Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe. J. B. Wiener and M. D. Rogers, Duke University, European Commission
The United States and the European Union have clashed over the regulation of a number of health and environmental risks. Pervading these controversies has been a larger debate about the proper stance of government. How should regulators act in the face of uncertainty about risk? The European Union has endorsed the Precautionary principle (PP) to justify and mobilise anticipatory regulation of uncertain risks and this approach has been reflected in EU risk regulation. However, the United States has not adopted the PP as a general basis for risk regulation and has opted for scientific risk assessment as the basis for risk regulation. Hence, the conventional wisdom is that Europe endorses the PP and seeks proactively to regulate risks, while the US opposes the PP and circumspectly waits for evidence of actual harm before regulating. Normative evaluations of this situation vary. Some observers see the PP as an antidote to industrialisation, globalisation, and American risk-taking. Other observers see the PP as an obstacle to science, trade and progress. In this paper, we critique the factual premise on which both these views rest. Through an analysis of various risks associated with beef, namely, hormones for growth and milk promotion, the problem of "mad cow disease" (BSE), and blood donations, we demonstrate that the reality is more complex. Sometimes Europe does take a more precautionary stance than the US, but sometimes the US is the more precautionary regulator. One may find a marked difference in relative precaution on particular risks taken one at a time but a broader analysis of the evidence does not support the conventional wisdom. Neither Europe nor America can claim to be the more precautionary actor across the board and the notion of a transatlantic struggle over risk and precaution is misleading. We offer a set of hypotheses to help explain why this complex pattern of relative precaution has emerged.
The author’s views do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Commission.
Go to . . .
2001 SRA Annual Meeting Table of Contents
2001 SRA Annual Meeting Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page