This is an archive of past discussions about Precautionary principle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Top

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: the principle that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects or side effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted. It has mainly been used to prohibit the importation and distribution of genetically modified organisms and food. The recent introduction of large numbers of products into the marketplace which utilize "nanoparticle" technologies before these products have been clinically tested for adverse effects could be held as a violation of the precautionary principle and therefore immoral. JB.

What is a NGO? Non Government Organization perhaps? Could someone spell out the acronym? Thanks. Wesley

It is probably just me but what does this mean:

"From the rule of abstention, according to three criteria: reference to zero damage necessity to avoid the worse situation necessity to include a shift in the burden of proof in dispute settlements proceedings This rule is usually considered unenforceable as, on one hand there may never be any absolute certainty, nor zero risk, and on the other hand, defining the best of many worse scenarios is a matter of controversy."

This is the central definition of the term but I can't make heads or tails of it. What is the "rule of abstention"? What is a worse scenario? (Maybe worst-case scenario?) Why is the precautionary principle never stated just talked about? I can see that it refers to zero damage, avoiding some kind of bad scenario, and shifting the burden of proof from some unstated party to another unstated party but I am not told what the principle is. Very confusing. Rmhermen 15:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Very deeply sorry Rmhermen. I probably should not have tried doing this one. Apologies if it is messy and not understandable. I tried my best then. If nothing good can be salvaged of it, just entirely rewrite it please. It was my first article ever here :-( User:anthere

Perhpas you could rewrite it as I have no expertise on the subject and don't know what it is tring to say. Rmhermen 19:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well...perhaps. But I found out it was a topic I knew not enough to explain it well then :-( Also, a lot of terminology that I am not familiar with in english. In short, that was tough. I might try again one day (I thought of improving the carthagena protocol...), but would be *very* happy if other people try also...User:anthere

'Supporters of the precautionary principle DO NOT concede that safe levels are possible, when ANY higher level EVER causes harm.'

I entirely disagree with you. Supporters of the precautionary principle definitely concede that low levels of risky substances can be safe. However, when nothing has been proved, say for instance in the case of mobile phone tower emissions, it might not be safe to have these things erected, for example, near hospitals or schools where volnerable sections of our populations are at potential risk everyday. As far as I understand it, the precautionary principle is all about basing your decisions on evidence, and when there is no evidence, err on the side of caution.

I have several problems with the last paragraph. a. "low levels of risky substances can be safe." Without any safety data, 1. how do you know they are 'risky' and 2. how do you know lower levels are safe? Under the precautionary principle, the statement is self defeating b. "might not be safe...where volnerable sections of our populations" Without any safety data, how do you know who is more vulnerable? Babies, young, addolecent, middle aged, elderly, male, female, pregnant, black, white? Who in the list is more vulnerable when each have their own medical issues. (Or more to the point, which of these groups will declare themselves to be in the less vulnerable group.) c. "when nothing has been proved, say for instance in the case of mobile phone tower emissions". 1. Plenty of tests have shown little or no effects, none have shown a definitive link to any definitve health effect. 2. Consider for the sake of argument that mobile phone tower emissions are actually safe. How exactly do you prove it is safe when there will be never be any proven direct links to health effects no matter how may tests or studies are done. So - what is acceptable proof? How much non-proof do you need before proof is established once and for all? d. "when there is no evidence, err on the side of caution" How far do you err? How much do you restrict? What is 'cautious' and what is 'reckless'?

There unfortunatly is only one 'safe' answer. "Ban it all - just in case!" and that is the legacy of the precautionary principle. That is why I agree with the previous statement 'Supporters of the precautionary principle DO NOT concede that safe levels are possible..'

Someone removed the main definition of the PP, launching directly into applications to environmentalism. A definition is needed and the one that has now been replaced was the product on numerous edits and debates about six months ago. No one has the right to just come in and trash the main introduction to the concept. The definition now in place comports with most that have been in use over the past 80 years, but is probably the best of these. The removal seems to be by an unregistered user who doesn't like the PP and the idea of burden of proof relative to new technological interventions. Fair enough, but put it in the Criticisms section, don't eviscerate the presentation of the concept.--StN 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased article

This entry looks to me like having been written by a strong defender of "wise use" etc. That starts at the very beginning:

Since when is "German Democratic Socialism" known as National Socialism or Nazism? Saying something like that is a gross offence to all Social Democrats who have suffered in Nazi Concentration Camps. And when you look up the entry "Democratic Socialism" you will see quickly that the "Social Democrats" have nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler and the Nazis!

This article seems very biased to me; its way of contrasting the concept of a free country with "the European style of thought" is merely insulting.

Contrast this article with the German article "Vorsorgeprinzip"; it is shorter, but contains more solid facts (on various uses of the principle, includes some interesting references) and no biased political ramblings.

Prospect77 Completely biased. Yep, I snipped the most blatant attempts to discredit the PP. If people disagree with the PP there is an extensive criticism section already, or also http://blogspot.com

This article is indeed obviously dominated by anti-precaution Americans who despise the precaution principle. Probably the same ones who ignored the Kyoto protocol and other ecological crises. The same people who celebrate the most ecologically destructive society on the whole planet (cf.'ecofootprint'). Shameful. (Anon - 193.174.41.243 )

What is shamefull is this racist attack on Americans. The criticism of the PP is nothing to do with race tendancies. It is criticised on scientific and logical grounds. If your complaint is that the criticism section does not have any balancing answers to this critisim then I would suggest either 1. You find some balancing counter arguments. or 2. conceed that the PP is indeed logicaly flawed. BTW some time in the past I added criticims of the PP and I am an Australian. Please try and keep your racist tendancies in check.Ttguy (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not American, I'm Canadian, and I have to say this article should be labeled with a "stupid concept" warning. This Precautionary Principle is the worst pseudo-intellectual muddy meaningless theory I have ever heard. The rise in its use among media people seems to be because they like to use this to bolster the global warming argument. "Ok, GW is probably not going to cause much harm, but shouldn't we think of the precautionary principle?" What good is it? Where does it stop? "Oh, aliens might invade earth tomorrow. Shouldn't we use the PP and build giant ray guns?" It's just a ludicrous concept dressed up in pseudo-intellectual clothing. JettaMann (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Risk

Re. risk theory -- the principle is a philosophy by which decisions are made when risk cannot be calculated. It is not part of standard risk theory.

"The essence of the principle is that when probabilities cannot be calculated with reasonable precision (i.e. it is a situation of uncertainty), then decisions that could potentially lead to great harm should be postponed or avoided." <-- this phrase is redundant with the first lines of the definition. (User:Emcee)

Emcee said: I'm finding your continual revision of the Precautionary Principle to be biased towards putting the principle in a wholly positive light and making it seem as if it has been around for centuries and is a widely accepted best practice. What I'm working for is to make the definition as neutral (and contemporary) as possible, while relegating more controversial interpretations and connections to the criticism or other sections.

You seem to want to link the precautionary principle to medical precepts and legal standards that actually are not related and also preceded the principle by thousands of years... quote:

"Methodologies related to the precautionary principle may also be found in medicine ("first, do no harm") and law (convict when guilt is shown "beyond a reasonable doubt")."

They have nothing to do with the precautionary principle. It is not being applied when pharmeceutical companies do clinical trials -- if you want to make this connection, show show significant documentation. It is not being applied in the courtroom either. If you want to say that it grew out of those philosphies, then do so in your "medicine and law" section, but not in the definition -- and again, provide some references for your theories. You cannot, however, say that doctors (including those working for pharmaceutical companies) or judges are applying the precautionary principle, because they are not.

Secondly, deleting the section on the active implementation of the precautionary principle is also incorrect. I provided documentation to the 6 principles that have been defined by various organizations as the core of the principle; they are defined by organizations that believe in the principle, so it's not perjorative. You say this in your edit summary:

"preventative anticipation" is a pointless neologism; it's nearly always interpretable as the standard PP)

Yet, when you delete it, the definition in the article only describes a passive interpretation of the principle -- only "it is better to avoid that action" and not it is better to take action now than be sorry later.

A couple of style points:

1.) many of your edits have had little or no edit summary (sometimes when they are significant deletions, additions, or revisions)

2.) I think it defeats the point of defining a term when you feel the need to insert pithy colloquialisms into the first line or two of a definition. We are trying to give the reader a balanced and nuanced view of a term that has a significant amount of controversy and divergence of

==

Emcee, let's both be more careful about our edits.

You were right about the Hippocratic Oath, which led me to nail down the relationship with "first, do no harm". But I had to follow the footnote in the external link you gave to understand that (an external link which was also slightly broken).
Proactionary Principle is a clear breach of Wikipedia rules. The fact that it wasn't deleted on vfd merely illustrates why there is a big debate about Wikipedia:Deletion reform. In the mean time, let's not compound the error by giving it the status of a "see also", a section meant for significant related topics, not neologisms.
"Preventative anticipation" is a neologism, and we don't want those on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who coined or whether it's useful - which incidentally I don't think it is, it's just the result of woolly thinking in situations where the possibly harmful action is already ongoing. This situation should be explained better in the article, but not by introducing neologisms in the intro.
You wrote various things denying any connection between the "precautionary principle" and its substance being applied in areas such as medicine and law. The philosophy underlying the principle has been around for centuries, and is embodied in medical and legal concepts. The concept has a wide range of interpretations and, does not require reference to the words "precautionary principle" for its substance to be applied.
You also wrote "It is not being applied when pharmeceutical companies do clinical trials". Your statement is ambiguous; I'd said it was embodied in the policy of requiring clinical trials, which I think is fair. Again, reference to the phrase is not required for its substance to be applied.

The article still needs plenty of work, especially in application and criticism. I think "criticism" needs to disappear as a separate section - articles are always better when critical points are in the body of the article, not least since doing so often requires a better structure. Rd232 09:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear about the burden (and standard) of proof of safety as the fundamental issue for the substance of PP. Discussion of difference between PP in context of possibly harmful action already ongoing, versus being planned, may also be helpful as it seems to confuse people. It may also clarify the clash of priorities/interests that is key to the debate about applying PP (eg trading off your profits vs risk to my child).Rd232 09:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Proactionary Principle is not a breach of Wikipedia rules: "Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits (e.g. Google)." This principle has a ton of hits on Google, and was voted to stay. Until there's some "deletion reform" that changes this, you have to accept it.

Additionally, based on the way you are defining the Precautionary Principle, as a recently-created term to reword old terms and concepts, the Precautionary Principle itself is a neologism and shouldn't be in Wikipedia:

"A neologism is word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." (Wikipedia definition)

Deleting the reference to the Proactionary Principle is like trying to prevent readers from being aware of criticisms and contemporary context of the Principle. More info == good. If Wikipedia does not even delete this as a separately defined term, it's just plain wrong to delete it as a minor "see also" reference. If you disagree with this, let's seek arbitration.

You say: "The philosophy underlying the principle has been around for centuries, and is embodied in medical and legal concepts. The concept has a wide range of interpretations and, does not require reference to the words "precautionary principle" for its substance to be applied."

That's fine if you think that, but if you can't provide significant documentation showing a clear link of how the principle grew out of those traditions, then it shouldn't be included. This documentation does have to reference the term "Precautionary Principle," otherwise, this is your own original theory or research. There is a clear and significant difference between similar approaches in other fields, and an actual historical antecedent with clear relevance to the modern principle. We are trying to define the term "Precautionary Principle," and referring to similar ideas with no direct or causal relationship just muddies the waters.

Emcee 03:28, 28 August 2005 (PST)

=

Just a question: Why isn't there a section on the negatives/drawbacks of using the PP? I'm not talking about potential difficulties in using it, but rather the harm that may be done by using the PP as a guide for policy. I hear about the drawbacks frequently, and was expecting to see them summarized in this article. I was quite surprised and frankly disappointed to discover their absence. Am I missing something here? This article reads as if there were no problems whatsoever with PP and is far from neutral.

March 15 2007 - no account

changes to laws affecting societal norms

Before commenting on my inclusion of this subtopic, please go to my link on the decision. It is from my personal blog because the link to the full decision is in HTTP mode with no page numbers and I can not direct the reader to the opinion I am referencing. Sosman articulated the Precautionary principle quite specifically, almost to the point of making this very emotional decision seem bloodless. Note her analogy to a mechanical device in her opinion. Arodb 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, so be kind

On my brief reading of your contribution, it seems reasonable (though I'm not familiar with the specific case). Economist John Quiggin has also discussed the broader use of the precautionary principle. --Robert Merkel 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thx to all, incl Arodb for the contribution! (How's that for kind...?). Several changes to "Change of laws" section:

I removed some text that reads like it should be in talk, not the article:

Same sex marriage, although a continuation of the gay rights movement that began in America in the 1960s, is arguably qualitatively different. This issue is so contentious that the ideal of exposition without a point of view NPOV is difficult to achieve. This issue has become so enmeshed in the “culture wars” between left and right, that the very words used, and the focus of the essay, almost invariably betray the writers bias.

I removed Arodb's link because not only are blogs not proper sources to begin with, but the subtitle of this one reads,

This is a blog of fiction, with a difference. These are public figures, whom I just tweak a bit. It makes me feel good, which has me a bit worried. But if our President can create his very own realty, with things going just great in Iraq, the ecomomy just dandy, in spite of structual deficits about to explode, then why can't I.

This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia source. I agree re the accessibility problem with the original source (<http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/same-sex.htm>), so maybe someone can find a better one, but it's still superior for verification.

I'm not attached to the exact wording, but i edited for simplicity. And for NPOV: "rare dispassionate consideration" is POV and arguably false, as is "ignored". In case anyone thinks they're true, since they're questionable and charged, they should be cited.

Thx again; hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the link to the actual full decision, so people can read it, if they want to make the effort of finding it. Even though my blog was fictional, a version of alternative history, as you pointed out; the specific link was the actual transcript of her dissent, which I think makes it more valuable then the complete decision, but I won't argue the point. Hope the extra line, which is a brief summary of her precaution is acceptable. Arodb 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Precautionary principle and conservatism

One observation that I'd make that's been widely discussed in the blogosphere is that the precautionary principle is really Burekean conservatism dressed up in modern language. Has anybody seen a non-blogosphere source that makes this point? --Robert Merkel 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed seem Burkean, albeit only in the technological and perhaps economic senses, and not, of course, in the social (societial, governmental, political, cultural, religious, moral, etc.) senses, which is why, of course, that US conservatives oppose PP except when it intersects with religious/moral concerns (such as abortion, stem cell research, cloning, birth control, pornography, prostitution, recreational drugs, etc.). One might think they would want to be more logically consistent, but then again, compliance with sheer logic and reason are not their ultimate motivations. Shanoman (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Precautionary Principle (A logical fallacy)

The Precautionary Principle posits a proposed action and consequences arising from the proposed action that are not known with certainty or exact precision. The Precautionary Principle advocates that the burden of proof that the activity will not cause undue harm rests with the proponents of the activity.

Yes, I'm wondering if the entire thing should be added to the section on logical fallacies, seeing as it appears to be a straight formulation of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 66.195.102.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

The basic statistical problem here that nothing can ever be proved to be safe. As a example it is impossible to prove that red objects don't cause cancer so should all red objects be restricted just in case? We should always be wary of reversed burden of proof where something is required to be proved safe because this is logically impossible. See Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health for a good example. Mtpaley (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Precautionary Principle Difficulties in Application:

A major obstacle in understanding and applying the Precautionary Principle is that is not a homogeneous concept. That has not stopped various versions of the principle from being enacted in European, American and Canadian law. The Precautionary Principle is believed to by some to be a principle of international law. The following citations demonstrate problems in applying the precautionary principle.

Sandin catalogues 19 different interpretations of the Precautionary Principle. [Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, 889 -]

Jonathan B. Wiener and Michael D. Rogers identify the following three stereotypical versions in their paper entitled “Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe” Journal of Risk Research 5 (4), 317–349 (2002) http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/solutions/documents/PP-EU-USpaperJRR2002final.pdf

“Version 1: Uncertainty does not justify inaction. In its most basic form, the PP is a principle that permits regulation in the absence of complete evidence about the particular risk scenario. “[L]ack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation” (Bergen Declaration 1990). But there is never “full scientific certainty”; we must always make decisions under uncertainty. This version of the PP rebuts the contention that uncertainty precludes regulation, but does not answer the real question: what action to take, given inevitable uncertainty.

Version 2: Uncertainty justifies action. This version of the PP is more aggressive. “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established” (Wingspread Statement 1998, in Raffensberger & Ticknor 1999 at 353). But cause and effect is never “fully established.” And if it is unclear what causes the harm, it is unclear what “measures” would prevent it. Again, the real question is what action to take, given the uncertainty.

Version 3: Uncertainty requires shifting the burden and standard of proof. This version of the PP is the most aggressive. It holds that uncertain risk requires forbidding the potentially risky activity until the proponent of the activity demonstrates that it poses no (or acceptable) risk. For example, “the applicant or proponent of an activity or process or chemical needs to demonstrate . . . that the environment and public health will be safe. The proof must shift to the party or entity that will benefit from the activity and that is most likely to have the information” (Raffensberger & Ticknor 1999 at 345-346). This shift in the burden of proof may elicit information from the least-cost provider, but if the standard of proof is too demanding it may amount to over regulation.”

Problems applying the precautionary principle arise from differing versions and ambiguity within each definition. Gary E. Marchant and Kenneth L. Mossman in their paper entitled “Arbitrary and Capricious – The Precautionary Principle in the European Courts” International Policy Press , (Full text PDF file available http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.787/book_detail.asp) state:

“The inconsistencies among different versions of the precautionary principle are compounded by the ambiguity in any specific formulation of the precautionary principle. No version of the precautionary principle is clear on when the precautionary principle applies and, just as important, when the principle does not apply.41 Moreover, every version of the precautionary principle is ambiguous as to what it requires when it does apply.42 As U.S. law professor Cass Sunstein recently commented, the biggest problem with the precautionary principle is not that “it leads in bad directions, but [rather], read for all it is worth, it leads in no direction at all.”43”

Marchant and Mossman suggest that the ambiguity inherent in the precautionary principle is intentional and the source of the precautionary principle’s political power.

“In short, the precautionary principle has not been fully specified because the proponents of the principle recognize that the power of the principle lies in its ambiguity.57 If the precautionary principle is better defined to simply state that regulators must apply some degree of precaution, while also considering countervailing factors, such as economic costs and risk-risk trade-offs, the principle would represent little change from existing practice and disappoint many of those who seek more fundamental changes from the status quo. Alternatively, if the precautionary principle is construed much more absolutely, as its most ardent proponents would likely prefer, few if any governments could credibly maintain even symbolic adherence to such an extreme measure. Accordingly, the precautionary principle is necessarily ambiguous, because if it were to be made more specific, it would become enmeshed in the existing regulatory controversies and lose much of its superficial appeal.”

Marchant and Mossman argue that the application of the precautionary principle by European Union courts has been inconsistent.

“Through February 2004, the precautionary principle has been cited in sixty decisions of the European Union courts.1 A table listing these decisions is provided in the appendix. The role the precautionary principle played in these decisions varied considerably, from insignificant in some cases to central to the outcome in others. As shown in the appendix, the precautionary principle played a major role in fourteen cases, playing only a minor role in forty-six cases. In those cases in which the precautionary principle played a major role, the court decided the case in favor of the party relying on the precautionary principle in half of those cases (7/14). In contrast, in the cases where the precautionary principle played a minor role and the court issued a decision on the merits of the issue for which the precautionary principle was invoked, approximately 75 percent (25/34) of the decisions were in favor of the side asserting the precautionary principle.2 These summary statistics suggest that the precautionary principle received very mixed and inconsistent treatment by the EU courts.”

The current version (23 Feb 2006) of the Wikipedia article states “In deciding how to apply the principle, analyses may use a cost-benefit analysis which factors in both the opportunity cost of not acting, and the option value of waiting for further information before acting. This implies that potentially harmful action can be taken before there is complete certainty about future consequences (which is in practice rarely attainable).”

I doubt that Marchant and Mossman would agree with the above assertion. Marchant and Mossman state in the above cited paper:

“Another important difference in the numerous versions of the precautionary principle is whether and how costs are to be considered in making regulatory decisions. Perhaps the most-cited version of the precautionary principle is that included as Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides, “Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”37 This formulation expressly indicates that costs should be considered to ensure that any precautionary actions are “cost-effective.” In contrast, the formulation of the precautionary principle favored by many U.S. public-interest proponents, the Wingspread Statement, makes no mention of economic considerations. This version of the precautionary principle states, “When an activity raises threats of harms to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”38 The European Commission has offered yet a third variation with respect to consideration of costs under the precautionary principle. In its communication explaining the precautionary principle, the commission stated that the precautionary principle incorporates the principle of proportionality, in that “[m]easures based on the precautionary principle must not be disproportionate to the desired level of protection and must not aim at zero risk, something which rarely exists.”39 Implementation of this proportionality requirement in applying the precautionary principle “should include an economic cost-benefit analysis where this is appropriate and possible,” as well as a wider consideration of noneconomic factors.40 Other significant differences exist between different versions of the precautionary principle. For example, the Rio Declaration applies by its terms only to actions that would result in “environmental degradation,” whereas the Wingspread Statement is broader, applying to actions that would harm either the environment or human health. The Rio Declaration imposes no affirmative duty to act but simply states that uncertainty shall not preclude the possibility of regulation, while the Wingspread version is phrased in terms of a positive obligation to act. The combined effect of these differences could easily result in inconsistent regulatory outcomes in many cases.”

Pinnell 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

"The precautionary principle is the idea that if the consequences of an action are potentially severe or irreversible, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used to prevent action." To me, this seems to mean: "Be brave, and willing to act in less than complete confidence." However, the rest of the article seems to contradict this, saying, "Be as careful as you possibly can." Perhaps someone could clear up this muddle? Neon Merlin 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There are different flavors of the PP just like there are different interpretations of 'conservatism' or 'Islam' Both definitions are valid. But you're right the article is confusing. I made a few edits to clarify it a little bit. Removed uncited rambles, etc.Prospect77 21:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

“

A classic example of application of the principle was Dr. John Snow's removal in 1854 of the handle of a water pump in Broad Street, London, in order to prevent a cholera outbreak from the infected well. (At the time, the science on the spread of cholera through contaminated water was not yet conclusive.)

”

How the heck is that an application of the PP? Dr. Snow was either acting in the full knowlege of the risks and benefits, or was acting contrary to the PP by taking action which would cause definable harm (cutting off water supply to people) without proof of the benefits. Argyriou (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an ideal example. Snow was being proactive, not based on a full knowledge of risks and benefits, as Argyriou suggests, but based on a novel hypothesis. Since proactivity is not generally considered under the precautionary principle, however, the example should be removed unless a good justification is provided.--StN 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Environmental activism

The only context I've ever heard the precautionary principle in, has been when justifying environmental activism. Notions such as requiring hands-free cell phones (to keep the transmitter away from your head); moving cell phone towers (or military radar) away from communities; opposition to power-transmission lines in residential neighborhoods; opposition to electric blankets (!); removing asbestos insulations from walls and ceilings; and most famously, restrictions on "ozone-killing CFS" and "global warming causing" carbon dioxide.

The principle says that not being sure is no reason not to take action against something.

The controversy stems from complaints that some of the bans or "remedies" are worse than the supposed risks of doing nothing. These complainers assert that the precautionary principle is being used as a mere pretext, by campaigners with an axe to grind.

Let's find out more about this and put it into the article. For example, on asbestos abatement, has anyone followed up to find out whether removing asbestos from school buildings has increased or decreased the number of asbestos fibers in the inside air?

Or on trace poisons (like dioxin or cyanide), has anyone studied the effects of very small doses? (see linear no-threshold hypothesis). --Uncle Ed 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation bias

It seems to me that a strong proponent of the principle has gone through the entire "criticism" section, adding requests for citations without reason. For example I don't think the statement that "every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences" needs any citations to back it up. This is an encyclopaedia article people, not a usenet flamewar! Alex.g 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Pvednes 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's more than just "logic", it's editorial ("Risk assessment is smarter"), and the adder of that material cited his own web site as a source ([1]), making it clear that it was original research. I'm not for or against the precautionary principle, nor against that individual's additions -- they don't seem entirely wrong -- but it is still original research, so the OR tag, which was removed by a different user, should stay. This is indeed an encyclopedia, which means we are compelled to cite reliable sources, not our own work, even if that our personal work may have some validity to it. Someone antagonistic to those additions would have removed them outright; I don't disagree with them, but their validity is still uncertain.--Father Goose 17:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the more attention you bring to this issue, the more likely someone (not I) is going to delete the material outright, fully backed up by this policy. Just let it stand, in the hopes that someone will eventually back it up with legitimate sources.--Father Goose 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

General and specific

This article is unclear because it confuses two things:

the general idea of "being careful"
the specific idea that "emissions can be banned" without any proof that they would cause harm

The general idea enjoys wide application, from household hints to engineering codes. Don't do anything, unless you're reasonably sure it's safe to do so. For example, electricians generally assume a wire is "live" until they check it with a volt meter; even then, they prefer to cut all power with a main switch before working on the circuit. Computer programmers make a backup copy of all code, documents and databases before making even a minor change. Mothers drop a bit of formula on their wrist before giving a bottle of warm milk to a baby.

The specific idea has a rather narrow application in the political arena. Enviornmentalists insist on banning emissions such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the grounds that they MIGHT deplete ozone in the stratosphere to the significant detriment of human life (like, maybe more cancers). They got a major international agreement signed (the Montreal Protocol) despite the lack of any scientific evidence that CFC emissions had led to increased Ultraviolet radiation hitting ground level. --Uncle Ed 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

section on criticism

this section needs a lot of work. it is generally presented in an un-encyclopaedic tone. some of the arguments are quite convoluted and distract from the main pro and cons. for example the text regarding life extension should probably be deleted since it addresses a nuance and not the main point: namely that overpopulation is the main point of risk for future generations...not life extension. Anlace 03:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment on the life extension thing. I would add that the "Do no harm section" is a bit meaningless. I don't understand at all what it is getting at. I propose its deletion too. Ttguy 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to this dialog i have removed some of these non-encyclpaedic babble items. Perhaps we can work on what remains to shape it up. Anlace 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even worse, the section does only provide against PP arguments, no comment of proponents of PP on these criticism, thus providing a biased POV. Arnoutf 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but involved in utilising the "precautionary principle" throughout my whole career, I believe I have some saying in this. I am a bit bewildered about the whole article. The precautionary principle history background in the article is clearly incomplete. The principle emanates from the 20´s when one suspected the recently disovered x-rays and radiation to be dangerous, i.e. it has NOTHING to do with environmental issues from the beginning. The principle is easy: avoid the potential danger but only if it means that it doesn´t mean involving new resources to avoid the danger. The last part has been totally dropped when the principle suddenly appeared in environmental issues. It is very important to separate potential harm from pertubation. It is a case of optimizing resources to lower the overall risks in all known or unknown cases, i.e. spending billions on mitigation of climate change, when it is not proven beyond doubt that it has a significant impact from humans is ok, only as long as there are not any other more (and proven) immediate needs.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precautionary_principle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.181.49.223 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof"

I removed this bit, because it doesn't seem to illustrate the precautionary principle very well - it seems to imply taking actions rather than preventing them, which seems contradictory to the precautionary principle.

The paragraph which starts "The concept includes..." seems almost nonsensical to me. The PP doesn't "include" risk prevention, it's a principle about risk prevention. The other claims of that sentence are equally muddled. Argyriou (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points. I have pruned out the clause about "risk prevention". I would suggest we go slowly and try to edit and improve the rest. It may not be perfectly written (I didnt write the bits you are speaking of, and am not trying to vigourously defend them as they stand), but there are some threads here that should not just be deleted. The concept of "human fallibility" is certainly intrinsic to the discussion as well as an implication of ethical responsibility. As far as the quote goes, we may be able to find a better one, but it is well sourced, so i would vote to retain it until someone can find a better quote or overall sourced definition. Anlace 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence, which is currently the one that has stood for more than a year, corresponds to the PP as understood by people who have advocated, developed, and written about it. The statement of the concept is not a point of view. Opponents of the PP, however, have been substituting lead sentences that do not correspond to the discourse around this concept. Whether you support the PP or not, it should be represented accurately here. That should not prevent people from recording documented criticisms of the PP later in the article.StN (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed to the current lead sentence, it seems to be uncited. The fact that it may have been there for a year, probably isn't really relevant.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The current article completely takes WP:LEAD and tears it up into little pieces. If this article is ever going to get away from 'start' status that needs to change; so anybody that thinks that this is an important principle needs to get wordsmithing pronto.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Logical Criticism

I know of a solid deductive contradiction that could be included after sourcing:

given: All consequences of action A are not known.

1) Consider action A

2) Precautionary principle dictates to act (negation)A

3) Consider action negation(A)

4) Precautionary principle says to act A.

Mickeyklein (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thus the precautionary principle at once dicatates to do and not do every action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyklein (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I just said that. My apologies for not reading the talk page more closely. However, it's not quite the case that it dictates to do and not do every action. If all actions have a potential for grave harm, the conclusion follows. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

PPand the end of Freedom

Is not the PP the exact oposite of the liberal idea that you should not be restrained unless harm to others can be proven? 70.150.94.194 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit bewildered about the whole thing. The precautionary principle comes from the 20´s when one suspected the recently disovered x-rays and radiation to be dangerous. The principle is easy: avoid the potential danger but only if it means that it doesn´t mean involving new resources to avoid the danger. The last part has been totally dropped or perverted when the principle suddenly appeared in environmental issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.181.49.223 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Precautionary principle.png

Is the matrix really showing the idea correctly? I tried to follow the matrix for some real cases and it does not make much sense to me. The "catastrophy" might happen if the risk/harm becomes true and i did not do anything - if i did something to prevent the risk and the risk comes true - well: pew, we are lucky. If the risk does not come true (e.g. its false) and i still did something to potentially prevent it - well then life is good, isnt it. Maybe i did understand it in a wrong way. 89.13.50.234 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a discussion with this anon user via email (DJ). He thought the columns were labeled incorrectly based on the video I cite as a source[2]. At one point when I was making the diagram, I noticed the same thing and thought I had gotten something wrong... However, in this case, whether it is "action not taken" or "action taken" which causes catastrophe, depends on the circumstances.

In the case of the video on Global Warming, "action not taken" (to prevent global warming) creates catastrophe.

In the case of Hydrofracking in NY (an issue I'm working on), "action taken" (the act of drilling) is what causes catastrophe.

So how the diagram is applied, the specific matter at hand makes all the difference in the way the two columns are labeled --Bill Huston ^(talk) 10:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be made clearer that "Action Taken" refers to a potentially harmful action. I had to read your post to understand what was going on. To take action, usually, connotes something positive, i.e. stopping injustice or harmful behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.198.30 (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

precautionary principle enshrined in Ecuador's constitution

I am not tech savvy enough to edit the entry, but I would like to see mention of the fact that Ecuador has enshrined the precautionary principle in its constitution. See http://www.medicc.org/mediccreview/index.php?issue=17&id=214&a=vahtml. Cranmills (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)cranmills

POV problems with cartoon

This cartoon does not simply present/illustrate the precautionary principle, it claims that it is correct. First, by calling the consequence of not taking an action (that in reality would have been good) "life continues" (this is not the case with regard, for instance, to lifesaving medical technology that hasn't been proven not to have bad side effects). Second, by claiming that the "worst case scenario" is taking a risky action and not having it turn out well, as opposed to the consequences of not taking an action that would have been good. Third, it implicitly claims that we can know risks with certainty, when we cannot (science cannot fully prove a negative, as in "this isn't dangerous"). Fourth, by claiming that "large loss of life" is an inevitable consequence of environmental damage. I suggest removing it until something better can be created, that explicitly does not advocate for the precautionary principle. Allens (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You say that it "claims that we can know risks with certainty", but it says on the cartoon that "The certainty of risk is unknown and unknowable." LogicalFinance33 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a claim that only in some cases is it true that the "certainty of risk is unknown and unknowable", and claiming to be only speaking of such cases; otherwise, the cartoon is an argument for doing nothing (new) whatsoever (something that may admittedly be the motivation of some supporters of the Precautionary Principle, but they generally don't admit it). I note "without knowing the risks with certainty" in the upper-left-hand box. Allens (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point in your argument. I think that the graphic is only meant to be an example of what the process of using the principal with the chart looks like. I watched the youtube video [3] that was given in the description of the image. In that, the guy used a different example where taking action ended up being the best case and not taking action was the catastrophe. So it could be different depending on the specific situation. Maybe the graphic just needs a disclaimer that it is only one generic example of how to set up the chart to use the principal. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong historic references and wrong interpretation of precautionary principle

The precautionary principle in natural sciences stems from radiation physics and radiation protection. In the early days of x-rays and activity applications the dangers were not fully understood and it was not until cancer manifested itself, suspiscions were risen. One did not know the mechanisms behind the appearence of cancer and could not derive a connection between dose and potential harm. Thus, a precautionaty principle was developed. This was in the 10-20´s of the last century.

Furthermore this principle was developed into an optimisation process where the utilisation of radiation and the positive outcomes where weighted against the negative. Something that is lacking in the description of the pre-cautionary principle here and often overlooked when discussing environmental issues. The missing part is that no action should be taken IF this leads to a risk of even higher consequences elsewhere. I.e resources used for actions impossible to measure when there are other more concrete/measurable needs elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.63.101 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

michael creighton quote

article currently says:

Michael Crichton wrote: The "precautionary principle," properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.(ref)Crichton, Michael (2004). State of Fear. HarperCollins. p. 571. ISBN 0-06-621413-0.(/ref)

I deleted this, and it was reverted. So... a) this is from a novel; it is fiction. Who knows whether Crichton meant it sarcastically or straight, but in any case, b) a novel is not a reliable source for content (unless the content is an article about the novel, which is another story). c) And Crichton was a novelist - not a scientist or a regulatory expert or anything else that made him an authority worth citing - much less quoting by name - in an encyclopedia article about the precautionary principle. d) There is nothing to say why is is notable that he wrote that in his novel - another reason why it doesn't belong. I look forward to discussing. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Crichton cannot be flicked aside quite as casually as you have done here. State of Fear is more than just a novel, and includes polemics backed with citations. Likewise, Crichton was more than just a novelist. He had notable credentials in many areas, including significant academic credentials. His views are certainly more relevant than, for example, Ronald Bailey, a conservative science correspondent with a BA who is cited further on in the article for a piece he wrote for a libertarian magazine. The Precautionary Principle is a principal that cannot be said to be under the governance of any particular discipline. An economist might reflect on economic implications, a law professor might reflect on impacts in jurisprudence, and a physicist like David Deutsch might just pontificate. Philosophical logicians, conservationists, politicians and school educators may feel they have views that are equally relevant. It is not, as you misrepresent it, a scientific matter. Crichton is a notable generalist with formidable academic and literary credentials, and a track record of exploring in depth unintended consequences and catastrophes that might result from new technologies and human failures. He is uniquely positioned to make a relevant comment or two on the precautionary principle. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! You focused on my point c) which is really not the main issue under wiki policies - you are right, novelists may be great thinkers. The real issue here is d). Let me say more... don't know if you noticed, but I have been going through this article carefully to bring it closer to GA status. One thing I am working on, is weeding out the OR that this article is/was full of. The presence of many quotes (including this one) with attribution in the content is part of the OR problem. In this case, what makes Crichton's quote WP:NOTABLE? As per Wikipedia policy WP:PSTS we need some secondary source that puts Crichton's State of Fear into a context, describes its notability, and summarizes its arguments; pulling a quote out of the novel and putting it in the article is OR/SYN. The way it stands, it is purely the judgement of the editor who put this in, that it is notable. I want to say that a) and b) are additional points of concern.....when I read through the article I did a double take when I hit this, thinking "we are sourcing content from a novel? wtf?" But this is secondary - the key issue is d) Do you see what I mean? Thank you again for talking.Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Epipelagic here — Crichton had strong scientific background and specifically State of Fear is not just a book of fiction, but strongly representative for Crichton's philosohpical views. He repeated similar statements in his public speeches[4] and State of Fear is being referenced in the scientific community as representative source for Crichton's view on this topic[5] Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the conversation and more importantly, for providing a secondary source for the notability of Crichton's quote. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

aldo leopold

I hate to point something out, and not fix it myself, but I think the task is best left to more experienced and less time crunched wiki editors. I think this article has made a whopping omission. Although it points out that the idea of the precautionary principle has been around for a good minute now, it fails to recognize its major source in the United States. This source is the ecological philosopher Aldo Leopold, who is often credited in academic literature (especially in ecology and conservation biology) as being one of the first to fully articulate this concept. I think a good section recognizing his contribution is necessary to bring this article up to a high standard. Although Leopold discussed this concept at length in many of his writings, his quote from A Sand County Almanac (I think) is probably his most widely cited in reference to the precautionary principle. I have included it below.

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Grrbrown (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Esher paragraph

I just removed the following paragraph

The precautionary principle is in some ways an expansion of the English common law concept of ‘duty of care’ originating in the decisions of the judge Lord Esher in the late 19th century. ^{[citation needed]} According to Lord Esher: “Whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that everyone of ordinary sense who did think, would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances, he would cause danger or injury to the person, or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger”. ^{[citation needed]} This statement clearly contains elements of foresight and responsibility, but does not refer to a lack of certainty, as the word “would” is used rather than “might”, or “could”. The other important difference is that the duty of care applies only to people and property, not to the environment.

This seems to be from somebody's school essay, perhaps. If you read what Lord Esher was up to, he actually argued pretty strenuously for a very limited definition of negligence - he advocated for instance for no speed limits on country roads, where there is no reasonable expectation of harm to somebody else. There is discussion of this quote and the context in another wiki article Donoghue_v_Stevenson#Neighbour_principle. I am still learning about the PP but so far have not come across any RS discussing the origins of the PP in common law countries that trace anything back to Esher; I have come across lots of content that seems lifted from our article. Oy But if somebody finds a source for Esher as a legit origin of PP, great! Seems to me, at this time, that he would have argued in opposition to broad application of it. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The 3 Definitions of the Precautionary Principle

The precautionary prinicple is a source of underlying tensions between the United States and places like the European Union on many environmental issues. The European Union says: We should take wait on genetically modified food and that we should act now on Global Warming The United States says: It is alright to wait....

These sources of tension arise from the many definitions of the precautionary prinicple, which arose from the many authors on the issue. These definitions can be seen through an if, then, even if analysis.

WEAK DEFINITION IF: There is a risk of serious or irreversible harm THEN: We should regulate against this risk EVEN IF: There is a lack of definitive evidence

MODERATE DEFINITION IF: There is any risk THEN: We Should regulate against this risk EVEN IF: The cause and effect relationship is not established scientifically

STRONG DEFINITION IF: There is any potential risk; If it is not risk free THEN: We MUST regulate against this risk EVEN IF: Supporting evidence is speculative. And... EVEN IF: The costs are vary high.

The European Union uses the strongest definition (it is unclear if genetic engeneering is safe...) The United States uses more of a moderate definition (which is consistent with its prescription drug regulation and the use of "Gate Keeper Regulation")

Material from my Business and Government Relations class at the George Washington University, tought by professor Howard Beales (a former member of the FTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majohnsomajohnso (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section and the Primary Sources tag

Someone tagged the Criticisms section saying that we should not have primary sources in this section. This tag cites No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources which says it is best to use secondary sources. It defines secondary sources as "sources (that) draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". I would suggest that the sources cited in the Criticism section allready fall into the category of secondary sources because they are interpretive and analytical.

Hence I deleted the tag.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

comment added to article today

today in this dif, User:4Truth2020 added the following comment to the article: [Editor: Part of the 5th factor in #3 above ("and whether there is a rational or scientific basis for the concern") is at odds with the language in the Rio accord which states, in part "lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used...". However, in point #6, the decision seems to revert to the Rio principle by saying, "the principle permits the taking of preventative measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of the threat become fully known" Additionally, in point # 4,Justice Preston requires answer to an important question, to wit "what would constitute sufficient evidence"]

This kind of editorializing doesn't belong in the article. It appears to be User:4Truth2020's original research (see WP:OR) which doesn't belong anywhere in WIkipedia, including here. But if there a reliable source (see WP:RS) for this, then great! But we need to bring that, with the content. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ignores misuse of Precautionary Principle (Approach) biased by value judgment and vested interests

Precautionary principle is unobjective and anti-science in the sense that it encourages Kuhnian value-based or opinion-based judgments turning the matter into pure political fodder. This eschews Hume-ian objectivity and opens the field to all kinds of manipulation based on political interests, vested (financial or career) interests, etc. If I push a policy measure based on a fat tail that has never been observed in nature, therefore has never existed, this is nothing more than policy by figment of the imagination. This is all stuff of liberal idealists who think they know what is right (the truth?) for the common good but their values and judgments are not based on objective fact based determinations.Danleywolfe (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment but this is not a forum for discussing the topic. If you have a suggestion for content and sources to support the content, please bring it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Black swan and GMOs

Discussion is ongoing here Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#The_Precautionary_Principle_.28with_Application_to_the_Genetic_Modification_of_Organisms.29. Let's keep this in one place, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR notice

I have moved the 1RR notice to the edit notice. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)