Community environmental policy. are based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive measures should be taken, that environmental damage should be repaired as a matter of priority at its origin and that the polluter should pay. Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies. As Rupert and O`Riordan noted, the challenge in applying the principle is to „clarify that lack of certainty or inadequate evidence-based analysis is not a barrier to innovation until there is a reasonable likelihood of serious harm.“ [1] The absence of this nuanced application, according to Stewart Brand, makes the principle „self-repeal“ because „nothing is fully established in science“, starting from the precautionary principle itself and including „gravity or Darwinian evolution“. A balanced application should ensure that „precautions“ should only be taken „at an early stage“ and, once „relevant scientific evidence has been established“, regulatory measures should only respond to that evidence. [9] Weak versions of the precautionary principle represent a truism – undisputed in principle and in practice only necessary to combat public confusion or selfish claims by private groups that demand clear evidence of the harm that no rational society needs. [64]: 24 Following the adoption of the European Commission Communication on the precautionary principle, this principle has become a major element of EU policy, including in areas that go beyond environmental policy. Members of the Bay Area Working Group on the Precautionary Principle were involved in the drafting of the order. Critics of the principle use arguments similar to other formulations of technological conservatism. Lead already present in the human environment in the United States, Canada and Europe was generally controlled by legislative and executive means through lead-focused regulatory mechanisms in various media. An earlier discussion focused on how to apply the regulations to lead and other substances proposed for market entry, i.e. the use of proactive bars for the entry of untested substances.
A second related issue concerns the state of scientific and health uncertainty in the management or obstruction of regulatory initiatives. These two problems of regulating contaminants such as lead have triggered the development of the precautionary principle in different parts of the regulatory world. Percival (2006) presented a legal analysis of the principle in environmental law and regulation. Parties should take precautions to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and to mitigate its adverse effects. If serious or irreversible damage threatens, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be invoked to justify the postponement of such measures. As regards the second part of the principle of animal sensation, the decision rule concerns the requirement that we must act as soon as there is sufficient evidence of a seriously bad result. Problematic cases are those where there are differences of opinion on the value judgments made in the risk assessment. For novel foods, new technologies or newly identified hazards, the answer to what is „safe“ may not be the subject of consensus. When the likelihood of harm and the consequences of harm are unknown, risk assessment becomes difficult and examiners face ethical dilemmas.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are an example of a new technology that has sparked much discussion. The presence of different interest groups and citizen values in different political arenas triggered a number of policy responses to GMOs in the 1990s. Although GMOs were strongly supported by the scientific and biotechnology industry in the United States and led to the rise of GM crops, European citizens were strongly opposed to GM crops.
Komentari su zatvoreni.