1. Precautionary Principle Decision Making in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty Precautionary Principle Decision Making in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty Debbie Raphael Toxics Reduction Program Manager debbie.raphael@sfgov.org ebbie.raphael@sfgov.org (415) 355-3711

2. The Precautionary Principle Transforming the way we make decisions

3. The Precautionary Approach It is NOT sufficient to ask: Is it legal? Is it safe? We also MUST ask: Is it necessary?

4. False sense of security “If it’s legal to buy… it must be safe to use”

5. Scientific Uncertainty “Ignorance is Bliss” 80,000 chemicals in commerce Only 10% have “complete” information

6. The Public Process  Direction from elected officials  18 months of public meetings  Bay Area Working Group on the Precautionary Principle – NGO’s  Input from business groups –Committee on Jobs, Chamber of Commerce, Labor Unions, American Chemistry Council  Consultation with subject matter experts

7. Moving From Theoretical Principle to Practical Policy Alternatives Assessment Alternatives Assessment Mary O’Brien Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment

8. The Precautionary Approach  Risk Assessment - What is an acceptable level of harm? (i.e. # of cancers in 1000 people) (i.e. # of cancers in 1000 people) - Does this activity or product fall within that acceptable level? fall within that acceptable level? - Single activity considered  Alternatives Assessment - Is this potentially hazardous activity (product) necessary? - What less hazardous options are available? - How little damage is possible? - Multiple activities compared

9. Instead of asking: Instead of asking: "How much harm "How much harm will be allowed?” will be allowed?” San Francisco decision-makers will ask: "How little harm is possible?"

10. The Precautionary Principle does not pre-determine an outcome It creates a process.

11. San Francisco’s Precautionary Principle Ordinance  Chapter One of newly formed Environment Code – over arching principle. - For complete text see: www.sfenvironment.org - For complete text see: www.sfenvironment.org www.sfenvironment.org  Five Tenets Define a Mechanism for Implementation

12. Duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm Historically, environmentally harmful activities have only been stopped after they have manifested extreme environmental degradation or exposed people to harm. Historically, environmentally harmful activities have only been stopped after they have manifested extreme environmental degradation or exposed people to harm.

13. Waiting Too Long? Lead in gasoline, paintLead in gasoline, paint Asbestos in building materialsAsbestos in building materials TobaccoTobacco PCB’s, DDT, CFC’sPCB’s, DDT, CFC’s PVC,PVC, Brominated Flame RetardantsBrominated Flame Retardants Global WarmingGlobal Warming GMO’sGMO’s

14. Right to know complete and accurate information Burden to supply this information lies with the proponent not the general public Burden to supply this information lies with the proponent not the general public -Potential human health and environmental impacts are often not disclosed or even known - Example: Mercury content of fluorescent bulbs

15. Duty to examine a full range of alternatives, including doing nothing - Obligation to select alternative with least potential negative impact - Selecting which alternatives are considered and selected is a political/ public decision - Example: Alternatives to pre-emergent pesticides

16. Must consider the full range of costs, including costs outside the initial price - All reasonable foreseeable costs: raw materials, transportation, manufacturing, clean up, disposal

17. Decisions must be transparent, participatory, and informed by the best available information - Locally or internationally the public bears the ecological and health consequences of these decisions. Environmental Democracy - Example: Determination of “Targeted Product Categories” in Purchasing Ord.

18. Implementation San Francisco  Arsenic Treated Wood –Demonstrated presence of arsenic, known cancer effects (CCA) –Evaluation of health and environmental impacts of constituents revealed less toxic formulations exist and meet performance needs (ACQ, CBA, CA) –Identified cases where arsenic treated wood is the most environmentally preferable formulation of pressure treated wood i.e. submerged saltwater aquatic

19.  New Regulations - Purchasing Ordinance - Green Building Standards  New Avenues for Discussion - Recycled Water - Power Plant Development - Links to Environmental Justice - Land Use/Zoning Decisions - More possibilities

20. The Precautionary Principle ≠ Zero risk ≠ Zero science ≠ Loss of jobs ≠ Predetermined outcome (i.e. ban) = Minimize harm = Maximize info./science = Increase innovation = Transparent Process for public decision making

21. Re-defining the Central Question for Decision Makers It is NOT sufficient to ask: Is it legal? Is it safe? We also MUST ask: Is it necessary?

22. It’s our planet It’s our future.

23. Historical Perspective Historical Perspective

24. Germany 1970’s Vorsorge-prinzip  Black Forest die-off of trees  German Government suspects acid-rain from coal burning power plants  Can’t prove cause and effect  Invokes “Vorsorge” (foresight) to regulate emissions

25. Rio Earth Summit 1992 Principle 15  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.

26. Wingspread Conference 1998  Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.  In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof.  The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

27. City of San Francisco 2003  Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the public health of its citizens.

28. Sweden: Chemical Products Act A scientifically based suspicion that a chemical may cause damage is enough for taking regulatory actions. The uncertainty that might arise from the hazard of using such a chemical shall not be carried by the general public but shall fall upon those who want to market the product. A scientifically based suspicion that a chemical may cause damage is enough for taking regulatory actions. The uncertainty that might arise from the hazard of using such a chemical shall not be carried by the general public but shall fall upon those who want to market the product.