IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v9y2006i4p313-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt
  • Ellen Vos

Abstract

In this article, it is argued that uncertainty and risk are intermingled and that this has severe consequences for risk regulation. First, uncertainty and risk are considered in the context of the precautionary principle from a theoretical point of view. On the basis of an interdisciplinary reflection, it is concluded that a paradox can be observed. Subsequently it will be investigated how this so-called uncertainty paradox works out in practice. This will be done by analysis of the Pfizer case, situated at the EU level. In this case, that related to the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter in the production of meat, the precautionary principle was used as policy and legal principle. The analysis will detail the regulatory complexities that result from the contradictions in precautionary thinking. In conclusion suggestions will be advanced for regulatory reform in the broader sense, including the role of experts, and an interdisciplinary research agenda will be proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt & Ellen Vos, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 313-336, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:313-336
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870500175063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870500175063
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870500175063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theofanis Christoforou, 2003. "The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A European legal perspective," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 205-211, June.
    2. Jonathan B. Wiener & Michael D. Rogers, 2002. "Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 317-349, October.
    3. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Mazur Joanna, 2019. "Automated Decision-Making and the Precautionary Principle in EU Law," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 3-18, December.
    3. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    4. Alfie ChristopherByron Gaffney & Darrick Evensen, 2020. "Addressing the Elephant in the Room: Learning from CITESCoP17," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 3-10, February.
    5. Varios Autores, 2016. "Lecturas Sobre Derecho Del Medio Ambiente. Tomo Xvi," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 852, March.
    6. Behnam Taebi & Jan H. Kwakkel & Céline Kermisch, 2020. "Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    7. Chen, Yangyang & Dou, Paul Y. & Rhee, S. Ghon & Truong, Cameron & Veeraraghavan, Madhu, 2015. "National culture and corporate cash holdings around the world," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-18.
    8. Jamie K. Wardman & Gabe Mythen, 2016. "Risk communication: against the Gods or against all odds? Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1220-1230, November.
    9. Uggla, Ylva & Forsberg, Maria & Larsson, Stig, 2016. "Dissimilar framings of forest biodiversity preservation: Uncertainty and legal ambiguity as contributing factors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 36-42.
    10. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    11. Engel, Nora, 2008. "Flexibility and innovation in response to emerging infectious diseases: Reactions to multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis in India," MERIT Working Papers 2008-076, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Robin Gregory & Graham Long, 2009. "Using Structured Decision Making to Help Implement a Precautionary Approach to Endangered Species Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 518-532, April.
    13. Iván Darío Gómez Lee, 2016. "La Seguridad Jurídica. Una Teoría Multidisciplinaria Aplicada A Las Instituciones Vol.Ii," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 851, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    2. Gregory Shaffer & Mark Pollack, 2004. "Regulating Between National Fears and Global Disciplines:Agricultural Biotechnology in the EU," Jean Monnet Working Papers 10, Jean Monnet Chair.
    3. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    4. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "How to be Cautious but Open to Learning: Time to Update Biotechnology and GMO Legislation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1513-1517, August.
    6. Onozaka, Yuko & Saue, Vegar Veseth & Costanigro, Marco, 2018. "The Moderating Effect of Heterogeneous Beliefs on Consumer Preferences for a New Food Technology: The Case of Modified Atmospheric Packaging," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    8. Barry Pemberton, 2017. "Effective Regulation and Support to Economic Growth: Are These Aims Mutually Exclusive in the Regulation of the UK’s Nuclear Industry?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 429-450, September.
    9. John D. Graham & Jonathan B. Wiener, 2008. "The precautionary principle and risk--risk tradeoffs: a comment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 465-474, June.
    10. Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    11. Yan Cai & Eunmi Kim, 2019. "Sustainable Development in World Trade Law: Application of the Precautionary Principle in Korea-Radionuclides," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Vasco Barroso Gonçalves, 2020. "Uncertain Risk Assessment and Management: Case Studies of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in Portugal," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 939-956, May.
    13. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    14. Moes, Floortje & Houwaart, Eddy & Delnoij, Diana & Horstman, Klasien, 2020. "Questions regarding ‘epistemic injustice’ in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    15. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    16. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    17. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    18. Abby Kinchy, 2010. "Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 505-517, December.
    19. Hopkins, Michael M. & Nightingale, Paul, 2006. "Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-374, April.
    20. Warren Pearce & Sujatha Raman, 2014. "The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: challenges of epistemic governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 387-402, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:313-336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.