The problem with the precautionary principle is that when taken to it's
logical conclusion, it yields absurd results.

There is nothing logical about taking anything to the point of absurdity. 
The so called precautionary principle is only of value in as much as it
prevents undesirable outcomes.  This may in practice result in the delay of
desirable outcomes, but this would be considered a price well worth paying
in many cases, say for example in the case of a pesticide that could kill as
many or more beneficial organisms as it does pests.  The question is always
how much can what you don’t know hurt you, or as is often the case, hurt
someone else.  If the potential for good seems great enough then perhaps
there could be government or NGO grant money available to assist in the
scientific process of establishing the safety parameters of what might under
some circumstances be a harmful product.  Otherwise it seems logical that
the company that creates the product and would stand to profit from it
should pay for the trials and studies that result in clear understanding of
what effects it has and how it should be used.  
   As Randy says, the process is always ongoing.  You can never be certain
of anticipating everything.  So the question becomes where do you set the
limits of expectation.  What is the minimum that should be expected in the
way of understanding the effects of a chemical before it is allowed to be
released into the environment?  A lot depends on what assumptions are being
made to begin with.  Some think that the world is a better place because of
the miracle of modern pesticides which allow for phenomenal increases in
agricultural productivity.  Others start with the assumption that this has
only put us on a path of ever increasing dependence on crops that are
dependent on chemical, and now genetic, engineering for their survival while
introducing all manner of harmful chemicals into the environment.  Both
points of view have been co-opted by the profit motive to some extent so
forget about claiming higher ground on that basis.  But it is fair to ask
what effect the profit motive might be expected to have on Bayer’s approach
to getting to the scientific truth of the matter, no matter what.  It is
also sensible and fair to ask what if any profit motive people who oppose
the use of pesticides might have at any point in the game.  
     A lot of complex legal issues also come into play.  Does the fact that
the government approved the use of the product let the company that produced
it off the hook liability wise?  If so then a company such as Bayer might
only be interested in getting to that point and no further.  If not, then
for Bayer it might be more a matter of weighing the potential for loss due
to liability and the cost of doing research against how much money could be
made before you have to recon with the liability.  This is not just an
intellectual exercise.  This is real world, corporate decision making stuff.
And we are talking about a publicly traded corporation here, with a board of
directors, responsible to shareholders. 
   Now Randy says that Bayer has been open and cooperative, and that the
government and our representatives have approved the use of imidacloprid. As
far as openness and cooperation go, I get a little different picture from
Stan Sandler, but maybe that is just an anomaly.   And forgive me for
pointing out that under the Bush administration, not only were virtually all
government agencies restructured to serve a highly pro-corporate political
agenda, but science was also redefined to meet those same goals.  So no I
don’t have as much confidence as I would like to have that our government
was on top of it all the way here.
   Finally, I think it is fair to ask what decibel level of complaint and
alarm would be appropriate or necessary to get the wholehearted cooperation
of a chemical company like Bayer.  If Paul Cherubini was leading the charge
on this how much do you think we would get from Bayer?  I mean no offense,
Paul, but there is a role for everyone here, even the alarmists and their
conspiracy theories and their precautionary principle.

Steve Noble     

             ***********************************************
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