
Letter to the Editor
To the editor
As representatives of one of the civil society organizations
mentioned in Miller and Conko's Commentary on the
precautionary principle (Nat. Biotechnol. 19 , 302303, 2001 ),
we would like to respond by clarifying both our position and the
current status of the precautionary principle in environmental
and public health policy.
The precautionary principle was first established as a concept
of environmental law in the 1970s. Since that time, precaution
has been invoked in numerous international environmental
agreements, including the 1992 Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, and more recently the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which regulates international
movement of genetically modified (GM) organisms. The
precautionary principle is also stated explicitly in the
environmental policies of several countries (e.g., Canada,
Australia, and Sweden) and in the Maastricht Treaty of the
European Union. The US Department of Agriculture
(Washington, DC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA,
Rockville, MD) adamantly claim that US food safety policies are
firmly grounded in a precautionary approach, but stop short of
acknowledging precaution as a principle of law (1). Precaution,
therefore, is a widely recognized and adopted foundation for
making wise decisions under uncertain conditions.
Although there are differences in wording, three core elements
are present in all statements of the precautionary principle: if
there is reason to believe that a technology or activity may result
in harm and there is scientific uncertainty regarding the nature
and extent of that harm, then measures to anticipate and
prevent harm are necessary and justifiable.
The precautionary principle is necessary and justifiable
because, simply stated, our ability to predict, calculate, and
control the impacts of technologies such as GM organisms is
limited. The novelty and complexity associated with inserting
isolated gene constructs into organisms, and releasing those
organisms on a global scale demand that we acknowledge
uncertainties, accept responsibility, and exercise due caution.
This is recognized by the international adoption of the Protocol
on Biosafety and by independent scientific bodies in the US,
EU, and Canada among others (2, 3).
Although there is consistency among definitions, no uniform,
global recipe exists for implementing the precautionary
principle. It is a general principle, not a set of rules, and it must
remain responsive to social and ecological context.
Nonetheless, it is possible and important to set procedural
guidelines such that implementation is not arbitrary. We
advocate the following six steps:
By this process, the precautionary principle is neither
unscientific nor anti-technology. It requires robust scientific
analysis with close attention to uncertainty and to the probability
of both false positive and false negative conclusions. The
precautionary principle can also stimulate alternative directions
for regulatory policies and technology development. Its power
lies not in halting all new activities, but in heightening our
attention to the potential consequences of our actions, shifting
the scope of questions we ask about technologies, and finding
innovative solutions to complex problems.
Above all, the precautionary principle is grounded firmly in
democratic process. None of the above steps can be
implemented without transparent and inclusive
decision-making. Lack of democratic process has been a
primary source of contention surrounding GM crops and food.
Under the precautionary principle, not only is this ethically
unacceptable, it is an impoverished procedure for making
decisions about a technology that now affects (voluntarily or not)
millions of people and many other species throughout the world.
REFERENCES
* Executive Director, Science and Environmental Health Network ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. ** |
|
|
Last Updated on 9/10/01 Email: information@biotech-info.net |
|