5 votes

What are your thoughts on the "precautionary principle"? Is there too much of it, or not enough?

2 comments

  1. Neverland
    (edited )
    Link
    This is a very broad question, however, if you have a moment please read the wiki entry and maybe this article as well. My main concern is in regard to the extremely lax regulatory regime in the...

    This is a very broad question, however, if you have a moment please read the wiki entry and maybe this article as well.

    My main concern is in regard to the extremely lax regulatory regime in the USA in the domains of chemicals, and upcoming nanomaterials. I'm honestly scared to talk about GMOs so let's skip that for now.

    Chemical regulation in the USA was drastically changed by a bill passed in 1976.

    TSCA has been severely criticized by non-governmental organizations, academics, scientists, and even government agencies for failing to regulate the safe use of chemicals affecting human health and environmental welfare effectively. Since its enactment, "the act has not been substantially updated." Organizations concerned about product safety, "including the chemical industry, environmental and public health advocates, and the EPA" have attempted to mitigate the effects of weak regulation. They argue that "the inability to function as intended results from a series of legal, organizational, and political challenges." According to Wilson and Schwarzman, there are three gaps in US chemicals policy:

    • "Data gap: Producers are not required to investigate and disclose sufficient information on the hazard traits of chemicals to government, the public, or businesses that use chemicals.
    • "Safety gap: Government lacks the legal tools it needs to efficiently identify, prioritize, and take action to mitigate the potential health and environmental effects of hazardous chemicals.
    • "Technology gap: Industry and government have invested only marginally in green chemistry research, development, and education."

    The Office of the Inspector General said in 2010 that implementation has been "inconsistent and presents a minimal presence." The report criticized the process by which the EPA handles new TSCA cases, claiming it is "predisposed to protect industry information rather than to provide public access to health and safety studies." GAO suggests that concern for trade secrets is preventing effective testing. Sometimes the EPA does not even know what chemical the TSCA application refers to, and cannot report any problems because "health and safety data are of limited value if the chemical the data pertain to is unknown."

    I realize that there must be some balance of regulation on behalf of citizen health, ecosystem viability, and innovation/business. The EU is legally more in favor of the precautionary principle. Where do you think the USA and Canada currently fall? Can we do more, or should less regulation exist here?

    2 votes
  2. DonQuixote
    Link
    I can't help but think we are all in for a bad run of luck based upon my observation of human behavior. We have entirely too many inherent biases embedded in us to adapt to the speed with which...

    I can't help but think we are all in for a bad run of luck based upon my observation of human behavior. We have entirely too many inherent biases embedded in us to adapt to the speed with which technology is advancing. There's no going back, in my opinion, except through the undesirable yet historically observed process of catastrophic adjustment.

    I think we have more than enough technology at our hands to 'solve' almost all the problems we've created, environmental and otherwise, but implementation increasingly requires consensus and directed action that doesn't appear to be forthcoming. We should have solved the climatic problem by now and be on our way to guarding and preparing for other possible developments. We aren't.

    1 vote