Commission rebuffs critics of precautionary approach

Date: 16/12/1999

By Gareth Harding

The European Commission will launch a vigorous defence of the EU's use of the 'precautionary principle' in combating risks to public health or the environment next month.

The move is designed to counter fierce opposition from industry, the US and the World Trade Organisation to this approach, amid accusations that it has been used by the Union to erect unfair barriers to trade.

The long-awaited policy paper, which has been drawn up by the Commission's environment, trade, industry, internal market and consumer protection departments, will argue that preventative action may be taken where scientific evidence is “insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain” but where failure to act would result in an excessive risk to the environment or public health.

In a clear snub to opponents of unilateral action by the Union, the draft document also insists that Europe has the right to set the level of protection it deems appropriate and that recourse to the principle constitutes an “essential element” of EU policy.

However, the paper stresses that the precautionary principle may not be used indiscriminately, nor as a means of “disguised economic protectionism”. It lays down a number of rules which must be obeyed before action is taken, including carrying out a thorough investigation of the risk posed by the perceived problem; ensuring the measures introduced are proportionate to the threat in hand; and guaranteeing that the action taken is in line with previous decisions.

The precautionary principle hit the headlines after it was invoked to justify EU bans on American hormone-fed cattle, dioxin-contaminated chicken from Belgium and baby toys containing potentially harmful phthalates. Most recently, the French government cited the principle, which is enshrined in the Union treaty, in defence of its continued ban on British beef.

Despite its frequent use, however, the principle has always been contested by those on the receiving end of preventative action. Its use has also been sharply criticised by industry groups on both sides of the Atlantic and by influential groupings in the WTO.

The EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce, which represents US firms in Brussels, believes that the application of sound scientific principles cancels out the need for the precautionary principle. In a paper on the highly-contentious issue, it says the Commission's latest attempts to define the principle “give rise to grave concern among members that it could lead to the politicisation of science”.

The Commission's aim in drawing up the report is to tackle these concerns head-on by clearly defining how and when the precautionary principle can be used by authorities. It also seeks to ensure that future decisions taken by the bloc are coherent and that pressure for the principle to be adopted by the WTO is backed up by a forceful statement of its benefits.

When faced with a potential threat to public health or the environment, the paper recommends that a risk assessment study should be carried out. However, it argues that the results do not have to be conclusive for action to be taken. “The absence of scientific proof should not be used to justify inaction or a non-decision,” it states.

But it warns that uncertainty should not be used as an excuse for extreme and unwarranted measures, nor for permanent bans on dubious products. Instead, action based on the precautionary principle should be seen as temporary and continuously reviewed in light of the latest research.

Environmental groups have welcomed the paper's emphasis on reversing the burden of proof and finding cleaner substitutes for dangerous substances.

But Christian Hey of the Brussels-based European Environmental Bureau said the requirement to carry out a prior risk assessment study was a “hurdle to swift action” and had already led to long delays in the EU's chemical safety programme.