There seems to be some confusion regarding the 'principle of precaution' and
how it is applied in environmental sciences. First of all what the principle
supports in environmental science is the application of rigorous techniques,
methods, etc., to establish 'causality' regarding the 'holistic' effects of
a substance, or process,  on organisms, and ecosystems. 

To understand fully the application of the precautionary principle therefore
is to delve into an 'implicit' and sometimes an explicit policy that is in
fact 'soft law' in most countries and in some countries 'statutory law'. in
some jurisdictions it would be criminal not to assess and characterize harm
before it is too late, and in some jurisdiction's it is simply done as a
matter of practice, but not in fact law.  The application of a principle
implies an understanding of determinism regarding many kinds of ecological
and biological processes, etc., however. In the field of 'ecotoxicology' for
instance there are acceptable and formal methods of risk characterization
and assessment. For instance the IJC (International Joint Commission) - a
formal body that resolves transboundary environmental issues that impact the
USA and Canada - has a process of *determining* which substances and
processes are harmful to the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. This body is
'multi-disciplinary' and is a 'due process' form of scientific panel which
was first initiated after the 'wingspan conference' (Minnesota) where issues
regarding environmentally active substances were assessed. 

The principle of precaution is a policy or philosophical 'presumption' in
fact which in the beginning is used to assess, characterize, and communicate
risk to decision makers. Where there is an absence of knowledge, then the
precautionary principle acts as a quiding principle in determinism regarding
causality (determination of endpoints for instance). However the task of
risk assessment, and characterization of risk is a very difficult science in
most instances. As well most manufactured chemical substances are in fact
economic substances in that they are used for benefitting people and in some
cases the environment. Thus much more funding is available to develop new
substances and processes rather than gain knowledge of the older ones that
were used without any prior knowledge (eg. organotins, etc.)

For instance the 'organotins' were used to keep boat hulls free of barnacles
and other biota that 'foul' boats and ships. In the early testing of the
organotins it was noted that there were harmful effects to rodents at rather
low levels of absorption in the testes, etc.

Nonetheless when the organotin was applied on boat hulls to prevent
'fouling' of boat hulls it was determined that ambient concentrations in the
ocean and in freshwater environments would not be anywhere near what would
cause perceptible harm to rodents. It is unlikely that sea life was tested,
so that 'imposex' was not foreseen as an endpoint. However, what happened
after almost forty years of useage around the world turned out to shock
marine scientists since the organotins were discovered to be extremely
capable of 'bioconcentration'. This term refers to the phenomenon of a
substance concentrating in certain organisms to a point where it may become
lethal. 

The first thing that was discovered was that 'whelks' and other crustaceans
were not reproducing and in fact the shorelines of areas near where there
were lots of boats became devoid of crustaceans, especially whelks. Now it
turned out that the whelks were concentrating the organotins (a tin
compound) in their tissues. The effect was startling since the female whelks
that were exposed to the organotins during organogenesis, etc, early
maturation, developed large penises. The organotins were in fact
'androgenic' compounds of high potency. The hypothesis that the organotins
were causing 'imposex' in the female whelk was not proved until scientists
took the crustaceans and tested them in different measured levels of
organotins. It was soon proved 'apodictically' that the organotins caused
the imposex which prevented the female from being fertilized. Therefore the
crustaceans died off in mass along the marine coast of France, England,
Japan and elsewhere. Not only that was occuring but later it was discovered
that the organotins were concentrating in the human food chain, especially
in Japan where people eat lots of shell fish. 

The Unites Nations International Marine Organization imposed a partial ban
on organotins in the late 80's which prevented any boat owner with a boat
longer than 20 meters from using the substance to prevent fouling. But since
this policy was implemented worldwide there has not been a significant
decrease in the problem of associate with 'imposex' because the larger ships
and boats were still permitted to use the organotins. The opposition was
quite strong by shipping companies because the predicted that the ban of
organotins would cost the shipping industry about $1 billion per year in
extra fuel costs associated with fouled boat hulls. The counterargument was
that the problem with losing thr shellfish industry was even more
economically devastating, and potentially harming human health as the
organotins become more present in fish, birds, etc. 

Recently IMO imposed a complete ban to be phased in. This ban was said to be
necessary to protect marine life. There is now more compelling evidence as
well that there is an interaction between organotins and various chlorinate
hydrocarbons - most specifically PCBs - and immune system disturbances in
marine mammals. The finding was first reported in the Atlantic Ocean,
Meditterean, and Baltic Seas where both organotins, and PCBs are found to be
in high concentrations. Seals, and dolphins have been particularly effected. 


The methods of science that make inferences regarding toxic substances and
processes is very interesting. I have prepared a summary explanation of the
IJC 'inference as to causality' which may interest some list members.
Perhaps I can post it here on the list? It is not very long but would be
interesting for discussion. One thing that the "inference" is not: it is not
an ethic, but rather a system of reasoning based on the balance of
probabilities. In fact where knowledge is certain (as in fact organotins
demonstrate) there is no need to make an inference over and over again
simply because the effect of organotins can be demonstrated, that is the
cause-effect relationship  is demonstrable rather than probable. 

When risk is assessed and characterized, then it is up to policy makers and
decision makers to determine what sort of policy should be develop to
communicate and rather to manage the risk. Certain man-made substances and
processes have few or no substitutes, and in these rare cases even though
potential harm is characterized as very great, there may be acceptable
management options to reduce the risk to a neglible level until a completely
acceptable alternative or substitute is found to replace the potentially
harmful process or substance. 

The issue of PCBs and contamination of the biosphere would not have been
such a problem if scientists had known in advance that PCBs would
concentrate in fish and marine mammals. However it was not actually possible
in my opinion for science in the sixties or earlier when PCBs were initially
developed and used to have foreseen the harm and risk since scientists were
not empowered either financially nor technically to find out that PCBs
concentrated in cold climates like the Arctic where the Inuit and Dene
peoples rely on wildfoods such as seals, fish. Even people living in the
Great Lakes, the Baltic and so on are being affected by the toxic substances. 

I don' want to mention the developmental effects on children born to parents
that have relied on fish as food in the Great Lakes or the die off of eagles
and piscivorous birs in Lake Ontario to prove or disprove the necessity of
the 'precautionary principle', because the IJC and other formal bodies are
applying these principles. Therefore these principles need no defense since
the panels that are organized to implement the principles are in fact based
on democratic consensus, and I have not determined where and if there are
any legal states, entities that have protested the application of the
precautionary principle in statutory law nor in soft law. 

Basically a principle is the basis the notion (concept) of causality. As
Aristotle says at the end of Book Alpha 1, "Wisdom is the knowledge of
principles and causes" and causality cannot be inferred with the application
of a principle (arhke). The principle type (arckhe typos) therefore is
really a model of social consensus regarding practices to prevent harm. The
scientific panel is really where the principles operate and guide wise
decision making. If some people do not have an value in this type of
process, then that is well, they don't need to be involved and carry on with
their preferred activities, but at the same time where juridictions work
together to solve real environmental and socially harmful processes and
substances, then let them have the capacity to resolve the issues, concerns
and create opportunities for the better. 

John Foster

HUMAN IMPACTS AT DANGEROUS LEVELS: A new report released at a
conference of world environment ministers has found the "human impact
on natural ecosystems has reached dangerous levels" says BBC News 9/15.
The collaboration between the World Resources Institute, U.N. and World
Bank found human activity has begun to "significantly alter the Earth's
basic chemical cycles" by destroying "half the world's wetlands," up to
50% of the forest cover, and by degrading two-thirds of the planet's
agricultural lands, and over fishing "70% of the major marine fish
stocks."




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%