Combining equity and the precautionary principle: examples drawn from hog production in Poland

Journal of Economic Issues, June, 2005 by F. Gregory Hayden

The precautionary principle is part of a broader protectionist ethic (emphasized by Karl Polanyi) that calls for caution, which should be the case even when the full evidence about the degree of harm is uncertain. The principle emphasizes (1) that action should not be taken before there is sufficient scientific understanding of consequences from social or technical changes (such as the establishment of large confinement hog facilities) and (2) that changes should not be made prior to thorough analysis if there appears to be a basis to suspect damage from the social or technical change that is being contemplated, even if the adverse risk is uncertain.

The precautionary principle addresses anticipated threats, taking action to prevent the threats from occurring, with the lack of full scientific certainty not constituting a sufficient reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent harm (Cranor 1999, 76-77). The precautionary principle offers a strong presumption in favor of a high level of protection and a justification for treating certain functions or qualities as inviolable (Jordan and O'Riordan 1999, 27), suggesting that the burden of proof should shift to the production center or proto-developer to show no reasonable harm. In discussing the precautionary principle with regard to law, Andrew Jordan and Timothy O'Riordan stated: "Traditionally, the law has tended to privilege parties accused of degrading the environment rather than the victims of pollution" (1999, 28). The legal tendency with the precautionary principle is reversed. "The introduction of a strict liability regime ... would only require the victims to prove that the polluter failed to act with due diligence to gain compensation; in the case of absolute liability, the victim would merely need to prove that damage had occurred to gain financial restitution. More stringent still, would be to reverse the burden of proof entirely (i.e., the burden of proof is placed upon the proto-polluter to prove the emissions are 'harmless' before the activity is sanctioned) as in the licensing of new medicines" (1999, 28). Their statements also apply to criteria other than environmental-protection criteria. The precautionary concept will continue to evolve due to new research, changes in laws, and court decisions, and it will be more explicitly refined in its use to apply other criteria, especially equity criteria.

Research completed by Ken Geiser (1999, 325, 327, 334) regarding the precautionary concept is used to complete the five following points of advice regarding equity precaution: (1) The focus of attention for precaution should be on the point of production and design of the product rather than on how to deal with unwanted inequities. (2) Inquiry should be devoted to how the process or product can be modified to reduce or eliminate unwanted inequities. (3) The search is about discovering how much inequity is preventable rather than how much can be projected and tolerated. (4) Equity improvements are often possible through the substitution of technology. (5) "The precautionary concept needs to be developed as a practical decision-making tool for use by industrial managers in purchasing, process design, and work organization decisions" (Geiser 1999, 334).