Ecology Center — Newsletter

When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established.

Your child wants to ride her bike. You tell her to wear a helmet.The family piles into the car. Everyone buckles up. You reach for the old milk in the refrigerator but you smell it before you drink it. You are assessing the odds of something bad happening, and choosing to increase your odds that the outcome will be good. Everyday we assess risks and choose to take action or not depending on many things – the law, ourrisk aversion, the trouble and cost it takes to be safe, and the perceived level of risk.

But what happens when the risk is real but hard to see, or the risk is real but distant in time? What happens when there is disagreement about the risk, or there are industries spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to pay for “scientific” studies to dispute the risk, or to confuse the public about the state of the science? What happens when regulations require a standard of proof that means real harm will occur before action can be taken?

Everyone knows someone who has been in a bike or a car accident. Many even know people who have died in accidents. Everyone knows someone who has eaten spoiled food, and some who have even gotten sick from that food. It’s harder to point to victims of global warming, lead or mercury poisoning, or to people whose immune systems are less robust because of exposure to pesticides or dioxin. You, or your child, may be one of these people without ever knowing it.

Systems such as climates, the human body, ecosystems, rivers, lakes, and the developing brains of children operate in complex ways. There are many factors that determine their function and in many cases we do not understand these systems well enough to understand our interventions.Yet we must make decisions every day that can influence, disrupt, harm, or help these systems.

Our failure to account for risks that are hard to see, or not proximate in time to their cause, environmentalists argue, has led to a world where some chronic conditions with environmental links are on the rise, like cancer, asthma, diabetes, and maybe even autism, to name a few. Chronic conditions and diseases now affect more than 100 million people in the United States (more than one-third of the population). Considerable evidence links levels of environmental contamination to some malignancies, birth defects, reproductive problems, impaired behavior, and impaired immune system function. Plant and animal species are becoming extinct, ecosystems are being destroyed, the stratospheric ozone is being depleted, and we are now seeing the signs of a warming globe.

The failure to protect people and the environment from harmful activity in the U.S. and around the globe, say public health advocates and environmentalists, is due to an outdated and inadequate approach to dealing with the world’s increasingly complex and interconnected threats. The most fundamental problem with current policy-making, they say, is that actions intended to regulate pollutants and toxics are usually taken only after definitive harm has been established. By then, it is often too late to prevent serious or irreversible damage to human health and the environment.

Critics of the status quo argue that a new approach – known as the precautionary principle – should be the approach used prior to traditional risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. Instead of placing the burden of proof on the public to show that an activity is harmful, the burden of proof would be on proponents of an activity to characterize the risk. The precautionary principle posits that when credible evidence of harm or potential harm exists, and the risk is significant, action should be taken even if some scientific uncertainty remains.

Most importantly, the precautionary principle invites the public and policy makers to ask fundamentally different questions, and to refuse to accept the often false choices we are often offered. Faced with the question of whether to allow a questionable activity, decision makers would not begin with: How much of this activity or pollutant can we stand? Instead, they would ask: Is there an alternative to this polluting or negative activity? Is there another way to meet the need? Does society need this activity in the first place? What are the ethical implications of this decision? What are the implications for future generations?

In addition to adjusting the threshold of scientific certainty needed to trigger preventive action so that it better reflects the nature of scientific evidence, and shifting the burden of proof from consumers to producers, using a precautionary approach would potentially change who is involved in the final decision-making process. In a consensus statement released after meeting for two days in 1998 at Wingspread, home of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wis., an international group of scientists, scholars, government officials, lawyers, and environmental and public health activists articulated the above elements of the precautionary principle and further defined some of its essential components. “The process of applying the precautionary principle,” they said, “must be open, informed, and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties.”

In other words, the kind of science needed to formulate sound public policy when there is imminent harm and absence of absolute proof is too important to be conducted by scientists and experts alone – behind closed doors. The precautionary principle implicitly recognizes that decisions (to act or not) made in the face of scientific uncertainty or ignorance are policy decisions not scientific ones – that questions of causality given scientific uncertainty are ultimately policy decisions with ethical and economic considerations. As such, advocates say, it is essential that the decision-making process be transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders.

Although there is no single definitive statement of the precautionary principle, the concept as it applies to human health and the environment has its roots in German environmental law developed in the early 1970s, when German scientists and policy makers grappled with “forest death” (Waldsterben). Suspecting air pollution as the cause, yet not fully convinced with scientific certainty, they developed the Vorsorgeprinzip, “foresight or forecaring,” or “precautionary principle,” and generated the German Clean Air Act of 1974 as well as other stringent policies since then to combat acid rain, North Sea pollution, and global warming.

This initial use of the precautionary principle included measures and tools that went far beyond just changing the kind of proof needed to justify action, according to “Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000,” (an Environmental Issue Report by the European Environment Agency, 2002). The authors outline essential elements of the principle incorporated into the 1974 legislation, as identified by a 1985 report on the Clean Air Act, such as:

The first use of the precautionary principle in the language of an international agreement or treaty was in 1984 at the First International Conference on Protection of the North Sea. In 1987, the Second North Sea Conference reaffirmed a commitment to “a precautionary approach” to control inputs of dangerous substances into the North Sea “even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence.” That same year, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer referred to “taking precautionary measures” to control emissions of harmful, ozone-depleting substances.

“One of the most important expressions of the precautionary principle internationally is the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development” according to “The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook,” published by the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN), a consortium of environmental groups and a leading proponent of the precautionary principle in North America. The Rio Declaration, signed and ratified by the U.S., states:

In order 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 not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty – the treaty that established the constitution for the European Union – clearly commits the EU to precaution: “Community policy on the environment … shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive actions should be taken …” More recent references appear in the 2000 European Commission communication on the precautionary principle, in which it defined the concept and explained how it intended to apply it; the 2000 United Nations Biosafety Protocol regulating trade in genetically modified products; and the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

One of the most obvious and important applications of the precautionary principle in EU environmental and public health policies is sweeping new proposed chemicals legislation known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals). Created in 2001 by the European Commission, EU’s administrative body, the legislation as currently drafted will require that industry publicly provide basic health, safety, and environmental impact data for a long list of chemicals that have not been tested despite their widespread use. REACH, expected to be law in 2006, would restrict the use of chemicals suspected of being carcinogenic, reproductive toxins, and those known to persist and accumulate in the environment.

Flirting with Disaster

By all accounts, the European Union – especially its Member States of Germany, Sweden, and Denmark – is far ahead of the U.S. in directly applying the precautionary principle to its environmental and public health policies. “Despite U.S. acceptance of the precautionary principle in international treaties and other statements, little work has been done to implement the principle,” SEHN points out. In fact, on the international stage, the U.S. has a record of “actively lobbying against precautionary actions by other governments.”

REACH, for example, has met stiff opposition from the U.S State and Commerce Departments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, trade groups, and the chemical industry (Dow Chemical Co., for example).

At the U.S. federal level, notes SEHN, “the precautionary principle isnot expressly mentioned in laws or policies. However, some laws have a precautionary nature, and the principle underlay much of the early environmental legislation in this country.” As examples, they cite The National Environmental Policy Act (1969), The Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), The Clean Water Act (1972), and The Pollution Prevention Act (1990).

Other examples of U.S. environmental, food, and drug legislation that embrace the concepts of foresight, prevention, and care but do not mention the precautionary principle by name include the 1958 Delaney Clause overseeing pesticide residue in food; The Federal Food and Drug Administration Act (1988), which requires testing for all new pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and other activities; and The Food Quality and Protection Act (1996), which requires pesticides to be proven safe to children or removed from the market.

Pre-market safety testing and review of food, pharmaceuticals, and pesticidesare terrific examples of shifting the burden of proof onto the producers of toxic substances, a primary element of a precautionary approach. However, many Americans falsely believe that all manufactured products and chemicals are tested for safety, according to Nancy Myers in her forthcoming book, “Precautionary Tools for Reshaping Environmental Policy.” Myers explains in an April 2004 excerpt: “In the United States, health and safety testing is required for all chemicals used in food and pesticides and for some new chemicals used in products or processes, but not for chemicals already in use. That means that some 30,000 are in use for which little or no health and safety data exist.” Actually, there is full toxicity testing on only 7% of chemicals, and only 12 chemicals out of 80,000 have full toxicity testing including neurotoxicity testing.

Pioneering Policies

The “precautionary principle,” in name and practice, finally made its way into American public policy on June 17, 2003, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors incorporated it as Article 1 of the City and County’s environment code. As Peter Montague, Rachel’s Environmental & Health News editor said, it was “a stunning and unprecedented breakthrough in the management of environmental matters in the U.S.” The vote was 8-2.

At the same time, the City approved the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, harnessing the municipa-lity’s tremendous purchasing power toreduce the use of toxic products, promote recycling and resource conserva-tion, and reduce pollution and contribu-tions to global warming. The ordinance makes it mandatory for municipal employees to choose the least environmentally harmful alternative product or service. A three-year review of the policy will be available in June 2006.

SEHN has also helped fashion precautionary principle policies and approaches in Berkeley and Marin County, California. Additionally, the groundbreaking San Francisco vote was followed by a similar commitment from the Environmental Justice Committee of the California Environmental Agency.

Principled Purchasing

In April 2004, SEHN science director Ted Schletter came to Ann Arbor with a presentation about the precautionary principle for a group that included a special committee of eleven citizens appointed by Ann Arbor’s City Council. Among them was Matthew Naud, Ann Arbor’s environmental coordinator for the past three years.

San Francisco, Berkeley, and now Ann Arbor are ostensibly in position to model new ways to evaluate city-level environmental decisions.

“Ted gave a very complete presentation. The major question is how do you implement this at the local level where there are strong budget considerations?”

Ann Arbor has lost about 150 workers since last year due to the budget.

“It’s exciting to wrestle with some of the issues that have arisen during these discussions,” says Ecology Center staffer Mary Beth Doyle, who serves on the City of Ann Arbor’s Environmental Commission. “How does a city like Ann Arbor, with its limited resources, do an adequate alternatives assessment? How do we consider the life cycle impact of a product? And how do we institutionalize these issues into decision-making?”

As these issues are considered, Naud is moving forward with first steps to identify ways to green the city’s purchasing decisions.

“We have a two-pronged ap-proach,” he said. “First we’ll try not to reinvent the wheel. There is lots of interest in green products, alternative products like cleaning products forice-rinks, or those little donuts that go in urinals. We have lots of urinals.The City of Ann Arbor has 147 parks.

We’re also trying to create a city Web site [to educate people about the issues].” Naud noted that U-M already has an environmentally preferable purchasing Web site.

“The second piece concerns our purchasing contracts with suppliers. We’d like to go after big-ticket items, goods that contain mercury, for example, or [toxic] flame-retardants. We’re also looking at environmentally preferable carpets and furniture.

“We’re trying to go after as much low hanging fruit as possible,” he said. Noting, for example, that they’ve “tapped into recycling fluorescent light bulbs” with the University of Michigan.

Naud underscored that Ann Arbor’s city budget pales next to U-M’s, noting that the city has about $100 million in its general fund compared to about $1.8 billion just for U-M’s hospital. Naud recognizes that any serious effort at success for the city must have deep involvement of the university.

“One of the problems is that it’s hard to do a cost-benefit analysis on precautionary purchasing,” he said. However, Naud noted, “We have the benefit of a forward thinking staff. We just need to make it easy for them to get good information and need to support them financially.”

San Francisco, Berkeley, and now Ann Arbor are ostensibly in position to model new ways to evaluate city-level environmental decisions. With a commitment to precaution, they are better able to alter purchasing traditions in accordance with more green principles.

Bottom Line Revisited

Adversaries of the precautionary principle argue that it is “unscientific” and stifles innovation by “requiring proof of safety.” Quite the opposite, say propo-nents. While traditional risk assessment has limited tools to deal with uncertain-ty and lack of information, the precautionary principle provides a mechanism that allows for uncertainty concerns to be incorporated into the evaluation. Furthermore the emphasis on setting clear goals and evaluation of all alternatives often stimulates innovative approaches, rather then stifling them.

“The markets of the Twenty-First Century will increasingly demand safe products and sustainable technologies.”
-- Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN)

“Preventive policies encourage the exploration of better, safer, and often ultimately cheaper alternatives – and the development of cleaner products and technologies,” SEHN points out. “As public awareness grows of hazards and of safer alternatives, these practices represent not only good ethics but also smart business. The markets of the Twenty-First Century will increasingly demand safe products and sustainable technologies.”

The use of the precautionary principle evokes such strong support, and equally strong criticism, says SEHN’s Nancy Myers in the Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society (June 2002), be-cause “it brings values to the forefront of the discussion. Invoking the precautionary principle is an acknowledgement that policy choices are value laden, and it is an explicit endorsement of certain values.” Myers characterizes those values as a “forecaring for life and the natural world.”

Employing precautionary economic analysis combines quantitative measures and qualitative measures, says Myers inher book, “ … things that can be measured and things that cannot. Both kinds of things have value, but too often, decisions are based only on the numerical – usually monetary – bottom line.”

Warnings & Lessons

Europe is far ahead of the United States in recognizing the power of precaution. In 2002 the European Environment Agency published a fascinating report that detailed 14 cases studies (from asbestos to Great Lakes chemical contamination). It convincingly demonstrated that “in trying to reduce current and future risks the lessons of history have rarely been used.”

“Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000” details the lag times from when an agent was identified as potentially harmful to the time something significant was done about it on a governmental level. For example, it notes that it took 100 years from the time in 1898 when Lucy Deane, a UK factory Inspector observed “the evil effects of asbestos dust … with the sharp glass-like nature of the particles – have been found to be injurious,” to the time in 1998 when the UK government decided to ban “white” asbestos.

“ … Just knowing enough is not of itself sufficient: acting wisely, and in good time, is also necessary.”
-- European Environment Agency report, 2002

Other cases covered include BSE,or the “mad cow” crisis, synthetic hormones to spur growth in cows, pigs and other farm animals, DES to prevent miscarriages, medical radiation, over-exploitation of fisheries, CFCs (which deplete the ozone layer), benzene, MTBE (a substitute for lead in gasoline whose dangers have been explored on 60 Minutes), tributyl tin (an antifoulant for boats and ships), PCBs,and air pollution from sulfur dioxide.

The report blasted traditional academic scholarship. “Compartmentalized science, no matter how erudite, is an insufficient base for knowing enough to anticipate or mitigate the impacts of such complex systems: integrated and synthesized knowledge, which pools the wisdom from many natural and social sciences, is a necessary condition for being Homo sapiens … just knowing enough is not of itself sufficient: acting wisely, and in good time, is also necessary.”

Brian McKenna is a Lansing-based freelance writer;
Ted Sylvester is editor of From the Ground Up.