|
Currently, environmental, health and development polices in the U.S. are guided by principles focus on cleaning up and controlling damage rather than preventing it. Policies such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of the doubt to corporations, new products and technologies, which may later prove harmful. The burden of proof is not on the corporation or innovator to prove their product is as safe beyond reasonable doubt, instead we have a system that puts that burden on citizens to prove our concerns. When damage occurs, victims and their advocates have the difficult task of proving that a product or activity was responsible. The companies often refuse to accept liability; thus putting the burden on someone else to pay the penalty. Environmental impact statements provide some aspects of the precautionary principle, however, it has been found these initiatives do not sufficiently protect people and the natural world.
Despite U.S. acceptance of the precautionary principle in international treaties and other statements, little work has been done to implement the principle. In some cases, especially those involving trade and proactive legislation in places like Europe, the U.S. government is actively lobbying against precautionary actions by other governments. This has happened most recently with regards to phthalates in children's PVC toys, beef hormones, electronic take-back and genetically engineered foods (GMOs). This lobbying threatens to undermine use of the precautionary principle in other countries, which will ultimately affect the pressure that other countries can exert on the U.S. to invoke the principle. As an example, there is indeed sufficient direct and indirect scientific evidence to suggest that GMOs are unsafe for use as food or for release into the environment. And that is why more than 300 scientists from 38 countries are demanding a moratorium on all releases of GMOs.
The most enthusiastic supporter of the anti-precautionary principle is the World Trade Organization (WTO), the international body whose task it is to prevent countries from setting up artificial barriers to trade. A country that wants to restrict or prohibit imports on grounds of safety has to provide definitive proof of hazard, or else be accused of erecting false barriers to free trade. A recent example is the WTO judgement that the EU ban on U.S. growth-hormone injected beef is illegal.
If introduced into American law, the precautionary principle would fundamentally shift the burden of proof. The presumptions that flow from the scientific uncertainty surrounding so many new technologies would no longer automatically operate in industry's favor. Scientific uncertainty would no longer argue for freedom of action but for precaution and alternatives.
|
