07 November 2010
I B Pless from the Montreal Children's Hospital (check www.injuryprevention.com ) calls for expanding the precautionary principle into preventative medicine.
Generally, the medical field relies on epidemiology, where actual events are the basis for further study. Typically, diseases or injuries arise, and then the causes are determined and preventative measures are put in place to prevent further disease and injury. Pless comments that maybe we should be using the precautionary principle as a good public health initiative by focusing on primary prevention and a recognition that unforeseen circumstances and unwanted consequences are not unusual with human activities.
05 November 2010
02 November 2010
The New York Times reports The Food and Drug Administration rejected another new diet pill on Thursday, a decision that sharply diminished the already scarce number of options available to overweight Americans amid the nation's obesity epidemic.
The rejected drug, called Qnexa, is the third weight loss drug to suffer a significant setback this month because of concerns about safety, as federal regulators seem to have heightened their scrutiny of diet pills that could pose risks to the heart or other organs. Last week, the F.D.A. declined to approve another new drug, lorcaserin, and earlier in the month it forced the withdrawal of Meridia from the market after 13 years, citing the risk of heart attacks and strokes for certain patients.
27 October 2010
25 October 2010
Tim Morris is the Greens water spokesman in Tasmania. He has released a press statement (see above) about the use of the pesticide Atrazine. Again we see the precautionary principle being used in its deep green strong hue.
He quotes a recent study titled Atrazine reduces reproduction in Fathead Minow undertaken by the United States Geological Survey.
The study's principle author’s Donald E Tillett concludes:
The Weak PP is the least restrictive and allows preventive measures to be taken in the face of uncertainty, but does not require them. The requirement to justify the need for action generally falls on those advocating action.
The Strong PP requires precautionary measures. It is a strong form of "polluter pays", with the responsible party liable for the environmental harm. The burden of proof shifts to those proposing the activity that it will not cause significant harm. The public will not accept any risk, no matter what economic or social benefits may arise.
- Take action especially if the costs are moderate
- Costs and benefits assessed
- Proof on protester
- Politically correct
- Take action no matter what the costs
- Proof on developer
- Outright bans