Rachel's Precaution Reporter #73
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
From: Toronto Globe & Mail ...........................[This story printer-friendly]
January 10, 2007
PROVINCE FAILED HEALTH WORKERS
[Rachel's introduction: Chief among the recommendations of the 1200- page report is a call to improve infection control by making sure "a precautionary principle" is the reigning culture in hospitals and the public-health system.]
By Carolyn Abraham, Medical Reporter
The final investigation into the handling of the deadly SARS crisis has found that a gutted public-health system, command and communication breakdowns and a blind faith in science all failed to protect the people -- but most specifically-- the health-care workers of Ontario in 2003.
In a cutting 1,200-page report released yesterday by the SARS Commission, Ontario Superior Court Justice Archie Campbell concludes that while some improvements have been made to Ontario's public-health system, four years later "serious problems persist and much remains to be done."
In fact, the report includes a three-page chart that suggests only five of the 25 emergency recommendations the independent commission has made over the last two years have been "accepted."
These involve measures to compensate people under quarantine for lost wages, and clarify official lines of communication.
Judge Campbell, battling cancer and unavailable for interviews, warns that correcting past mistakes is essential if Ontario is to fare better against the next infectious threat, which many experts predict will be an influenza outbreak that could fell tens of thousands and prove far trickier than SARS to contain. "If we do not learn from SARS and we do not make the government fix the problems that remain," he writes, "we will pay a terrible price in the next pandemic."
The report singles out no individual for blame, but it concludes that system-wide failures contributed to the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, which in five months killed 44 people, sickened 375, quarantined thousands and brought the province's health system "to its knees."
"The surprise is not that Ontario's response to SARS worked so badly, but that it worked at all," the report notes, "given the lack of preparation and systems and infrastructure."
The Ontario government created the SARS Commission under Judge Campbell in June, 2003, to investigate the origin, spread and response to the mysterious pneumonia that emerged from China four years ago.
The commission has since filed two reports. In this third and final instalment, Judge Campbell focuses on improving worker safety. "The heroes of SARS" continued to show up for shifts while colleagues fell ill and they and their families feared for their lives.
Two nurses and a doctor died and health workers made up almost half of the cases.
Yet health workers continued to be at risk, the report finds, due to the lack of preparedness and infection-control policies that hospitals never adopted and governments failed to enforce. What's more, the report notes that worker-safety measures were prematurely relaxed in the spring of 2003 and health workers were mistakenly led to believe the disease was gone. The optimism contributed to a second wave of SARS out of North York General Hospital that struck 127 people and killed 17 of them.
Unions representing front-line workers lauded the report for recognizing hospitals to be as dangerous as "mines and factories" and for urging that health workers be given a stronger voice in the system.
Linda Haslam-Stroud, president of the Ontario Nurses Association, a 52,000-member union, said in a statement that during SARS, Ontario "did not have an adequate supply of protective equipment, and employers did not provide appropriate training for equipment that did exist.
"This sort of situation cannot be allowed to happen again. The government now has clear recommendations on what needs to be done to prevent another similar situation."
Chief among those recommendations is a call to improve infection control by making sure "a precautionary principle" is the reigning culture in hospitals and the public-health system.
Initially, no one knew anything about the origins of SARS, how the virus could be transmitted, the course of the disease or its death rate. But instead of working from the worst-case scenario that SARS might be spread through airborne transmission and scaling back containment measures as more was learned, the report found that officials waited for "scientific certainty."
"Scientific knowledge changes constantly. Yesterday's scientific dogma is today's discarded fables. When it comes to worker safety in hospitals, we should be driven... by the precautionary principle that reasonable steps to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty."
But Donald Low, chief microbiologist at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital and one of the key public-health experts managing the SARS outbreak, predicted that living by the "precautionary principle" could pose big challenges for any hospital in practice.
"If you had a cluster of patients on a ward with pneumonia, and you wonder if this could be transmitted in the ward, do you close it? Do you get everyone in full gear and go into full negative air pressure?" Dr. Low asked.
The report, based on public hearings, government and hospital documents and interviews of more than 600 people, makes a raft of new recommendations to improve worker safety and the tragic situations families can face in a lethal outbreak. Among them:
Develop and rehearse emergency plans to close hospitals and find a way of immediately notifying staff, both on and off duty, of any potential risks.
Design a system to track and trace patients and visitors to a hospital at a given time.
Ensure the Ministry of Labour prepares and oversees initiatives involving protective gear for workers during a health crisis
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Risk Policy Report .................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 16, 2007
USE OF 'PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE' FOR CHEMICALS IS GROWING
[Rachel's introduction: "The chemical industry remains the primary focus of the precautionary principle, as environmentalists argue federal laws are insufficient to regulate chemicals that may pose a threat to human health."]
Environmentalists and other public health advocates say recent movements by states, businesses and international regulatory bodies are signs of increased use of the so-called 'precautionary principle' -- efforts that come as Democrats are raising key questions about federal toxics laws.
Activists say the precautionary principle is beginning to emerge in a variety of political and commercial arenas, including efforts by businesses to reduce potential toxic exposure; the growth of green chemistry programs; and, to a lesser degree, a recently adopted European chemical regulatory program. The precautionary principle places the burden on those advocating new policies or products to prove the efforts will not cause public harm. For example, the chemical industry would be burdened with proving a chemical is safe before introducing its use.
The chemical industry remains the primary focus of the precautionary principle, as environmentalists argue federal laws are insufficient to regulate chemicals that may pose a threat to human health. Activists say it takes EPA years or decades to regulate harmful chemicals, because the agency must first prove the chemicals pose a health threat. They cite lead, mercury and other well-defined hazards as examples where the agency has struggled to eliminate hazardous uses. In particular, environmentalists say the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is problematic. The law, which has not been updated since Congress passed it in 1976, may face intense scrutiny from Democrats who are promising oversight of toxics issues.
The concept of the precautionary principle ruffles chemical industry officials, who say it is ill-defined and poses unnecessary burdens on the industry. Officials argue TSCA is sufficient to regulate chemicals and also note that industry voluntarily supplies data to EPA on a number of the most highly-used chemicals in the United States. Given that information, EPA has enough data to screen for chemicals that may pose a threat, industry officials say.
Environmentalists, however, say the precautionary principle is already being successfully applied. For example, the Democratic governors of Maine and Michigan issued executive orders in 2006 promoting "green chemistry," or the substitution of less toxic forms of chemicals for those that may pose health risks. Environmentalists say the efforts represent a form of the precautionary principle being actively applied, and note the results could generate significant economic benefits for those states. Other states, including Massachusetts and New York, are considering similar programs. In addition, California is considering a legislative approach to green chemistry, though it has yet to be unveiled. (Risk Policy Report, Nov. 7, p1).
In another example, environmentalists cite San Francisco's recent decision to ban phthalates in children's toys as a regulatory driver for the precautionary principle. The city voted to ban the chemicals, which are used to soften plastics, based on concerns that the chemicals may cause reproductive harm. But industry and retailers say the risks are minimal, and filed suit to block the ban. If the ban sticks, toy manufacturers may be forced to examine other alternatives (Risk Policy Report, Oct. 31, p2).Some businesses are also taking steps to reduce toxics in their products, which environmentalists say is another application of the precautionary principle. For instance, some retailers are leaning on suppliers to provide furniture, medical supplies or other products that do not contain chemicals suspected of causing health problems.
In the international arena, the European Union (EU) adopted a new chemical regulatory program known as Registration, Evaluation & Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) in late 2006. REACH is aimed at requiring data on most chemicals produced or sold in the EU, and requires safety testing for certain chemicals before they can be used.
Environmentalists are divided on whether the program is an example of the precautionary principle. Some argue it is one of the greatest triumphs of the principle, while others argue it is simply a more stringent regulatory program than that of the United States and does little to implement the precautionary principle.
One public health advocate says REACH will generate more hazard data but is still shy of precautionary. "What's going on in Europe is a preview," the source says, but other regulatory efforts and incentive- based programs will likely be needed to take a precautionary approach to public health.
Industry officials, on the other hand are adamant that REACH is not a sign of the precautionary principle being invoked. Instead, they say the program simply adds significant regulatory burdens that may pose an economic threat to industry but offer little public health benefits.
Whether REACH is founded on the principle or not, environmentalists argue that the precautionary principle will not necessarily place an insurmountable burden on industry or regulators. Instead, they say the principle makes the case for analysis of available alternatives and places burden-of-proof that a product or regulation is safe on those advocating for use or implementation.
Public health advocate says industries invoking the precautionary principle by aggressively pursuing green chemistry and other safer alternatives can avoid long-term regulatory battles. "If you design safer products to begin with, there's no need for a regulatory scheme to control it," the advocate says.
Some environmentalists are saying that REACH will provide a benchmark, and hint that new ideas for restricting toxics are yet to come.
For example, some argue that if the principle were to be adopted in the United States, regulations would work differently. One researcher cites the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) as a potential regulatory precursor. FQPA requires industry to submit data to EPA detailing whether pesticides cause adverse effects in children, and is an example of how the precautionary principle might be applied in a regulatory framework. The researcher argues that all chemicals, not just pesticides, should meet similar requirements. "At least as a first step, it would be important that industrial chemicals be given the same scrutiny as pesticides," the researcher notes. "The current research structure is not working to protect kids."
Some of those thoughts have been vocalized by Democrats as well, including incoming Senate Environment & Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (CA), who has vowed oversight of toxics issues. Other Democrats raising toxics concerns include Reps. Hilda Solis (CA) and Henry Waxman (CA). Observers expect Democrats to hold key oversight hearings in the 110th Congress, and question whether TSCA revisions might appear on the agenda.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Washington Post (pg. A17) ..........................[This story printer-friendly]
January 12, 2007
SCIENTISTS REJECT CHEMICAL RULES
White House Plan to Change Risk Assessment Called 'Flawed'
[Rachel's introduction: The National Research Council scoffs at the White House's plan to modify risk assessment procedures to make life simpler for big polluters. Originator of the plan, John Graham, takes a hit.]
By Rick Weiss
When the Bush administration last year proposed a controversial revamping of the rules by which federal agencies decide whether chemicals and other products pose risks to human health, it offered to run the plan by the prestigious National Research Council.
Yesterday the White House got its response: a 324-page report that says, in no uncertain terms, "Throw it out and start all over."
The proposal by the Office of Management and Budget is "fundamentally flawed" and should be withdrawn, the report concludes.
Echoing concerns raised by scientists, consumer groups and agency heads, the council -- part of the congressionally chartered National Academies -- told the OMB to limit itself to outlining guiding principles and leave details to experts in the nation's scientific agencies.
John F. Ahearne, director of the ethics program at Sigma Xi, an international scientific honor society, who chaired the review committee, said that in his decades of experience working on such reviews for the National Academies, he could not recall any other instance when the conclusion was to reject a government proposal completely.
"We had expected that we would review the bulletin in detail, then recommend some modifications and improvements," he said. Instead, the 18-member group of experts voted unanimously to recommend that it be killed.
The short but sweeping "draft bulletin" was released last January by the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which has enormous control over the extent to which regulated industries must spend money ensuring that their intended actions will not harm the public or the environment.
The research council said it supports the idea of revising current rules. But under the proposed provisions, it concluded, risk assessments would be "more susceptible to being manipulated to achieve a predetermined result."
Among its problems, Ahearne said, the report too narrowly defines an "adverse health effect" as "a fundamental impairment or lesion" -- ignoring the public health goal of preventing, not just responding to, injury and sickness. He said it offers few protections for "sensitive populations" such as children or pregnant women, which usually are key to determining acceptable risk levels.
Consumer activists cheered the report. "The scientific community has rejected this extreme effort to put economists instead of scientists in charge of public health," said Rena Steinzor, a director of the Center for Progressive Reform, an academic think tank that focuses on regulatory issues.
Acting OIRA Administrator Steven D. Aitken, whose predecessor crafted the proposal, said that under the circumstances, the OMB will not finalize the proposed bulletin.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc [This story printer-friendly]
January 8, 1007
TAKE PRECAUTION -- STOP FLUORIDATION
[Rachel's introduction: A new article in the Journal of Evidence- Based Dental Practice shows how the precautionary principle applies to fluoridation.]
New York -- A recent article in the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice shows how the precautionary principle applies to fluoridation.
"Some studies have raised concerns about the safety and efficacy of the practice [fluoridation]," write authors Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin of the Lowell, Massachusetts, Center for Sustainable Production.
Precautionary principle: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."
"... there are indications that some dental procedures (and other activities associated with dentistry) may actually cause subtle harm at a population level," write the authors.
For example, babies fed fluoride-laced water risk discolored teeth, according to the American Dental Association (ADA) which claims fluoride chemicals injected into public water supplies prevent cavities. The ADA usually endorses fluoridation mandates at the local and state levels.
The Centers for Disease Control reports that about 23% of school children now have dental fluorosis. Two-thirds of US water supplies are fluoridated and virtually 100% of the food supply contains varying amounts of fluoride, both natural and artificial, usually not listed on labels.
In 1989, the government's National Institute of Dental Research found little difference in cavity rates between children who do and don't receive fluoride, report Tickner and Coffin.
"Further studies have shown that the incidence of cavities has fallen throughout the western industrialized world regardless of fluoride use," they report.
"...studies indicate an association between long-term, low-dose exposure to fluoride and increased risk of hip fractures...[and between] elevated fluoride exposure in children and decreased IQs...," write Tickner and Coffin.
The ADA claims "optimal" levels of fluoridation are safe.
"However, this claim is problematic since it does not consider cumulative exposures from many other sources (toothpaste, pesticide residues on foods, mechanically deboned meat and many processed foods and beverages made with fluoridated water)," write Tickner and Coffin.
"As medical providers, dentists have a responsibility to understand and prevent potential unintended impacts of their interventions," and to uphold the medical credo of "first do no harm," they write.
The authors ask, "What are the alternatives or opportunities for prevention?" and, "Is this activity needed in the first place?"
According to lawyer Paul S. Beeber, President of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, "It's a no-brainer. Stop fluoridation today. Absolutely no one will be harmed and many will be helped. That's the best precaution there is."
Evidence based dentistry is the emerging standard in dental research, representing a shift away from subjective expert opinion towards objective, verifiable evidence through systematic review and scrutiny
Resources:
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. PO Box 263 Old Bethpage, NY 11804
Fluoride Action Network
Fluoride Journal
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Economist ......................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 15, 2006
DR STRANGELOVE SAVES THE EARTH
[Rachel's introduction: "The precautionary principle, which calls for extra prudence in areas of scientific uncertainty, also applies. You can look at climate change as an experiment which mankind has -- to its horror -- found itself performing on the planet. To start a second experiment, in the hopes of counteracting the first, would be, to put it mildly, rather risky."]
Few scientists like to say so, but cutting greenhouse-gas emissions is not the only way to solve the problem of global warming. If man-made technologies are capable of heating the planet, they are probably capable of cooling it down again. Welcome to "geo-engineering", which holds that, rather than trying to change mankind's industrial habits, it is more efficient to counter the effects, using planetary-scale engineering.
This general approach has been kicking around for decades. A paper on climate change prepared for President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 made no mention of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. It nonchalantly proposed dealing with the results by dumping vast quantities of reflective particles into the oceans, to increase the amount of sunlight reflected into space.
That school of thinking has since fallen out of fashion. As scientists have accumulated evidence for global warming and its possible consequences, so the scientific and political consensus has favoured attempts at reducing carbon emissions through taxes and regulations and subsidies, many of them directed at factories and motor-cars.
More needs to be done. Greenhouse-gas levels have gone on rising. The rapid industrialisation of China and India means they are going to rise even more.
This gloomy outlook has encouraged new interest in a technological fix. A scientific journal, Climatic Change, published a series of papers on the subject in August, including one by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-prize-winning atmospheric chemist. Other journals followed up. In November the Carnegie Institution and NASA held a conference.
Many big ideas for global cooling have been suggested over the years. They include seeding the skies with compounds to encourage the formation of low-lying, cooling clouds; building a giant sun-shade in space; and dumping iron in the oceans to encourage the growth of algae that would take in carbon when alive and trap it in on the sea floor when dead.
Ken Caldeira, a scientist at the Carnegie Institution, says the most promising idea may be to spray tiny sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere, where they will reflect incoming sunlight. Nature has already done the proof-of-concept work: volcanic eruptions spew such particles into the air, and the cooling effect is well documented.
Schemes of this kind may sound half-crazy; and, admittedly, they do tend to have some technical and aesthetic complications. Deliberately polluting the stratosphere would make the sky less blue, although sunsets would probably be prettier. Blocking out the sun might keep the planet cool, but it would do little to address other effects of high carbon-dioxide levels, such as the acidification of the oceans.
Deliberately polluting the stratosphere would make the sky less blue, but sunsets would probably be prettierA more fundamental objection is that the models used in geo-engineering are similar to those used in forecasting climate change. Which is to say, they rely similarly on assumptions and extrapolations.
Still, the basic science seems sound. "I started doing this work in an attempt to show that geo-engineering was a bad idea," says Mr Caldeira. "I still think it's a bad idea, but every simulation we do seems to shows it could be made to work."
Ralph Cicerone, president of America's National Academy of Sciences, has said that geo-engineering inspires opposition for "various and sincere reasons that are not wholly scientific". Others might say the same about its support. One early enthusiast was Edward Teller, an emigre Hungarian physicist known in America as the "father of the hydrogen bomb", and often cited as an inspiration for Dr Strangelove.
Scientists tend now to see geo-engineering research as a form of insurance policy against the effects of continued global warning, not as an excuse for downplaying the problem, nor for tolerating more carbon emissions in the meantime.
You might expect green groups to applaud this belt-and-braces approach. More often, they resist it in principle, and have little time for the research involved. At worst they seem to see it as a scheme by devious scientists to thwart Nature's just revenge.
Still, there is a reasonable fear here that an illusory hope of a scientific fix might undermine the sort of dogged and grubby policy solutions, such as carbon caps and carbon quotas, needed for taking the fight against climate change to its source.
The precautionary principle, which calls for extra prudence in areas of scientific uncertainty, also applies. You can look at climate change as an experiment which mankind has -- to its horror -- found itself performing on the planet. To start a second experiment, in the hopes of counteracting the first, would be, to put it mildly, rather risky.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Olympian (Olympia, Wash.) .......................[This story printer-friendly]
January 6, 2007
ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPTIMISTIC LEGISLATURE WILL LEND A HAND
[Rachel's introduction: This may be the year when the Washington State legislature adopts a precautionary approach to toxic flame retardants.]
By John Dodge
The environmental community looks toward the 2007 state Legislature's beginning Monday with high hopes it can get all four of its priority measures passed.
Environmental groups are counting on the Democratic majority and alliances with Gov. Chris Gregoire on key issues to advance Puget Sound cleanup; keep the state moving on a clean-energy future; ban toxic flame retardants in televisions, computers and residential upholstered furniture; and double state funding for the purchase of parks and open space.
"We're picking issues that don't pit the economy against the environment," said Clifford Traisman, lobbyist for the Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters. "Given the makeup of the Legislature, we expect to go four for four."
Although a perfect batting record might be a lofty goal, the environmental community has spent months fine-tuning its agenda to resonate with public values while also lining up advance legislative support.
A case in point: the bill to ban toxic flame retardants has 53 sponsors in the House, which is three more than what's needed for a simple majority "yes" vote.
The House passed the bill last year, but it failed in the Senate, where the chemical industry put up a stiff fight.
"I think we can pass it in the Senate this year," said Sen. Karen Fraser, D-Thurston County.
Backers this year have the advantage of support from the governor and the state Department of Ecology.
A phase-out of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, is viewed as one of the actions needed to clean up Puget Sound.
"Everywhere scientists look, from orca whales to mothers' breast milk, they find PBDEs," said Gregg Small, executive director of the Washington Toxics Coalition.
The chemical accumulates and is linked to learning, memory and behavior problems in people, Small said.
"We are one bill away from significantly improving the safety and health of our children," said one of the prime sponsors of House Bill 1024, Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina.
In Puget Sound
The governor and environmental community are lined up behind a $220 million package for Puget Sound recovery, part of a long-range plan that Gregoire launched in December 2005 called the Puget Sound Initiative. The goal is a cleaner, healthier Puget Sound by 2020.
Lawmakers will be asked to make a down payment on what will be a multibillion-dollar effort to turn back the tide of pollution, habitat loss and declining species in the face of growth expected to bring 1.4 million more people to the Puget Sound basin in the next 15 years.
"This is not a bipartisan issue; it's a nonpartisan issue," said Naki Stevens, program director for People for Puget Sound. "Puget Sound is at a crisis point, if not a tipping point."
The money, which is on top of $571 million the state spends every two years on Puget Sound, would be used to restore habitat, curb stormwater runoff and clean up and prevent toxic pollution, among other things.
The legislation also calls for a new governing body to lead the cleanup effort and require accountability and performance measures among those assigned the task.
"Accountability is what has been lacking in the past," Stevens said.
Clean fuels
Building on 2006 legislation that launched the state's clean-energy industry, the 2007 clean air-clean fuels bill is designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil, eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and help keep some of the $30 million a day in gas and oil imports from leaving the state, said K.C. Golden, policy director for Climate Solutions, a climate change watchdog group.
The $20 million bill would:
** Fund research to convert plant waste into fuels.
** Provide $5 million in grants to school districts and others to buy clean-diesel buses that would reduce children's exposure to toxic air pollution.
** Call for a 25 percent reduction in petroleum use in the state's vehicle fleet by 2020.
Open space
Environmentalists are part of a broader coalition that seeks $100Â million in the two-year state capital budget to finance state and local parks, nature preserves, freshwater and saltwater shoreline land, and farm preservation.
Historically, the state has chipped in about $50 million every two years for the past 16 years, but that's not keeping up with population growth and development, lobbyist Mike Ryherd said.
For instance, the trend toward high-density housing in the urban areas puts a premium on the need for more neighborhood parks to allow places for children and families to gather.
"Studies show that housing values go up the closer you are to a park," Ryherd said.
Gregoire called for $70 million for the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program. Approved funding probably will land somewhere between the governor's and the coalition's request, state Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle, predicted.
========================================================
Sidebar: Environmentalists' Top priorities
The environmental community's top four priorities in the 2007 state Legislature are:
1. Support Gov. Chris Gregoire's budget request of $220 million in additional money to clean up and protect Puget Sound. Chance of passage: good.
2. A bill to promote biofuel technology and increased use of clean fuels and vehicles. Chance of passage: good.
3. A bill to phase out the use of toxic flame retardants in certain consumer products. Chance of passage: better than ever, Senate vote is the key.
4. A $100 million capital budget request to double state funding for buying parks space, wildlife habitat, farms and shorelines. Chance of passage: It might be tough to get the full requested $100 million. Gregoire calls for $70 million.
========================================================
John Dodge covers the environment and energy for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-5444 or jdodge@theolympian.com.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::