Editing Precautionary principle (section)

=== Strong vs. weak ===
''Strong precaution'' holds that regulation is required whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Sachs | first = Noah M. | title = Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from its Critics | journal = University of Illinois Law Review | volume = 2011 | issue = 4 | pages = 1285–1338 | year = 2011 | url = https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Sachs.pdf | access-date = 13 October 2011 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111028155403/http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2011/4/Sachs.pdf | archive-date = 28 October 2011 | url-status = dead }}</ref>{{rp|1295–96}} In 1982, the United Nations [[World Charter for Nature]] gave the first international recognition to the strong version of the principle, suggesting that when "potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed". The widely publicised Wingspread Declaration, from a meeting of environmentalists in 1998, is another example of the strong version.<ref name="goliath.ecnext.com">{{cite journal |last1=Sunstein |first1=Cass R. |title=Does the Precautionary Principle point us in any helpful direction ? The Paralyzing Principle |journal=Regulation |date=2002 |volume=25 |issue=9 |pages=32–37 |url=https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2002/12/v25n4-9.pdf |s2cid=18622893 }}</ref> Strong precaution can also be termed as a "no-regrets" principle, where costs are not considered in preventative action.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.scribd.com/book/195536970/The-No-Regrets-Principle|title=The No Regrets Principle by Shawn Brodof |access-date=2019-08-06 }}</ref>

''Weak precaution'' holds that lack of scientific evidence does not preclude action if damage would otherwise be serious and irreversible.<ref name="Beyond Laws of Fear">{{Cite journal | last1 = Mandel | first1 = Gregory N. | last2 = Gathii | first2 = James Thuo | title = Cost Benefit Analysis Versus the Precautionary Principle: Beyond Cass Sunstein's Laws of Fear | journal = University of Illinois Law Review | volume = 2006 | issue = 5 | pages = 1037–1079 | year = 2006 | url = https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2006/5/Mandel.pdf | access-date = 13 October 2011 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120312021512/http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2006/5/Mandel.pdf | archive-date = 12 March 2012 | url-status = dead }}</ref>{{rp|1039}} Humans practice weak precaution every day, and often incur costs, to avoid hazards that are far from certain: we do not walk in moderately dangerous areas at night, we exercise, we buy smoke detectors, we buckle our seatbelts.<ref name="goliath.ecnext.com"/>

According to a publication by the [[New Zealand Treasury]] Department:

{{blockquote| The weak version [of the Precautionary Principle] is the least restrictive and allows preventive measures to be taken in the face of uncertainty, but does not require them (e.g., Rio Declaration 1992; United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change 1992). To satisfy the threshold of harm, there must be some evidence relating to both the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of consequences. Some, but not all, require consideration of the costs of precautionary measures. Weak formulations do not preclude weighing benefits against the costs. Factors other than scientific uncertainty, including economic considerations, may provide legitimate grounds for postponing action. Under weak formulations, the requirement to justify the need for action (the burden of proof) generally falls on those advocating precautionary action. No mention is made of assignment of liability for environmental harm.

 Strong versions justify or require precautionary measures and some also establish liability for environmental harm, which is effectively a strong form of "polluter pays". For example, the [[Earth Charter]] states: "When knowledge is limited apply a precautionary approach ... Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm." Reversal of proof requires those proposing an activity to prove that the product, process or technology is sufficiently "safe" before approval is granted. Requiring proof of "no environmental harm" before any action proceeds implies the public is not prepared to accept any environmental risk, no matter what economic or social benefits may arise (Peterson, 2006). At the extreme, such a requirement could involve bans and prohibitions on entire classes of potentially threatening activities or substances (Cooney, 2005). Over time, there has been a gradual transformation of the precautionary principle from what appears in the Rio Declaration to a stronger form that arguably [by whom] acts as restraint on development in the absence of firm evidence that it will do no harm.<ref>"Precautionary Principle: Origins, definitions, and interpretations." Treasury Publication, Government of New Zealand. 2006. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/ppp/2006/06-06/05.htm</ref> }}