ASU A-Z Index
Colleges & Schools
News & Events
Centers & Programs
Alumni and Friends
Support ASU Law
College of Law News
Marchant co-authors, presents new paper on the precautionary principle in environmental policy
A paper co-authored by ASU Regents’ Professor
, “Impact of the Precautionary Principle on Feeding Current and Future Generations,” has been published by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), an international consortium of scientific and professional societies, companies and nonprofit organizations.
Marchant, who chaired the panel of four authors, presented the paper on Monday, June 24, at three venues in Washington, D.C. – to two meetings at the U.S. Congress, sponsored by the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, and at a public forum at The George Washington University, sponsored by the National Capitol Region of the Society for Risk Analysis.
Marchant is the Faculty Director of the Center for Law, Science & Innovation at the College of Law and the ASU Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law and Ethics.
The paper examines the history of the precautionary principle, defined as “a legal requirement, such as that enacted by the European Union, that mandates the formal and explicit application of precaution in regulatory decisions.” While the principle has played an important role in bringing attention to the impact of precaution in appropriate risk management, the authors point out problems of ambiguity, arbitrary application and bias against new technologies, using case studies that center on agricultural issues such as pesticide use, genetically modified foods and food irradiation.
While acknowledging the importance of safety, the authors indicated the principle has become unworkable and counterproductive, and they predict that, if applied too stringently, it will suppress innovation, to the detriment of the economy and human health.
“The precautionary principle may well be the most innovative, pervasive, and significant new concept in environmental policy over the past quarter century. It may also be the most reckless, arbitrary, and ill-advised,” the authors wrote.
The paper provides examples of the precautionary principle’s failure to offer a credible and reasoned framework for the application of risk management. It also describes inconsistencies in the principle’s use and suggests that it increasingly will be controversial, marginalized and ignored in the future.
For example, based on the precautionary principle, Norway banned cornflakes fortified with vitamins, France banned caffeinated energy drinks, Denmark banned cranberry juice drinks with extra Vitamin C, and Zambia rejected U.S. food during a famine (because the corn might contain genetically modified kernels).
“As with many things in life, the Goldilocks strategy may be most appropriate – not too little precaution, not too much, but just the right amount is needed,” according to Marchant and the other authors.
Collaborating with Marchant were Linda Abbott, of the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Allan Felsot, of the Department of Entomology and School of the Environment at Washington State University Tri-Cities, and Robert L. Griffin, of the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, N.C.
to read the full study.