I was thrilled a few weeks ago by an NPR report. It was about legislation to control exposures to bisphenol A (BPA). The thrill came from the core of the story: a discussion of the precautionary principle. Unfortunately, the thrill was gone by the end of the report. I knew we were in trouble when the reporter opened with a discussion of the concept’s history that concluded with the observation that there are weak versions and strong versions.
The reporter played a statement by Senator Diane Feinstein, sponsor of the BPA legislation. She said, “If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used.” For brevity, I like “If a chemical isn’t safe, you can’t use it.” But close enough.
That was it for the strong case. The report went on to play statements by Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network, an organization that promotes the precautionary principle. His views took up a good portion of the middle of the report. It is clearly the counterpoint to Senator Feinstein’s strong version. The reporter explicitly notes that Dr. Schettler disagrees with Senator Feinstein’s version of the principle. He is heard to say, “When there are credible threats of harm from some proposed activity, precautionary action should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully understood.” The view that “You simply can’t prove that a chemical will never hurt anyone” is attributed to him, although we never hear him say those words.
What has just happened?
The strong statement is set up, then knocked down. A politician is bested by a scientist. We all know who’s smarter and better. And where we end up at the hands of this reporter is that the precautionary principle doesn’t really mean that you can’t do things unless they’re safe. You just can’t do them when there’s a reasonable risk of their causing harm. Let me say this another, simpler way because it might slip by. Senator Feinstein’s version puts the burden on demonstrating safety. Dr. Schettler’s version (and obviously the reporter’s preferred version) puts the burden on demonstrating harm.
The report goes on to say that Europe, where the precautionary principle thrives, isn’t doing anything about BPA. To close things out, the report ends with another scientist. It is Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, THE government agency responsible for research in matters such as BPA. She says “The precautionary principle says that you act in the presence of concerning information.” The reporter does not mention what she thinks of Senator Feinstein’s legislation. Instead, we’re told she stopped microwaving plastics, “not because I was convinced it was going to cause harm, but because it just wasn’t a necessity.”
If you knew nothing about these issues or the people in the report, it’s very likely you wouldn’t become concerned about BPA. The precautionary principle would sound very confused. And more legislation? Who needs that?
Listen. Let’s talk about principles.
Thou shalt not kill. You are innocent until proven guilty. From each according to their ability to each according to their need. If a chemical isn’t safe, you can’t use it. The politician had it right.
