Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Risk Regulation in Europe

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Political Science ((BRIEFSPOLITICAL,volume 3))

Abstract

How shall policy makers respond to uncertainty? This question lies at the heart of the precautionary principle. At its most basic, the precautionary principle encourages policy makers to take action when there are possible harmful effects of certain products and activities on the environment or human health, without waiting for conclusive scientific evidence. This chapter aims to provide a general understanding of the precautionary principle, and in so doing it addresses two topics. First, it provides an overview of the main characteristics of the principle. Second, it outlines the different perspectives of the EU and the WTO on its application in policy making. These different perspectives on precaution are responsible for the transnational trade disputes, in which the EU has been involved regarding its food safety standards and regulations in other policy areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The multitude of different—and partly conflicting—definitions of the precautionary principle is one of the reasons why it has come under attack. A detailed discussion of the criticisms raised and the responses to these criticisms is beyond the scope of this chapter and also does not represent a central research interest of this study, but see, e.g., Majone (2002), Sunstein (2005), Fisher et al. (2006, p. 5), Mandel and Gathii (2006), and Sachs (2011).

  2. 2.

    Some commentators argue that at the international level, the precautionary principle has absorbed the prevention principle (e.g., Trouwborst 2009).

  3. 3.

     Godard (1997) explicitly speaks about controversial risks in the context of the precautionary principle to highlight that both the scientific and social construction of risk issues are important for their public perception and therefore the way in which they are addressed by policy makers.

  4. 4.

    The abandonment of “sound science” in favor of subjective perceptions of risk represents one of the frequently expressed criticisms of the precautionary principle (Sachs 2011, p. 1294).

  5. 5.

    Risk assessment is the (scientific) evaluation of risk, whereas risk management is about deciding the appropriate response to the assessed risk. There is a third phase of risk regulation, i.e., risk communication, which is about informing the public regarding the assessed and regulated risk. Risk communication is usually not discussed in the context of the precautionary principle. For an exception, see Biocca (2005).

  6. 6.

     Conventional measures are appropriate for certain risks. Their selection is typically based on cost-benefit analysis or risk trade-off analysis (Zander 2010, pp. 21–26).

  7. 7.

    The approach of “best available technology” is a specific way of steering the behavior of actors. More precisely, it represents a regulatory policy instrument that requires the target groups to cease using unnecessarily polluting or risky technology (Sterner 2003, pp. 75–76).

  8. 8.

    There exists another document type that prepares legislative initiatives, known as White Papers, which introduce well-developed and precise proposals.

  9. 9.

    Regarding the “high level of protection” Von Schomberg (2006, p. 24) argues that this does not necessarily mean the highest level possible on grounds of technology, but rather that this codifies that the EU institutions have broad discretion in determining the level of protection.

  10. 10.

    The proportionality of measures depends on the situation. In some situations a total ban may be a proportional response to a potential risk, while in other situations it may be a disproportional response (Priess and Pitschas 2000, p. 533).

References

  • Aven, T. 2011. On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Risk Analysis 31: 515–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biocca, M. 2005. Risk communication and the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 11: 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, J., and J. Abouchar. 1991. The precautionary principle: A fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 14: 1–27. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol14/iss1/2. Accessed 26 Apr 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.F. 2003. Risk regulation, endogenous public concerns, and the hormones dispute: Nothing to fear but fear itself. Southern California Law Review 77: 743–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlier, C., and M. Rainelli. 2002. Hormones, risk management, precaution and protectionism: An analysis of the dispute on hormone-treated beef between the European Union and the United States. European Journal of Law and Economics 14: 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dratwa, J. 2002. Taking risks with the precautionary principle: food (and the environment) for thought at the European Commission. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 4: 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 1998. Guidelines for the application of the precautionary principle. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2000. Communication of the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000) 1 final. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrow, S. 2004. Using risk assessment, benefit-cost analysis, and real options to implement a precautionary principle. Risk Analysis 24: 727–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg. 2006. Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 1–16. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard, O. 1997. Social decision-making under conditions of scientific controversy, expertise and the precautionary principle. In Integrating scientific expertise into regulatory decision-making, national traditions and European innovations, ed. C. Joerges, K.-H. Ladeur, and E. Vos, 39–73. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollier, C., B. Jullien, and N. Treich. 2000. Scientific progress and irreversibility: An economic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. Journal of Public Economics 75: 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R.E. 2004. The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: From precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28: 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. 2002. What price safety? The precautionary principle and its policy implications. Journal of Common Market Studies 40: 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, G.N., and J.T. Gathii. 2006. Cost benefit analysis versus the precautionary principle: Beyond Cass Sunstein’s laws of fear. University of Illinois Law Review 2006: 1037–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R., J.H. Fowler, and O. Smirnov. 2008. On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The Journal of Politics 70: 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. 2006. Tr(e)ading cautiously: Principles of precaution in WTO decision-making. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 160–181. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T., and A. Jordan. 1995. The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental policy and politics. Environmental Values 4: 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg, R. 2001. The politics of precaution: Genetically modified crops in developing countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesendorfer, D. 2010. Risk regulation & precaution. Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance No. 7. http://regulation.huji.ac.il/papers/jp7.pdf. Accessed 26 Apr 2012.

  • Priess, H.-J., and C. Pitschas. 2000. Protection of public health and the role of the precautionary principle under WTO law: A Trojan horse before Geneva’s walls? Fordham International Law Journal 24: 519–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, N.M. 2011. Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. University of Illinois Law Review 2011: 1285–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, H., and S. Petersen. 2002. Power analysis as a reflexive scientific tool for interpretation and implementation of the precautionary principle in the European Union. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 9: 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soule, E. 2000. Assessing the precautionary principle. Public Affairs Quarterly 14: 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, A.L. 2010. Germany’s ban of Monsanto’s genetically modified maize (MON810): A violation of international law. Trade, Law and Development 2: 292–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterner, T. 2003. Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, R. 2002. Environmental regulatory decision making under uncertainty. In An introduction to the law and economics of environmental policy, ed. T. Swanson, 71–126. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., and D. Gee. 2002. Science, precaution and practice. Public Health Reports 117: 521–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., O. Renn, and P. van Zwanenberg. 2006. A framework for the precautionary governance of food safety: Integrating science and participation in the social appraisal of risk. In Implementing the precautionary principle. Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 284–315. Edwar Elgar: Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. 2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, J., and D. Kriebel. 2006. The role of science and precaution in environmental and public health policy. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 42–62. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, A. 2009. Prevention, precaution, logic and law: The relationship between the precautionary principle and the preventative principle in international law and associated questions. Erasmus Law Review 2. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1498430. Accessed 29 Apr 2012.

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Asselt, M.B.A., and E. Vos. 2006. The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox. Journal of Risk Research 9: 313–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vis, B. 2011. Prospect theory and political decision making. Political Studies Review 9: 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, C. 2011. Straightening out the grounds for precaution: A commentary and some suggestions about Terje Aven’s ‘on different types of uncertainties’. Risk Analysis 31: 1534–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Schomberg, R. 2006. The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspectives and prospects, ed. E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg, 19–42. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, J. 2010. The application of the precautionary principle in practice comparative dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Jale Tosun

Authors
  1. Jale Tosun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jale Tosun .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tosun, J. (2013). Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle. In: Risk Regulation in Europe. SpringerBriefs in Political Science, vol 3. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1984-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation