PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The precautionary principle states that when an activity or law is suspected of posing a risk to the environment or to the public, then it is labeled harmful even when there is no scientific consensus on its harmfulness. The Chamber of Commerce in the United States does not support this principle as it recommends that all risk management decisions be made after a scientific and technological analysis of the risks. This Chamber opposes the application of the precautionary principle both in local and international markets; it has even gone ahead to teach people on the limitations of the principle in an effort to fight the application of the latter. The Chamber argues that such important issues as global warming should not be decided upon based on assumptions, intuitions and non-validated knowledge (USCC, 2011).
The precautionary principle does influence decisions made in the environmental sector. This situation has been influenced by increasing global concerns on the depletion of natural resources and pollution of the environment. The principle is what gives policy makers the authority to make decisions and place regulations where harm is suspected even when there lacks enough research to solidify this argument in an attempt to reduce pollution and harm to this planet. The principle is being applied in the environmental sector because some of the consequences of risks in this sector cannot be contained when they happen. The main area where the principle is applied in the environmental sector is in the biological fields as interference in these fields has global consequences (Goklany, 2001, p. 24). This principle is good for the world as it is everyone’s social responsibility to protect the earth and to stop any risks from happening.
REFERENCES
U.S. Chamber of Commerce [USCC] (2011). “Precautionary Principle.” U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.uschamber.com/issues/regulatory/precautionary-
principle
Goklany, I. (2001). The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal. Washington, D.C.: Cato
Institute.
