precautionary nyt 10/27/00 11:54 AM Page 1

Unbalanced caution
Better safe than sorry. This proverb is the
essence of the precautionary principle, which has
become a central element of several recent international agreements, and of policies announced
by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
European Union.
While there is no official definition of the precautionary principle, the one expressed in the
1992 Rio Declaration is the most commonly
cited: 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.
On the face of it, this is
a reasonable principle. Business and government
share a common goal to exercise appropriate
caution to ensure that new products and business operations do not pose unwarranted risks
to public health or the environment. Where risks
to public health or the environment exist,
cost– effective steps to manage and reduce
these risks should be taken.
Unfortunately, using highly speculative assertions of risk, some activists misuse the precautionary principle to justify product bans and to
stop new developments, including those that
hold enormous promise for improving human life.
Despite the absence of meaningful scientific evidence, claims of serious potential harm are
made, even in the face of experience with the
safe use of targeted products. Some types of
plastics, genetically modified grains, hormone–treated meat and even routine energy
projects are opposed because they are seen as
too risky. Trade protectionists also use the princi-

ple as an excuse to ban new products that compete with traditionally protected goods.
Misuse of the precautionary principle
should be cause for concern. In practice, advocates are now demanding the impossible by insisting on perfect certainty of no ill effects. A
responsible approach to risk recognizes that all
human activities include both benefits and risks.
Electricity, air travel, and chemotherapy all entail
risks, but on balance society recognizes that their
benefits justify facing their
associated risks (even while
working to reduce these
risks further).
If the precautionary
principle is used to block
beneficial innovations, public welfare is damaged. An unbalanced and excessive caution can undermine economies, jobs,
human aspirations, health and the environment.
Unjustified fears can lead to counterproductive
behavior (as, for example, when consumers
avoid eating fruit because of the exaggerated
fear of residual agricultural pesticides). Trade restrictions arising from the misuse of the principle
strain international relations and hurt consumers
and producers.
Enormous benefits come from scientific research, innovative technology and new developments. That is why governments must avoid the
utopian pursuit of a risk–free world and, instead,
exercise common sense in applying the precautionary principle. Above all, we should rely on science–based risk assessment and management,
recognize the potential benefits that new developments entail, and use the scientific tools society has to seek both greater safety and material
progress.

Governments must
avoid the utopian
pursuit of a
risk–free world

TM

www.exxon.mobil.com

© 2000 Exxon Mobil Corporation