Since the 1960s the environmental crisis has become worryingly apparent -ecosystems have been steadily degrading, resources are running out, people are falling ill and, as the final straw, climate change arrives-. Since then, measures have gradually been taken, marking an evolution from a policy of correction to a policy of prevention. However, the precautionary principle differs from the principle of prevention, since the latter is based on the idea that risk can be known in advance and that measures can be taken without having to wait for full scientific certainty, whereas the precautionary principle implies that risk cannot be known in advance because the medium- and long-term effects of an action cannot be materially known. The precautionary principle was born in Germany in the early 1970s, when society became aware that the industry which had provided prosperity also brought negative consequences such as forest die-off, health problems among nearby populations and pollution of the waters of the Rhine. This led to citizen mobilisation and to the passing of the “Air Quality Protection Act” in 1974. In 1987, the Brundtland Report was created at a global level – a social and economic report prepared for the UN – in which the term “sustainable development” was used explicitly for the first time. Its aim is not to consume more than can be renewed, and it gives a prominent role to human beings, who are, on the one hand, the ones who cause ecological catastrophes and, on the other, the victims of the damage done to the environment. However, it was the Rio de Janeiro Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) that, in its Principle 15, popularised this guideline worldwide at a legal level.
“This principle, which is addressed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, refers to a management approach whereby, if a policy or action could cause harm to people or the environment, and there were no scientific consensus on the matter, the policy or action in question should be abandoned. This situation must be reviewed as new scientific information becomes available”. Source: EUR-Lex. Online publication service for European Union legislative texts. Unfortunately, this is not always applied. Technology, which develops exponentially, is implemented in society without any guarantee of safety in its use; chemical compounds are added daily on the basis of short-term assessments and enter our homes without any restriction whatsoever; planned obsolescence forces us to buy, throw away and buy again; and low-cost products are generated because of the unfair competition of the free market. The fact that a product is on the market does not certify that it is harmless. This is why, faced with the threat of sufficiently serious harm to health -from chemical pollutants, genetically modified organisms, electromagnetic fields, mobile telephony, tablet screens, pharmaceutical products, etc.- there is no need to wait until symptoms appear, which often happens years later, or to reach full scientific certainty before taking the necessary protective measures. Priority must be given to respect -for citizens, for future generations and for nature- and we must become aware and gradually change our habits. In future blog posts we will continue introducing reflections on this subject. Small reforms generate great changes. And let us not forget that we must hold the ruling classes to account.
