E-Letter responses to:

p-forum: Kenneth R. Foster, Paolo Vecchia, and Michael H. Repacholi RISK MANAGEMENT: Science and the Precautionary Principle Science 2000; 288: 979-981 [Summary] [Full text]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Precautionary Principle: A Self-Defeating Concept?

Francois Eisinger   (19 May 2000)

Precautionary Principle: A Self-Defeating Concept? 19 May 2000
Francois Eisinger, Research Genetic and Public Health INSERM - Cancer Clinic IPC Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Precautionary Principle: A Self-Defeating Concept?	The Precautionary Principle leads to risk transfer not risk eradication. For example, if the use of crops genetically engineered to be resistant to parasitical organisms were banned, other processes such as the application of pesticides would take the place of the genetic modifications. Banning genetically engineered crops is to promote the use of chemical pesticides. Should the Precautionary Principle be applied to the Precautionary Principle? For the strongest formulation of the principle, noted by Foster et al., the Precautionary Principle itself would be banned because it may be considered very deleterious. With that frame of reference (lacking relevant data to make a "scientific" decision), a decision may be ideological and culturally based. That's neither good nor bad, but there should be some acknowledgement of it. In the balance between innovation and conservatism, it is ironical to see that "precaution" is an anagram of "up reaction"!