Chemicals

The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 233-256

  Renn, Ortwin ^a   Elliott, E Donald ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920857763     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (103)

1. American Chemistry Council. 2009. ACC Releases Roadmap to Next Generation of Chemical Safety. www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_news_article.asp?CID=206&DID=9941 (accessed May 31, 2010).
2. Aven, Terje, and Jon E. Vinnem. 2007. Risk Management: With Applications from the Offshore Petroleum Industry. Heidelberg: Springer.
3. Bagehot, Walter.1901. The English Constitution andOther Political Essays. NewYork:D. Appleton & Co.
4. Battelle. 2003. Overview: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Programs. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute.
5. BDI, VCH, and VCI (Federation of German Industries, German Association of Chemical Distributors, and German Chemical Industry Association). 2004. Comments of the Stakeholders to the Research Project Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of the New EU Chemicals Policy. Commissioned by the Federal Environmental Agency to ISI (Institute for Systems and Innovation Research) and Oekopol (Institute for Environmental Strategies). Berlin: Environmental Protection Agency of Germany.
6. Bruijn, Hans, J. A., and Ernst F. ten Heuvelhof. 1999. Scientific Expertise in Complex Decisionmaking Processes. Science and Public Policy 26 (3): 151-161.
7. BUND (Bund furUmwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland). 2004. Comments of the Stakeholders to the Research Project Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of the New EU Chemicals Policy.
8. Commissioned by the Federal Environmental Agency to ISI (Institute for Systems and Innovation Research) and Oekopol (Institute for Environmental Strategies). Berlin: Environmental Protection Agency of Germany.
9. Charnley, Gail, and E. Donald Elliott. 2002. Risk versus Precaution: Environmental Law and Public Health Protection. Environmental Law Reporter 32 (2): 10363-10366.
10. Charnley, Gail, and E. Donald Elliott. 2003. Democratization of Risk Analysis. In Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice,edited by Dennis J. Paustenbach. Boston, MA: Wiley-Interscience.
11. Coglianese, Cary. 1997. Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking. Duke Law Journal 46: 1255.
12. Cohen, Bernhard L. 1991. Catalog of Risks Extended and Updated. Health Physics 61: 317.
13. Cooke, Roger M. 1991. Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Cross, Frank B. 1996. Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 851-925.
15. Cross, Frank B. 1998. Facts and Values in Risk Assessment. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 59: 27-45.
16. Crouch, Edmund A. C., and Richard R. Wilson. 1982. Risk Benefit Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
17. de Sadeleer, Nicolas. 2002. Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Ru/es. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Dimas, Stavros. 2005. Pressrelease. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/495&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed May 31, 2010).
19. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). 2009. New Study Inaccurate on the Number of Test Animals for REACH (ECHA/PR/09/11). http://apps.echa.europa.eu/registered/registered-sub.aspx (accessed May 31, 2010).
20. Elliott, E. Donald. 1992. Global Climate Change and Regulatory Uncertainty. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 9: 259.
21. Elliott, E. Donald. 2005a. Chevron Matters: How the Chevron Doctrine Redefined the Roles of Congress, Courts, and Agencies in Environmental Law. Villanova Environmental Law Journal 16: 1-18.
22. Elliott, E. Donald. 2005b. Regulate Nano Now. Environmental Forum 22: 43. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
23. Elliott, E. Donald, and Michael Thomas. 1993. Chemicals. In Sustainable Environmental Law,edited by Celia Campbell-Mohn, J. William Futrell, and Barry Breen. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co, 1257-1354.
24. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation. www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/principles.html (accessed May 31, 2010).
25. European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. COM(2000) Final: 1. Brussels: EU.
26. European Commission. 2001. White Paper: Strategy for aFuture Chemicals Policy.COM (2001), 88. Brussels: EU.
27. European Commission. 2002. Treaty Establishing the European Community. Official Journal of the European Commission C325:33-184. December 24. Brussels: EU. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html (accessed May 31, 2010).
28. European Commission. 2003a. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).COM (2003), 644. Brussels: EU. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/dossier/dossier_44.htm (accessed May 31, 2010).
29. European Commission. 2003b. Extended Impact Assessment concerning the EU Communication COM2003, 644.SEC 2003. 1171/3. Brussels: EU. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/121479.htm (accessed May 31, 2010).
30. European Commission. 2005. High Level Expert Report on Impacts of REACH. EU document (2005) 2. Brussels: EU.
31. European Commission. 2006. Legislative Acts and Other Instruments. Common Position Adopted by the Council.No. 7524/06. Council of the European Union. Interinstitutional File: 2003/0256. Brussels: EU.
32. Federal Register.1995. 40 C.F.R. § 723.50(c)(2), Federal Register 60: 16,336.
33. Fisher, Elizabeth. 2001. Is the Precautionary Principle Justiciable? Journal of Environmental Law 3: 315-334.
34. Fisher, Elizabeth. 2002. Precaution, Precaution Everywhere: Developing a "Common Understanding" of the Precautionary Principle in the European Community. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 9(1): 7-46.
35. Fisher, Elizabeth. 2009. The Legal Dimension of Developing a General Model for Precautionary Risk Regulation. In The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union,edited by O. Renn, P.-J. Schweizer, U. Mueller-Herold, and A. Stirling. Bremen, Germany: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, 62-75.
36. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerry R. Ravetz. 1987. The Arithmetics of Uncertainty. Physics Bulletin 38: 412-414.
37. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerry R. Ravetz. 1992. Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science. In Social Theories of Risk,edited by S. Krimsky, and D. Golding. Westport, CT: Praeger, 251-273.
38. Funtowicz, Silvio O., Iain Shepherd, David Wilkinson, and Jerry Ravetz. 2000. Science and Governance in the European Union: AContribution to the Debate. Science and Public Policy 5(27): 327-336.
39. GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2005. Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA 's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
40. Harding, Richard, and Elizabeth Fisher, eds. 1999. Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle. Sydney: Federation Press.
41. Harremoës, Paul, David Gee, Malcolm MacGarvin, Andrew Stirling, Jane Keys, Brian Wynne, and Sofia Guedes Vaz, eds. 2001. Late Lesson from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle, 1898-2000.Environmental Issue Report No. 22. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
42. Harter, Phillip J. 1982. Negotiating Regulations: ACure for Malaise. Georgetown University Law Journal 71: 1.
43. Hartung, Thomas, and Costanza Rovida. 2009. Chemical Regulators Have Overreached. Nature 460 (August 27): 1080-1081.
44. Ho, Joanna L. Y., Robin L. Keller, and Pamela Keltyka. 2002. Effects of Probabilistic and Outcome Ambiguity on Managerial Choices. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24 (1): 47-74.
45. ISI/Oekopol (Institute for Systems and Innovation Research/Institute for Environmental Strategies). 2004. Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of the New EU Chemicals Policy.Report Commissioned by the German Federal Environmental Agency. FKZ 203 65 423. Berlin: Environmental Protection Agency of Germany.
46. Klinke, Andreas, and Ortwin Renn. 2001. Precautionary Principle and Discursive Strategies: Classifying and Managing Risks. Journal ofRisk Research 4(2): 159-173.
47. Klinke, Andreas, and Ortwin Renn. 2002. A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based and Discourse-Based Management. Risk Analysis 22 (6): 1071-1994.
48. Kolluru, Rao V. 1995. Risk Assessment and Management: A Unified Approach. In Risk Assessment and Management Handbook for Environmental, Health, and Safety Professionals,edited by R. Kolluru, S. Bartell, R. Pitblade, and S. Stricoff. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1.3-1.41.
49. KPMG (KPMG International Cooperative). 2005. REACH-Further Work on Impact Assessment. ACase Study Approach. Report for the EU Commission. REACEI/RR/mh. July.
50. Landfair, Stanley W. 1997. Toxic Substances Control Act. In Environmental Law Handbook,14th ed., edited by Thomas F. P. Sullivan. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes.
51. Laudan, Larry. 1996. The Pseudo-Science of Science? The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence,edited by L. Laudan. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 166-192.
52. Lautenberg, Frank. 2010. "Kid Safe Chemical Act" Would Ensure All Chemicals Used in Everyday Products, Including Those Used in Baby Bottles and Children's Toys, Are Proven Safe. http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=298072 (accessed May 31, 2010).
53. Löfstedt, Ragnar E. 2004. The Swing of the Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Assessment. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies Working Paper 04-07. London: Kings College.
54. Löfstedt, Ragnar E. 2005. Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
55. Maine, Henry. 1883. Dissertations on Early Law and Custom.London: John Murray.
56. Majone, Giandomenico. 2002. What Price Safety? The Precautionary Principle and Its Policy Implications. Journal ofCommon Market Studies 40 (1): 89-109.
57. Marchant, Gary E., and Kenneth L. Mossman. 2004. Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
58. Martonik, John F., Edith Nash, and Elizabeth Grossman. 2001. The History of OSHA's Asbestos Rulemakings and Some Distinctive Approaches That They Introduced for Regulating Occupational Exposure to Toxic Substances. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 62: 208, 215.
59. Merkhofer, Lee W. 1987. The Use of Risk Comparison to Aid the Communication and Interpretation of the Risk Analyses for Regulatory Decision Making. In Risk Assessment and Management,edited by L. B. Lave. New York: Plenum, 581-607.
60. Mittelstraß, Juergen. 1999. Zwischen Prometheus und Kassandra. Licht und Dunkel in der Welt des technischen Verstandes. In Technologie und Gesellschaft an der Jahrtausendwende, edited by D. Ruloff. Zurich: Rugger.
61. Morgan, Granger, and Max Henrion. 1992. Uncertainty: AGuide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Morris, Julian, ed. 2000. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle. London: Butterworth Heinemann.
63. Mueller-Herold, Ulrich, Marco Morosini, and Olivier Schucht. 2005. Choosing Chemicals for Precautionary Regulation: AFilter Series Approach. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 683-691.
64. Mueller-Herold, Ulrich, MarcoMorosini,Olivier Schucht,and MartinScheringer. 2009. Precautionary Pre-Selection of New Organic Chemicals: ACase Study on the Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union. In The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union,edited by O. Renn, P.-J. Schweizer, U. Mueller-Herold, and A. Stirling. Bremen: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, 76-102.
65. NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66. O'Riordan, Timothy, and James C. Cameron. 1994. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan.
67. O'Riordan, Timothy, James C. Cameron, and Andrew Jordan, eds. 2001. Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Cameron May.
68. Pate-Cornell, Elisabeth M. 1996. Uncertainties in Risk Analysis: Six Levels of Treatment. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 54: 95-111.
69. Paterson, John. 2005. Sustainable Development, Sustainable Decisions, and the Precautionary Principle. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. www.springerlink.com/index/N2XU545621643TH5.pdf (accessed May 31, 2010).
70. Peterson, Martin. 2003. Transformative Decision Rules. Erkenntnis 58: 71-85.
71. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Management and Risk Assessment. 1997. Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decisionmaking. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55006 (accessed July 28, 2010).
72. Raffensberger, Carolyn, and Joel Tickner. 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
73. Renn, Ortwin. 1987. Eine kulturhistorische Betrachtung des technischen Fortschritts. In Fortschritt der Technik-gesellschaftliche und ökonomische Auswirkungen,edited by H. Lubbe. Heidelberg: R. von Deckers Verlag, 65-100.
74. Renn, Ortwin. 2004. The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk Management. In Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field, edited by T. L. MacDaniels and M. J. Small. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 289-366.
75. Renn, Ortwin. 2008. Risk Governance. London: Earthscan.
76. Renn, Ortwin, Andrew Stirling, Ulrich Muller-Herold, Elizabeth Fisher, Marion Dreyer, Christine Losert, Andreas Klinke, Marco Morisini, and Patrick van Zwanenberg. 2003. The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union ("Precaupri"). Final Report to the EU Commission. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
77. Renn, Ortwin, and Katharine D. Walker. 2008. Lessons Learned. ARe-Assessment of the IRGC Framework on Risk Governance. In Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Usingthe IRGC Framework,edited by O. Renn and K. Walker. International Risk Governance Council Bookseries 1. Berlin: Springer, 331-360.
78. Resnik, David. 2003. Is the Precautionary Principle Unscientific? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34: 329-344.
79. RIVM/MNP (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication. Report No. NWS-E-2003-163. Utrecht and Bilthoven, Netherlands: Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
80. Roe, David. 1988. Barking up the Right Tree: Recent Progress in Focusing the Toxics Issue. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 13: 275.
81. Rosa, Eugene A. 2008. White, Black, and Grey: Critical Dialogue with the IRGC's Framework for Risk Governance. In The IRGC Risk Governance Framework: Concepts and Practice,edited by O. Renn and K. Walker. Heidelberg: Springer, 112-165.
82. Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1994. Consensus versus Incentives: A Skeptical Look at Regulatory Negotiation. Duke Law Journal 43 (6): 1206-1220.
83. RPA/BRE (Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd. and BRE Environment). 2003. The Impact of the New Chemicals Policy on Health and the Environment. Final Report to the EU Commission. London: RPA/BRE.
84. Sand, Peter. 2000. Precautionary Principle: AEuropean Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6:3, 445-458.
85. Sandin, Per, Martin Peterson, Sven Ove Hansson, Christina Ruden, and Andre Juthe.2002. Five Charges against the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Risk Research 5 (4): 287-299.
86. Sieferle, Rolf P. 1985. Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart.Munich: Beck.
87. Simon, Herbert A. 1983. Reason in Human Affair. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
88. Skinner, David C. 1999. Introduction to Decision Analysis. 2nd ed. London: Probabilistic Publishers.
89. Stirling, Andrew. 1998. Risk at a Turning Point? Journal of Risk Research 1 (2): 97-109.
90. Stirling, Andrew. 1999. On "Science" and "Precaution" in the Management of Technological Risk. Vol. 1, Synthesis Study. Report to the EU Forward Studies Unit by European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO). EUR19056 EN. Seville: IPTS. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur19056 IIen.pdf (accessed May 31, 2010).
91. Stirling, Andrew. 2003. Risk, Uncertainty, and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences. In Negotiating Change,edited by F. Berkhout, M. Leach, and I. Scoones. London: Edward Elgar, 33-76.
92. Stirling, Andrew, Ortwin Renn, and Patrick van Zwanenberg. 2006. Framework for the Precautionary Governance of Food Safety: Integrating Science and Participation in the Social Appraisal of Risk. In Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects,edited by E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg. London: Edward Elgar, 284-315.
93. Stone, Christopher. 2001. Is There aPrecautionary Principle? Environmental Law Reporter 31: 10790.
94. Sunstein, Cass. 2005. Laws of Fear. Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Trouwborst, Arie. 2002. Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law. The Hague: Kluwer.
96. van Asselt, Marjolein B. A. 2000. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
97. van Zwanenberg, Patrick, and Andrew Stirling. 2004. Risk and Precaution in the U.S. and Europe. Yearbook of European Environmental Law 3: 43-57.
98. Vlek, Charles A. 1996. AMulti-Level, Multi-Stage and Multi-Attribute Perspective on Risk Assessment, Decision-Making, and Risk Control. Risk, Decision, and Policy 1: 1, 9-31.
99. von Winterfeldt, Detlof, and Ward Edwards. 1984. Patterns of Conflict about Risk Debates. Risk Analysis 4: 55-68.
100. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1988. Searching for Safety.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
101. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1990. No Risk Is the Highest Risk of All. In Readings in Risk,edited by T. S. Glickman, and M. Gough. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press, 120-127.
102. Williams, E. Spencer, Julie Panko, and Dennis J. Paustenbach. 2009. The European Union's REACH Regulation: A Review of Its History and Requirements. Critical Review in Toxicology 39 (7): 553-575.
103. WWF/EEB (World Wildlife Fund European Toxics Programme/European Environmental Bureau). 2003. A New Chemicals Policy in Europe. New Opportunities for Industry. Discussion paper. London: WWF/EEB.