| The precautionary principle is a recently-developed ethical principle that states that if an activity carries the possibility of harming human health or the environment, precautions should be taken even if the cause and effect relationships of the activity are not fully established. If the activity poses a risk to human health or the environment, the proponent of the activity should prove that there will be no negative consequences of the activity. Failing such proof, the proper choice is to prohibit the activity rather than risk the adverse affects. The precautionary principle can be applied to the development of new technologies such as genetically-modified organisms, the manufacture and use of new chemicals, the use of radioactive materials, or any other technologies that might affect public health and the environment.
Traditionally, in the regulatory context, a proposed activity or the use of a substance would not be restricted or prohibited without proof that the activity or substance was in fact harmful. Historically, industries have conducted activities and manufactured or used substances in ways that have been harmful to the environment. It was not until the harmful effects came to light that governments took actions to regulate the activity or the use of the substances. Under the precautionary principle, the entity desiring to conduct the activity or use the substance would be required to prove that there will be no negative effects. This approach is employed in a limited way by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its requirements that drugs be rigorously tested before being approved for sale to the public; however, its application is very narrow and does not even extend to food additives or supplements. In addition, the presence of possible negative effects does not make a drug ineligible for approval, and many, if not most, FDA-approved drugs have potentially harmful side effects.
The precautionary principle arose from the realization that releases of substances into the environment, exploitation of natural resources, and physical alteration of the environment have all had unintended and often harmful consequences. Proponents of the precautionary principle assert that governmental regulation in these areas has been inadequate and designed to repair conditions that are dire and often not repairable. It is also believed that damaging activities have had such far-reaching consequences that the precautionary principle should be implemented on a global scale. Accordingly, the precautionary principle has also become an integral part of global thinking on environmental protection and has been incorporated into some international environmental treaties.
The precautionary principle has also been widely criticized as placing unreasonable restrictions on technological developments and industry. The implementation of all new technologies and the use of new substances necessarily carries with it some uncertainty. Critics of the precautionary principle contend that satisfactorily ruling out all negative consequences of a new technology or substance would be economically unfeasible and would stifle progress. In addition, the precautionary principle as stated does not consider the positive effects of a new technology or substance on human health and the environment, however substantial they may be. Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. |