Worldwide, the precautionary principle has been applied in various ways in the environmental decision-making process. Often the interpretation of the principle is based on absolute scientific certainty, cost-benefit analysis, or environmental equity. However, science cannot be absolute. Moreover, the resulting vagueness of the precautionary principle undermines the concept. To avoid these concerns, this paper proposes a two-stage interpretation of the precautionary principle. In the first stage, the scientific community has a rationale or educated idea that a certain substance might have serious and irreversible environmental or health consequences. Once this level of certainty is reached, those who stand to benefit from an activity should have the duty to prove that the activity will not cause undue harm. During the second stage, the alleged substance's guilt or non-toxicity must be established to a scientific certainty. If the substance is toxic, then the precautionary principle should mandate that absolute liability is the standard to be applied.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 6 (2006) Issue (Month): 4 (January) Pages: 312-319 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF