BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services.
From:
Peter Edwards <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:22:40 -0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines) 
> Taken in this strong form, the precautionary principle
should be rejected, not because it leads in bad directions, but because it
leads in no direction at all. 
Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1003-1058.

So is that not just one person's opinion?  And does that opinion override 'legal systems all over the world'? ('The precautionary principle has been highly influential in legal systems all over the world.')

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2