My mother always used to tell me that it was “better to be safe than
sorry.” Her many clichés often annoyed me, and they often were contradictory
or just plain wrong. However, I now believe that this one was correct. It
is, in fact, one of the foundations of common sense – certainly in terms of
making decisions about health and environmental matters, but perhaps in
other aspects of life too. And it has come to be called the Precautionary
Principle.
A precautionary approach is caution taken in advance, or caution
practiced in the context of uncertainty in order to anticipate harm before
it occurs. It aims to prevent harm from the outset rather than manage it
after the fact. Under the Precautionary Principle (which is enshrined in the
law of the European Union but not in those of other countries, and in some
international treaties like the Rio Declaration from the 1992 Earth Summit
and the Convention on Biological Diversity), it is the responsibility of the
proponent of an activity or manufacturer of a product to establish that it
will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm. As a tool of
policy makers, it is said to have formed the basis of social democratic
environmental policies in West Germany, including measures to address the
effects of acid rain on forests.
The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary
Principle, resulting from a conference of the Science and Environmental
Health Network in Wisconsin, summarizes the principle this way: “When an
activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some
cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically.” |
The Precautionary Principle is one of several
decision-making principles used internationally to regulate chemicals in
both products and our environment. There are tens of thousands of chemicals approved for market
use today, from preservatives in our lipstick to flame retardants in our
sofas, from plasticizers in our water bottles to pesticides on our fruit and
vegetables. Contrary to common assumptions, the effects on human health from
these chemicals have not been fully researched. For instance, we do not know
as much as we could about their multiple or cumulative effects, or their effects
on women and on children, whose smaller size might make them more vulnerable
to negative effects. In addition, a great deal of scientific research is
funded by the corporations that manufacture or use these chemicals, rather
than by government-accredited, independent laboratories.
So it should be clear why the Precautionary Principle
is necessary when governments make decisions about the use of these potential toxins.
At the same time, such regulatory decisions must balance precaution with an
agreed-upon level of acceptable risk that factors in potential negative
impacts on society (such as personal freedoms), the economy, and so on.
All of these issues have come together via Covid-19.
In 2020, we find ourselves in the midst of a pandemic created by a virus
that is not yet fully understood by the best medical minds. Governments have
found themselves making decisions – some of which have been shown to be
controversial – about ways to protect the health of their citizens and
economies in an uncertain and evolving environment. Whether they are using the terminology or not, they are
applying the Precautionary Principle.
But when controversial decisions are made on our
behalf, we have the right to be able to evaluate the reasons behind those
decisions so we can, in turn, employ precaution on our own and families'
behalf. I do not find it surprising that there has been a backlash against
precautions taken by many governments on behalf of their citizens during the
pandemic because they have often been less than forthcoming with
information. Indeed, some medical experts who disagree with those decisions
have been sidelined, demeaned, and shut down, whereas there should be no
fear of discussing precautionary decisions based on solid information and
honest intent. And the suggestions of those citizens who understand the
precautionary value of healthy lifestyles and strong immune systems have
been largely dismissed.
Nevertheless, we take precautions all the time in life,
and many of them are government-mandated. Aside from those countries that
have enshrined the Precautionary Principle in the way they regulate
chemicals, many governments have laws mandating protections such as seatbelt
use, speed limits, bicycle helmets, and labour laws. Dr. Devra Davis –
epidemiologist, author, and founder of the Environmental Health Trust –
makes this comment on the wisdom of precaution: “We do not wait for
buildings to fall down or bridges to collapse before reinforcing and
inspecting them for safety; we do not wait for boats to sink before
requiring that they carry life jackets. We have enough knowledge [on many
topics] to make ‘informed choices’.”
Taking Our Own Precautions
So, even if governments, corporations, or our neighbors are playing fast and loose with our
health or that of the environment, as individuals we can take our own
precautionary approach. We don’t
have to live with fear as some Covid skeptics portray those who are being
cautious, but we can accept simple precautions to protect ourselves, our
families, and our communities.
Even in non-pandemic times, we can avoid many
chemicals by buying organic – not only food, but
personal care products, bedding, and clothing as well. Educating ourselves
about the various label claims and insignias will help avoid greenwashing
and false claims. If labels aren’t clear, we have a right to know and should
demand answers from manufacturers and pressure governments for full
disclosure via better
labeling. We can grow some of our own food organically. If our food is
depleted in nutrients for various reasons, we can take
supplements that can help counteract or protect us from the toxic effects of
pollutants or viruses, and that boost our immune systems. We can test and
filter our family’s drinking water and use filters if necessary. We can
eliminate the use of commercial household and laundry cleaners, instead
making our own from simple, harmless materials. There is a great deal of
information on these topics to be found on this
website and
numerous other sources.
Beyond that, we can pressure governments to build the Precautionary
Principle into legislation, and to test the effects of toxins,
removing them from use when necessary. We can also pressure corporations to
stop polluting our air, water, food, and the other products we buy. And we
can support precautionary measures to protect our health and that of the
environment. Better safe than sorry.
Thanks, mom!
Wendy Priesnitz
is Natural Life Magazine's editor, and a journalist and author with over 45 years of experience.