MRC01
Major Contributor
The precautionary principle isn't always the best approach. It puts a thumb on scale of cost-benefit analysis, distorting it from outcomes supported by neutral research.... The EU has tended towards the precautionary principle where the onus is on companies to demonstrate that something is safe whereas in good old North America where only money matters, we don't ask companies to prove it is safe, our regulators work to set safe exposure limits which is so complex. ...
For example, on a small island where I once lived, some residents tried to block a new cell tower, claiming it could increase cancer rates. They asserted the precautionary principle in their defense. Yet statistically, based on cancer risk and automobile accidents, it is far more likely for that new cell tower to save lives than to cause harm. We had notoriously bad mobile/cell coverage, and all it takes is 1 person able to make a 911 call that they previously couldn't.
Another example is the FDA. If they approve a drug that causes harm they will be excoriated. But if they take so long approving a drug that ultimately turns out to be safe, meanwhile people die because the drug wasn't available during the extended approval process, nobody seems to care. Or they care but accept that as "cost of doing business". Of course the FDA does careful risk-benefit analysis to take this into account: the most exhaustive approval process is not always one one that gives the best total outcome. But biases like the precautionary principle shift this decision away from the optimal outcomes.
Empirical studies and risk-benefit analysis are hard enough to do already; we don't need biases distorting the outcomes. Of course, the precautionary principle is just one example of many kinds of such biases.