazardous substances with less hazardous is important. Despite explicit attention to the precautionary principle, is the present reformulation of the European Chemicals policy in danger of falling into loop-holes that equal problems related to the present regulation of existing chemicals? 'Precaution' has been reduced virtually to an abstract concept that is more or less devoid of practical meaning in the regulatory process. It is concluded that the role of the precautionary principle in chemicals regulation will require continued scrutiny in the future shaping of the REACH strategy. Continued development of robust and precaution-based chemicals regulation will have to involve both new data-generation strategies and new forms of political decision-making, with special attention given to transparency and deliberative policymaking.

[T]he Precautionary Principle still has neither a commonly accepted definition nor a set of criteria to guide its implementation. ‘There is,’ Freestone ... cogently observes, ‘a certain paradox in the widespread and rapid adoption of the Precautionary Principle:’ While it is applauded as a ‘good thing,’ no one is quite sure about what it really means or how it might be implemented. Advocates foresee precaution developing into ‘the fundamental principle of environmental protection policy at [all] scales.’ ... Sceptics, however, claim its popularity derives from its vagueness; that it fails to bind anyone to anything or resolve any of the deep dilemmas that characterize modern environmental policy making. 1

A Cautionary Tale

We are living in a risk society where people devised the Precautionary Principle in order to minimize the harm caused by risk ex ante . Compared to the previous Food Hygiene Law (FHL) and the 2009 Food Safety Law, the 2015 revised Chinese Food Safety Law (FSL) made a real breakthrough in the sense that it legitimates an important principle in food safety governance. Apart from laying down the fundamental importance of this principle in food safety regulations, the FSL 2015 also invented arrangements from different aspects in order to implement this principle. In other words, the FSL 2015’s incorporation of the Precautionary Principle in a very real sense marked a transition from a demonstrative preventive food safety management regime to a more effective precautionary regime. However, the Precautionary Principle needs to be adopted in a “precautionary” way since this principle has its own limitations and defects. Incautious application of the principle may create new risks. This article compares the European approach in implementing the Precautionary Principle, and examines China’s legal arrangements against negative impacts brought by the Precautionary Principle. Three perspectives are discussed: independence of scientific institutes; proportionality in risk management measures, and the shift of burden of proof for market authorization.

The paper addresses charges of risk and loss aversion as well as of irrationality directed against the precautionary principle (PP), by providing an epistemic analysis of its specific role in the safety law system. In particular, I contend that: 1) risk aversion is not a form of irrational or biased behaviour; 2) both risk and loss aversion regard the form of the utility function, whereas PP rather regards the information on which to base the decision; 3) thus PP has formally nothing to do with risk or loss aversion but rather with risk awareness; 4) PP removes a fictional construct in the legal system, according to which any hazard should be ignored and denied until it is scientifically proven; 5) the quandary originates in the tension between current methods of evidence evaluation, and the logic underlying PP which demands for a probabilistic epistemology.

The precautionary principle has been implemented in many fields including environment protection, biological diversity, and climate change. In the field of international nuclear safety regulation, the implementation of this principle is in an ongoing process. Since Japan declared to discharge Fukushima nuclear waste water into the ocean, the precautionary principle was put on the stage, and some debates are invoked on it. As is observed by this article, the precautionary principle has not been effectively implemented in nuclear safety regulation, specifically in nuclear safety law making, law enforcement, and judicial application. The reasons can be found from two main challenges: indeterminacy of perceived risk level required to justify precautionary action and hard balance of national interest and community interest in nuclear safety. In a long-term perspective, the framework of international nuclear safety regulation has to respond to these challenges, both by clarifying the precautionary principle in legal binding nuclear safety documents and moving towards a more transparent, fair, and effective enforcement regime in order to promote safer, more sustainable, and efficient civilian nuclear utilization around the world.

The application of the precautionary principle in the decision of releasing Fukushima radioactive contaminated water into the sea

The rapid spread of the precautionary principle (PP) demonstrates the need to explicitly address the role of precaution in environmental decision making. Unfortunately, the PP in its current form is limited by the vagueness of, and variations in, the many formulations of the PP. This ambiguity in the meaning of the PP would not be so serious if the PP were limited to a general aspirational policy, but in every jurisdiction that has adopted the PP it has been transformed rapidly into a binding legal rule. As a legal rule, the ambiguity of the PP results in arbitrary application by regulatory agencies and reviewing courts and limits the capability of reviewing courts to perform their function in overseeing agency actions. To improve the explicit application of precaution, we must go beyond the current form of the PP and attempt to define the factors that weigh in favor of more or less precaution for specific risks.

Ethical issues and concerns about the use of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the mobilisation of stem cells in normal donors.

This paper analyzes, from an epistemological perspective, the so called 'Precautionary Principle' - an environmental law principle broadly invoked in judicial and administrative debates concerning the commercial liberation of new technologies, especially in the biotechnological domain. Starting with the phrasing stated in the 1992 Rio Declaration, we argue that different interpretations of the Precautionary Principle are possible. These interpretations vary according to presuppositions concerning the nature of scientific and technological knowledge as well as the Risk Analysis´ stages in which the Principle is applied. The paper includes a historical overview of different phrasings of the Principle, which can be found in different documents and legislations, and an analysis of its structure, alongside a general epistemological analysis of the notion of scientific certainty and of the nature of technological predictions.

Study the application of the precautionary principle in environmental protectionand management in agriculture for excellence varieties of genetically modified productsget answers: First; Ignoring the principle of prudence in Environmental Protection andManagement in the Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture Policy No. 61 /Permentan / OT.140 / 10/2011 on Testing, Assessment, Waiver and Withdrawalvarieties, there is a tendency to Regulation is made only for the sake of short-term andto mengakomudir interests of investors and entrepreneurs, as well as ignoring theprecautionary principle in the product of genetic engineering. The Second; Due toNeglect Law Precautionary Principle in Agricultural Policy Regulation No. 61 /Permentan / OT.140 / 10/2011, causing chaos or legal uncertainty, so the validityineffective and inefficient. The Third; Results Formulation Formulation of PolicyRegulation of the Minister of Agriculture No. 61 / Permentan / OT.140 /10/2011 on Testing, Assessment, Waiver and Withdrawal varieties responsive andaccommodating to the precautionary principle in environmental protection andmanagement in Indonesia, done with the precautionary principle as set out in Article 2fUUPPLH with description and Article 3 of Regulation No. 21 of 2005 and anexplanation, and as the implementation of the precautionary principle beforemelakukakn assessment activities, Waiver and Withdrawal varieties must pass theEIA, Environmental Permits and Environmental Risk Analysis.

Precautionary Principle in the Court Settlement of Civil Environmental Cases

The precautionary principle is promoted as a common sense approach that avoids unreasonable delays in taking action. A weak form of the precautionary principle, that action should not wait until all uncertainties are resolved, is indeed common sense and consistent with even the most elementary application of the methods of decision making under uncertainty to the climate change problem. The standard tools of decision analysis imply conclusions consistent with a weak precau tionary principle of taking some action before all the evidence is in. Decision theory also reveals what the basis is for stronger recommendations from the precautionary principle, to the effect that action should be based on the most pessimistic possible interpretation of the future. This conclusion is only possible if prior beliefs are so pessimistic and so strong that they would outweigh any possible new scientific evidence.

In this article, we use a case study of 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) to examine role of precautionary principle in international environmental law and policy. Our findings indicate that a major function of principle is to redistribute burden of scientific uncertainty. By lowering threshold of evidence of threats to human health or environment required to trigger deliberations about taking action, precautionary principle speeds up process by which underlying ecological interdependence and scientific uncertainty are translated into policy interdependence and uncertainty. This prompts states to coordinate their policymaking, which reinforces multilateral processes and underlines importance of convening, coordinating, and facilitating roles of international institutions such as United Nations Environment Programme. KEY-WORDS: precautionary principle, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), scientific uncertainty, management of interdependence. ********** The precautionary principle has emerged as an important yet contentious issue in multilateral environmental agreements. Even as it progressively becomes consolidated into international law and widely acknowledged as an appropriate response to scientific uncertainty, application of precautionary principle internationally has, as some state and nonstate actors claim, generated even more uncertainty. The principle's contentious nature was obvious during negotiations leading to 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, (1) which provides an excellent opportunity to examine role of principle not only in that particular regime but also in international environmental law more generally. We thus draw on these negotiations to anchor an analysis of implications of precautionary principle and to explore paradox of uncertainty associated with it. Our findings indicate that a major function of precautionary principle is redistribution of burden of scientific uncertainty. Whereas actors could formerly act as if they were ecologically independent by ignoring weak signals of transboundary damage, such behavior is no longer acceptable. By lowering threshold of scientific evidence of threats of serious or irreversible damage to human health or environment required to trigger deliberations, precautionary principle is speeding up process by which underlying ecological interdependence is recognized and translated into policy interdependence. By triggering deliberations on appropriate response to transboundary threats about which there is scientific uncertainty, precautionary principle translates scientific uncertainty borne by exposed populations into policy uncertainty borne by state and nonstate actors, which then prompts these actors to take a much more coordinated approach to policymaking to manage their ecological and economic interdependence. Thus, institutionalization of precautionary norms and ideas means that segments of what would once have been considered domestic policymaking may, increasingly, be carried out at international level, which reinforces multilateral processes and underlines importance of convening, coordinating, and facilitating roles of international institutions such as United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Precautionary Principle Response to, or Generator of, Uncertainty? The German Vorsorgeprinzip is typically credited as containing conceptual origins of precautionary principle. (2) By 1991, precautionary principle was heralded as the most important new policy approach in international environmental cooperation. (3) Enshrined in 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, principle has also been incorporated into a number of international environmental instruments. …

We defend the precautionary principle against five common charges, namely that it is ill-defined, absolutist, and a value judgement, increases risk-taking, and marginalizes science. We argue, first, that the precautionary principle is, in principle, no more vague or ill-defined than other decision principles and like them it can be made precise through elaboration and practice. Second, the precautionary principle need not be absolutist in the way that has been claimed. A way to avoid this is through combining the precautionary principle with a specification of the degree of scientific evidence required to trigger precaution, and/or with some version of the de minimis rule. Third, the precautionary principle does not lead to increased risk-taking, unless the framing is too narrow, and then the same problem applies to other decision rules as well. Fourth, the precautionary principle is indeed value-based, but only to the same extent as other decision rules. Fifth and last, the precautionary principle is not unscientific other than in the weak sense of not being exclusively based on science. In that sense all decision rules are unscientific.