The Precautionary Principle

Conclusion with the panel

Philippe Grandjean
Lone Johnsen
Peter Skov
Question time

The precautionary principle – what is important?


Philippe Granjean
Professor, University of Odense

Peter Skov
Vice President, the Confederation of Danish Industry

Lone Johnsen
Manager, the Danish Society for Conservation of Nature

Philippe Grandjean
Professor, University of Odense

From a medical point of view, let me briefly specify what I have taken special notice of during this hearing. First of all I note that the precautionary principle can be defined in many ways. I personally do not care how you define it, I do, however, think that it is important to have the precautionary principle operationalised and to have it work in practice.

Three problems are particularly apparent. Firstly the process requires openness to work. There are areas of insecurity in risk assessment and in the prevention of pollution risks that have to be drawn into the limelight, that must be discussed. The process which leads to preventive efforts must have transparency.

Such transparency and openness will have the side effect of causing increased responsibility and quality of work as a result of having someone looking over your shoulder. This is also necessary for co-operation.

Openness and communication of this sort will be quite extraordinarily costly. I am sure that all those involved in this kind of work will hesitate slightly before presenting everything for inspection. But I believe that this is the only way forward, and I hope that the Danish EPA and the other relevant authorities will slowly move in this direction.

Secondly, there are problems of co-operation regarding the risk of an imbalance of input, because expertise is almost certain to be unevenly distributed. Lone Johnsen and her colleagues do an excellent job, but they will find it difficult to match organisations such as the European Organisation of Chemical Industries.

I recently carried out some risk assessment for the National Board of Health. While doing this, I checked what the enterprises had produced within this area, and I stumbled across a document addressing safety factors. Safety factors can be used to determine what constitutes acceptable levels of pollution on the basis one animal trial. This document found the European chemical industries arguing that you only need a safety factor of three when conducting research into human vulnerability, since some are obviously more vulnerable than others. For instance, an infant is far more vulnerable than grown muscular men such as myself.

A factor of three is significantly lower than the standard factor of ten that is used by authorities today. Nonetheless, the chemical industry was very vehement and persuasive in their arguments for a factor of three. I would imagine that any discussion of the precautionary principle will show a certain imbalance between the arguments produced by the Consumer Council and the Danish Society for Conservation of Nature and those of enterprises. In my opinion, the national authorities should ensure that such imbalance does not affect the final decisions.

Thirdly, we need more focus on health-related risk elements. We have talked a lot about environmental risks, but I was very pleased that Peder Agger also mentioned many examples of health hazards. Others have spoken on behalf of health today, but no-one has addressed occupational risks and hazards. How do we apply the precautionary principle to those hazards we are all exposed to? I assume that most of the present company are here for professional reasons. It follows then that everyone present is exposes to some sort of occupational hazard.

There is also the difference between the precautionary principle as it is applied within healthcare and as it is applied elsewhere. It has always been good practice in healthcare to give the patient the benefit of the doubt. This practice is now jeopardised, since people outside healthcare have discovered that some remedies are exceedingly costly.

Nonetheless, there are still differences in practice between healthcare and pollution matters. When it comes to pollution, chemical substances seem to have the same rights as human beings: they are innocent until proven guilty. The reason for this is not clear to me.

We have to resolve this question: there is a third example of how health hazards are being assessed, i.e. the committees of ethics in research. Now picture this: I turn to an ethical committee with a suggestion to conduct a nice little experiment where we will let some experimental subjects – we usually refer to them as volunteers – breathe some butadiene. This substance has been proven to be carcinogenic in animal trials, but I promise to use only very low levels of butadiene and see what happens.

I would get a definite no.

But I can tell you that we are all breathing butadiene at this very moment; it stems from traffic pollution and is probably the most potent carcinogenic of this traffic pollution.

How can we tolerate such divergent approaches to this kind of risk? We need to establish closer links here. This is a major task, but I consider today’s initiative a first step on the way.

The way forward must involve operationalisation, better co-operation, and more research in a wider perspective, followed by an evaluation. Are we any better than before? I think that this will initiate a process which will ensure better preventive efforts, and the result will be a better environment for us all.

Lone Johnsen
Manager, the Danish Society for Conservation of Nature

Today’s agenda addresses the issue of how we are to act in a society where our knowledge about what we do not know grows day by day. My task here is to briefly present the views of the Danish Society for Conservation of Nature on what to do with the issues that have been addressed today.

What problems have been uncovered? The presentations demonstrate that we face a serious problem: we have no actual control over the amount and effect of chemical substances used in our society.

We use an increasing amount of chemicals, and we possess only very limited knowledge of the consequences of this. Present regulations, with or without the precautionary principle, are completely inadequate in relation to the size of the problem. Unfortunately, we do not even have any fixed guidelines to the application and observance of the precautionary principle.

If we did, the list of the 100 undesirable substances would not be a signal, as the report said, but a plan of action regarding bans and restrictions on a considerable number of substances on the list.
Another problem is the fact that pollution with many of these substances is almost free for the polluters. The bill is largely picked up by the tax payers, not by the polluters. This is obvious in connection with the new aquatic-environment plan, the area of earth contamination, and a series of other areas. This makes it difficult to find effective measures for making manufacturers and polluters more aware of the problems.

The third problem addressed today was the fact that people have very little opportunity to recognise all the problems surrounding chemical exposure and the precautionary principle. We have, it is true, mentioned warning labels on cigarette packs a number of times, and I will grant you that we face a dilemma here, but at the very least we must ensure that the average citizen has increased opportunities to avoid any chemical exposure from pollution that is at all avoidable.

I will outline some areas where action is called for, but first I would like to emphasise that we all share the responsibility. That is why I am vexed when the representative of the chemical industry says that the list of undesirable substances calls for determined co-operation between enterprises, authorities, and science. The public is regrettably not mentioned as partners in the discussion. We need to find acceptance for the fact that without public participation we can only find imperfect solutions.

Our first suggestion is that the precautionary principle as such should be strengthened in Danish legislation, making it the explicit basis of our environmental legislation. This option is hinted at in some of the phrasing of the materials we have received. Explicit incorporation of the precautionary principle in Danish legislation would be an important signal of our increased awareness of the impact we have on our surroundings, as would an incorporation of the principle of sustainability.

We also feel that less time should elapse between the arrival of new information and action. Let me take phtalates as an example. A while ago, an action plan was made regarding phtalates. This plan outlined a series of good methods to assess the effects on the environment, but it made no suggestions regarding a phase-out or ban. Then it was revealed that there are phtalates in toys.

Now we have a minister who recommends banning, shortly after the release of the action plan. This demonstrates that this knowledge was available when the action plan was made, but no-one dared to go all the way and indicate the possibility of banning.

The authorities need to comply more with the precautionary principle. We need a development of some of the procedures for applying and interpreting the precautionary principle that Peder Agger talked about earlier.

We also need to develop knowledge and regulations on the area. During the last couple of years, the Danish Society for Conservation of Nature has pointed out that it is time for a complete change in chemical substance regulations. We need to place the burden of proof of the dangerous properties of substances on someone else.

It is simply not acceptable that the people subjected to dangerous substances must convince chemical industries that they have put toxic products on the market. In order to be able to market a product you must be able to clearly state the possible impact on health and the environment this may cause. This could also lead to the compilation of permitted lists.

Of course the authorities are responsible for keeping track of the environmental impact caused by chemical substances, but enterprises must participate actively by providing documentation for the contents of their products.

It is a positive sign that the EU is paving the way for a new framework directive on chemical substances. The Danish Commissioner for the Environment, Ritt Bjerregaard, has suggested that one option is to remove all non-assessed substances from the EU list by the year 2005. If anyone wishes to have these substances back on the list, they must go through the procedures that apply to new substances. This might induce more activity among enterprises and the authorities involved in risk assessment.

We support the idea of classifying chemical substances in groups in order to speed up the process, and the Danish Society for Conservation of Nature has repeatedly emphasised the need for labelling. Products should be clearly labelled, enabling the consumer to realise that this or that product contains substances that the Danish EPA find undesirable. In this way the market mechanism is used to promote sustainable development.

There has been much talk about openness. The way to achieve openness is to introduce an entirely new system of regulations in the area. Openness can only be achieved by flushing out enterprises, establishing open dialogue, and ensuring public participation in these processes. From time to time, the media bring sensational stories about the hazards of using chemicals. Such stories cannot be allowed to stand alone. We need pre-emptive communication to ensure sensible policies.

On a final note, interdisciplinary action is crucial. The Danish Society for Conservation of Nature has suggested the establishment of a national council for sustainable development, with representatives from enterprises, green organisations, and other relevant organisations.

Such a council should attempt to ensure the inclusion of more integrated considerations in environmental policies, but also in individual sector policies. Through open dialogue and open political processes, we need to list a series of prioritised indicators of sustainability that are binding for all parties, be it enterprises, authorities, or individual citizens. The precautionary principle must be part of the basis for making decisions.

Peter Skov
Vice president, the Confederation of Danish Industries:

I will briefly relay my impressions of today’s hearing. First of all, the precautionary principle has been met with a ‘Yes’. The precautionary principle must be applied, as it is stated in the Environmental Protection Act.

We already apply the precautionary principle in practice. For instance, the public does it when choosing their food products. Enterprises do it when they exercise environmental management. They often try to list some objectives and act on uncertain knowledge. This is one of the areas where it is sensible to use the Danish EPA’s list of the 100 undesirable substances.

Legislators do the same, and I will illustrate this by using an example, inspired by what Mr Granjean said. Within the working environment area, individual strain should be minimised. There are set limits for this, limits that have been determined with technical and economic feasibility in mind. In addition to this, enterprises must minimise strain by other means, for instance by separating people from processes and so on.

In my opinion, technical and economic feasibility should be given weight.

We wish to have transportation. This can easily be established by asking yourself if you would do without traffic because of the risk? Would you go without the comfortable mode of transportation that cars are in order to avoid the risks connected to them? This is something that everyone has to decide for himself!

Such an assessment is unproblematic, when a small private cost-benefit analysis shows that I can act in a certain way without sacrificing very much. It is much harder to apply the precautionary principle when regulations are involved, as is the case with the Working Environment Act. Should we have rules? And if people do not comply with these rules and regulations, society must use force.

When we decide on which direction to go, there are many good reasons to consider a precautionary approach to this choice. We must ask; what do we know? What knowledge is reasonably simple to obtain?

We must also consider the general social consequences. In this connection it is no good that people are dismissed by a few clever political remarks, simply because they happen to say something unpopular. Mention words like ‘pesticides’ and ‘fertiliser’ in a public gathering, and you will face a tough crowd.

This does not change the fact that pesticides and fertilisers can be legally used in Denmark, and are used because they provide some advantages; a high level of food supply at low prices.

The discussion for and against precautionary action would quickly end, if we could simply say that "only enterprises speak of any advantages, and they make money producing the stuff, so we shouldn’t listen to them." If things were truly that simple, there would hardly be 25 intelligent minds agonising over the cost of minimising pesticide use in Denmark, as is now the case.

The last thing to consider is this: what can we do ourselves? What effective action can we take in Denmark? What effective measures can we take together in the EU? What can be done globally?

My most important conclusion today is that many agree with me when I want the concepts to be more precise. We must try to establish what the precautionary principle actually entails. In this respect, today’s hearing has been a fantastic initiative, which has helped matters along.

We should also try to develop the methods used. We have talked about environmental economics as a way of creating concepts, developing methods, and reaping the benefits of previous experience with risk assessments.

The main task will be to create confidence in a decision-making process. There are plenty of people who will undermine confidence in the results of discussions and procedures. The real challenge is to create confidence in and support for the process.

Openness should be systematised somewhat. Concepts and working methods should be defined. A forum should be made, where issues can be discussed according to some sort of system. This might be done via the Internet or in other ways, but we need to see matters from all sides and a proper forum for discussion.

Before we get all gloomy in regard to risk assessment, I want to say that there may be plenty of examples of risks we did not even know we were taking, sometimes with disastrous results. But there are also many risks that we should feel happy about having taken. If precaution becomes hesitation in the face of all technological development and everything that is new, we are bound to miss out on a lot of pleasant things.

Question time with Philippe Grandjean, Lone Johnsen, and Peter Skov

Claus Hansen, Danish Environmental Protection Agency:
In my opinion, the precautionary measures we have been discussing are used when science quits. In this connection, I should like to consider a science where we seem to have solid knowledge. The NOEL concept has been vital to risk assessment as such. But a recent OECD workshop has demonstrated that the concept is not statistically valid, and that a lot of objections could be made regarding it. This renders the entire concept based on NOEL values null and void. How would you comment on the relationship between science and precaution in a situation like this?

Lone Johnsen:
I am not familiar with the model you describe, but here in Denmark we have areas where we maintain the precautionary principle even though it has been well documented that there are no problems.

Take for instance the area of drinking water, where existing legislation has been used to ban all pesticides found in the ground water. As a result, we must assume that all the pesticides used today cannot be found in the ground water. Nonetheless, there is a desire to designate some particularly vulnerable areas where pesticide use is prohibited to protect our ground water. This is an area where you play it safe.

We have learnt to take science with a pinch of salt, and to consider it something dynamic, something that changes constantly. Such scepticism is very healthy within this area.

Helge Laybourn, editor of ‘Miljø og Teknik’ (‘Environment and Technology Magazine’):
In Denmark and internationally there are laws about product liability, and there has been some talk about products. This may not be very relevant to today’s theme, but where does this legislation enter the efforts to protect the environment?

Peter Skov:
Oh, but that is relevant. Legislation on product liability has a certain preventive effect, but the way it has been made it should not be overestimated, because the effect usually only occurs when it is too late. Some countries are very much based on the principle of protection through this type of legislation, but this does not quite apply to Denmark.

Helge Laybourn:
We have international legislation on patents, legislation which has just been revised in the EU. Surely this must be taken into account in a discussion of these matters?

Erik Lindegaard:
You touch upon a very relevant theme there. We are unable to go into more details on that point now, but we are glad to take note of it.

Lisbeth Valentin Hansen, the Danish Centre of Toxicology:
We have addressed different approaches to the risk-assessment process, but I am uncertain about one point. At which stage do we apply the precautionary principle? Is it to be applied to the technical/scientific risk assessment? Should it be applied in administration, when addressing the risk politically? Does it enter public acceptance of risk? Or do we all need to apply the precautionary principle?

Flemming Davidsen, RAMBØLL:
Could not we say that the precautionary principle has been sneaked in the back door by the public, even in our small country. When we produce reports on VVM assessments etc. today, we have almost ready-made opinions on our attitudes to risk assessment.

If we consider cases such as the gas tank in Tønder, the question is whether precaution enters the arena when the public finds out about something. Shouldn’t we involve all the interested parties in the process before producing our standard reports and decisions in order to integrate a series of other aspects, for example social aspects? This applies to legislators as well as to those working on the technical aspects of the issue.

Peter Skov:
Linda Valentin’s question about at which stage the precautionary principle should be applied ties in with Flemming Davidsen’s comments on people’s behaviour. The precautionary principle will enter the arena at some stage of the process, through politics or close-range democracy. In my opinion, the precautionary principle is especially important when deciding on which measures to take; i.e. in connection with the political decision-making process after the original risk assessment has taken place.

It is important to systematise the discussion leading up to these political decisions, which links this problem to the point raised by Flemming Davidsen. Otherwise you have a situation where the public loses all confidence in the authorities, scientists, and enterprises, and enterprises enjoy very little confidence as it is.

People will react regardless of what we do, so if we do not have an open process where we apply the precautionary principle, I do not think that we will reach our objectives.

Lone Johnsen:
I agree completely with Mr Davidsen when he points out the importance of bringing in the public as partners in the discussions to prevent VVM reports and other documentation on larger construction works from becoming fixed solutions of the take-it-or-leave-it variety.

It is such a shame that there is no government funding for public organisations in cases like the Copenhagen-Ringsted traffic project. Just think of how they could support and co-ordinate the incredibly stimulating discussion that would arise among the 1.5 million people affected by the project. There is a gap here which makes it pseudo-democratic to speak of public participation. If no-one enters the discussion with an aim to render it constructive it will end up becoming a ‘not in my back yard’ issue.

This is an area where there is a real need for more pre-emptive effort on the part of the authorities. Resources should be set aside for this type of activity.

The final point I wish to address concerns an analysis of Danish media coverage of environmental issues. In this analysis, the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy was somewhat peeved at the media treatment of the isolated case stories that pop up in newspapers. The analysis contains an excellent survey of how often these stories are turned into sensations on very little actual basis.

I do not know if there is any connection, but I wish to quote Leo Bjørnsgaard from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, who has said that he and his staff "had to determine whether there were any mechanisms in existence that could be used to induce public confidence in the fact that we did our best, or to make the public realise that Denmark is among the countries who work the hardest on environmental issues."

This conference has shown that we cannot have confidence that we are ‘doing our best’, because we are not doing our best. On the same note, we may be among those who ‘work the hardest’, but we are still not working hard enough.

It is good that this kind of analysis is made to get rid of the worst sensationalist stories. But this does not change the fact that we face a problem which cannot be solved by changing media attitudes; we need to address the problem at its core.

Philippe Grandjean:
I disagree completely with Peter Skov. The precautionary principle should not just be applied in connection with the decision-making process following risk assessment. It is crucial that the precautionary principle be applied to risk assessment itself. The risk-assessment process contains so many elements of insecurity that it is quite simply too risky to leave it to someone like me to decide what the basis for the decision-making process should be.

It may well be the case that the Danish EPA feels more comfortable about making the decisions themselves, rather than leaving them to me, or Lone Johnsen, or Peter Skov, or whoever is involved. The best thing to do must be to present everything, discuss it openly and to determine to what degree the precautionary principle should be applied to risk assessment itself.

This is due to the fact that the old process of using a safety factor of ten has proved to be inadequate. Unfortunately we have no good answer to the question of what to do then. Once I was at the US EPA, and I asked them how they had arrived at a safety factor of 10 instead of 11? They all stared at each other: "We never thought about that." Suddenly one of them said: "I think that we all just looked at each other and saw that we were all alike, and when counting our fingers the average figure was ten, and so we used that number."

I have no better answer myself, but this is the answer my learned colleagues gave me. That is not good enough if you want the precautionary principle to be applied today.

I will give another example. The oestrogen-hypothesis has been mentioned several times today. In my sphere this expression is no longer current, it was used in the 80s. Now we speak of substances causing dyshormonism in a much wider context, whereas some still focus on this tiny corner of the problem; a corner which is certainly relevant, but there are a lot of other problems. We will not get very far if we do not address these problems in relation to the precautionary principle. If we do not, we will simply continue with just the oestrogen hypothesis, and that simply will not do.