IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Paradox of Precaution

Listed author(s):
  • Pauline Barrieu
  • Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné

In the United States and most industrialized countries, regulatory policies and decision-making pertaining to food safety, occupational health and environmental protection are science-based. The actual pace and complexity of technological innovation, however, make it increasingly necessary to deal with situations where science cannot yet provide a definite picture. In this context, a now widely invoked rule, known as the 'Precautionary Principle', recommends to 'err on the side of preservation' until better scientific information becomes available. We draw a formal representation of this statement, and we show that it exhibits a logical contradiction. This negative result conveys a clarification of the type of actions science-based regulation should consider in the presence of scientific uncertainty. Aux États-Unis et dans la plupart des pays industrialisés, les règlements et politiques publics relatifs à la sécurité alimentaire, la santé au travail et la protection de l'environnement sont en principe basés sur l'information émanant des scientifiques. L'accélération et la complexité du progrès technologique rendent toutefois inévitable pour le régulateur de devoir prendre des décisions avant que la science puisse fournir une représentation claire du risque. Dans ce contexte, l'approche dite du «Principe de précaution» recommande d'«errer du côté de la prévention» jusqu'à ce que les scientifiques puissent donner le ton juste. Nous produisons une représentation formelle de ce principe, et nous montrons qu'il contient une incohérence logique. Ce résultat négatif permet néanmoins de préciser le type d'actions que la réglementation des risques basée sur la science devrait promouvoir en présence d'incertitude scientifique.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2003s-63.

in new window

Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 01 Oct 2003
Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2003s-63
Contact details of provider: Postal:
1130 rue Sherbrooke Ouest, suite 1400, Montréal, Quéc, H3A 2M8

Phone: (514) 985-4000
Fax: (514) 985-4039
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Robert A. Pollak, 1995. "Regulating Risks," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 179-191, March.
  2. Claude Henry & Marc Henry, 2002. "Formalization and applications of the Precautionary Principle," Working Papers hal-00243001, HAL.
  3. Christian Gollier, 2001. "Should we beware of the Precautionary Principle?," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 301-328, October.
  4. 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.
  5. Gollier, Christian & Jullien, Bruno & Treich, Nicolas, 2000. "Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the 'Precautionary Principle'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 229-253, February.
  6. Giovanni Immordino, 2003. "Looking for a Guide to Protect the Environment: The Development of the Precautionary Principle," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 629-644, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2003s-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.