The Precautionary Principle

1. The Precautionary Principle Peter Saunders King’s College London & Institute of Science in Society

2. Wingspread (1998) 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 scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

3. The European Commission (2000) The Precautionary Principle applies “where preliminary objective scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern …”

4. The principle is to be applied when • there is scientific evidence for a threat to the environment or to health, but • the evidence, while sound, is not conclusive. • What is crucial is that there must be a prima facie scientific case for a threat. If there is not, then nothing happens. • (though it might for other reasons!)

5. Common criticisms Ill defined: The term can mean almost anything Vacuous: Does not lead to definite decisions Too weak – contributes nothing that is not already there, eg in risk assessment Too strong – will stop progress dead in its tracks Anti-scientific – mostly about unscientific prejudice Merely an excuse for protectionism The issues are better dealt with in the courts

6. Late lessons from early warnings – the precautionary principle 1896-2000 (ed P Harramoës et al) European Environment Agency ISBN 92-9167-323-4 www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf Fisheries, radiation, benzene, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), halocarbons, diethylstilboestrol (DES), antimicrobials as growth promoters, sulphur dioxide, chemical contamination in the Great Lakes, tributyltin (TCB) antifoulants, hormones as growth promoters, BSE

7. Tobacco The principle would not have prevented the introduction of tobacco by Sir Walter Raleigh But it would have made a big difference after Sir Richard Doll’s work

8. Is A really the cause of B? The Bradford Hill Criteria Strength of association: Is there good correlation between A and B? Consistency: If there is more than one study, is there consistency? Specificity: Does B occur when and only when A does? Temporality: Does A come before B? (Not as trivial as it sounds!) Dose response: Does increasing A increase B? Plausibility: If there is no known mechanism, is it at least plausible that there could be one? Coherence: Does the claim that A causes B seriously conflict with what we know about B? Experiment: If we change A, does B change as well? Analogy: Are there analogous examples? Bradford Hill insisted this is not a check list!

9. Asbestos First mined in Canada in 1879 In 1898, Lucy Deane, one of the first Women Inspectors of Factories, included asbestos work as one of the four dusty occupations to come under observation that year “on account of their easily demonstrated danger to the health of workers and because of ascertained cases of injury to bronchial tubes and lungs medically attributed to the employment of the sufferer.”

10. She continued: “the evil effects of asbestos dust have also instigated a microscopic examination of the mineral dust by HM Medical Inspector. Clearly revealed was the sharp glass-like jagged nature of the particles, and where they are allowed to rise and so to remain suspended in the air of the room in any quantity, the effects have been found to be injurious, as might have been expected.” Lucy Deane, 1898. Exactly 100 years later, asbestos was banned in the UK and France

11. Given that the dynamics of science are not predictable, it is important to consider the dangers of excessive precaution. One of those is the threat to technological innovation. Imagine it is 1850 and the following version of the precautionary principle is adopted: no innovation shall be approved for use until it is proven safe, with the burden of proving safety placed on the technologist. Under this system, what would have happened to electricity, the internal combustion engine, plastics, pharmaceuticals, the Internet, the cell phone and so forth? The Perils of the Precautionary Principle: Lessons from the American and European Experience John D. Graham, The Heritage Foundation

13. BST (Bovine Somatotrophin) Hormones need only be present in very small amounts to have significant effects Hormones can act across species BST does not replicate the activity of hGH in humans and is largely destroyed by pasteurisation But it increases the production of ‘insulin-like growth factors’ in cattle and these are not destroyed High levels of IGF-I in humans are associated with a greater risk of cancer Hormones often have more than one function

14. The Antiprecautionary Principle No measures may be taken against any activity unless it can be proven to be harmful to human health or the environment. The responsibility for establishing this lies with the public.

16. UK 2008 White Paper on Nuclear Power During the course of our consultation in July 2007, a separate report identified that leukaemia rates were higher in children and young people living near nuclear facilities141. However, it concluded that there was no clear explanation for this and that further research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn from the report. A report was also published by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection on a study into childhood cancers in the vicinity of nuclear power stations in Germany142. The report concluded that whilst in Germany it believes that there is a correlation between the distance of the child’s home from the nearest nuclear power station and the risk of developing leukaemia, it did not follow that ionising radiation emitted by German nuclear power stations was the cause. Childhood cancer is also related to socio-economic factors and this does not seem to have been taken into account in the German study. The study also covers a relatively small sample in comparison to COMARE’s 11th report which contains 32,000 cases.

17. What COMARE’s 11th Report actually says: COMARE’s Tenth Report (COMARE, 2005) reviewed the evidence relating to childhood cancers in the vicinity of the major licensed nuclear sites (power stations and other nuclear installations) in Great Britain (www.comare.org.uk) This is also dealt with further in this volume (Chapter 5). There was no evidence of excess numbers of cases in any local 25-km area around any of the nuclear power stations. However, around other nuclear installations the analysis reported an excess of leukaemia and NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] in children near Burghfield, Dounreay and Sellafield; the results were consistent with previously published studies. Aldermaston, Burghfield and Harwell showed a significantly raised incidence of solid tumours in their vicinity. In contrast to a study using similar methods conducted by Sharp et al (1996), a statistically significant increase was seen for the Rosyth Naval Base. However, the finding is thought to be artefactual (COMARE, 2005). COMARE is encouraging the research workers concerned to undertake a detailed comparison of the data and methodologies used – see Recommendation 2 of the Tenth Report.

18. Applying the precautionary principle requires scientific • evidence: • prima facie evidence of hazard • further investigation to see if this stands up • are there alternatives? • But where does this evidence come from?

19. Scientists’ Statement to US EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836 The following statement has been submitted by 26 leading corn insect scientists working at public research institutions located in 16 corn producing states. All of the scientists have been active participants of the Regional Research Projects NCCC-46 "Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize" and/or related projects with corn insect pests. The statement may be applicable to all EPA decisions on PIPs, not just for the current SAP. It should not be interpreted that the actions and opinions of these 26 scientists represent those of the entire group of scientists participating in NCCC-46. The names of the scientists have been withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research. PIP: Plant Incorporated Protectant SAP: Scientific Advisory Panel

20. STATEMENT: "Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited." IRM: Integrated Resource Management

21. Late lessons from early warnings – the precautionary principle 1896-2000 (ed P Harramoës et al) European Environment Agency ISBN 92-9167-323-4 www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf Fisheries, radiation, benzene, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), halocarbons, diethylstilboestrol (DES), antimicrobials as growth promoters, sulphur dioxide, chemical contamination in the Great Lakes, tributyltin (TCB) antifoulants, hormones as growth promoters, BSE