June 2013
The Goldilocks Strategy may be the most appropriate when striving for a balanced and deliberate approach to precaution.
(Photos from Shutterstock.)
Abstract growing population, the case studies importance of safety and give credit
center on agricultural issues such as to the general concept that sparked
After a research-based analy- chemical use and genetically modi- the PP, but they indicate it has
sis and peer-reviewed process, the fied foods. They use a quote to il- become unworkable and counterpro-
authors of this CAST Issue Paper luminate their Catch-22 concern: “A ductive. A passage in the conclusion
make it clear: “The precautionary ban on genetic engineering of food illustrates this: “As with many things
principle may well be the most in- is literally dangerous to people who in life, the Goldilocks strategy may
novative, pervasive, and significant have a great deal to gain from genetic be most appropriate—not too little
new concept in environmental policy modification. The precautionary precaution, not too much, but just
over the past quarter century. It may principle forbids genetic modification the right amount is needed. If the PP
also be the most reckless, arbitrary, of food because it gives rise to risk, helps us to more consciously strive
and ill-advised.” Using data, specific but the precautionary principle also for such a deliberate and balanced
examples, and case studies, the task forbids forbidding of genetic engi- approach to precaution, that might be
force members conclude with allu- neering of food because forbidding its most positive legacy.”
sions to a literary paradox, a child’s genetic engineering of food gives rise The PP has played an important
fairy tale, and a futuristic axiom to to risk” (Sunstein 2006b). part in bringing attention to appropri-
make their points. The authors give examples of ate risk management. If it is applied
The paper first looks at the his- the PP’s failure to offer a credible in its more stringent formulations,
tory of the precautionary principle and reasoned framework for the ap- however, the PP will suppress in-
(PP) and then examines problems plication of risk management. They novation, to the detriment of both
of ambiguity, arbitrary application, describe inconsistencies and suggest the economy and human health. For
and bias against new technologies. that the PP will be increasingly con- example, a precautionary approach
Because the publication is espe- troversial, marginalized, and ignored to managing the risks associated with
cially focused on the need to feed a in the future. They acknowledge the food irradiation sends a message
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Grant No.
2010-38902-20899. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of USDA–NIFA, any other USDA agency, or the USDA.
CAST Issue Paper 52 Task Force Members
Environment, Washington State Leen Hordijk, Joint Research Cen-
Authors
University, Richland tre, European Commission, Brus-
sels, Belgium (retired)
Gary Marchant (Chair), Sandra Robert L. Griffin, Plant Epidemiol-
Day O’Connor College of Law, Ari- ogy and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Andrew LaVigne, American Seed
zona State University, Tempe U.S. Department of Agriculture, Trade Association, Alexandria,
Raleigh, North Carolina Virginia
Linda Abbott, Office of Risk As-
sessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, Reviewers CAST Liaison
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. Richard Crowder, Department of Thomas P. Redick, Global Envi-
Allan Felsot, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, ronmental Ethics Counsel, Clayton,
Entomology and School of the Virginia Tech, Blacksburg Missouri
that the technology is more danger- ture risks as well as provide impor- of new technologies and other driv-
ous than the benefits. This assumption tant benefits. It is a general (although ers of productivity growth in food
that acting to protect cannot result in not universal) observation that new and agriculture, food production will
damage has led to a reluctance to use technologies tend to be safer than the not keep up with global food de-
a technology that could actually be a older technologies they replace (Huber mand expansion that is being driven
great benefit to food safety. 1983). Thus insufficient precaution by income and population growth.
In many respects, the PP does would allow unacceptable existing and The global population is projected
more harm than good. Of course, new risks to occur, whereas excessive to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Global
commonsense safety practices are precaution is likely to make us less food demand is projected to double
necessary, and these findings do not safe and prosperous by restricting ben- in that same time period, which will
advocate reckless abandon. But the eficial new technologies. Finding the require significant increases in agri-
future involves a mission to feed “a delicate balance between these unde- cultural productivity in all regions of
population of 9.1 billion by 2050.” sirable outcomes from too little or too the world (FAO 2009; Global Harvest
The PP has failed as an overall risk much precaution is the goal of effec- Initiative 2012). New technologies, in
management strategy, and it is time to tive risk management. combination with economic, social,
move past it. Perhaps no risks—real or poten- and political advances, will be critical
tial—have created more concern, to meeting this growing food demand.
Introduction debate, and controversy than those In this highly polarized and con-
relating to food. Food is obviously a tested field of managing the risks of
Managing risks has become a cen- basic requirement for human survival. food, the concept known as the “pre-
tral focus of modern society. Indeed, In recent years, food has also become cautionary principle” (PP) emerged
the term “risk society” is often used a central focus of risk management. some 20+ years ago. Originating pri-
to describe modern life (Beck 1992). Highly publicized incidents of deaths marily in Europe, the PP has encoun-
Successful management of risk or illnesses resulting from contaminat- tered a much more skeptical reception
presents difficult challenges and re- ed foods in North America, Europe, in the United States and elsewhere,
quires careful balance. On one hand, and China have increased public sen- although it has its supporters even in
as our society becomes wealthier, sitivity about food safety. New tech- those areas. These different national
healthier, and longer-lived, we are less nologies applied to food, such as food perspectives on the PP are causing
tolerant to risks that could prematurely irradiation, genetic modification, and enormous disruptions in internation-
shorten or diminish the enjoyment of nanotechnology, have resulted in new al trade and markets at this time by
our new prosperity. The development disputes about food safety. Trends producing inconsistent regulations on
of powerful new technologies that toward organic, “natural,” and even food technologies such as genetically
have the potential to create new and, unpasteurized food products evince modified crops, antimicrobial treat-
in some cases, potentially irreversible not only social and philosophical con- ments in processing, chemical feed
risks further enhances the need to bet- cerns but also worries of food safety additives in meat, and pesticides that
ter manage risks. On the other hand, and new food technologies by vocal are resulting in unjustified and harmful
overly restrictive risk management segments of the populations of devel- trade restrictions. Almost every new
will suppress innovation and impede oped nations. agricultural and food technology be-
new technologies that may lessen fu- At the same time, without adoption ing developed for the future is likely
The PP’s call for greater precau- der both Republican and Democratic law does not sanction GM food trade restrictions
based on the PP. Because these nations are not parties
tion is premised on the history of pre- administrations. Likewise, the PP has to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, they are also
viously suspected hazards that were made only minor progress in being not subject to the precautionary approach to trade in
GM products imposed on parties under that protocol.
not regulated until extensive harm adopted at the state and local levels. 2 The European Parliament has recently advocated
to human health and the environ- The World Trade Organization has more restrictive policies on nanotechnology in prod-
ment had been inflicted (Harremoës rejected the EU’s attempted reliance ucts such as food and cosmetics based on the PP.
alize” it through adoption of criteria EU Justifying subsidization of coal extraction None given (European Union 2001)
or guidance—other than some initial Zambia Rejection of U.S. food aid during famine U.S. corn may contain genetically
steps by the EU Commission with modified kernels (Bohannon 2002)
The mission of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information
regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private sector, and the public. CAST is a nonprofit organization
composed of scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board is composed of representatives
of the scientific societies, commercial companies, nonprofit or trade organizations, and a Board of Directors. CAST was established in 1972 as a result of a
meeting sponsored in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. ISSN 1070-0021
Additional copies of this Issue Paper are available from CAST. Carol Gostele, Managing Scientific Editor, http://www.cast-science.org.
Citation: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2013. Impact of the Precautionary Principle on Feeding Current and Future Generations.
Issue Paper 52. CAST, Ames, Iowa.