Re: Precautionary Principle

["Fred Dawson" <fd003f0606@blueyonder.co.uk>]

Commision position on the Precautionary Principle





http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf





SUMMARY

1. The issue of when and how to use the precautionary principle, both within

the

European Union and internationally, is giving rise to much debate, and to

mixed,

and sometimes contradictory views. Thus, decision-makers are constantly

faced

with the dilemma of balancing the freedom and rights of individuals,

industry and

organisations with the need to reduce the risk of adverse effects to the

environment, human, animal or plant health. Therefore, finding the correct

balance so that the proportionate, non-discriminatory, transparent and

coherent

actions can be taken, requires a structured decision-making process with

detailed

scientific and other objective information.

2. The Communication's fourfold aim is to:

· outline the Commission's approach to using the precautionary principle,

· establish Commission guidelines for applying it,

· build a common understanding of how to assess, appraise, manage and

communicate risks that science is not yet able to evaluate fully, and

· avoid unwarranted recourse to the precautionary principle, as a disguised

form

of protectionism.

It also seeks to provide an input to the ongoing debate on this issue, both

within

the Community and internationally.

3. The precautionary principle is not defined in the Treaty, which

prescribes it only

once - to protect the environment. But in practice, its scope is much wider,

and

specifically where preliminary objective scientific evaluation, indicates

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 for the Community.

The Commission considers that the Community, like other WTO members, has

the right to establish the level of protection - particularly of the

environment,

human, animal and plant health, - that it deems appropriate. Applying the

precautionary principle is a key tenet of its policy, and the choices it

makes to this

end will continue to affect the views it defends internationally, on how

this

principle should be applied.

4. The precautionary principle should be considered within a structured

approach to

the analysis of risk which comprises three elements: risk assessment, risk

management, risk communication. The precautionary principle is particularly

relevant to the management of risk.

The precautionary principle, which is essentially used by decision-makers in

the

management of risk, should not be confused with the element of caution that

scientists apply in their assessment of scientific data.

4

Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially

dangerous

effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified,

and

that scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with

sufficient

certainty.

The implementation of an approach based on the precautionary principle

should

start with a scientific evaluation, as complete as possible, and where

possible,

identifying at each stage the degree of scientific uncertainty.

5. Decision-makers need to be aware of the degree of uncertainty attached to

the

results of the evaluation of the available scientific information. Judging

what is an

"acceptable" level of risk for society is an eminently political

responsibility.

Decision-makers faced with an unacceptable risk, scientific uncertainty and

public concerns have a duty to find answers. Therefore, all these factors

have to

be taken into consideration.

In some cases, the right answer may be not to act or at least not to

introduce a

binding legal measure. A wide range of initiatives is available in the case

of

action, going from a legally binding measure to a research project or a

recommendation.

The decision-making procedure should be transparent and should involve as

early

as possible and to the extent reasonably possible all interested parties.

6. Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary

principle

should be, inter alia:

· proportional to the chosen level of protection,

· non-discriminatory in their application,

· consistent with similar measures already taken,

· based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or

lack

of action (including, where appropriate and feasible, an economic

cost/benefit

analysis),

· subject to review, in the light of new scientific data, and

· capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence

necessary for a more comprehensive risk assessment.

Proportionality means tailoring measures to the chosen level of protection.

Risk

can rarely be reduced to zero, but incomplete risk assessments may greatly

reduce

the range of options open to risk managers. A total ban may not be a

proportional

response to a potential risk in all cases. However, in certain cases, it is

the sole

possible response to a given risk.

Non-discrimination means that comparable situations should not be treated

differently, and that different situations should not be treated in the same

way,

unless there are objective grounds for doing so.

Consistency means that measures should be of comparable scope and nature to

those already taken in equivalent areas in which all scientific data are

available.

Examining costs and benefits entails comparing the overall cost to the

Community of action and lack of action, in both the short and long term.

This is

not simply an economic cost-benefit analysis: its scope is much broader, and

includes non-economic considerations, such as the efficacy of possible

options

and their acceptability to the public. In the conduct of such an

examination,

account should be taken of the general principle and the case law of the

Court that

the protection of health takes precedence over economic considerations.

Subject to review in the light of new scientific data, means measures based

on the

precautionary principle should be maintained so long as scientific

information is

incomplete or inconclusive, and the risk is still considered too high to be

imposed

on society, in view of chosen level of protection. Measures should be

periodically

reviewed in the light of scientific progress, and amended as necessary.

Assigning responsibility for producing scientific evidence is already a

common

consequence of these measures. Countries that impose a prior approval

(marketing authorisation) requirement on products that they deem dangerous a

priori reverse the burden of proving injury, by treating them as dangerous

unless

and until businesses do the scientific work necessary to demonstrate that

they are

safe.

Where there is no prior authorisation procedure, it may be up to the user or

to

public authorities to demonstrate the nature of a danger and the level of

risk of a

product or process. In such cases, a specific precautionary measure might be

taken to place the burden of proof upon the producer, manufacturer or

importer,

but this cannot be made a general rule.



Fred Dawson







----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Tom Mohaupt" <tom.mohaupt@WRIGHT.EDU>

To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

Cc: "Stewart Farber" <radproject@optonline.net>; "Mercado, Don"

<don.mercado@lmco.com>; "radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>;

<Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:33 PM

Subject: Re: Precautionary Principle





> Rad Safers,

> No one doubts that the lofty ideal of the precautionary principle is an

> appropriate consideration in every activity. But it must remain just

> that a lofty ideal and not the over-riding guideline. Every time an

> accident occurs, the precautionary principle has failed because not

> enough caution had been implemented to prevent it. Therefore, more

> enforceable controls must be used to ensure all precautions are taken.

> Imagine mountain climbers limited to a 6 foot wall, Olympic swimmers

> wearing water wings.  If you apply the precautionary principle to sun

> exposure, which is a known carcinogen, then we would be legally and

> morally bound to reduce solar exposure to ALARA levels. Hence, good-bye

> swimming, boating, skiing, baseball games, etc., etc. Not an enjoyable

> existance, especially when you look at sunlight from the low-level

> perspective where it is considered beneficial, nay, necessary.

>

> Ionizing radiation is simply a form of energy, just as solar radiation,

> heat, potential energy, kinetic energy, etc. are other forms of energy.

> All forms of energy are hazardous in high levels. All forms of energy

> are considered innocuous or beneficial in low levels. Radiation is the

> only form of energy where the precautionary principle is applied at low

> levels. That's why the BEIR VII committee report is important. If they

> only look at high doses and extrapolate downward, they will come out

> with the same answer as previous BEIR committees. If they start at

> background doses and work up, the report will likely be very different.

> There is tons of data in the real low dose region of less 20 rem. Why

> don't they use it? So far the BEIR VII committee has heard from the EPA,

> DOE, Steven Wing, etc. Can you see where the committee is heading?

>

> NCRP #139, Risk-Based Classification of Radioactive and Hazardous

> Chemical Wastes, presents an interesting comparison of the regulatory

> objectives between the two. Radioactive waste is regulated top down.

> Uacceptable risk (i.e., dose limits) is defined and ALARA is applied to

> lower doses. Whereas, for chemicals, acceptable stochastic risks are

> defined below which no control is required; however values above the

> acceptable risk parameters can be exceeded under controlled situations.

> I wonder if the BEIR VII committee has read this.

> Tom

>

>

> -- 

> Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP

> Radiation Safety Officer

> Wright State University

> 937-775-2169

> tom.mohaupt@wright.edu

>

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/