Real Science for Real People

The Precautionary Principle

A New Paradigm?

 

By Beth Ravit

 

Five years ago the Science & Environmental Health Network presented the Clinton White House with a proposal to change the U.S. approach to environmental policy. Instead of asking “How much harm will we tolerate?” (Risk-Based approach), the precautionary approach asked, “How much harm can we avoid?” This principle originated in Europe during the 1970s in response to acid rain and has been developed to guide environmental planning. Today precaution is one of the guiding principles of environmental laws in the European Union.

When I first heard about the Precautionary Principle, I realized that this process described the approach already being taken by Hackensack Riverkeeper. The Precautionary Principle is meant to guide policy decisions in situations were there is scientific uncertainty and/or the potential of harm to the public. It has three basic components: scientific uncertainty, suspected harm, precautionary approach.

This common sense approach acknowledges that when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken. Sometimes actions must be decided in the face of scientific uncertainty or lack of scientific consensus. The Precautionary Principle advocates setting long-term goals that are in the best interest of the general public and aggressively seeking alternatives to harmful practices. The burden of proof and financial responsibility for potentially harmful actions would be shifted from the general public to the proponents of environmentally risky approaches, and decision-making would become a more thorough and democratic process that includes those directly affected by the decisions being made.

Why do we need to change from the current Risk-Based to a precautionary approach? The first reason is that the Risk-Based approach has led to considerable environmental harm worldwide. It has also resulted in the State of New Jersey becoming the most densely populated in the nation. People today recognize that the results of current policies are reducing their quality of life, and there is currently a lack of trust that government will act in the best interest of the public.

Many of the decisions made in the past that affected the Meadowlands did not follow the Precautionary Principle. Previous Tidelines columns have described the resulting environmental problems that face us and our children – leaking landfills, contaminated sediments, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that discharge sewage into the river, and a river that is still not fishable or swimmable 30 years after the Clean Water Act.

There are, however, encouraging signs that New Jersey is now beginning to adopt a precautionary approach: not filling 500 acres of wetlands for the Xanadu project; the NJ Meadowlands Commission purchasing remaining wetlands for preservation; the directing of development to brownfields and upland areas; new statewide storm water regulations; the C-1 designation for our water supplies, and restriction of development in the Highlands to protect our drinking water supplies. Hackensack Riverkeeper has been advocating these common-sense measures since its inception in 1997 and will continue to be a proponent of the Precautionary Principle.

 

Information on the Precautionary Principle can be found at: www.biotech-info.net/precautionary.html.  I would very much like to hear your comments, concerns and questions about Real Science for Real People. You can contact me via email at: bravit@eden.rutgers.edu.