Comment on blog (CW13-15)

Dear Tatjana,

after having read your and Alexia's blog, I have decided to make a comparison between three of the tasks as an educational service for all of us.

Kind regards,

Daniel

Alexia	Daniel	Tatjana
Precautionary principle (definition)
The precautionary principle is to be used for avoiding possible future harm associated with suspected environmental risks. (…) Precautionary measures should be taken when an activity raises the risk of harm to the environment or to human health.	The precautionary principle (PP) is a morally based maxim which presumes a specific action (or diverse specific actions) before harm to human beings or the environment can occur.	The precautionary principle has the task to prevent damages on the environment or the human health in advance.
Discussion of shown statement (EU vs US)
The study (…) shows that it is not really true that the European research has to be more precautionary than the one in the USA. (…) They say, “the reality of precaution is not one region being more precautionary than the other, but a scenario of occasional and selective application of precaution to different risks in different places and times”.	EU: (...) Any company in the EU that wants to introduce or commercialise a transgenic crop, should carry out a “full” environmental risk assessment taking into account “direct, indirect, intermediate and delayed effects”. This requires scientific expertise. US: (...) The regulation of GM crops in the US, on the contrary, is divided among three regulatory agencies which all regulate transgenic crops from a different perspective. One of these agencies is the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which considers most GM crops as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops. In such cases, GM crops are designated as “generally recognized as safe” and do not require pre-market   approval.	While the European Union endorses the precautionary principle and proactively regulates uncertain risks, the United States opposes the precautionary principle and waits for evidence and harm before regulating. Nevertheless, the European Union is not more precautionary than the US absolutely. In some cases, US scientists have much more liberties than the EU scientists do while in other cases, something for EU scientists is allowed and the US is more precautionary.
Pros and cons for the precautionary principle as a threat to science (personal opinion)
I think it is important to consider and implement the precautionary principle while doing research and new inventions. Maybe it is true that precaution hinders some research projects but I think it is more important to avoid unnecessary poisoning of one’s body and the environment than doing research that has negative effects on the ecosystems and us humans.	Previous example (…) could constrain the modification of plants and (bio-) technological progress what would lead in a stagnation or reduction of global nutrition safety. On the other hand, the PP could force solving the recent political and economic problems concerning nutrition safety and pursue the development of old (non-GM) technologies. Hence the PP is a mixed blessing, rather negative for technological progress but positive for the environment and human health.	I think it is a good idea that the legislation on GMOs in Europe is based on this principle. Because in most cases, genetically modified organisms are not essential for survival for us so it is not tragically when it takes more time until a product is available for general public. In other sector, like pharmacy, it can prevent important innovations. It often lasts years until you can prove that something is harmless and there are so many rules and provisions in the drug development.

Precautionary principle (Blog 2)

Precautionary principle: Short definition

The precautionary principle plays an important role at environmental policy and health policy in Europe. It has the task to prevent damages on the environment or the human health in advance. In the 1970s, the German government began employing a principle according to which a distinction is to be made between human actions that cause danger and those that merely cause risks. This principle, called the foresight principle, is the predecessor model of the precautionary principle. In 1970s and early 1980s a more formalised precautionary principle, as a justification for imposing restriction on the use of technologies such as nuclear powers was promoted by academics and pressure groups (J. Morris (2002)). Today the principle is both celebrated and criticized. One of the biggest problem of the principle is, that it is not clear defined how to use it and what it actually says (E. Persson (2016)).

Precautionary principle: EU and US

The precautionary principle has generated transatlantic controversy. While the European Union endorses the precautionary principle and proactively regulates uncertain risks, the United States opposes the precautionary principle and waits for evidence and harm before regulating. Nevertheless, the European Union is not more precautionary than the US absolutely. In some cases, like nuclear energy, particulate air pollution and new drug approval the US is more precautionary while the European Union is more precautionary in thing like GMOs and hormones in beef (J. Wiener et al.). This implicates for scientists that it is not easy to keep the overview about the precautionary principle and to know what things are allowed. In some cases, US scientists have much more liberties than the EU scientists while in other cases something for EU scientists is allowed and the US is more precautionary.

Pro and con of the precautionary principle

Fundamentally, the precautionary principle is a good and important thing for the protection of the environment and the human health. I think it is a good idea that the legislation on GMOs in Europe is based on this principle. Because in most cases, genetically modified organisms are not essential for survival for us so it is not tragically when it takes more time until a product is available for general public. In other sector, like pharmacy, it can prevent important innovations. It often lasts years until you can prove that something is harmless and there are so many rules and provisions in the drug development. This implicates that drug development is a very expensive thing and it is difficult to find investors so the precautionary principle in this case is a barrier for new innovations.

The precautionary principle: A threat to science?

The precautionary principle is both, a threat and a chance, for science. It is a threat because it makes science more expensive and complicated. Scientists have so many rules they must observe that they get quenched by them. Maybe some new innovations got rejected just because it is too expensive or even impossible to prove that they are harmless. On the other hand, it is possible that they find new scientist knowledge during a verification of a new innovation and the precautionary principle forces to rethink an idea twice.

Literature:

Jonathan B. Wiener, Michael D. Rogers. 2002. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research (2002).

Erik Persson. 2016. What are the core ideas behind the Precautionary Principle?. Science of the Total Environment (2016).

Julian Morris. 2002. The relationship between risk analysis end the precautionary principle. Toxicology (2002).