Abstract

A tenet of administrative law, particularly in the United States, is that regulators must base their decisions on ‘intelligible principles’ to provide consistency, predictability, transparency and accountability. The precautionary principle, which purports to provide a new decision rule for making environmental decisions under conditions of uncertainty, fails to provide such an intelligible principle for making decisions. The precautionary principle is ambiguous on the use of the two major criteria currently used to make environmental decisions - significant risk and cost-benefit balancing - yet offers no new specific decision criteria in their place. The second fundamental problem with the precautionary principle is that it is based on the unsubstantiated premise that the current regulatory system is insufficiently protective. The current system already tends to err on the side of the safety, as it should, but the relevant question is just how precautious should we be? As illustrated by the example of genetically modified organisms, the prudent level of precaution depends on factors such as the magnitude, distribution and uncertainty of risks, the extent of exposure, and the trade-offs and lost benefits in foregoing the risk. These are precisely the factors that are considered under the current risk-based approach, which the precautionary principle seeks to replace.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)143-157
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Risk Research
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Biotechnology
biotechnology
regulation
uncertainty
administrative law
Transparency
Decision making
transparency
Precautionary principle
decision making
responsibility
Costs
costs
Uncertainty
Factors

Keywords

  • Cost-benefit balancing
  • Genetically modified organisms
  • Precautionary principle
  • Significant risk

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Engineering(all)
  • Strategy and Management

Cite this

The precautionary principle : An ‘unprincipled’ approach to biotechnology regulation. / Marchant, Gary.

In: Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001, p. 143-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{709310a34cc146f2a6dffdfd065c74f9,
title = "The precautionary principle: An ‘unprincipled’ approach to biotechnology regulation",
abstract = "A tenet of administrative law, particularly in the United States, is that regulators must base their decisions on ‘intelligible principles’ to provide consistency, predictability, transparency and accountability. The precautionary principle, which purports to provide a new decision rule for making environmental decisions under conditions of uncertainty, fails to provide such an intelligible principle for making decisions. The precautionary principle is ambiguous on the use of the two major criteria currently used to make environmental decisions - significant risk and cost-benefit balancing - yet offers no new specific decision criteria in their place. The second fundamental problem with the precautionary principle is that it is based on the unsubstantiated premise that the current regulatory system is insufficiently protective. The current system already tends to err on the side of the safety, as it should, but the relevant question is just how precautious should we be? As illustrated by the example of genetically modified organisms, the prudent level of precaution depends on factors such as the magnitude, distribution and uncertainty of risks, the extent of exposure, and the trade-offs and lost benefits in foregoing the risk. These are precisely the factors that are considered under the current risk-based approach, which the precautionary principle seeks to replace.",
keywords = "Cost-benefit balancing, Genetically modified organisms, Precautionary principle, Significant risk",
author = "Gary Marchant",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1080/136698701750128088",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "143--157",
journal = "Journal of Risk Research",
issn = "1366-9877",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The precautionary principle

T2 - An ‘unprincipled’ approach to biotechnology regulation

AU - Marchant, Gary

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - A tenet of administrative law, particularly in the United States, is that regulators must base their decisions on ‘intelligible principles’ to provide consistency, predictability, transparency and accountability. The precautionary principle, which purports to provide a new decision rule for making environmental decisions under conditions of uncertainty, fails to provide such an intelligible principle for making decisions. The precautionary principle is ambiguous on the use of the two major criteria currently used to make environmental decisions - significant risk and cost-benefit balancing - yet offers no new specific decision criteria in their place. The second fundamental problem with the precautionary principle is that it is based on the unsubstantiated premise that the current regulatory system is insufficiently protective. The current system already tends to err on the side of the safety, as it should, but the relevant question is just how precautious should we be? As illustrated by the example of genetically modified organisms, the prudent level of precaution depends on factors such as the magnitude, distribution and uncertainty of risks, the extent of exposure, and the trade-offs and lost benefits in foregoing the risk. These are precisely the factors that are considered under the current risk-based approach, which the precautionary principle seeks to replace.

AB - A tenet of administrative law, particularly in the United States, is that regulators must base their decisions on ‘intelligible principles’ to provide consistency, predictability, transparency and accountability. The precautionary principle, which purports to provide a new decision rule for making environmental decisions under conditions of uncertainty, fails to provide such an intelligible principle for making decisions. The precautionary principle is ambiguous on the use of the two major criteria currently used to make environmental decisions - significant risk and cost-benefit balancing - yet offers no new specific decision criteria in their place. The second fundamental problem with the precautionary principle is that it is based on the unsubstantiated premise that the current regulatory system is insufficiently protective. The current system already tends to err on the side of the safety, as it should, but the relevant question is just how precautious should we be? As illustrated by the example of genetically modified organisms, the prudent level of precaution depends on factors such as the magnitude, distribution and uncertainty of risks, the extent of exposure, and the trade-offs and lost benefits in foregoing the risk. These are precisely the factors that are considered under the current risk-based approach, which the precautionary principle seeks to replace.

KW - Cost-benefit balancing

KW - Genetically modified organisms

KW - Precautionary principle

KW - Significant risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006284166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006284166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/136698701750128088

DO - 10.1080/136698701750128088

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85006284166

VL - 4

SP - 143

EP - 157

JO - Journal of Risk Research

JF - Journal of Risk Research

SN - 1366-9877

IS - 2

ER -