You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us. |
|
The so-called precautionary principle sounds innocuous
enough. We should prohibit
activities, which risk causing serious or irreversible harm to human health or
the environment. One oft-mentioned statement, from the so-called Wingspread
conference in Racine, Wisconsin in 1998 summed it up as follows: "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."
Read the full statement here. Versions
of the principle are being incorporated into international treaties including
the consolidated version of the treaty establishing the European union. For softer-headed Greenpeace types, playing safe like this
seems sensible, and provides a justification for their favourite pastime of
stopping other people doing what they want.
For decision-makers in the real world it raises serious issues. ImpracticalityEveryone
agrees that we should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of our actions.
In practice this means taking account of both the chance of an adverse
outcome occurring and of its seriousness.
However, if the precautionary principle means anything at all, it goes
much further. It implies that
we should give some potential adverse outcomes infinite weight. This way madness lies.
Giving more weight than the evidence indicates, to one side of an
argument than the other, will distort our beliefs about the world and eventually
lead us to hold false beliefs. It cannot be a valid principle for evaluating evidence.
At a practical level it will paralyse us.
The greatest uncertainty about any new development from GM food, to
cloning or nuclear power exists before anyone starts to study or develop them. The precautionary principle would have instructed us not to
do any plant breeding millennia ago, not to have attempted to produce the first
test tube baby, and not to take the first X ray. The data to show whether there are real risks would
never have been produced. As Julian Morris has said “If someone had evaluated the
risk of fire right after it was invented, they may well have decided to eat
their food raw." The same applies to all subsequent steps in the development of every new technology. The precautionary principle will always tell us not to proceed because there is some risk of harm that cannot be conclusively ruled out until we do the experiment. Injustice - Shifting the “burden of proof”Some
defenders of the principle have claimed that it simply shifts the burden of
proof from the regulator to the person who wishes to introduce a new technology.
They draw an analogy with criminal law where we demand proof “beyond
reasonable doubt” rather than just on the “balance of probabilities”
because (they say) it is much worse to lock up an innocent man, than to let a
guilty one go free. This is a good analogy but, unless we wish to shift power
from the individual to the state, it should lead us to reject the precautionary
principle as a rule for judging private action. The reason for the special legal standard is not what
environmentalists claim. We
demand a high standard of proof in criminal cases because of the inequality in
power between the two sides. The
prosecution has all the power and resources of the state, while the defendant is
an individual citizen. We
attempt to level the playing field by making the state prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. In
contrast, when two members of the public dispute a civil case, the burden of
proof rightly shifts to the balance of probabilities. It was right that the US state had to prove that OJ Simpson
killed his wife “beyond reasonable doubt” and therefore failed to convict
him. It was also right that
his children only had to prove that he killed her on the “balance of
probabilities” and therefore succeeded in their civil case for damages. In an environmental dispute such as the development of GM
foods, individuals and private companies wish to develop them, and the state is
threatening to stop them. To allow
the state to invoke the precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof from
the strong state to the weak individual.
This is the exact opposite of the legal principle. Environmentalists get confused here because they can only
see big companies arraigned against bobble-hatted greens.
They fail to see that a big company is no more than the individuals who
freely bought shares or traded with it, while the bobble-hatted greens are
attempting to use the power of the state to prohibit their activity. The correct analogy would be a powerful person accused of the criminal killing or robbing of a weak one. We rightly don’t change the burden of proof even here because even the powerful have to defend themselves against the full might of the state. The company wishing to develop GM food is fighting against the full might of the US or EU lawmakers. To summarise.Political choices are complex, and the precautionary principle is too simple to be of any use. It’s fine for Green simpletons who cannot hold two ideas in their heads simultaneously, but the rest of us have to think a bit harder. It is also unfair when it is used by the state against private individuals or companies. If any politician uses it to advance their case, vote them out. They are trying to increase their power to regulate the individual and intellectually unfit to hold office. Jim Thornton Leeds 25 Nov 2001
|
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk
with
questions or comments about this web site.
|