‘BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY’ A BAD POLICY PRINCIPLE

Dan Gardner

Banning baby bottles containing the chemical bisphenol A is the prudent thing to do, the federal government insists. A review of the science concluded that “exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that may pose a risk; however, the gap between exposure and effect is not large enough.” And so the ban.

“We have concluded that it is better to be safe than sorry,’ declared Health Minister Tony Clement.

Better safe than sorry. Who could disagree? It seems so reasonable. The scientific evidence of harm may not be conclusive, but the potential harm is serious and irreversible. Surely, under those circumstances, we should err on the side of caution.

This line of thinking is the core of the “precautionary principle,” an influential doctrine embraced by environmentalists and enshrined in many national and international laws. The precautionary principle’s basic message is what Clement said last week: Better safe than sorry.

If only life were that simple.

Consider the pesticides used in agriculture. Many are known carcinogens, but whether they are harmful in trace quantities is disputed. There’s a mountain of complicated science on the subject and regulatory agencies have generally concluded there’s no cause for concern. But the evidence is mixed — it almost always is in science — and there’s plenty we don’t know.

Many people have looked at this and decided that some or all pesticides should be banned. The science isn’t settled. The harm — if it exists — would be severe and irreversible. Surely the precautionary principle applies.

But what would happen if some or all pesticides were banned? Crop yields would decline. Fruits and vegetables would become more expensive and people would eat less of them. And since there is evidence that eating fruits and vegetables in sufficient quantities protects against cancer, it is likely that more people would get cancer.

So there are risks on both sides. What does the precautionary principle tell us about resolving a dilemma like that? Nothing.

And that flaw is fatal because we are routinely forced to choose between risks.

Consider that the chlorination of drinking water produces carcinogenic by-products. Presumably, the precautionary principle would direct us to stop chlorinating drinking water. But if we do, the water-borne diseases that were banished by chlorination could come roaring back. So the precautionary principle would tell us we must chlorinate drinking water.

“Because risks are on all sides, the precautionary principle forbids action, inaction, and everything in between,” writes law professor Cass Sunstein, an expert on risk regulation. It is “paralyzing; it forbids the very things it requires. “

As Sunstein demonstrates in his book Laws of Fear, there’s a simple reason why “better safe than sorry” sounds more meaningful than it is: We pay close attention to some risks while ignoring others, which makes the dilemma of choosing between risks vanish.

The precautionary principle is a bromide, a nice sentiment, a starting point. But it’s nothing more than that. If we are to be rational, we must be far more rigorous.

“Rational risk regulation is a slow, careful and thoughtful examination of the dangers and costs in particular cases,” writes a certain journalist – OK, me – in a new book called Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear. “If banning certain synthetic pesticides can be shown to reduce a risk materially at no more cost than a modest proliferation of dandelions, it probably makes sense. If there are inexpensive techniques to reduce the amount of chlorine required to treat drinking water effectively, that may be a change that’s called for. Admittedly, this is not exciting stuff… And while there are always questions of justice and fairness involved – Who bears the risk? Who will shoulder the cost of reducing the risk? –there is not a lot of room for ideology and inflammatory rhetoric. “

So is it sensible to ban bisphenol A in baby bottles? It may be. I don’t know. And I’m not sure Clement knows either. What will replace the bottles? Do other plastic formulations raise concerns? Do glass bottles pose a hazard? Do the replacement bottles cost more and, if so, what effects will that have?

As far as I can see, the minister and his government haven’t rigorously addressed questions like these. Instead, they focused on one risk and piously declared “better safe than sorry. “

That’s a fine way to do politics, but as a means of crafting public policy it leaves something to be desired.