John, your observation in this specific case is quite correct. However, in
the more general case of GMO foods it does not apply. There is a world of
difference, scientifically, from applying the precautionary principle to the
use of pesticides, which have been (as a class of chemicals) shown to cause
all sorts of problems (Colborn et al. _Our Stolen Future_ 1996), to
genetically modified organisms.
I've been spending the last month or two looking at as much information as I
could about GMO products and research. As near as I can tell, there is no
known, empirically that is, demonstrable harm from GMO products. There was
one experiment where Bct corn pollen was implicated in the lab as harmful to
butterfly larva. The rest is primarily hysteria and propaganda. For example,
one of the anti-GMO Web sites I looked at said, categorically, that Bct corn
pollen was killing butterflies by the millions!
The very first chapter of _The Origin of Species_ is directed at the ability
to modify organisms through selective breeding. There are *no* "natural"
crops anymore, all have been modified by breeding and the application of
fertilizers, pesticides, etc. for generations. So what is the problem with
GMO today? Seems to be a fear that modifications which involve trans-species
gene transfers are inherently "wrong." If that is the case, then I'd agree
that the precautionary principle applies to GMO products in general.
However, that is an assertion at this time not supported by science or
logic, or at least as far as I can see.
Steven
http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
Paul Shepard
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Precautionary Principle--A Race to the Bottom?
Steve:
>This leads to another observation. The Bayesian framework is, in my
>opinion, preferred in that it is not dogmatic, allows for learning and
>incorporates new information into the analysis. The PP just assumes that
>the worst case scenario will occur and does nt allow for learning or new
>information.
It is always preferable to define what you are referring to. In this case
talk about 'Baysian' statistics is merely talk. What you mean by Bayesian
framework here is nothing new. Learning while doing means adaptation. Or
adaptive management. There is nothing revolution, new and progressive about
that.
The adoption of the 'precautionary principle' holds even in cases where
learning is not even remotely indicated. For instance, people on fixed and
limited incomes should not invest in volatile internet stocks, but should
invest in more solid investment instruments such as bonds for instance.
The pre-cautionary principle is a decision making principle. For example,
the use of pesticides such as the phthalates for instance. In England there
was a company that used (and may still) to make bug repellants with
phthalates. Now I wrote a paper on the phthalates and I found there was a
lot to be concerned about. The introduction of the substance into the diet
of children is especially worrisome. In various test animals the main effect
was testicular atrophy, etc.
If I was a planning on being a parent, I would not have any toys such as
teethers, etc., near my baby. This is the application of the precautionary
principle. To take precautions one should not knowingly allow the substance
into the system of a fetus nor a baby. All toy manufacturers have removed
this substance from their toys.
The application of Bayesian statistics here has no purpose...not if you were
to read my paper on the phthalates.
Best regards,
John Foster
MSc candidate
Environmental Sciences,
Royalroads University
Victoria, BC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
