Fundació Roger Torné

Gloria Valdivia
Head of Dissemination and Awareness
Fundació Roger Torné

The question was not trivial after having listened to the talk given by Dr Fernández, member of the INMA Project research network. She discussed the scientific community’s concern about the failure of environmental protection systems, which is evidenced by the fact that, for example, DDT was still being found in the placentas of women who gave birth in 2009, while DDT is a substance that has been prohibited in Spain since 1989.

In response to the question, Dr Fernández made reference to the precautionary principle, which is based on an apparently simple, common sense premise. She proposed that it should be the foundation for environmental policy – but in reality we can apply to any decision we make, even those that occur in our everyday lives as citizens – : “if possible damage is detected, exercise caution”.

Foto: Ignacio Sanz (vía Flickr)

This proposition led to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration of 1992:

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.

In addition, the Declaration listed three other components for applying the principle:

• The burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action
• The process for applying the precautionary principle should be open, informed and democratic and must include the potentially affected parties
• A wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions should be explored, including doing nothing

Since the principle first appeared, it has been the centre of quite a few debates. But there have also been proposals which support that, in addition to applying the principle in environmental policy, it should also be taken into account when taking decision related to human, animal and plant health.

The factors that support applying the precautionary principle are:

• The perception that the pace and efforts to combat environmental and health problems are far too slow compared with how quickly these problems grow
• The evidence that science cannot irrefutably identify and control risks in certain circumstances
• The great complexity, uncertainty and catastrophic potential of climate change: the unprecedented scale of this risk justifies a new way of looking at environmental control systems and paradigms
• Frustration with respect to policies on toxic chemicals

However, there are also arguments against applying this principle, such as those that assert that:

• Current regulatory procedures are already preventive
• The precautionary principle is not scientifically sound, because it advocates taking decisions without adequate scientific justification
• The precautionary principle eliminates innovation, because it requires safety testing before implementing new technologies

Foto: Smithsonian Institution (vía Flickr)

Environmental problems are one of those issues in which scientific information plays a crucial role in finding and implementing solutions. Scientific studies on the environment tend to ultimately be aimed at influencing politics. Therefore, the precautionary principle has become an issue that is as controversial as the environmental problems themselves, because the acceptance (or not) of this principle strongly influences the type of environmental policies to be implemented later on. In the end, as is stated by Jorge Riechman in the introduction to the book El Principio de Precaución, “risk and precaution are not technical questions, but political ones.” There are many interests at stake.

But far removed from this controversy are the victims that suffer or suffered the consequences of poorly managing risk and precaution. Along these lines, in 2002, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) published the report Late lessons from early warnings. Based on 14 case studies (the ‘mad cow’ crisis, the use of synthetic hormones to prevent spontaneous abortion in women, the overexploitation of fish stocks in the northern hemisphere and the use of radiation in medicine, among others), the EEA extracted 12 lessons with the aim or framing and defining sound and effective policies that protect the environment and contribute to sustainable development.

The debate over the precautionary principle goes hand in hand with the need for society to show the degree of uncertainty of different efficient environmental policies. Last November, Dr Philippe Grandjean made a comment in reference to chemical substances in which he stated that “their use should only be permitted when it has been conclusively proven that they are not harmful to health, instead of having to prove that they do enough damage to stop using them”.

At Inspira, we understand that society cannot afford to keep learning only from disasters and that there is a need for a paradigm shift where prudence is an essential component.

In this sense, the answer to the question that hung in the air after the lecture “Childhood health and environmental pollution” given by Dr Fernandez in the framework of the Seville Conference, “What can I do?”, should be inspired by this spirit of precaution, critique, question answering and answer demanding.

Increasingly more sophisticated hygiene and cosmetic products whose advertising promises extraordinary effects, foods that do not expire or that keep for periods of time far greater than in nature and utensils that make it possible to cook in record time are part of our lives without us stopping to wonder about the effect that prolonged consumption or use can have on our health.

Foto: David Barrena (vía Flickr)

In the face of activities or decisions that could pose risks, we should ask ourselves: do I need this activity, product, process…? As was brought up by the director of the EEA, Domingo Jiménez Beltrán, at a course in El Escorial in 2001, “why do we need a green cherry in our vermouth – with colouring that might cause some type of toxic risk – if cherries are red, red as cherries?”

At Inspira, we believe it is essential to answer the question “What can we do?” in a clear and educational way, so we are preparing a list of preventive actions to help us make healthy choices in our day to day. To do this, we are in contact with health professionals and scientists at the Inma Project and, soon, we will send you this article, so that, with your help, we can promote an active, critical and responsible society.

Sources:
RIECHMANN, J.;TICKNER, J.: El Principio de Precaución. Icaria Editorial, 2002.
MASCAREÑAS, P.: El Principio de Precaución aplicado a la regulación de los disruptores hormonales. Quadern CAPS 29, 2000.
MYERS, N.: The Precautionary Principle Puts Values First. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 3, June 2002, 210-219.
KRIEBEL, D.; TICKNER, J.; EPSTEIN, P.; LEMONS, J.; LEVINS, R.; LOECHLER, E.; QUINN, M.; RUDEL, R.; SCHETTLER, T.; STOTO, M. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ Health Perspect. 2001
ALCOBERRO, R.: El Principio de Precaución. Filosofía i Pensament

• Ask yourself where innovative foods or items come from and if consuming them could be harmful to your health or to the environment
• Keep a proactive and responsible attitude when taking decisions, without allowing the decision to be taken entirely based on economic factors, whenever possible
• Spread this information and all information you think can help protect health and the environment

Tags: child health, environmental, Precautionary principle, prevention, way of life

Share

Tags: child health, environmental, Precautionary principle, prevention, way of life