>However, I think you may have confused risk assessment with risk mitigation.  The precautionary principle would be an example of risk mitigation.

Point taken, but it seems to me that they are parts of the same process; if a risk assessment suggests that there may be an unacceptable risk then there are four choices:
1. Just do it - to hell with the consequences, they might not happen anyway;
2. Do it differently;
3. Don't do it at all;
4. Stop doing it while you evaluate the risk  further, i.e. the precautionary principle.

We should not forget that the EU ban is temporary and therefore simply follows the, I believe, eminently sensible Option 4.

>The problem with the precautionary principle is that it ignores the economic reality that there is a direct correlation between risk and reward.  When risk is reduced, the potential reward is also reduced.  The precautionary principle stifles and discourages activity that would otherwise have the potential to be productive.

On the contrary, it evaluates whether the reward justifies the risk; this causes dissention because we all have different attitudes to risk - ask your financial adviser.  If you are concerned that something might present an unacceptable risk of disastrous consequences would it not be irresponsible not to be cautious?

>Under the precautionary principle, you should not keep bees because you might get stung.  Now only are stings painful, you might be allergic and die.  The reality is, some of us believe the potential rewards of beekeeping outweigh the risks of being stung or having allergic reactions.

Not so.  It allows time to think about the risks, decide whether they are worth taking and, if they are, what might be done to mitigate their impact.  In your scenario the risks have already been assessed - we have the statistics for allergic reactions and deaths; with neonicotinoids there is perhaps not yet enough agreed evidence to make a final judgement, but there is an increasing amount that is more than sufficient to worry most of us.  One might have thought that those in the US, where CCD appears to be a major problem, might just be a little more cautious.

>The precautionary principle attracts beta personality fools, while some folks with a little wisdom gladly keep bees.

Rather insulting.  I would put that the other way around: the precautionary principle attracts those with the wisdom to stop and give time for thought, whilst many fools rush into beekeeping only to regret it later.  We have a saying: 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread'.

From this side of the pond there appears to be a fundamental difference in our approach to risk.  I will avoid the politics, but prefer the European approach - although I have to say that I would wish to disassociate myself from the actions of the Blair administration.

Best wishes
 
Peter
52°14'44.44"N, 1°50'35"W


             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html