Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle or precautionary principle (not to be confused with the prevention principle) is a concept that supports the adoption of protective measures in the event of well-founded suspicions that certain products or technologies create a serious risk to public health or the environment, but without definitive scientific proof.

The precautionary principle according to the Nice resolution

Through a resolution taken by the European Council in December 2000 in Nice, the member states of the European Union specified the precautionary principle. When a multidisciplinary, contradictory, independent and transparent evaluation, carried out on the basis of available data, does not allow to conclude with certainty about a certain level of risk, then risk management measures must be taken based on an appreciation policythat determines the level of protection sought. Such measures must, where the choice is possible, represent the least restrictive solutions for trade, respect the principle of proportionality taking into account short- and long-term risks, and finally be re-examined frequently in accordance with the evolution of scientific knowledge.. Finally, the European Council emphasized the importance of consultation and information to civil society.

Precautionary principle and prevention principle

The precautionary principle in environmental matters is distinguished from the prevention principle because the former requires taking measures that reduce the possibility of suffering serious environmental damage despite ignoring the precise probability of its occurrence, while the principle Prevention requires taking measures given that the environmental damage that can occur is known. The precautionary principle has been questioned as an ethical principle largely because it is not considered a principle but a set of principles. The "precautionary" or also called "cautionary" requires the adoption of protective measures before environmental deterioration actually occurs, operating in the face of a threat to health or the environment and the lack of scientific certainty about its causes and effects.

Criticism of the precautionary principle

With the problems derived from the late application of the precautionary principle in cases where its application had to be carried out quickly, a theoretical current that poses a problem of institutional legitimacy in its application has begun to be distinguished. This new trend promoted by Cass Sunstein poses a scenario in which the precautionary principle ends up becoming a tool that can easily be adapted to the interests of a few, to the detriment of the general interest.

To demonstrate the concurrence of several elements of analysis that account for this situation, this critical current uses the analysis of cognitive factors in the perception of those administered, which allows State institutions to decide whether to apply or No, based on one's perception of risk and not on a need adjusted to reality.

In history this trend goes back to the case of Pierre-Simon Laplace who was Napoleon Bonaparte's Minister of the Interior. This would end up dismissing him for the discretionary use of power in decision-making based on scientific criteria without due rigor, but using the factor of risk and uncertainty.

From Sunstein's postulates on the availability heuristic and the neglect of probability as factors that detract from the legitimacy of the principle, Iván Vargas-Chaves, another of his critical theorists, argues that without measuring the potential to affect the risk-generating factors, the principle is applied or discarded, either due to ignorance or to favor the interests of the person in charge of making the decision. This, even when the causal link is below the scientific uncertainty threshold required for its application, that is, there is no minimum certainty of the probability of the damage occurring.

More recently, the application of the precautionary principle was also questioned in the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic of 2009-2010, an influenza outbreak was described by the public as a global threat that led to panic in the population and many health professionals. For authors like Juan Gervas , the precautionary principle ended up justifying the waste of public resources, forgetting the issues related to cost-opportunity, because in the end, and with the passage of time, in 2010, the facts would end up confirming that in reality it was an epidemic mild flu, with low mortality and low morbidity