The precautionary principle and risk-risk tradeoffs

In this paper we examine cases commonly characterised as risk-risk tradeoffs (i.e., creating new risks while solving existing ones), in an attempt to learn lessons that can be valuable for future regulatory decision-making. A broad range of environmental and health literature was reviewed and numerous cases of proclaimed risk-risk tradeoffs were analysed in order to determine: 1) why regulatory measures were initially taken, 2) why these measures caused a countervailing risk to emerge, 3) how tradeoffs could have been avoided, and 4) whether the case is a good example of a risk-risk tradeoff. The analysis reveals that only a small number of these cases can actually be considered risk-risk tradeoffs. In a large number of cases safer alternatives are and were available at the time decisions were made. In some cases the proclaimed risk-risk tradeoff simply did not exist or occur, and in some cases countervailing risks were ignored for reasons unknown. In many cases, the countervailing risks could have been anticipated and avoided by proactively seeking safer alternatives, completing a tradeoff and impact assessment, or increasing stakeholder input in the decision-making process. We conclude that concerns about risk-risk tradeoffs are not a reasonable argument against future application of the precautionary principle. Indeed, sound decision-making processes in the face of uncertainty should always consider and attempt to mitigate reasonable risk-risk tradeoffs.