Search

The history of environmental decision-making in the United States is primarily one of antagonism, conflict, and litigation. Four sectors of American society are typically at odds over why and how to solve environmental problems—government regulators, businesses proponents, environmental advocates, and members of affected communities. Dissimilar worldviews are at the heart of most environmental disputes, and people in the four sectors tend to have diverse perspectives and philosophies that affect how they interpret and respond to environmental issues. To promote integrated, cost-effective decisions, the public health paradigm (prevention first, intervention second, treatment third), as embodied in the Precautionary Principle and the concept of Sustainable Development, should be mutually adopted as a joint framework for prioritizing solutions to pressing environmental problems. The core public health principle of prevention first is a simple yet powerful tenet that can help foster better environmental choices that are more effective, efficient, and equitable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although it is an ages old concept, the precautionary principle is only a few decades old as a formal expression of a philosophy guiding protection of the environment and of human health. The emergence of the precautionary principle in the European Community and its relatively slower acceptance in the United States reflects differences in underlying social, cultural, and legal approaches to environmental and public health protection. Unfortunately, this poorly defined principle in some of its manifestations can lead to a loss of the toxicological scientific base that is necessary for short-term and long-term protection of the environment and public health. Examples of problems caused by using the precautionary principle include trade barriers erected by the European Community, and the loss of the impetus to develop understanding of the toxicity of hazardous air pollutants due to precautionary aspects of the 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act amendments. There are other U.S.–European differences in the organization and funding of science that are threatening the legacy of Herbert Remmer which was built on close trans-Atlantic scientific cooperation to the benefit of all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]