The Precautionary Principle and/or Risk Assessment in World Trade Organization Decisions: A Possible Role for Risk Perception

Risk analysis has been recognized and validated in World Trade Organization (WTO) decision processes. In recent years the precautionary principle has been proposed as an additional or alternative approach to standard risk assessment. The precautionary principle has also been advocated by some who see it as part of postmodern democracy in which more power is given to the public on health and safety matters relative to the judgments of technocrats. A more cynical view is that the precautionary principle is particularly championed by the European Community as a means to erect trade barriers. The WTO ruling against the European Community's trade barrier against beef from hormone‐treated cattle seemed to support the use of risk assessment and appeared to reject the argument that the precautionary principle was a legitimate basis for trade barriers. However, a more recent WTO decision on asbestos contains language suggesting that the precautionary principle, in the form of taking into account public perception, may be acceptable as a basis for a trade barrier. This decision, if followed in future WTO trade disputes, such as for genetically modified foods, raises many issues central to the field of risk analysis. It is too early to tell whether the precautionary principle will become accepted in WTO decisions, either as a supplement or a substitute for standard risk assessment. But it would undermine the value of the precautionary principle if this principle were misused to justify unwarranted trade barriers.

[1]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[2]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Risk management for global environmental change , 1991 .

[3]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

[4]  Jerome R Ravetz,et al.  Risk Management as a Postnormal Science2. , 1992, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Peter M. Sandman,et al.  Responding to Community Outrage , 1993 .

[6]  M. J. Quadrel,et al.  Risk perception and communication , 2008 .

[7]  M. Morris Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[8]  B. Goldstein The precautionary principle and scientific research are not antithetical. , 1999, Environmental health perspectives.

[9]  P. Sandin Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle , 1999, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[10]  R. Howse DEMOCRACY, SCIENCE, AND FREE TRADE: RISK REGULATION ON TRIAL AT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION , 2000 .

[11]  Peter H. Sand,et al.  The Precautionary Principle: A European Perspective , 2000 .

[12]  T. Schettler,et al.  Precaution: Belief, Regulatory System, and Overarching Principle , 2000, International journal of occupational and environmental health.

[13]  John S. Applegate,et al.  The Precautionary Preference: An American Perspective on the Precautionary Principle , 2000 .

[14]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  E. Neumayer Trade and the Environment: A Critical Assessment and Some Suggestions for Reconciliation , 2000 .

[16]  J. Graham Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle , 2000 .

[17]  Risk Management across the Globe: Insights from a Comparative Look at Sweden, Japan, and the United States , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  Allard E. Dembe,et al.  Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle , 2001 .

[19]  Book Review: Making Better Environmental Decisions , 2001 .

[20]  R. Levins,et al.  The precautionary principle in environmental science. , 2001, Environmental health perspectives.

[21]  J. Mathis,et al.  The Report of the Appellate Body in the Asbestos Dispute: WTO Appellate Body Report 12 March 2001, WT/DS 135/AB/R, European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-containing Products , 2001 .

[22]  D. Vogel,et al.  The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  Mariangela Atripaldi European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Panel Reports WT/DS26/R/USA WT/DS48/R/CAN 18 August 1997. Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v. Council of the European Union and Commission of European Communities, Case T-184/95 , 2001 .

[24]  Giandomenico Majone,et al.  The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications , 2002 .

[25]  Michael Ryan Trust Us, We're Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future , 2002 .

[26]  The Asbestos Case: A Comment on the Appointment and Use of Nonpartisan Experts in World Trade Organization Dispute Resolution Involving Health Risk , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Ann Melamed,et al.  The precautionary approach. , 2004, The American journal of nursing.

[28]  FROM THE COMMISSION on the precautionary principle , 2022 .