Precautionary Principle

new 7/14<div>=</div><div>in gmo fight, key</div><div>
</div><div>dismissed as euro french fem</div><div>
</div><div>proactionary (?) vs</div><div>see risk asses</div><div>target of CTT aei</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div><div>see entine chemophobia scam</div><div>=</div><div>origin of ctr-attack?</div><div><ul times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Milloy is now better known in non-Internet circles as the executive director of TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), which is run by APCO Associates, an international PR and lobbying company which specialises in "grassroots lobbying" for corporate clients.APCO is a very large global PR and "communications strategy" organisation that keeps its head down and prefers not to be noticed. It was founded in 1984 by Arnold & Porter (the 'AP' in the APCO name) who were then the main legal council to Philip Morris, and who's representative, Murray Bring, still sits on the PM board.APCO is now a subsidiary of Grey Advertising. Their biggest client is Philip Morris, but they also service special-interest groups like National Rural Health Association and the Coalition For Fairness In Medicare (anti Medicare).APCO also has "alliances" with organisations like the International Management and Development Institute, they say: "APCO is available to IMDI Members to provide separate public relations, government affairs and related services," they boast.TASSC was founded and funded by APCO, for Philip Morris. Then later when the tobacco industry joined in with the National Association of Manufacturers, it spread its interests wider. It managed to get a few hundred scientists to sign up to motherhood statement that says they support "sound science" and presumably reject junk-science. That's usually the last the legitimate scientist get to hear of the organisation, although their names and membership details are freely available, and used to support corporate lobbying.TASSC has both Associate Members (legitimate scientists) and Advisory Members (mainly from the funding corporations, from public relations and lobby organisations, and a few science-for-sale practitioners).The real aim of the organisation, of course, is to generally discredit epidemiological and toxiocology studies that reveal evidence contrary to the funders interests.APCO Associates keeps a low profile, but it shares a Washington DC office with a number of registered lobbyist organisations and some trade and industry associations, including the Business Roundtable and Business Executives for National Security, Inc. It seems to run these organisations, and has a finger in some more long-term and legitimate organsiations like the Washington Legal Foundation.According to an article published by Professor Stanton Glantz and Elisa Ong in the famous UK medical journal The Lancet (April 8, 2000) entitled "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study." TASSC began as nothing more than a very clever, very subtle tobacco industry front.It's aim was to redefine the rules of proof and standards of Epidemiology and Toxicology, to a level that made it impossible for regulators like the EPA, FDA and OSHA to ever regulate in a way that was based on the precautionary principle. Under these rules, tobacco would still be considered an 'unproven' health hazard, and escape regulatory controls on Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) etc.Milloy and APCO have subsequenty extended the boundaries of the fake organisations activities beyond that of just supporting the tobacco industry. Papers in the <a href="http://www.pmdocs.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Philip Morris on-line archives</a> show that this was a deliberate project of the tobacco interests to utilise multiple attacks from different industry sectors -- all with similar regulatory problems. That's why Milloy is so obviously against any hint of a precautionary approach in regulations.In the Lancet article the authors point out that TASSC was originally created by the Philip Morris tobacco company in order to sow seeds of scientific doubt about health risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke. And, owing to the extreme (and well-deserved) stigma associated with tobacco industry-funded science, they scrupulously disguised TASSC's links to Philip Morris.The idea was that TASSC would spend most of its time and money talking about other so-called "junk science" issues such as Alar, global warming, radon, asbestos etc., Then Milloy could sneak in mentions of tobacco (or rather "anti-tobacco science" = junk-science) whenever he thought he could get away with it. Later he obviously found other clients who also needed the same service.The Lancet article is available online at <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">http://www.thelancet.com</a> (Free guest registration) and you can also find the internal Philip Morris documents at <a href="http://www.pmdocs.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Phillip Morris</a> (and ask for TASSC).In these archives of Phillip Morris (opened to the public following the tobacco settlement) you will find 199 references (some duplicates) to the tobacco industry's funding and control of TASSC. Milloy is now trying desperately to distance himself from TASSC.<hr />  <a href="http://www.electric-words.com/junk/qandaindex.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">SEE THIS SECTION</a> FOR DOCUMENTED PROOF OF TASSC'S LINKS....</ul></div><div>chemophobia fanboyAlex Berezow is the Vice President of Scientific Affairs of the American Council on Science and Health.<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a><h1 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">EXTERNAL LINKS</h1>Desmog Blog, page on <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health" title="American Council on Science and Health" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a>BMJ article on <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health" title="American Council on Science and Health" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a>US Right to Know, page on <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health" title="American Council on Science and Health" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Council on Science and Health</a><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[4]</a><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">SOURCES</h2><div class="mw-references-wrap" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ol class="references" style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li id="cite_note-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_ref-1" aria-label="Jump up" title="Jump up" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">↑</a> American Council on Science and Health, <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.acsh.org/profile/alex-berezow" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[1]</a>, organizational website, accessed March 2019.</li><li id="cite_note-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_ref-2" aria-label="Jump up" title="Jump up" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">↑</a> Desmog Blog, American Council on Science and Health, Accessed March 2019 <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-council-science-and-health" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">https://www.desmogblog.com/american-council-science-and-health</a></li><li id="cite_note-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_ref-3" aria-label="Jump up" title="Jump up" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">↑</a> BMJ, Lobby Watch: American Council on Science and Health Accessed March 2019</li><li id="cite_note-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Berezow#cite_ref-4" aria-label="Jump up" title="Jump up" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">↑</a> The American Council on Science and Health is a Corporate Front Group, Accessed March 2019 <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" csvg="Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E" cpath="Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22" stroke="%22%2336c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" c="C" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/</a></li></ol></div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2019/01/13440/corporate-front-group-american-council-science-and-health-smears-list-its-enemies">https://www.prwatch.org/news/2019/01/13440/corporate-front-group-american-council-science-and-health-smears-list-its-enemies</a></div><div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="word-spacing: 3.6px;"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The industry front group American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has created a clunky new website containing an intriguing list of its enemies.You may find a few folks you know vilified there.DeniersForHire.com was created in 2016, according to a proxy-cloaked <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/1/1d/%20DeniersForHire.com_ICANN_WHOIS.pdf" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">WHOIS listing</a>. The site <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180609195837/https://www.deniersforhire.com/" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">was funded</a> by ACSH and edited by <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/our-team/" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Cameron English</a>, who currently works for the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP). GLP is another industry front group, run by chemical company PR agent <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jon_Entine" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Jon Entine</a>, who has long partnered with ACSH to defend the agrochemical industry. Entine blogs frequently on the ACSH site.The "deniers" site hyperbolically states as its goal "to expose and neutralize anti-science activist threats to humanity" and features profiles of those who have been thorns in the side of the chemical industry and related groups: scientists, journalists, lawyers, policy experts, and non-profits. Among the "threats to humanity" is New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Eric Lipton.On the site, ACSH adopts language used by pro-science, consumer, and environmental groups to smear pro-science, consumer, and environmental groups. The term "deniers," for instance, invokes the phrase "climate change denier."The website also calls the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) a "dark money group" even though the group spends zero money in campaigns and elections. It calls the Organic Consumers Association -- which has long pushed for strict organic standards disavowing GMOs, radiation, and sludge -- an "industry front group."Smeared by the site are scientists Tyrone Hayes, Stephanie Seneff, and Gilles-Éric Séralini; New York Times reporter Danny Hakim and columnist Mark Bittman; well-known food and science writer Michael Pollan; nutrition and food studies professor Marion Nestle; public interest groups like U.S. Right to Know, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, the Environmental Working Group, and Union of Concerned Scientists; past and present CMD staff, and many other individuals ACSH does not like.Greenpeace Research Specialist Connor Gibson says of the site: "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I'll take it as a compliment to those of us who expose industry hacks posing as independent experts that industry shills are attempting to mimic good opposition research in an attempt to get the spotlight off of themselves."<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">"Deniers for Hire" Site Created by Industry Front Group</h2>Where the "Deniers for Hire" site now says, at the bottom of each page, just "copyright 2018 | MH Newsdesk Lite by MH Themes," it once stated more clearly, "funded by the non-profit pro-science consumer advocacy group American Council on Science and Health," as revealed by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180609195837/https://www.deniersforhire.com/" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">archives of the site</a> on the WayBack Machine.ACSH has long been notorious as an industry front group, funded by the seed and chemical giant Monsanto, among others. Ralph Nader was quoted in a <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=zIyAtgAACAAJ" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">1991 book</a> on corporate front groups as saying, "A consumer group is an organization which advocates the interests of unrepresented consumers and must either maintain its own intellectual independence or be directly accountable to its membership. In contrast, ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."ACSH solicits funding from corporations and has defended a number of dubious products over the years, including DDT, asbestos, and Agent Orange. ACSH has been known to call environmentalists and consumer activists "<a href="https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/toxic-terrorists-ignore-organic-food-threat" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">terrorists</a>."Gary Ruskin, Co-Director of U.S. Right to Know said the website "seems typical of ACSH's work: attacks on those who question or criticize powerful corporations, brimming with hyperbole and errors of fact." He called it "wholly unsurprising," "standard corporate PR tactics" of an "increasingly desperate" agrochemical industry.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;">Ties to Jon Entine's GLP</h2>Cameron English, whose biography calls him "the editor at Deniers for Hire, a project of the American Council on Science and Health," later went on to be "Senior Agricultural Genetics and Special Projects Editor" at GLP run by PR flack Jon Entine.GLP is another industry front group, one which companies like Monsanto use "as platforms of support for industry spokespersons" in order to discredit such targets as the World Health Organization, according to a 2018 U.S. Congressional <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/02.06.18%20-%20Spinning%20Science%20and%20Silencing%20Scientists_0.pdf" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">report</a>.Entine is a former producer with NBC and ABC News, whose books attacked the idea of socially responsible investing and the precautionary principle (Let Them Eat Precaution). He went on to join the American Enterprise Institute and has been "cultivated" by corporations like <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/02/11277/syngenta-pr%E2%80%99s-weed-killer-spin-machine-investigating-press-and-shaping-news-about" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">Syngenta</a> (maker of pesticides, genetically engineered crop varieties, and more) as a trusted "third party" to accomplish items on their public relations wish lists.The GLP website is owned by Entine's PR firm, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Esg-Mediametrics-DB-Duns-Market-Identifiers-Plus-US.pdf" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">ESG MediaMetrics</a>, according to its <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/84/GLP_ICANN_WHOIS.pdf" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">WHOIS data</a>. The website for ESG MediaMetrics has been removed, but archived versions of the firm's site show that its <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ESG_MediaMetrics_clients.png" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">clients</a> include Monsanto, the Vinyl Institute, and Merisant, a Monsanto spin-off that manufactured artificial sweeteners.Both ACSH and GLP are listed as "industry partners" in <a href="https://dn9ly4f9mxjxv.cloudfront.net/app/uploads/2018/02/04154600/industry-partners.pdf" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">internal Monsanto documents</a>. And the targets of ACSH's "Deniers for Hire" "are also targets of the GLP," <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18507-the-three-stooges-of-science-denial-the-genetic-literacy-project-sense-about-science-and-stats" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(204, 51, 51) 0px 3px 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">according to GMWatch</a> (another target of the site).U.S. Right to Know's Ruskin told CMD of being targeted by the site, "We laugh about it... It's just what happens these days when you try to stand up for consumers or public health."Mary Bottari contributed to this article.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-13 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="background: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" tag_blue.png="tag_blue.png" left="left" no-repeat="no-repeat" scroll="scroll" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" em="em" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" word-spacing="word-spacing"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Environment</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/topics/public-relations/front-groups" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Front Groups</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-12 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="background: url(" sites="sites" all="all" themes="themes" prw="prw" images="images" tag_red.png="tag_red.png" left="left" no-repeat="no-repeat" scroll="scroll" rgb="rgb" line-height="line-height" em="em" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" word-spacing="word-spacing"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" style="display: inline-block; padding-right: 1em;"><a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news-types/news" style="text-decoration-line: none;">News</a></div></div></div></div><div>=</div></div><div>=</div><div><div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; display: inline-block; width: 847.5px;"><div class="views-field views-field-title" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><h2 class="field-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 22px; margin-bottom: 11px;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/09/30/glyphosate-slow-steady-vindication-10239" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; outline: 0px;">Glyphosate: A Slow But Steady Vindication</a></h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-body" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/09/30/glyphosate-slow-steady-vindication-10239" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">
[pix of buccolic pastorals] Read more</a>There's a long history of ridiculous fearmongering -- centering on BPA, MSG, Alar, DDT to name a few -- by environmental activists masquerading as health experts. Today, the whipping boy that takes the brunt of the unfounded chemophobic assault on science is the herbicide glyphosate.</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">
</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">9 2016</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">
</div><div class="field-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">here has been a long history of ridiculous fearmongering by environmental activists masquerading as health experts. BPA, MSG, Alar, DDT, and food coloring are just a handful of chemicals that fell prey to overblown fears or outright fabrications. Today, the whipping boy that takes the brunt of the unfounded chemophobic assault on science is the herbicide glyphosate.Glyphosate is demonized primarily for one reason: Monsanto. To many of its irrational detractors, who refer to the company as "Monsatan," anything the company touches is, by definition, evil. The seed giant genetically engineered some of its crops to be resistant to glyphosate so that farmers could spray it on their fields; the crops would survive while the weeds were destroyed. It's not a perfect solution. For instance, glyphosate resistance among weeds is becoming a larger problem. While the threat of glyphosate-resistant weeds is a nuisance for farmers, it won't really scare anybody. So, in an effort to attack both Monsanto and GMO crops in general, anti-science food activists accused glyphosate of causing cancer. This is utter nonsense, but thankfully, regulators appear to be siding with the evidence.There is neither biomedical nor epidemiological evidence to support the claim. That is why, in May of this year, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization (both agencies of the United Nations) stated that glyphosate is "<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans</a>." Then, just two weeks ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made a similar declaration. As reported by our own Dr. Julianna LeMieux, the EPA gave glyphosate its <a href="http://acsh.org/news/2016/09/17/epa-states-glyphosate-does-not-cause-cancer-again-10177" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">safest possible classification</a>.Now, another victory for evidence-based science has been won, this time in Switzerland. According to <a href="http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/safety-row_no-swiss-ban-for-weed-killer-glyphosate/42485262" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Swissinfo</a>, a news site based in Switzerland:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; padding: 11px 22px; margin: 0px 0px 22px; border-left: 5px solid rgb(238, 238, 238);">The House of Representatives has rejected a petition from various organisations such as Greenpeace and the Consumers’ Association for French-speaking Switzerland, which have been calling for a ban on the use of all synthetic chemical pesticides, such as the weed-killer ingredient glyphosate.A majority of parliamentarians said on Friday there was insufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on the general use of glyphosate, especially for farming.</blockquote>Europe is notoriously averse to modern food technology. So when Europeans, who have gone so far as to <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/precautionary_principle.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">enshrine the "</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/precautionary_principle.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">precautionary principle</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/precautionary_principle.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">" into EU law</a>, are rejecting Greenpeace's fearmongering, it indicates that the jig is up. The political tide, boosted by evidence, is starting to turn in favor of glyphosate. Of course, this will change few opinions among the true believers. Monsanto haters and GMOphobes are implacable. We can already hear their objections. "If glyphosate is so safe, why don't you drink a glass of it?" That's absurd. Organic farmers use manure to fertilize crops. Perhaps they should drink a glass of that.</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">tags</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">
</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-left: 15px;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/tags/glyphosate" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">glyphosate</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-left: 15px;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/tags/herbicides" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">herbicides</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-left: 15px;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/tags/pesticides" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Pesticides</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-left: 15px;"><a href="https://www.acsh.org/tags/chemophobia" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; outline: 0px;">Chemophobia</a></div></div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">American Council on Science and Health Comment PolicyComments are moderated. Constructive feedback is welcome. Pseudoscience, insults, or mischaracterizations are not.</div><div class="field-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">-----</div></div></div></div></div><div>=Poisoned for Pennies: The Economics of Toxics and Precaution (Google eBook)
Frank AckermanIsland Press, May 23, 2008 - Law - 352 pages0 Reviews
“Cost-benefit analysis” is a term that is used so frequently we rarely stop to think about it. But relying on it can lead to some dubious conclusions, as Frank Ackerman points out in this eye-opening book. For example, some economists have argued that states should encourage—and even subsidize—cigarette smoking by citizens because smoking will shorten life spans and therefore reduce the need and expense of caring for the elderly. How did the economists reach that conclusion? The answer is cost-benefit analysis, Ackerman explains.
Then in clear, understandable language, he describes an alternative, precautionary approach to making decisions under uncertainty. Once a mere theory, the precautionary principle has now been applied in practice through the European Union’s REACH protocol. Citing major studies, many of which he has directed, he shows that the precautionary approach has not only worked, but has been relatively cheap.
Poisoned for Pennies shows how the misuse of cost-benefit analysis is impeding efforts to clean up and protect our environment, especially in the case of toxic chemicals. According to Ackerman, conservatives—in elected office, in state and federal regulatory agencies, and in businesses of every size—have been able to successfully argue that environmental clean-up and protection are simply too expensive. But he proves, that is untrue in case after case. Ackerman is already well known for his carefully reasoned attacks on the conventional wisdom about the costs of environmental regulation. This new book, which finds Ackerman ranging from psychological research to risk analysis to the benefits of aggressive pesticide regulation, and from mad cow disease to lead paint, will further his reputation as a thought leader in environmental protection. We can’t afford not to listen to him.<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=PYgmcdklVVUC&dq=Trichopoulos+atrazine&source=gbs_navlinks_s">http://books.google.com/books?id=PYgmcdklVVUC&dq=Trichopoulos+atrazine&source=gbs_navlinks_s</a>=</div><div></div><div>milloy ? and entine do interesting rhetorical slight of hand?</div><div></div><div>from OMB TOZZI JG in risk asses</div><div>
</div><div>John Graham, who heads OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has advanced the proposal under the banner of "sound science." But many commenters on the proposal think it will manipulate science to produce the exact opposite.
While the Data Quality Act was quietly slipped into the 2001 appropriations bill without hearings on the representation that it was meant merely to correct technical errors, conservative forces quickly began trying to expand its scope. Since then it has been used by lawyers attempting to censor findings (such as those in the "National Assessment" of climate change impacts) reached by a consensus of scientists.
The deadline for public comments on the OMB bulletin was Dec. 15, 2003, while federal agencies had until Jan. 14, 2004. In its proposed form, the bulletin was supposed to have taken effect on Jan. 1, 2004, but is unlikely to have any practical force until OMB issues it in final form - an action which could be months away.One group of commenters - 20 former top federal regulators (more from Dem than GOP administrations) including former EPA Administrators Carol Browner and Russell Train - called on OMB to withdraw the proposal and let the National Academy of Sciences handle the issue. ?
Also calling for its withdrawal were Reps. Henry A. Waxman (CA), John F. Tierney (MA), and five other House Democrats. Waxman's staff maintains a Congressional Web site that tracks what it considers the Bush administration's political manipulation of science related to health and the environment.On the other side, saying the OMB proposal did not go far enough, were GOP Reps. Jim Gibbons and Chris Cannon (UT), styling himself co-Chair of the "Sound Science Caucus," a group that declared its intention to form in Oct. 2003, a month after OMB proposed its bulletin, by a core of Western GOPers centered mainly in the Resources Committee. They have gun sights trained on the "precautionary principle."</div><div></div><div><h1 align="center" style="text-align: left;">THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE</h1><h2 align="center" style="text-align: left;">A Common Sense Way to Protect Public Health and the Environment</h2><h4 align="center" style="text-align: left;">Prepared by The <a href="http://www.sehn.org/">Science and Environmental Health Network</a> Jan2000</h4><h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">What is the precautionary principle?</h3>A comprehensive definition of the precautionary principle was spelled out in a January 1998 meeting of scientists, lawyers, policy makers and environmentalists at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin. The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, which is included in full at the end of this fact sheet, summarizes the principle this way:"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."Key elements of the principle include taking precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty; exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions; placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity; and using democratic processes to carry out and enforce the principle-including the public right to informed consent.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">Is there some special meaning for "precaution"?</h3>It's the common sense idea behind many adages: "Be careful." "Better safe than sorry." "Look before you leap." "First do no harm."<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">What about "scientific uncertainty"? Why should we take action before science tells us what is harmful or what is causing harm?</h3>Sometimes if we wait for proof it is too late. Scientific standards for demonstrating cause and effect are very high. For example, smoking was strongly suspected of causing lung cancer long before the link was demonstrated conclusively that is, to the satisfaction of scientific standards of cause and effect. By then, many smokers had died of lung cancer. But many other people had already quit smoking because of the growing evidence that smoking was linked to lung cancer. These people were wisely exercising precaution despite some scientific uncertainty.Often a problem-such as a cluster of cancer cases or global warming-is too large, its causes too diverse, or the effects too long term to be sorted out with scientific experiments that would prove cause and effect. It's hard to take these problems into the laboratory. Instead, we have to rely on observations, case studies or predictions based on current knowledge.According to the precautionary principle, when reasonable scientific evidence of any kind gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology or substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm. If we always wait for scientific certainty, people may suffer and die, and damage to the natural world may be irreversible.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">Why do we need the precautionary principle now?</h3>Those who issued the Wingspread Statement and many others believe that the effects of careless and harmful activities have accumulated over the years. They believe that humans and the rest of the natural world have a limited capacity to absorb and overcome this harm and that we must be much more careful than we have been in the past.There are plenty of warning signs that suggest we should proceed with caution. Some are in human beings themselves-such as increased rates of learning disabilities, asthma and certain types of cancer. Other warning signs are the dying off of plant and animal species, the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and the likelihood of global warming. It is hard to pin these effects to clear or simple causes-just as it is difficult to predict exactly what many effects will be. But good sense and plenty of scientific evidence tell us we must take care, and that all our actions have consequences.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">We have lots of environmental regulations. Aren't we already exercising precaution?</h3>In some cases, to some extent, yes. When federal money is to be used in a major project, such as building a road on forested land or developing federal waste programs, the planners must produce an "environmental impact statement" to show how it will affect the surroundings. Then the public has a right to help determine whether the study has been thorough and all the alternatives considered. That is a precautionary action.But most environmental regulations, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Superfund Law, are aimed at cleaning up pollution and controlling the amount of it released into the environment. They regulate toxic substances as they are emitted rather than limiting their use or production in the first place.These laws have served an important purpose they have given us cleaner air, water and land.But they are based on the assumption that humans and ecosystems can absorb a certain amount of contamination without being harmed. We are now learning how difficult it is to now what levels of contamination, if any, are safe.Many of our food and drug laws and practices are more precautionary. Before a drug is introduced into the marketplace, the manufacturer must demonstrate that it is safe and effective. Then people must be told about risks and side effects before they use it .But there are some major loopholes in our regulations and the way they are applied. If the precautionary principle were universally applied, many toxic substances, contaminants, and unsafe practices would not be produced or used in the first place. The precautionary principle concentrates on prevention rather than cure.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">What are the loopholes in current regulations?</h3>One is the use of "scientific certainty" as a standard, as discussed above. Often we assume that if something can't be proved scientifically, it isn't true. The lack of certainty is used to justify continuing to use a potentially harmful substance or technology.Another is the use of "risk assessment" to determine whether a substance or practice should be regulated. One problem is that the range of risks considered is very narrow-usually death, and usually from cancer. Another is that those who will assume the risk are not informed or consulted. For example, people who live near a factory that emits a toxic substance are rarely told about the risks or asked whether they accept them.A related, third loophole is "cost-benefit analysis" -determining whether the costs of a regulation are worth the benefits it will bring. Usually the short-term costs of regulation receive more consideration than the long-term costs of possible harm-and the public is left to deal with the damages. Also, many believe it is virtually impossible to quantify the costs of harm to a population or the benefits of a healthy environment. The effect of these loopholes is to give the benefit of the doubt to new and existing products and technologies and to all economic activities, even those that eventually prove harmful. Enterprises, projects, technologies and substances are, in effect, "innocent until proven guilty." Meanwhile, people and the environment assume the risks and often become the victims.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">How would the precautionary principle change all that without bringing the economy to a halt?</h3>It would encourage the exploration of alternatives --better, safer, cheaper ways to do things -- and the development of "cleaner' products and technologies. Sometimes simply slowing down in order to learn more about potential harm -- or doing nothing -- is the best alternative. The principle would serve as a "speed bump" in the development of technologies and enterprises.It would shift the burden of proof from the public to proponents of a technology. The principle would ensure that the public knows about and has a say in the deployment of technologies that may be hazardous. Proponents would have to demonstrate through an open process that a technology was safe or necessary and that no better alternatives were available. The public would have a say in this determination.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">Is this a new idea?</h3>The precautionary principle was introduced in Europe in the 1980s and became the basis for the 1987 treaty that bans dumping of persistent toxic substances in the North Sea. It figures in the Convention on Biodiversity. A growing number of Swedish and German environmental laws are based on the precautionary principle. International conferences on persistent toxic substances and ozone depletion have been forums for the promotion and discussion of the precautionary principle.Interpretations of the principle vary, but the Wingspread Statement is the first to define its major components and explain the rationale behind it.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">Will the countries that adopt the precautionary principle become less competitive on the world marketplace?</h3>The idea is to progress more carefully than we have done before. Some technologies may be brought onto the marketplace more slowly. Others may be stopped or phased out. On the other hand, there will be many incentives to create new technologies that will make it unnecessary to produce and use harmful substances and processes. These new technologies will bring economic benefits in the long run.Countries on the forefront of stronger, more comprehensive environmental laws, such as Germany and Sweden, have developed new, cleaner technologies despite temporary higher costs. They are now able to export these technologies. Other countries risk being left behind, with outdated facilities and technologies that pollute to an extent that the people will soon recognize as intolerable. There are signs that this is already happening.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">How can we possibly prevent all bad side effects from technological progress?</h3>Hazards are a part of life. But it is important for people to press for less harmful alternatives, to exercise their rights to a clean, life-sustaining environment and, when they could be exposed to hazards, to know what those hazards are and to have a part in deciding whether to accept them.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">How will the precautionary principle be implemented?</h3>The precautionary principle should become the basis for reforming environmental laws and regulations and for creating new regulations. It is essentially an approach, a way of thinking. In coming years, precaution should be exercised, argued and promoted on many levels-in regulations, industrial practices, science, consumer choices, education, communities, and schools.Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary PrincipleThe release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of resources, and physical alterations of the environment have had substantial unintended consequences affecting human health and the environment. Some of these concerns are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer, birth defects and species extinctions; along with global climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and worldwide contamination with toxic substances and nuclear materials.We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions, particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect adequately human health and the environment the larger system of which humans are but a part.We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and the worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new-principles for conducting human activities are necessary.While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.<h3 style="line-height: 19.0125px;">Wingspread Participants:</h3>(Affiliations are noted for identification purposes only.)<ul><li>Dr. Nicholas Ashford' Massachusetts Inst. Of Technology,</li><li>Katherine Barrett, Univ. of British Columbia</li><li>Anita Bernstein, Chicago-Kent College of Law</li><li>Dr. Robert Costanza, University of Maryland</li><li>Pat Costner, Greenpeace</li><li>Dr. Carl Cranor, Univ. of California, Riverside</li><li>Dr. Peter deFur, Virginia Commonwealth Univ.</li><li>Gordon Durnil, attorney</li><li>Dr. Kenneth Geiser, Toxics Use Reduction Inst., Univ. of Mass., Lowell</li><li>Dr. Andrew Jordan, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Univ. Of East</li><li>Anglia, United Kingdom</li><li>Andrew King, United Steelworkers of America,</li><li>Canadian Office, Toronto, Canada</li><li>Dr. Frederick Kirschenmann, farmer</li><li>Stephen Lester, Center for Health, Environment and Justice</li><li>Sue Maret, Union Inst.</li><li>Dr. Michael M'Gonigle, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada</li><li>Dr. Peter Montague, Environmental Research Foundation</li><li>Dr. John Peterson Myers, W. Alton Jones Foundation</li><li>Dr. Mary O'Brien, environmental consultant</li><li>Dr. David Ozonoff, Boston Univ.</li><li>Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network</li><li>Dr. Philip Regal, Univ. of Minnesota</li><li>Hon. Pamela Resor, Massachusetts House of Rep.</li><li>Florence Robinson, Louisiana Environmental Network</li><li>Dr. Ted Schettler, Physicians for Social Responsibility</li><li>Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition</li><li>Dr. Klaus-Richard Sperling, Alfred-Wegener- Institut, Hamburg, Germany</li><li>Dr. Sandra Steingraber, author</li><li>Diane Takvorian, Environmental Health Coalition</li><li>Joel Tickner, University of Mass., Lowell</li><li>Dr. Konrad von Moltke, Dartmouth College</li><li>Dr. Bo Wahlstrom, KEMI (National Chemical Inspectorate), Sweden</li><li>Jackie Warledo, Indigenous Environmental Network</li></ul><blockquote><a href="http://www.sehn.org/">Science and Environmental Health Network</a>
Rt. 1 Box 73
Windsor North Dakota 58424
701-763-6286
E-mail: <a href="mailto:75114.1164@compuserve.com">75114.1164@compuserve.com</a></blockquote></div><div></div><div>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle</div><div>
</div><div>The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management" title="Risk management" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">risk management</a> states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_public" title="General public" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">public</a> or to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment" title="Natural environment" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">environment</a>, in the absence of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus" title="Scientific consensus" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">scientific consensus</a> that the action or policy is not harmful, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof" title="Legal burden of proof" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">burden of proof</a> that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility" title="Social responsibility" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">social responsibility</a> to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.In some legal systems, as in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_European_Union" title="Law of the European Union" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">law of the European Union</a>, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory" title="Statutory" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">statutory</a> requirement in some areas of law.Regarding international conduct, the first endorsement of the principle was in 1982 when the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Charter_for_Nature" title="World Charter for Nature" style="color: rgb(11, 0, 128); text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">World Charter for Nature</a> was adopted by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly" title="United Nations General Assembly" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">United Nations </a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly" title="United Nations General Assembly" style="color: rgb(11, 0, 128); text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">General Assembly</a>, while its first international implementation was in 1987 through the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol" title="Montreal Protocol" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Montreal Protocol</a>. Soon after, the principle integrated with many other legally binding international treaties such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration" title="Rio Declaration" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Rio Declaration</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol" title="Kyoto Protocol" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Kyoto Protocol</a>.
<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;"><h2 style="color: black; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Contents</h2>  [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#" id="togglelink" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">hide</a>] </div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Origins_and_theory" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1 Origins and theory</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Formulations" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2 Formulations</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Application" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3 Application</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Strong_vs.weak" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.1 Strong vs. weak</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#International_agreements_and_declarations" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2 International agreements and declarations</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#.22Principle.22_vs..22approach.22" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.1 "Principle" vs. "approach"</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#European_Commission" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.2 European Commission</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#USA" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.3 USA</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Japan" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.4 Japan</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Australia" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.5 Australia</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Corporate" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2.6 Corporate</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Environment_and_health" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.3 Environment and health</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Resource_management" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.4 Resource management</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-14" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Criticisms" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4 Criticisms</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Internal_inconsistency-applying_strong_PP_risks_causing_harm" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4.1 Internal inconsistency - applying strong PP risks causing harm</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Blocking_innovation_and_progress_generally" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4.2 Blocking innovation and progress generally</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Vagueness_and_plausibility" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4.3 Vagueness and plausibility</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-18" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#See_also" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">5 See also</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#References" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">6 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-20" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Other_publications" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">7 Other publications</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-21" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#External_links" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">8 External links</a></li></ul></div></div><div></div><div>...</div><div><h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">European Commission<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precautionary_principle&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: European Commission" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h4>On 2 February 2000, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission" title="European Commission" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">European Commission</a> issued a Communication on the precautionary principle,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-EU-Comm-PP-8" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> in which it adopted a procedure for the application of this concept, but without giving a detailed definition of it. Paragraph 2 of article 191 of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty" title="Lisbon Treaty" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Lisbon Treaty</a> states that<blockquote style="overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 40px; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-18" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a></blockquote>After the adoption of the European Commission's Communication on the precautionary principle, the principle has come to inform much EU policy, including areas beyond environmental policy. As of 2006 it had been integrated into EU laws "in matters such as general product safety, the use of additives for use in animal nutrition, the incineration of waste, and the regulation of genetically modified organisms."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-Recuerda-19" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a>:282–83Through its application in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law" title="Case law" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">case law</a>, it has become a "general principle of EU law."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-Recuerda-19" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a>:283<h4 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 22.4px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">USA<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precautionary_principle&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: USA" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h4>On July 18, 2005, the City of San Francisco passed a <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14134&sid=5" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20width%3D%2210%22%20height%3D%2210%22%3E%3Cg%20transform%3D%22translate%28-826.429%20-698.791%29%22%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%225.982%22%20height%3D%225.982%22%20x%3D%22826.929%22%20y%3D%22702.309%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%20stroke%3D%22%2306c%22%2F%3E%3Cg%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M831.194%20698.791h5.234v5.391l-1.571%201.545-1.31-1.31-2.725%202.725-2.689-2.689%202.808-2.808-1.311-1.311z%22%20fill%3D%22%2306f%22%2F%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M835.424%20699.795l.022%204.885-1.817-1.817-2.881%202.881-1.228-1.228%202.881-2.881-1.851-1.851z%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E); background-color: initial; background-position: 100% 50%, 100% 50%;">Precautionary Principle Purchasing ordinance</a>, which requires the city to weigh the environmental and health costs of its $600 million in annual purchases – for everything from cleaning supplies to computers. Members of the Bay Area Working Group on the Precautionary Principle including the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_Cancer_Fund&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Breast Cancer Fund (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Breast Cancer Fund</a>, helped bring this to fruition....<h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Criticisms<span class="mw-editsection" style="font-weight: normal; -webkit-user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precautionary_principle&action=edit&section=14" title="Edit section: Criticisms" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>Critics of the principle use arguments similar to those against other formulations of technological <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism" title="Conservatism" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">conservatism</a>.<h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Internal inconsistency - applying strong PP risks causing harm<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precautionary_principle&action=edit&section=15" title="Edit section: Internal inconsistency - applying strong PP risks causing harm" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>Strong formulations of the precautionary principle, without regard to its most basic provisions that it is to be applied only where risks are potentially high AND not easily calculable, applied to the principle itself as a policy decision, may rule out its own use.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-Beyond_Laws_of_Fear-14" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a>:26ff The reason suggested is that preventing innovation from coming to market means that only current technology may be used, and current technology itself may cause harm or leave needs unmet; there is a risk of causing harm by blocking innovation.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-Guardian-22" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[22]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[23]</a> As <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton" title="Michael Crichton" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Michael Crichton</a> wrote in his novel, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear" title="State of Fear" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">State of Fear</a>: "The 'precautionary principle', properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-CAST52-24" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[24]</a> For example, forbidding nuclear power plants based on concerns about risk means continuing to rely on power plants that burn fossil fuels, which continue to release <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas" title="Greenhouse gas" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">greenhouse gases</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-Beyond_Laws_of_Fear-14" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[14]</a>:27 In another example, the Hazardous Air Pollutant provisions in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act(1990)" title="Clean Air Act (1990)" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act</a> are an example of the Precautionary Principle where the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless. Under this rule no distinction is made between those air Pollutants that provide a higher or lower risk, so operators tend to choose less-examined agents that are not on the existing list.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[25]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Blocking innovation and progress generally<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precautionary_principle&action=edit&section=16" title="Edit section: Blocking innovation and progress generally" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>Because applications of strong formulations of the PP can be used to block innovation, a technology which brings advantages may be banned by PP because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-Sunstein-26" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[26]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-27" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[27]</a>:201The precautionary principle has been ethically questioned on the basis that its application could block progress in developing countries.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[28]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Vagueness and plausibility<span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precautionary_principle&action=edit&section=17" title="Edit section: Vagueness and plausibility" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>The PP calls for inaction in the face of scientific uncertainty, but some formulations do not specify the minimal threshold of plausibility of risk that acts as a “triggering” condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-vandenBelt-29" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[29]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[30]</a> In Sancho vs. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy" title="United States Department of Energy" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">DOE</a>, Helen Gillmor, Senior District Judge, wrote in a dismissal of Wagner's lawsuit which included a popular<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a> worry that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider" title="Large Hadron Collider" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">LHC</a> could cause "destruction of the earth" by a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole" title="Black hole" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">black hole</a>:<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Injury in fact requires some “credible threat of harm.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2002). At most, Wagner has alleged that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (the “Collider”) have “potential adverse consequences.” Speculative fear of future harm does not constitute an injury in fact sufficient to confer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#United_States" title="Standing (law)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">standing</a>. Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 970.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a></dd><dd style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...</dd><dd style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"></dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Brown, Tracey (9 July 2013)The precautionary principle is a blunt instrument The Guardian, Retrieved 9 August 2013</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jump up ^ Sherry Seethaler. Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort through the Noise around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies FT Press, 2009</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jump up ^ Merchant, G et al. Impact of the Precautionary Principle on Feeding Current and Future Generations CAST Issue Paper 52, June 2013</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jump up ^ Goldstein BD, Carruth RS (2004). "Implications of the Precautionary Principle: is it a threat to science?". Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17 (1): 153–61. PMID 15212219.</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">Jump up ^ Sunstein, Cass R. The Paralyzing Principle: Does the Precautionary Principle Point us in any Helpful Direction? Regulation, Winter 2002–2003, The Cato Institute.</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jump up ^ David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity Penguin Books (UK), Viking Press (US), 2011. ISBN 978-0-7139-9274-8</dd><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><dd style="margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">
</dd><dd style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;"><ol class="references" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: inherit; line-height: 20.16px;"><li id="cite_note-Guardian-22" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid; page-break-inside: avoid; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Brown, Tracey (9 July 2013)<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/09/precautionary-principle-blunt-instrument" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20width%3D%2210%22%20height%3D%2210%22%3E%3Cg%20transform%3D%22translate%28-826.429%20-698.791%29%22%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%225.982%22%20height%3D%225.982%22%20x%3D%22826.929%22%20y%3D%22702.309%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%20stroke%3D%22%2306c%22%2F%3E%3Cg%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M831.194%20698.791h5.234v5.391l-1.571%201.545-1.31-1.31-2.725%202.725-2.689-2.689%202.808-2.808-1.311-1.311z%22%20fill%3D%22%2306f%22%2F%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M835.424%20699.795l.022%204.885-1.817-1.817-2.881%202.881-1.228-1.228%202.881-2.881-1.851-1.851z%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E) 100% 50%;">The precautionary principle is a blunt instrument</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian" title="The Guardian" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">The Guardian</a>, Retrieved 9 August 2013</li><li id="cite_note-23" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid; page-break-inside: avoid; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_ref-23" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up^{</a> }Sherry Seethaler. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Lies_Damned_Lies_and_Science.html?id=NYdiqDdot4kC" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20width%3D%2210%22%20height%3D%2210%22%3E%3Cg%20transform%3D%22translate%28-826.429%20-698.791%29%22%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%225.982%22%20height%3D%225.982%22%20x%3D%22826.929%22%20y%3D%22702.309%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%20stroke%3D%22%2306c%22%2F%3E%3Cg%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M831.194%20698.791h5.234v5.391l-1.571%201.545-1.31-1.31-2.725%202.725-2.689-2.689%202.808-2.808-1.311-1.311z%22%20fill%3D%22%2306f%22%2F%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M835.424%20699.795l.022%204.885-1.817-1.817-2.881%202.881-1.228-1.228%202.881-2.881-1.851-1.851z%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E) 100% 50%;">Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort through the Noise around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies</a> FT Press, 2009</li><li id="cite_note-CAST52-24" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid; page-break-inside: avoid; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_ref-CAST52_24-0" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up^{</a> }Merchant, G et al. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=276208&File=1030ac6763c4d6f3918b92e5a1345c4b8024TR" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20width%3D%2210%22%20height%3D%2210%22%3E%3Cg%20transform%3D%22translate%28-826.429%20-698.791%29%22%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%225.982%22%20height%3D%225.982%22%20x%3D%22826.929%22%20y%3D%22702.309%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%20stroke%3D%22%2306c%22%2F%3E%3Cg%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M831.194%20698.791h5.234v5.391l-1.571%201.545-1.31-1.31-2.725%202.725-2.689-2.689%202.808-2.808-1.311-1.311z%22%20fill%3D%22%2306f%22%2F%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M835.424%20699.795l.022%204.885-1.817-1.817-2.881%202.881-1.228-1.228%202.881-2.881-1.851-1.851z%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E) 100% 50%;">Impact of the Precautionary Principle on Feeding Current and Future Generations</a> CAST Issue Paper 52, June 2013</li><li id="cite_note-25" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid; page-break-inside: avoid; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_ref-25" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up^{</a> }Goldstein BD, Carruth RS (2004). "Implications of the Precautionary Principle: is it a threat to science?". Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17(1): 153–61. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Identifier" title="PubMed Identifier" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">PMID</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15212219" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20width%3D%2210%22%20height%3D%2210%22%3E%3Cg%20transform%3D%22translate%28-826.429%20-698.791%29%22%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%225.982%22%20height%3D%225.982%22%20x%3D%22826.929%22%20y%3D%22702.309%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%20stroke%3D%22%2306c%22%2F%3E%3Cg%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M831.194%20698.791h5.234v5.391l-1.571%201.545-1.31-1.31-2.725%202.725-2.689-2.689%202.808-2.808-1.311-1.311z%22%20fill%3D%22%2306f%22%2F%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M835.424%20699.795l.022%204.885-1.817-1.817-2.881%202.881-1.228-1.228%202.881-2.881-1.851-1.851z%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E) 100% 50%;">15212219</a>.<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3APrecautionary+principle&rft.atitle=Implications+of+the+Precautionary+Principle%3A+is+it+a+threat+to+science%3F&rft.au=Goldstein+BD%2C+Carruth+RS&rft.aulast=Goldstein+BD%2C+Carruth+RS&rft.date=2004&rft.genre=article&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F15212219&rft.issue=1&rft.jtitle=Int+J+Occup+Med+Environ+Health&rft.pages=153-61&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.volume=17" class="Z3988" /></li><li id="cite_note-Sunstein-26" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid; page-break-inside: avoid;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_ref-Sunstein_26-0" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up^{</a>} Sunstein, Cass R. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 18px; background-image: url(" https="https" upload.wikimedia.org="upload.wikimedia.org" wikipedia="wikipedia" commons="commons" icons-mini-file_acrobat.gif="Icons-mini-file_acrobat.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-color="background-color" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat">The Paralyzing Principle: Does the Precautionary Principle Point us in any Helpful Direction?</a> Regulation, Winter 2002–2003, The Cato Institute.</li><li id="cite_note-27" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid; page-break-inside: avoid; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_ref-27" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important; -webkit-user-select: none;">Jump up^{</a> }<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch" title="David Deutsch" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">David Deutsch</a>, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Beginning_of_Infinity.html?id=WFZl7YvsiuIC" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">The Beginning of Infinity</a> Penguin Books (UK), Viking Press (US), 2011. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780713992748" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">ISBN 978-0-7139-9274-8</a></li></ol></dd></dl></div><div></div><div>http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/let-them-eat-precaution-book/</div><div>
</div><div><div class="item-subtitle" style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none;">How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture</div><div class="policy-article-info" style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 0px 0px; outline: none; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(68, 68, 68);"><div class="article-info-left" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; width: 320px;"><div class="know-more-sub-article-publisher" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none;"><a href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">Jon Entine,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Robert L. Paarlberg,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Martina Newell-McGloughlin,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Andrew S. Natsios,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Patrick Moore,</a><a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Thomas Jefferson Hoban,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Tony Gilland,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Carol Tucker Foreman,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Jay Byrne,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">Gregory Conko,</a> <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">C. S. Prakash,</a> Edited by: <a href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">Jon Entine</a> | <a style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: none; font-weight: bold;">AEI Press</a></div><div class="know-more-sub-article-date" style="margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px; outline: none;">January 18, 2006</div><div class="know-more-sub-article-date" style="margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px; outline: none;">golden rice and prec p biggest word cloud</div><div class="know-more-sub-article-date" style="margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px; outline: none;">
</div><div class="know-more-sub-article-date" style="margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px; outline: none;">=</div><div class="know-more-sub-article-date" style="margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px; outline: none;"><table border="0" align="center" width="100%" class="tab" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#EEEEEE"><td>CS Prakash</td></tr><tr><td><div><a href="http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/prakash/prakashart/prakash_bio.html" style="text-decoration: none;">Dr C. S. Prakash</a> is Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics and Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University, Alabama, USA, where he oversees research on the genetic modification of food crops and the training of scientists and students in plant biotechnology.He serves on the US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee and also on the Advisory Committee for the Department of Biotechnology of the Government of India. He is also an advisor to USAID, serving as the principal investigator of a USAID funded project 'to promote biotechnology awareness in Africa'. Tuskegee University receives multi-million dollar funding from USAID. Prakash is best known for his AgBioWorld campaign, which was launched in January 2000, involving the agbioworld.org <a href="http://www.agbioworld.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">website</a> and the heavily-subscribed AgBioView e-mail list, which Prakash personally edits. His <a href="http://www.agbioworld.org/declaration/declaration_index.html" style="text-decoration: none;">Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology</a> has received support from over 3,000 scientists, including Nobel Laureates like Dr <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=24" style="text-decoration: none;">Norman Borlaug</a>, who is a keen supporter of Prakash's campaign.Under the AgBioWorld banner, Prakash has sent petitions and press releases to international bodies and meetings, such as the International Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal and to the UN Committee on Sustainable Development, as well as to science journals and the media. His campaign has attracted extensive media coverage, including well over a hundred newspaper and magazine articles. He was also featured in <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39" style="text-decoration: none;">Martin Durkin</a>'s controversial documentary <a href="http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/interviews/channel4.html" style="text-decoration: none;">The Rise and Fall of GM</a> on British TV's Channel 4. Prakash has travelled overseas to speak at a number of events on behalf of the U.S. State Department, including at the U.S. embassy in London, at a debate staged by the <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=63" style="text-decoration: none;">Institute of Economic Affairs</a>, and at the Seeds of Opportunity conference chaired by <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=126" style="text-decoration: none;">Philip Stott</a>. Prakash was the lead orator in May 2003 when U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced the U.S.'s intention to file a World Trade Organization case against the European Union over its 'illegal five-year moratorium on approving agricultural biotech products.' (<a href="http://www.pestlaw.com/x/press/2003/TU-20030515A.html" style="text-decoration: none;">Tuskegee Scientist’s Expertise a Key Component of World Trade Organization Initiative</a>) </div>He has given testimony to the U.S. Congressional Committee on Science and to the Philippine Senate Committee on Health, and was keynote lecturer at the inaugural meeting of <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170" style="text-decoration: none;">AfricaBio</a> in Pretoria. He has also hosted a media forum for journalists in New Delhi with Barun Mitra of the <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=156" style="text-decoration: none;">Liberty Institute</a> and lectured at the M.S. Swaminathan Foundation in India.He has worked as a 'Science Advisor' to the magazine Your World which is targeted at school students, developing a special issue on GM crops for the biotech-industry funded  Biotechnology Institute. The Your World series has been used with children in schools in North America and <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=118" style="text-decoration: none;">Scotland</a>.His AgBioView list has been successfully used to catalyze GM supporters within the scientific community to be more proactive in supporting GM crops, most notably over issues like GM contamination of Mexican maize landraces, the rejection of GM contaminated food aid in Southern Africa, and <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=105" style="text-decoration: none;">Golden Rice</a>.As with other aspects of Prakash's campaigning, however, serious questions have been raised over his collaborators, his tactics and, not least, the accuracy of the information that Prakash puts into circulation.For instance, Prakash is reported as having told a Tanzanian audience that GM 'doubles production' (The Express, Tanzania, Aug 21, 2002). In fact, as University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan has noted: 'Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops'. There is also some evidence for <a href="http://members.tripod.com/_{ngin/151201b.htm}" style="text-decoration: none;">yield losses</a> rather than gains, particularly with the main GM crop in global production.Aaron deGrassi at the Institute of Development Studies, at the University of Sussex, provides another striking example of the unscientific nature of some Prakash claims. In his report <a href="http://allafrica.com/sustainable/resources/00010161.html" style="text-decoration: none;"> Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa</a> deGrassi notes, 'Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is C.S. Prakash, the influential biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade Representative. Prakash has repeatedly cited [GM] sweet potatoes [in Kenya] as a positive example of the benefits of GM for African countries, but has confessed to having no knowledge of the results of scientific trials in Kenya.'

Prakash told&nbs</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div><div></div>