The Precautionary Principle was hammered out at the historic Wisconsin Wingspread conference in 1998 by scientists, researchers, and citizens. The principle is grounded in the simple belief that we should not wait to protect ourselves or the environment until we have absolute proof that certain products or activities can cause us harm.

To the contrary, the principle declares: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

Industries use scientific uncertainty as a way to avoid cleaning up their act. Companies often magnify the importance of uncertainty to persuade citizens, legislators, and regulators that they, too, should delay action. Think how much farther along we’d be at solving the climate change crisis if the energy industry hadn’t fought every proposed carbon dioxide regulation with the cry, “There’s not enough proof that CO2 causes global warming!”

At the same time, budget crunches and competing priorities mean that important studies that could document environmental impacts often are shunted aside. Ironically, the longer we wait to address a problem, the greater the costs become – to the environment, to our health, and to the economy.

The Precautionary Principle has four tenets.

1) We — consumers, governments, manufacturers — have a duty to respond to early warnings. We must act before harm occurs, not after the fact. We don’t wait for our child to get hit by a car to tell her to look both ways when crossing the street. People shouldn’t need to contract cancer or asthma to get access to safe ingredients, or for companies to remove products like Bisphenol-A from baby bottles or control the air pollution coming out of cars.

2) Consumers should not bear the “burden of proof.” Under our current system, you and I and, essentially, our environment, have to prove that we’ve been harmed before the government is willing to intercede on our behalf and before industry is willing to change the way it does business.  Under the Precautionary Principle, manufacturers would need to demonstrate safety.

Can this approach work for industry? It’s taken hold in Europe. Starting with chemicals already known to cause cancer and birth defects, cosmetics companies are being required to reformulate their products to contain safer ingredients. Here in the U.S., the nonprofit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is urging manufacturers to follow suit. Putting the burden of proof not on you and me but on producers should become the law of the land.

3) It is our responsibility to explore alternatives to toxic substances and activities. What good does it do us to know, or even suspect, something will harm us if we don’t choose a safer alternative? Increasingly, we have real choice in the marketplace: more organic foods, more fuel-efficient vehicles, more recycled products, less plastic, less stuff overall. When we opt for the most environmenally friendly products and services available, we provide powerful incentives to manufacturers to shape up..

4) The Precautionary Principle requires democratic participation. Companies should not be allowed to decide our fate in their corporate board rooms. It’s up to us to provide guidance as well as accountability by participating in public hearings, writing letters to companies, voting on ballot initiatives, electing responsive public officials, and, of course, using our Big Green Purse in the marketplace to favor products that offer us the healthiest, safest options.

In fact, often, our first line of defense is the way we spend our money — or choose to keep it in our pockets. If you’re stymied by all the confusing green labels, start with products that meet independent standards for health and environmental sustainability. For suggestions of products to avoid and choices to make, read this month’s Green Mom’s Carnival on the relationship between the environment and cancer, hosted by Tiffany at NatureMoms.

(photo credit)

The post We Don’t Wait for Our Child to Get Hit By a Car Before We Tell Her to Look Both Ways When Crossing the Street appeared first on Big Green Purse.

I admit this acknowledging that climate change is probably the pre-eminent environmental issue of our time. Melting ice caps, catastrophic hurricanes and droughts, rising sea level, and changing weather patterns are altering the very nature of Nature. By and large, scientists agree that the window of opportunity to reverse the atmospheric build-up of hothouse gases like carbon dioxide is rapidly closing. Predictions for an overheated future grow more dire every day.

Still, moment to moment, our lives are affected in a more immediate way by other environmental threats that have been completely ignored by the Bush Administration. Will the next president have the foresight to tackle them sooner rather than later?

Consider our exposure to toxic substances. From the water we drink to the soaps and lotions we slather on our skin to the toys that entertain our children, we face a daily assault from chemicals that wreak havoc on our reproductive system, cause cancer, and increase our likelihood of contracting diseases like asthma, blood poisoning and heart failure. Right now, the cosmetics industry regulates itself, which is why many manufacturers of lipstick, make-up, shampoo and perfume continue to include phthalates, parabens, synthetic fragrances, and unnecessary antibacterial agents in their formulations. What should the next presidential administration do? Making the “precautionary principle” a keystone of its approach to environmental health and safety would be a first important step in the right direction. At a minimum, the new president should require the Food and Drug Administration to restrict the use in personal care products of any ingredients that have not proven to be safe.

Protecting wilderness is another area of critical concern. Both candidates Barack Obama and John McCain would safeguard the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. But what about other sensitive ecosystems? Any serious presidential environmental agenda should embrace proposals like creation of the Yellowstone-to-Yukon wilderness corridor and the addition of several million acres to the national wilderness system.

Now take a minute to consider the migratory songbirds in your backyard, along with the tropical plants that provide the basis for 25% of all disease-fighting pharmaceuticals. I’ve just returned from a trip to the Amazon basin, and I can tell you, the rainforest is still being burned down to make way for cattle ranches that supply fast food restaurants and soybean plantations that power ethanol distilleries. It should be at the top of the next administration’s agenda to lead a global campaign to ramp up protection for rainforests and biological diversity worldwide.

As for what you eat, despite the demand for healthier food, only 3.5% of fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy products are organic. One way the next president can accelerate the transition to safer food production is by using the power of the government’s annual Farm Bill to switch federal subsidies away from conventional, pesticide-using growers and towards the thousands of farmers who want to raise livestock and produce without insecticides, herbicides, antibiotics and synthetic hormones but who can’t afford to do so on their own.

Finally, consider the confusion you face each time you want to use your purse to purchase the safest, most environmentally friendly product available. The challenge of distinguishing “green” from “greenwash” impedes environmental progress, as it discourages consumers  from deploying their shopping carts as green “carrots” to encourage industry to adopt more eco-friendly practices. The next administration could revolutionize green manufacturing – and make tremendous strides in energy conservation, pollution control, and environmental health and safety – by advocating for certified sustainable standards that make eco-friendly choices clear for shopper and manufacturer alike.

All these actions are within reach. The question is, will the next president aspire to such ambitious goals?

Clearly, it will depend on who is elected. If you examine the voting records of both Barack Obama and John McCain, Obama emerges as the most likely environmental champion hands down.

According to the watchdog League of Conservation Voters, McCain’s lifetime LCV record is 24% compared to Obama’s 86% and running mate Joe Biden’s 83%.  Says LCV of John McCain, “he repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.  In his 25 years in Congress, McCain has faced 294 crucial environmental votes and he voted in favor of the environment only 71 times.”

Still, it is unlikely that even the Obama administration will tackle many of these issues without active encouragement from concerned Americans. As the old saying goes, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Right now, the only wheel squeaking is the one advocating to control climate change. Unless it’s a unicycle, most vehicles have more than one wheel. To keep moving forward, the other wheels need a little grease, too.

The post Will the next president do more for the environment than focus on energy? appeared first on Big Green Purse.