The precautionary principle provides a justification to act where scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of detected indications of harm would otherwise possibly impede regulatory interventions. The highly controversial and often misunderstood principle plays a central role in European risk regulation. The present volume should allow readers to gain an overview of all essential points linked with the role of the principle in the risk regulation framework of the European Union. Based on an outline of the precautionary principle s main characteristics and its conception by the European Commission, common allegations brought against the principle are illuminated and critically assessed. The second part of the book is then devoted to the actual implementation of the principle in the EU from early applications to ongoing disputes. Three case studies from the agrochemical, pharmaceutical and food packaging sector reflect current applications as well as the relevant institutional and procedural framework. Insights from the theoretical part and the case studies are melted in the final discussion section that also includes recommendations for EU risk regulators.

Leseprobe
Text Sample:
Chapter1,: The Precautionary Principle:
A: Approaching the PP s Meanings:
Most risk regulators might agree that the PP is in action where restrictive measures are imposed on activities that are assumed to harm but where the scientific evidence is not sufficient to prove causality between the activity and the harm or where the extent of harm is unknown. However, the consent ends when it comes to a broader discussion concerning the details of what condi-tions have to be met to trigger the PP and what kind of actions are really adequate in such cases.
Obviously, this sketchiness did not hinder the PP to find its way from its origins in German en-vironmental law of the 1970s into national laws of various countries but also into international conventions and treaties from the 1980s on, reflecting the variance of conceptions by differing wordings from one agreement to the other.
It is thus understandable that many scholars approach the definition of the PP by taking refer-ence to the history of the principle. At least, almost all of them mention the Rio Declaration from 1992. Furthermore, comparing the wordings used in early international agreements reveals that they often resemble those used in the Rio Declaration. The Rio Declaration shall therefore be introduced as a merited starting point in approaching the PP s meaning.
1.The Rio Declaration:
Taking place in Rio, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development aimed at promoting sustainable development facing a more and more globalised world. Principle 15 of the resulting Declaration states that: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Knowing the above definition is not only interesting from a historical perspective but also helps to understand the ongoing controversy that surrounds the PP. Indeed, a recent empirical analy-sis found that this definition best approximates the prevailing interpretation in scientific debate about the principle. Before addressing this debate, the focus shall now first be turned to the EU and its conception of the PP.
2: The Communication from the Commission on the PP:
In the same year that the Rio Declaration was concluded, the EU integrated the PP in the Maas-tricht Treaty, stating that in EU environmental policy a high level of protection shall be aspired by taking recourse to preventive action, as well as the precautionary and polluter-pays principle. Besides the renumbering of the article, the codification of the PP in EU primary law has not been changed or extended since then nor has a definition been provided. Yet realising the resulting confusion and criticism in debates about the proper interpretation of the PP, the Euro-pean Commission (EC) issued a Communication in 2000 (hereinafter: COM(2000) 1) , which aimed to clarify when and how the principle shall be applied. Rather than to provide a defini-tion, it simply tried to contribute to the debate and promote the EU s interpretation of the PP.
However, in order to compare it with the predominant Rio Declaration, a distillation of the rele-vant terminology that represents the Commission s view becomes necessary. This shall be done in t