Science and the Precautionary Principle
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References and Notes
1
However, one authority traces its use back to 1854, in the famous incident when John Snow removed the pump handle from a London well, “curing” a cholera epidemic in the neighborhood. D. Gee, Financial Times(London), U.S. ed. 2, 16 December 1999, p. 14.
2
Vanderzwaag D., J. Environ. Law Pract.8, 2 (1999)See also www.ec.gc.ca/cepa/ip18/e18_00.html.
3
Freestone D., Hey E., Eds. Intl. Environ. Law Policy Ser31, (1996).
4
World Charter for Nature, U.N. GA Resolution 37/7 (1982).
5
One wag has suggested that the Precautionary Principle should be applied (presumably in a strong form) to the use of the Precautionary Principle, which would result in no action—a good or bad thing, depending on one's point of view.
6
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 13 June 1992 (U.N. Doc./CONF.151/5/Rev.1).
7
Declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (Preamble) (1990).
8
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Health Phys, 74, 2, (1998).
9
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std. C95.1, 1999 Edition.
10
Elwood J. M., Environ. Health Perspect107, 2 (1999).
11
Maximum levels of RF exposure to the public from typical cellular base stations are about 1 _W/cm, a factor of about 500 below U.S. regulatory limits at 850 MHz (which generally follow the IEEE C95.1 standard). Cellular base stations transmit at similar power levels as police, fire, and other emergency communications systems and paging systems, and far below those of commercial radio and television broadcasting transmitters.
12
Swiss Bundesrat, Decree Concerning Protection from Non-Ionising Radiation (NISV). See www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/2000/213.pdf [in German].
13
For discussion see New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Health, “Towards national guidelines for managing the effects of radiofrequency transmitters: A discussion document,” Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. See www.mfe.govt.nz/about/publications/rma/draft_rf_guidelines.pdf.
14
Commission of the European Communities, Communication on the Precautionary Principle, Brussels 02 February 2000. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/com/health_consumer/precaution.htm.
15
The commentary does not have binding status as would a regulation or a directive (which are EU “laws”), but is a general guidance as to the basis of future Commission decisions. Most countries mentioned in this Policy Forum are not part of the EU, and the commentary would have only an indirect impact on them.
16
National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1983.
17
Only limited case law exists on the principle. A recent decision by the European Court of Justice upholds a ban on the export of British beef into EU countries: “[I]n view of the seriousness of the risk [of bovine spongiform encephalopathy] and the urgency of the situation, the Commission did not react in a manifestly inappropriate manner by imposing, on a temporary basis and pending the production of more detailed scientific information, a general ban on exports of bovine [products].” Case E-180/96, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities, 5 May 1998. See europa.eu.int/cj/en/jurisp/index.htm.
18
Cellular Telephone Company v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 1999).
(1)eLetters
eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Embedded figures cannot be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures within eLetters in general. If a figure is essential, please include a link to the figure within the text of the eLetter. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.
Log In to Submit a ResponseNo eLetters have been published for this article yet.
Recommended articles from TrendMD
- EU Court to rule on banned pesticide useYaffa Epstein, Science, 2021
- E.U. to let wary members ban genetically modified cropsTania Rabesandratana, Science, 2014
- EU Court: Science must justify future huntingYaffa Epstein, Science, 2019
- Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto ProtocolScience, 2002
- Europe's Stern Test for Biotech CropsScience, 1998
- European Law Targets ChemicalsJoan Stephenson, Journal of American Medical Association, 2007
- Endangered Environment: Another ViewJournal of American Medical Association, 1972
- Protecting the Nation's Health: The Problems of RegulationAlvin M. Cotlar, Journal of American Medical Association, 1977
- Acceptable Risk and Practical Safety: Philosophy in the Decision-Making ProcessWilliam J. Darby, Journal of American Medical Association, 1973
- Peeling the Orange : a critical assessment of the legality of the European Union Sanitary and phytosanitary measures regime against citrus produce from South Af...Clive Vinti, Obiter, 2016
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 288 | Issue 5468
12 May 2000
12 May 2000
Copyright
© 2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Submission history
Published in print: 12 May 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite as
- Kenneth R. Foster et al.
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Cited by
- Global monitoring for biodiversity: Uncertainty, risk, and power analyses to support trend change detection, Science Advances, 10, 7, (2024)./doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj1448
Loading...
Media
Figures
Multimedia
Tables
Check Access
Check Access
Check Access
Log in to view the full text
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
More options
Purchase digital access to this article
Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
References
References
1
However, one authority traces its use back to 1854, in the famous incident when John Snow removed the pump handle from a London well, “curing” a cholera epidemic in the neighborhood. D. Gee, Financial Times(London), U.S. ed. 2, 16 December 1999, p. 14.
2
Vanderzwaag D., J. Environ. Law Pract.8, 2 (1999)See also www.ec.gc.ca/cepa/ip18/e18_00.html.
5
One wag has suggested that the Precautionary Principle should be applied (presumably in a strong form) to the use of the Precautionary Principle, which would result in no action—a good or bad thing, depending on one's point of view.
6
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 13 June 1992 (U.N. Doc./CONF.151/5/Rev.1).
7
Declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (Preamble) (1990).
8
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Health Phys, 74, 2, (1998).
9
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std. C95.1, 1999 Edition.
11
Maximum levels of RF exposure to the public from typical cellular base stations are about 1 _W/cm, a factor of about 500 below U.S. regulatory limits at 850 MHz (which generally follow the IEEE C95.1 standard). Cellular base stations transmit at similar power levels as police, fire, and other emergency communications systems and paging systems, and far below those of commercial radio and television broadcasting transmitters.
12
Swiss Bundesrat, Decree Concerning Protection from Non-Ionising Radiation (NISV). See www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/2000/213.pdf [in German].
13
For discussion see New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Health, “Towards national guidelines for managing the effects of radiofrequency transmitters: A discussion document,” Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. See www.mfe.govt.nz/about/publications/rma/draft_rf_guidelines.pdf.
14
Commission of the European Communities, Communication on the Precautionary Principle, Brussels 02 February 2000. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/com/health_consumer/precaution.htm.
15
The commentary does not have binding status as would a regulation or a directive (which are EU “laws”), but is a general guidance as to the basis of future Commission decisions. Most countries mentioned in this Policy Forum are not part of the EU, and the commentary would have only an indirect impact on them.
16
National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1983.
17
Only limited case law exists on the principle. A recent decision by the European Court of Justice upholds a ban on the export of British beef into EU countries: “[I]n view of the seriousness of the risk [of bovine spongiform encephalopathy] and the urgency of the situation, the Commission did not react in a manifestly inappropriate manner by imposing, on a temporary basis and pending the production of more detailed scientific information, a general ban on exports of bovine [products].” Case E-180/96, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities, 5 May 1998. See europa.eu.int/cj/en/jurisp/index.htm.
Precautionary Principle: A Self-Defeating Concept?
The Precautionary Principle leads to risk transfer not risk eradication. For example, if the use of crops genetically engineered to be resistant to parasitical organisms were banned, other processes such as the application of pesticides would take the place of the genetic modifications. Banning genetically engineered crops is to promote the use of chemical pesticides.
Should the Precautionary Principle be applied to the Precautionary Principle? For the strongest formulation of the principle, noted by Foster et al., the Precautionary Principle itself would be banned because it may be considered very deleterious. With that frame of reference (lacking relevant data to make a "scientific" decision), a decision may be ideological and culturally based. That's neither good nor bad, but there should be some acknowledgement of it. In the balance between innovation and conservatism, it is ironical to see that "precaution" is an anagram of "up reaction"!