Is it time to rethink the precautionary principle?

The precautionary principle – the idea that a lack of firm evidence should not stop us from introducing regulations – has been an important idea in government in recent decades, particularly in the EU. Has this emphasis on caution been beneficial or has it caused more harm than good?

The question of taking precautions has been front and centre during the Covid pandemic. For example, as the spread of the disease took off, a group of experts penned a short academic note urging caution. They said that in order to prevent viral contagion, global connectivity needed to be disrupted – at least until more was known about the virus and how it spreads. In it, the authors called their strategy a ‘precautionary approach’, and it was adopted by many countries like New Zealand and China.

Other countries – like the US, UK and Sweden – took a different tack and have continued to do so, to varying degrees, in the weeks and months since. Arguments about the costs and benefits of taking action have raged throughout between those trying to limit the spread of the disease and others worried about the damage to the economy, education and the impacts of social isolation.

In its simplest form, the precautionary principle is an approach that addresses uncertain – and potentially negative – outcomes by introducing short-term precautions. Importantly, these precautionary measures are often costly and undesirable, at least in the short-term. The principle has been applied to genetically modified foods, pesticides, plastics and much more.

The principle has been at the heart of political debate since it was introduced in the 1970s. Proponents contend that, from individuals up to states, we really aren’t cautious enough, especially when it comes to existential issues like climate change where we could realise too late that we face disaster. During the pandemic, their mantra was that we must ‘follow the science’.

Opponents have argued that we err far too heavily on the side of caution, obsessing and fetishising safety at the cost of progress. Far from being scientific, they argue, the principle is explicit in going beyond the available evidence to speculate about the potential for danger.

Can we treat decisions about something like a pandemic in the same way as those to do with the environment and new technologies, like artificial intelligence? Or has this pandemic shown us that we need to consider each new threat in a more holistic way, considering the economy, well-being and people’s freedoms as much as the direct threat to health? Is it time to finally depoliticise precaution and treat each case as unique? Or with political alignments becoming as important as the dispassionate assessment of risk, will the precautionary principle remain another victim of the all-encompassing ‘culture wars’?