The 'Precautionary Principle' has become the focal point of the debate over how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be licensed for commercial use and the rules under which they should be traded internationally. The reason for the debate is that while exercising precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty is a generally accepted principle, turning that principle into an operational
... [Show full abstract] decision-making mechanism has proved to be extremely difficult and controversial. The result is that what was meant to be an innocuous part of science-based decision making within the Risk Analysis Framework has become politicized. The politicization of the Precautionary Principle has meant, among other things, that a great deal of what has been written about the Precautionary Principle is either advocacy or purposely opaque. The paper by Henk van den Belt is a refreshing departure from advocacy and obfuscation as it lays out in clear, finely crafted arguments the central questions pertaining to the Precautionary Principle as a mechanism for deciding policy. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in biotechnology, the environment, technology management and/or science policy. The debate over the Precautionary Principle is often couched in terms of a conflict between the European Union's approach to science policy - and biotechnology in particular - and that of the United States. Van den Belt is careful to point out this fallacy. He chooses to examine the acrimonious debate between anti-GMO activists and the French scientific establishment over conducting field trials of genetically modified crops by way of illustration. France is often portrayed as the major advocate of the Precautionary Principle in the EU, yet even within France the scientific establishment's interpretation of the Precautionary Principle is greatly at odds with that of anti-GMO advocates. The contention arises because the Precautionary Principle was enshrined in a number of multilateral environmental agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as EU legislation on food safety and the environment before its operational procedures had been decided. While the views on how the Precautionary Principle should be operationalized are extremely diverse, two have become the focal point of the debate - decisions by 'scientific experts' versus 'zero risk' (Van den Belt's strong version of the Precautionary Principle). Anti-GMO activists have grasped the latter and made it their mantra because they believe that it can be used to prevent any further use and development of agricultural biotechnology - zero risk cannot ever be scientifically proved. One major contribution of Van den Belt's paper is to show why the 'zero risk' interpretation of the precautionary principle is logically untenable. This is done by showing that the idea of zero risk always cuts both ways, meaning that there is always a 'zero risk' argument that would support the further development of biotechnology -
