Documents precautionary principle 94 results

"This handbook is intended to support decision-makers faced with a combination of public controversy, scientific uncertainty, and the need to operate existing facilities and/or the requirement to site new facilities appropriately. Its goal is to improve the decision-making process by reducing misunderstandings and improving trust through better dialogue. Community dialogue successfully implemented helps to establish a decision-making process that is open, consistent, fair and predictable. It can also help achieve the timely approval of new facilities while protecting the health and safety of the community."

"The European Commission has proposed a radical new policy for the regulation of chemicals in the EU in the form of aWhite Paper. The current system has separate regulatory provisions for “new” chemicals (introduced to the market since September 18, 1981) and “existing” chemicals (on the market before September 18, 1981). The proposed future policy will have a single unified regulatory system for all chemicals, which should result in better regulation of chemicals in the EU single market. It will be better because risk assessments will be targeted at the chemicals of greatest concern. Furthermore, the system will be streamlined, making regulatory decisions faster, and thus reducing the so-called burden of the past (the large number of chemicals that have never been assessed for their risks to human health or the environment). The new system incorporates the precautionary principle, which will be applied where there is an early indication of unacceptable risk or where there is undue delay in the regulatory process. Moreover, the new strategy is intended to promote greater transparency for all stakeholders."

"The report examines how the concept of precaution has been applied – or not – by policy-makers over the past century when addressing a broad range of hazards linked to public health and the environment in Europe and North America. It should help to improve mutual understanding between Europe and the United States on the use of the precautionary principle in policy-making. The debate has been marked by disputes over the safety of synthetic hormones in beef and of genetically modified plants and foods. It also is about gathering information on the hazards raised by human economic activities and its use in taking action to protect better the environment and the health of the species and ecosystems that are dependent on it. The study aims to contribute to better and more accessible science-based information and more effective stakeholder participation in the governance of economic activity so as to help minimise environmental and health costs and maximise innovation."

"Beim Gipfel in Rio de Janeiro 1992 verständigten sich nahezu alle Länder der Welt auf das Konzept einer nachhaltigen, dauerhaft umweltgerechten Entwicklung. Dies schließt eine Ausweitung und Beschleunigung der internationalen Bewertung der von Chemikalien ausgehenden Risiken und eine Verbesserung des Risikomanagements ein, wobei der Vorsorge bei Herstellung und Verwendung gefährlicher Stoffe besondere Bedeutung zukommt.(Langfassung dt./engl.: Sustainable and Precautionary Risk Assessment andRisk Management of Chemicals / Part I: New Strategies for the Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Substances - Part II: Chemicals in the Environment which Interfere with the Endocrine Systems of Humans and Wildlife)"

"A century ago, Oscar Wilde spun the story of the Canterville Ghost, who haunts a stately British manor and terrifies its European denizens, rattling chains at night and leaving bloodstains on the carpet. But the Otis family arrives from America and buys Canterville Chase, undaunted by the ghost. The ghost does his best to frighten the Otises, but they nonchalantly barrage the ghost with American technology, commercialism, and fearlessness. Unable to scare the Americans, the European ghost ultimately capitulates and falls on the mercy of the Otis daughter, who guides his guilty soul to a final resting place where his haunting days can end.

How far has comparative law progressed since Wilde's day? Like Wilde's satire, modern comparisons of risk regulation in the United States and Europe are often cast in stereotypes. They depict Europeans as risk-averse, afraid of the unknown, afraid of new technologies and of global markets, jumping to adopt precautionary regulations against the most remote and speculative risks. Meanwhile Americans are seen as risk-indifferent or even risk-preferring, blustering blithely past risks, confident that new technology and the power of (American) markets will solve every problem and that precaution is a waste of time and a hindrance to progress.

As Herbert Bernstein would have told us, these are stereotypes, fit for an Oscar Wilde comedy, not for serious analyses of comparative law. In this article, I echo Herbert's admonition to those who would paint stark contrasts between American and European legal systems based only on a few data points. I argue in this article that despite some divisive rhetoric of late, U.S. and European systems of risk regulation are not divergent in the simple way in which they are claimed to be. Part I documents the claim of divergence and greater European precaution. Part II argues that, instead, U.S. and European risk regulatory systems diverge in some ways, converge in others, and display a complex pattern of interaction. Both the United States and Europe have quite active environmental regulatory systems; the United States has hardly ceased regulating. Both the United States and Europe are often highly precautionary - and on several prominent examples, including particulate air pollution, mad cow disease in blood, youth violence, and terrorism, it is the United States that is acting in the more precautionary manner. The United States and Europe do not diverge as much as is claimed on the general use of precaution in regulation, but they often do diverge on the particular question of which risks to worry about and regulate most. This particularized divergence gives rise to visible conflicts. Part III considers the methods and challenges of comparative law and argues that the broader reality in transatlantic risk regulation is a process of "hybridization," in which both systems borrow legal concepts from each other in a complex and continuous mutual evolution. Part IV offers concluding thoughts."

"This guide is aimed at employers, trade union representatives and, of course, workers potentially exposed to electromagnetic fields. It is also designed as an aid to understanding the new EU Directive on occupational exposure to EMFs (2013/35 EU), which will enter into force in 2016. The Guide presents an overview of occupational exposure to electromagnetic field according to frequency: static fields, low, intermediate and radio frequencies. It focuses on certain occupations, on risk assessment and on the determination of exposure, which needs to be done according to the general provisions of EU Directive OSH “Framework Directive” 89/391/EEC. A specific chapter is dedicated to workers who face particular risks, e.g., persons with medical implants, pregnant women or persons taking certain medications. Last but no least, the guide also presents recommendations as to how a precautionary approach can help to reduce high exposure."

"History confirms that while technological innovations can bring many benefits, they can also cause much human suffering, environmental degradation and economic costs. But are we repeating history with new and emerging chemical and technological products? In preparation for volume 2 of ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings' (European Environment Agency, 2013), two analyses were carried out to help answer this question. A bibliometric analysis of research articles in 78 environmental, health and safety (EHS) journals revealed that most focused on well-known rather than on newly emerging chemicals. We suggest that this ‘scientific inertia' is due to the scientific requirement for high levels of proof via well replicated studies; the need to publish quickly; the use of existing intellectual and technological resources; and the conservative approach of many reviewers and research funders. The second analysis found that since 1996 the funding of EHS research represented just 0.6% of the overall funding of research and technological development (RTD). Compared with RTD funding, EHS research funding for information and communication technologies, nanotechnology and biotechnology was 0.09%, 2.3% and 4% of total research, respectively. The low EHS research ratio seems to be an unintended consequence of disparate funding decisions; technological optimism; a priori assertions of safety; collective hubris; and myopia. In light of the history of past technological risks, where EHS research was too little and too late, we suggest that it would be prudent to devote some 5–15% of RTD on EHS research to anticipate and minimise potential hazards while maximising the commercial longevity of emerging technologies. "