According to Wikipedia “The Precautionary Principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” In other words, if the potential consequences of doing something are bad enough, it’s not up to opponents to prove they will, or are likely to, happen. It’s up to those contemplating the action to prove that these consequences won’t happen. If you can’t supply this proof, you shouldn’t go ahead.
This principle is often employed in relation to genetic modification (genetic engineering, transgenics). It is often argued that even if nothing demonstrably bad has happened so far as the result of genetically modifying food crops, the consequences of something going wrong are so terrible that, on balance, the risk is not worth taking, because it cannot be shown that such risks can be reduced to zero. Put another way, even in the absence of conclusive evidence to show that genetic modification is dangerous, the onus is on the genetic modifiers to show that the negative consequences are well nigh impossible. The Precautionary Principle would therefore seem to indicate that we should not genetically modify our food.
Take something like corn syrup, which is incorporated into a huge range of processed foods. If some genetic modification to corn turned out to be toxic to humans, carcinogenic say, the consequences would be truly horrendous.
If one accepts the argument from the Precautionary Principle, it is not enough for scientists to remonstrate that selective breeding for the last five thousand years has done similar kinds of things, in a more random way, to genetic modification. By changing the genetic make-up of people’s food in rapid and radical ways that would be impossible in nature, they are putting whole populations at risk – and the risk is not worth it. Doesn’t this sound like a reasonable argument?
Of course the same reasoning also applies to not taking action. Which is to say, if the consequences of not taking action are horrendous enough, then the onus is on those who oppose this action to prove their case. Again, in the same way, even in the absence of conclusive evidence, if the consequences of inaction are terrible enough, then the onus is on those opposing the action to prove their case and show that these consequences are well nigh impossible.
In attacking Iraq on the basis of a belief that it was preparing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had the will to use them, Tony Blair and George W Bush can be seen as applying the Precautionary Principle in just the same way as it is applied to genetic modification. There was some evidence that Iraq was preparing WMDs, and even if this evidence was not conclusive, even if in hindsight it would appear to have been exaggerated, at the time the consequences of being wrong and of not acting were so genuinely terrifying that the Precautionary Principle applies. Even a crude WND targeted at Jerusalem, with 747,000 people, or Tel Aviv, with 390,000 people, would have caused huge devastation and doubtless begun a war that would have claimed many more.
Of course someone might argue that GM is different, in that the alternative course is harmless. Thus, they might argue, when it comes to GM, stopping the action has no negative consequences, apart from monetary losses to the fat industries involved, whereas the alternative course in the case of Iraq caused tens of thousands of deaths. On the one hand, this overlooks the fact that one of the drivers of the genetic modification of food crops has always been to create crop varieties that will thrive in adverse conditions, such as in Africa, and that will help feed whole countries. The enormous counter drive to prevent genetic modification may thus potentially cause millions of deaths. There are indeed negative consequences of applying the Precautionary Principle in this case, and with global warming the need for hardier crops to feed a starving world will become ever more pressing.
On the other hand, the decision to invade Iraq and ensure there were no WMDS caused relatively few deaths. It was George W Bush’s decision to stayand attempt to establish a democratic state in a country long run by a ruthless dictatorship that caused the large number of deaths. It was naive, absurdly optimistic and badly handled, but it was a different decision. If George W Bush had pulled out of Iraq after establishing the absence of WMDs, mirroring the tactics of his father in the first Gulf war, it would certainly have saved thousands of American lives and billions of dollars – dollars that are now in short supply.
Yes George Bush was wrong about WMDS. But was his decision to invade Iraq based on inconclusive evidence wrong? Was it reasonable to apply the Precautionary Principle in this situation given the potential consequences of inaction? Those high-minded individuals who eat organic food and despise Bush should try, for a few moments, to put themselves in his place. Your advisers, your intelligence agencies, are telling you that a rogue state that fosters terrorism and tortures and murders thousands of its own citizens may have WMDs. You agree with the use of the Precautionary Principle. What do you? What do you do?
Boethius 1