Precaution, Science and Jurisprudence: a Test Case

Abstract

This article discusses scientific, regulatory and social problems presented when there is a lack of scientific knowledge with regard to a risk. This question arises following the European Union's recent decision to ban virginiamycin, and the ruling on that decision by the European Court of First Instance in the Pfizer Animal Health case. The authors suggest that while policy‐makers ostensibly pay due deference to scientific opinion, their final assessment of risk and application of the precautionary principle will be policy‐driven rather than based on science. When in doubt, they may prefer to eliminate risk by imposing a ban, rather than conduct a proper risk/benefit analysis that includes the damage caused by banning a potentially useful product. Ian Forrester QC practises law in Brussels and is Visiting Professor at Glasgow University. He has represented a number of pharmaceutical companies in litigation concerning the precautionary principle. Jaap C. Hanekamp PhD was a cofounder and CEO of the scientific institute of the HAN Foundation, a body dedicated to the neutral exposition of scientific data. Dr Hanekamp supervised and was co‐author of the HAN publication on antibiotic growth promoters, one of the controversies examined in this article.