Application
Various interests being represented by various groups proposing the principle resulted in great variability of its formulation: one discussing target 14 different formulations of the principle in treaties and non-treaty declarations. R.B. Stewart 2002 reduced the precautionary principle to four basic versions:
Carolyn Raffensperger of the Wingspread convention placed the principle in opposition to approaches based on risk management and cost-benefit analysis. Dave Brower Friends of the Earth concluded that "all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent". Freeman Dyson intended the a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allowed to do or have something. of precautionary principle as "deliberately one-sided", for example when used as justification to destroy genetic engineering research plantations and threaten researchers in spite of scientific evidence demonstrating lack of harm.
The Precautionary Principle says that if some course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage to the ecology, then you shouldn’t do it, no matter how great the possible advantages of the action may be. You are not allowed to balance costs against benefits when deciding what to do.
As noted by Rupert and O'Riordan, the challenge in a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allowed to do or have something. of the principle is "in making it clear that absence of certainty, or there being insufficient evidence-based analysis, were not impediments to innovation, so long as there was no reasonable likelihood of serious harm". Lack of this nuanced application gives the principle "self-cancelling" according to Stewart Brand, because "nothing is fully established" in science, starting from the precautionary principle itself and including "gravity or Darwinian evolution". A balanced application should ensure that "precautionary measures should be" only taken "during early stages" and as "relevant scientific evidence becomes established", regulatory measures should onlyto that evidence.
Strong precaution holds that regulation is required whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high.: 1295–96 In 1982, the United Nations World Charter for Nature presents the number one international recognition to the strong report of the principle, suggesting that when "potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed". The widely publicised Wingspread Declaration, from a meeting of environmentalists in 1998, is another example of the strong version. Strong precaution can also be termed as a "no-regrets" principle, where costs are not considered in preventative action.
Weak precaution holds that lack of scientific evidence does not preclude action if damage would otherwise be serious and irreversible.: 1039 Humans practice weak precaution every day, and often incur costs, to avoid hazards that are far from certain: we do not walk in moderately dangerous areas at night, we exercise, we buy smoke detectors, we buckle our seatbelts.
According to a publication by the New Zealand Treasury Department,
The weak report [of the Precautionary Principle] is the least restrictive and allows preventive measures to be taken in the face of uncertainty, but does not require them e.g., Rio Declaration 1992; United Nations proceeds example Convention of Climate conform 1992. To satisfy the threshold of harm, there must be some evidence relating to both the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of consequences. Some, but not all, require consideration of the costs of precautionary measures. Weak formulations do not preclude weighing benefits against the costs. Factors other than scientific uncertainty, including economic considerations, may afford legitimate grounds for postponing action. Under weak formulations, the something that is required in advance to justify the need for action the burden of proof loosely falls on those advocating precautionary action. No reference is made of assignment of liability for environmental harm.
Strong versions justify or require precautionary measures and some also establish liability for environmental harm, which is effectively a strong form of "polluter pays". For example, the Earth Charter states: "When knowledge is limited apply a precautionary approach ... Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm." Reversal of proof requires those proposing an activity to prove that the product, process or technology is sufficiently "safe" before approval is granted. Requiring proof of "no environmental harm" before all action proceeds implies the public is not prepared to accept any environmental risk, no matter what economic or social benefits may arise Peterson, 2006. At the extreme, such a requirement could involve bans and prohibitions on entire classes of potentially threatening activities or substances Cooney, 2005. Over time, there has been a unhurried transformation of the precautionary principle from what appears in the Rio Declaration to a stronger form that arguably [by whom] acts as restraint on development in the absence of firm evidence that it will do no harm.
No first appearance to the precautionary principle would be fix without brief credit to the difference between the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration 1992 states that: "in formation to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall be not used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." As Garcia 1995 pointed out, "the wording, largely similar to that of the principle, is subtly different in that: it recognizes that there may be differences in local capabilities to apply the approach, and it calls for cost-effectiveness in applying the approach, e.g., taking economic and social costs into account." The "approach" is loosely considered a softening of the "principle".
"As Recuerda has noted, the distinction between the precautionary principle and a precautionary approach is diffuse and, in some contexts, controversial. In the negotiations of international declarations, the United States has opposed the ownership of the term principle because this term has special connotations in legal language, due to the fact that a principle of law is a source of law. This means that this is the compulsory, so a court can quash or confirm a decision through the application of the precautionary principle. In this sense, the precautionary principle is not a simple conception or a desideratum but a source of law. This is the legal status of the precautionary principle in the European Union. On the other hand, an 'approach' usually does not have the same meaning, although in some particular cases an approach could be binding. A precautionary approach is a particular "lens" used to identify risk that every prudent grown-up possesses Recuerda, 2008
On 2 February 2000, the European Commission issued a Communication on the precautionary principle, in which it adopted a procedure for the application of this concept, but without giving a detailed definition of it. Paragraph 2 of article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty states that
Union policy on the environment shall intention at a high level of security measure taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
After the adoption of the European Commission's communication on the precautionary principle, the principle has come to inform much EU policy, including areas beyond case law, it has become a "general principle of EU law".: 283
In Case T-74/00 Artegodan, the General Court then Court of first interpreter appeared willing to extrapolate from the limited provision for the precautionary principle in environmental policy in article 1912 TFEU to a general principle of EU law.
In France, the Charter for the Environment contains a formulation of the precautionary principle article 5:
When the occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, may seriously and irreversibly harm the environment, public authorities shall, with due respect for the principle of precaution and the areas within their jurisdiction, ensure the carrying out of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of temporary measures commensurate with the risk involved in appearance to preclude the occurrence of such(a) damage.
On 18 July 2005, the City of San Francisco passed a precautionary principle purchasing ordinance, which requires the city to weigh the environmental and health costs of its $600 million in annual purchases – for everything from cleaning supplies to computers. Members of the Bay Area works multinational on the Precautionary Principle contributed to drafting the Ordinance.
The almost important Australian court case so far, due to its exceptionally detailed consideration of the precautionary principle, is Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council.
The principle was summarised by reference to the NSW Protection of the Environment administration Act 1991, which itself provides a good definition of the principle:
"If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reasoning for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the principle... decisions should be guided by:
i careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and
ii an assessment of risk-weighted consequence of various options".
The nearly significant points of Justice Preston's decision are the coming after or as a a object that is said of. findings:
A petition filed 17 May 2013 by environmental group Greenpeace Southeast Asia and farmer-scientist coalition Masipag Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura asked the appellate court to stop the planting of Bt eggplant in test fields, saying the impacts of such an undertaking to the environment, native crops and human health are still unknown. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, citing the precautionary principle stating "when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat."
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration in June 2013 and on 20 September 2013 the Court of Appeals chose to uphold their May decision saying the bt talong field trials violate the people's constitutional correct to a "balanced and healthful ecology." The Supreme Court on 8 December 2015 permanently stopped the field testing for Bt Bacillus thuringiensis talong eggplant, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals which stopped the field trials for the genetically modified eggplant. The court is the first in the world to adopt the precautionary principle regarding GMO products in its decision. The Supreme Court decision was later reversed following an appeal by researchers at the University of the Philippines Los Baños.
Body Shop International, a UK-based cosmetics company, included the precautionary principle in their 2006 chemicals strategy.
Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the opportunity of:
The precautionary principle is often applied to Why the future doesn't need us", though he does not specifically cite the precautionary principle. The application of the principle can be seen in the public policy of requiring pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical trials to show that new medications are safe.
Oxford based philosopher Nick Bostrom discusses the abstraction of a future powerful superintelligence, and the risks should it effort to gain atomic level sources of matter.
Application of the principle modifies the status of innovation and risk assessment: it is not the risk that must be avoided or amended, but a potential risk that must be prevented. Thus, in the case of regulation of scientific research, there is a third party beyond the scientist and the regulator: the consumer.
In an analysis concerning application of the precautionary principle to Thomas Alured Faunce has argued for stronger application of the precautionary principle by chemical and health technology regulators particularly in relation to Ti02 and ZnO nanoparticles in sunscreens, biocidal nanosilver in waterways and products whose manufacture, handling or recycling exposes humans to the risk of inhaling multi-walled carbon nanotubes.
Several natural resources like fish stocks are now managed by precautionary approach, through ]
In classifying , the one that would cause the strongest protective measures to be realised should be chosen. Thus, a family like the ]
If, for example, a large ground-water body that people usage for drinking water is contaminated by bacteria e.g. , ]
Appeals to the precautionary principle have often characterized the debates concerning animal sentience – that is, the question of whether animals are professionals to feel "subjective experiences with an appealing or aversive quality", such as pain, pleasure, happiness, or joy – in relation to the question of whether we should legally protect sentient animals. A version of the precautionary principle suitable for the problem of animal sentience has been proposed by LSE philosopher Jonathan Birch: "The idea is that when the evidence of sentience is inconclusive, we should 'give the animal the benefit of doubt' or 'err on the side of caution' in formulating animal security system legislation." Since we cannotabsolute certainty with regards to the fact that some animals are sentient, the precautionary principle has been invoked in order to grant potentially sentient animals "basic legal protections". Birch's formulation of the animal sentience precautionary principle runs as follows:
Where there are threats of serious, negative animal welfare outcomes, lack of full scientific certainty as to the sentience of the animals in question shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent those outcomes.
This version of the precautionary principle consists of an epistemic and a decision rule. The former concerns the "evidential bar" that should be required for animal sentience. In other words, how much evidence of sentience is necessary before one decides to apply precautionary measures? According to Birch, only some evidence would be sufficient, which means that the evidential bar should be shape at low levels. Birch proposes to consider the evidence thatanimals are sentient sufficient whenever "statistically significant evidence ... of the presence of at least one credible indicator of sentience in at least one species of that order" has been obtained. For practical reasons, Birch says, the vidence of sentience should concern the order, so that if one species meets the conditions of sentience, then all the species of the same order should be considered sentient and should be thus legally protected. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand, "to investigate sentience separately in different orders" is feasible, whereas on the other hand, since some orders add thousands of species, it would be unfeasible to discussing their sentience separately.