Introduction The precautionary principle (PP) has emerged as an important policy-making tool for the health and environmental regulation. Behind the name lies the simple idea that it is “better to be safe than sorry”. The principle is enshrined in various international agreements and conventions, from the Convention on Biodiversity to the UN Framework on Climate Change. The principle has also become a cornerstone of EU environmental law, and the basis for the regulation of chemicals across the European market. The rise of the precautionary principle has been greeted with a good dose of criticism, however. In particular, critics have argued that the precautionary principle is vague and incoherent, and therefore, a dangerous basis for environmental and health regulation. In this short paper I examine these common criticisms of the precautionary principle. In particular, I consider whether these criticisms are strong enough to warrant the abandon the precautionary principle as a regulatory tool for health and environmental policy. Is the precautionary principle vague and ill-defined? I admit that it would be difficult to claim that the PP is not vague and currently ill-defined. Indeed, there exists many different formulations of the PP, “both in …show more content…
The main point here is that achieving zero risks is impossible and therefore the reasoning behind precautionary decision-making is problematic because it requires that the PP be applied to the very measures that it prescribes, since it is impossible to exclude the possibility that these measures will not have health and environmental consequences of their own. Consequently, the precautionary action prescribed by the PP should be taken and rejected at the same time. This argument can be found in a short passage from Cass Sunstein’s book on the precautionary principle, which is worth quoting at
...nerations” if things go unregulated. Fortunately science provides policy makers with the information needed to make informed regulations to benefit the future. It seems that environmentalism is becoming the stewardship of the Earth.
However this information was written in the 1960s and a lot has changed since then. Not everything she says is true in the world today. I am going to explain what is still happening in our world and how we are trying to make our world better. With all of these great changes in our world we have made some outstanding advances. My first point I’m arguing against is the fact that she said most people don 't know what these chemicals are or what they do. For an example the MSDS (Material Data Safety Sheet) is required by law to be in every healthcare facility and everyone working in these facilities are trained to know where they are located and how to use them. “It’s a document that contains information on the potential hazards (health, fire, reactivity and environmental) and how to work safely with the chemical product. It also contains information on the use, storage, handling and emergency procedures all related to the hazards of the material” ("OSH Answers Fact Sheets.”). Also she said that there’s 500 chemicals being made in a year that has changed immensely. “More than 7 million recognized chemicals are in existence, and approximately 80,000 of them are in common use worldwide” ("Chemical Industry Archives.").However just because we are making more chemicals it does not mean we use all of them. In fact we are
The author describes each chapter with a surreal narration. It begins with “A Fable for Tomorrow”, which starkly declares a bleak future of every U.S village if they erred to use pesticides. “The Obligation to Endure” describes the lack of public awareness and how it would become grievous. She justly reasons that if the public might suffer from long-term misfortunes due to insecticides usage, they have a right to know the facts. Felicitous “Elixirs of Death” describes the nature of insecticides in three apt words. Chemical structures of common biocides are explained in an uncomplicated fashion. A series of three successive chapters is dedicated to Earth and its components. These chapters include the closely inter-connected ecological cycles, existing in the water, mantle and soil horizons. Pesticide dispersal in soil followed by its access into the ground water table and the waterways is an inconceivable process. The book promulgates the escape of biocides from their place of application, and their integration into natural bodies. All her chapters thereafter revolve around the various short-term and long-term effects of biocides on the biosphere. Rachel Carson had stated countless dire cases wherein complete ecosystems faced annihilation. The influx of detrimental chemicals extended their reach over animals and plants, and were causing human mortalities as well. Humans are a part of
While it seems somewhat illogical, especially in markets, to take a precautionary approach for every single case, nature and the human interaction with it can have much more dramatic effect if not treated more carefully. Flint, Michigan was a clear case where risks were not taken very seriously and as a result many people caught diseases and died. The biggest mistake that causes these types of situations is due to the perception of risk and partisanship. Grouping cultures and political affiliations can cause many of those in power to not see true problems that stand before them. They take voluntary risks that are clear and dangerous and spin them into involuntary risks. Because of this, issues such as the Flint water crisis can easily be pushed aside as “propaganda” or as the chief and staff referred to it as “political football.” Without correctly assessing risks and hazards and being more cautious towards our perceptions towards risk, dramatic problems such as the Flint water crisis will continue to happen across the
In the article “The Paralyzing Principle,” Cass Sunstein argues that there are two different versions of the Precautionary Principle: the strong version and the weak version. He claims that the weak version is completely uncontroversial, as it argues for avoiding possible dangers by expending finite resources with the goal of staving off far worse outcomes than the relatively small costs. This weak principle is reasonable because there are many dangers that are possible that, if they did occur, would be much worse in the long run than taking a precautionary step at the present moment to avoid. However, the strong principle takes this fundamentally sensible option to an extreme. The strong principle argues that if there is any risk of hazard,
When I read that I was astonished and disappointed that we could be so unsafe about potentially harmful chemicals LeBlanc (2010) went on to give a reason. That reason being that the Environmental Protection Agency can only require after there is proof that a substance poses a health risk under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. LeBlanc (2010) goes on and states that this is the only major environmental regulation that has not been updated and that only five chemicals have been regulated since the law enacted. This act is insane to me and I can’t believe it was ever passed. It seems pretty obvious to me that we should test chemicals for safety before we put them on the market. We should do this for a number of reasons. One of the more important being the health of pregnant women and their
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, and any other
Cases have been widely used in medical ethics and law. In both fields, numerous books and articles about cases have appeared, including book-length catalogs of cases. What I propose to do in this paper is to discuss whether environmental ethics should be case-based as in law and medicine.
...anet and take action to create change. We may not be able to control the laws of nature, but we can control how we affect the land in which reside. The health and quality of living for you and those around you will only continue to degrade and be affected by your choices and how you decide to treat the environment of this planet that we call home. Don’t let the planet fall apart; don’t let your home come crashing down.
The fate of environmental litigation in Budden v BP Oil and Shell Oil (1980) 124 SJ 376 amply demonstrates the inherent difficulties of actions in nuisance and negligence for damage suffered as a result of environmental harm. The plaintiff claimed damages, alleging nuisance and negligence, for harm alleged to have been suffered as a result of lead pollution caused by emissions from petrol during the refining process. The defendants applied to have the action struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. It was clear from the evidence that the plaintiff had suffered no more harm than any other small child living near a main road might suffer and thus no claim in nuisance could lie. The court of appeal rule accepted the argument put forward by the defendants that they had complied with the relevant statutory provision under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 thus the statutory standard establishes the common law standard. Thus the action in negligence also failed because the defendant companies had at all times complied with the regulations laid down by the secretary of state under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. This case shows how legislation can have an adverse effect on pollution control because if legislation sets a certain standard that turns out to be too great and leads to environmental damage then the
Converging paradigms for environmental health theory and practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(5), 669-675. Futuyma, D. (2009). The 'Second Evolution. The. 2 ed., pp.
...ironmental deterioration put the very future of life at risk" (505). If scientists are stepping up and saying humans are doing wrong, then that should definitely be a sign to people that something needs to happen. Wilson uses these groups to demonstrate how people are trying to create solutions to the dilemma.
Jacques-Yves Cousteau once said, “Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today” (“Population,” Internet). With the current statistics, Jacques could not be more accurate. Every second, 4.2 people are born and 1.8 people die, which would be a net gain of 2.4 people per second (“Population,” Internet). At this steady rate, the environmental health is spiraling downwards, and it is safe to assume humans are responsible for this. As the population increases, harmful effects on the land, water, and air also do.
The protection of the environment however has just recently become the major issue that it is in today’s society. People worldwide have slowly begun to realize and become aware of the blatant destruction and deterioration of the environment and ozone. As well as the consequences and side affects, that we, as a society have created. The majority of people are just becoming aware of the frightening reality of the situation. As society becomes more informed on the issue of the environment, they too become more impatient, and feel that in the snap of fingers, the damage can be reversed and future damage can be stopped instantaneously.
Are you aware of the detrimental impacts that we have had on our environment? Every second, the Earth is being polluted by poisonous gases, waste products and due to human activities, the world’s climate is dramatically changing. In other words, these impacts do not only harm our environment but also our health. It has been scientifically proven that air pollution causes respiratory diseases and cancer, due to the inhalation of all the harmful chemicals. Water pollution can also lead to typhoid, diarrheal diseases and other waterborne disease, due to the intake of bacteria and parasites. Many people have died due to these health-related illnesses. So why are we still living in this awful condition? Air sustains us and water is a basic necessity, so we should do what we can to prevent pollution. In short, we should protect our environment to ensure a healthy life a...