While facing existential threats, what do precautionary actions look like?

Here’s a pristine example of acting without caution: A few years ago, while my neighbor and I talked near my strawberry patch, a swarm of ants suddenly appeared. “I have a can of poison on my porch!” my friend cried.

            “Okay,” I said, oblivious to potential consequences, focused on the quick solution.

            In a blink, the ant swarm died.

            The next time I looked, the strawberry patch was gone, too.

When no policy limits manufacturers’ use of toxic chemicals

For eons, physicians have sworn to first, do no harm. Elders have taught youth to not unto others as you would not have them do unto you; to look both ways before crossing a street.

            Then, in the 19^th century, mass production became possible. Manufacturers threw caution to the wind. We got trains, denim jeans, cast iron pots and treadle sewing machines. Electricity became available around 1900; and factory-made refrigerators, washing machines, radios, TVs, telephones and cars became common. We got pesticides, herbicides, GMOs, pharmaceuticals, PFAs and Teflon-coated pans—and distribution systems for perishable food.

To people who had survived only by what they could hunt, harvest and build themselves, machine-produced goods made life much easier.

            But industrialization also brought problems.

            Starting in the 1970s, John Raffensperger, a pediatric surgeon, cared for hundreds of children with cancer or birth defects. These children lived near industrial sites, and Dr. Raffensperger was convinced that their cancers and birth defects came from exposure to toxic chemicals—but he couldn’t prove it. Without proof of harm, the chemicals proliferated. So did childhood diseases.

By the mid-1990s, scientific research showed how exposure to chemicals disrupted the endocrine system and other bodily functions. Theo Colburn published Our Stolen Future: Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence and survival? Reports emerged about Love Canal, a New York town built over an industrial dump. The dump’s rotting containers (holding dioxin) leached into the backyards and basements of 100 homes and a public school. (Dioxin comes from burning hazardous waste; from producing paper, iron and steel; from burning chlorinated pesticides, solvents and polyvinyl chloride plastics.) The town’s children were born deaf, with cleft palates, extra teeth, slight retardation and eye defects.

Physicians, environmentalists and parents wanted to prevent the widespread suffering caused by chlorinated compounds.

 But internationally, no policy had limited manufacturers’ vast array of chemicals.

The Precautionary Principle

In 1998 Carolyn Raffensperger (Dr. Raffensperger’s daughter), an attorney and director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, co-convened a group of 26 scientists, breast cancer activists, farmers and attorneys. A representative from Greenpeace and a Republican sat side-by-side. Over a weekend, this group drafted the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. They identified four guidelines for environmental decision-making even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically:

1.     In the face of uncertainty, act preventatively.

2.     Shift the burden of proof to a product’s proponents—who must demonstrate that the product or service is safe and does not cause harm.

3.     Identify and choose the best environmental alternatives to harmful substances and actions.

4.     Engage the public and affected stakeholders in decision-making.

Acting preventively

When Carolyn Raffensperger’s husband was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer, his doctor considered enrolling Fred in a drug trial that would use thalidomide. The couple asked about the drug’s environmental impacts. What would Fred metabolize? What would he excrete? What would be the drug’s environmental fate? The oncologist had never considered these questions. Fred Kirschenmann decided not to use anything that could result in birth defects to frogs, deer, muskrats or others. (Twenty-four years later, he still lives.)

Not everyone considered the Precautionary Principle a wise guideline. Some people said, “If it was up to Carolyn Raffensperger, we would not have fire.” Others criticized the Precautionary Principle because few countries or municipalities have the resources or political will necessary to monitor or enforce corporate behavior.

Enacting the Precautionary Principle

But many communities and international jurisdictions adopted it:

·        In 2005, San Francisco enacted a purchasing ordinance that required the city to use safer alternatives when purchasing cleaning products and electronics.

·        The European Union formed a policy that requires chemical manufacturers to demonstrate that their products are safe. It gives governments immediate authority to regulate substances that show problems.  

·        The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants invoke the Precautionary Principle to govern genetically modified organisms and some toxic chemicals.

·        The Los Angeles Unified School District adopted the Precautionary Principle to limit pesticide use on school grounds.

·        California EPA required that potential polluters not add to the cumulative impacts of a community already pock-marked by environmental injustice.

·        In 2006, San Francisco banned the manufacture, distribution and sale of toys or items intended for children under the age of three that contain toxic chemicals called phthalates and bisphenol-A. When a group of retailers, manufacturers and chemical companies then sued the city, claiming that the ordinance would cause them irreparable harm (lost profits), the City amended the ordinance to ban only specifically-named chemicals. In 2007, California’s state legislature banned the manufacture, sale and distribution of toys made with bisphenol-A; and it limited phthalates in products intended for children under three.

·        In February, 2024, an international group of scientists called for governments to apply the Precautionary Principle to wireless technologies and protect children, adults and pregnant women from exposure to microwave radiation.

Nearly three decades after the Precautionary Principle’s release

Corporations continue to market hazardous products and services. Threats to public health and wildlife from manufacturing, operating and discarding pharmaceuticals, pesticides, lead paint, PFAs, plastics, our power grid, electronics, telecom cellular sites and data storage centers…have not decreased. Overshoot threatens life itself. Overshoot occurs when human demands on the planet (for energy, manufactured goods, motorized vehicles, industrially-processed food) exceed what natural ecosystems can regenerate and create waste faster than the Earth can absorb. Overshoot’s consequences include public health hazards, biodiversity loss, extreme weather events and democracy’s collapse.

When I asked Carolyn Raffensperger about the Precautionary Principle’s place in these times, she named several challenges. “First,” she said, “the Precautionary Principle works in a morally mature culture—in a society that acts with restraint as it regulates relationships between people, and between people and nature. Our culture’s regulations do not respect the natural world. Our allegiance to profits and technology makes acting with restraint difficult. It makes realizing how essential birds and bees are to us difficult.” (In Iowa, where Raffensperger lives, the land is covered with pig farms and corn. Less than three percent of native ecosystems remain.)

“Second,” Raffensperger continued, “some environmentalists think that because climate change threatens humanity’s survival, the Precautionary Principle is no longer relevant. They think we don’t have time to address a solution’s complex consequences. Any means justifies the ends. To decrease fossil fuel use, for example, they say we ‘must’ deploy wind turbines and solar facilities—and ignore the consequences for bats and birds and forests.

“The Precautionary Principle doesn’t stand for these actions. While facing planetary emergencies, we need to discuss our underlying ethics and our responsibility to future generations.”

Precautionary questions

What do Precautionary actions look like while we face existential threats?

            Perhaps a flood of Precautionary questions.            

            In 1980, Jerry Mander wrote “78 reasonable questions to ask about any technology.” For examples: “Does (this product or service) break the bond of renewal between humans and nature?”

“How much and what kind of waste does it generate?”

“Does it reduce, deaden or enhance human creativity?”

            Here are Precautionary questions for personal products and services:

·        Energy. How do solar PV systems impact ecosystems from cradle-to-grave? How do solar PVs increase fire hazards? If panels crack, will their PFAs and other chemicals leach into soil? Given that panels are hazardous waste, can we dispose of them safely at their end-of-life?

·        Transportation. Given the energy, extractions, water, hazardous working conditions (including child labor) and toxic emissions involved in manufacturing, is it more ecologically sound to buy a new vehicle, a used one, repair my current one—or get along without a car? How do you minimize an e-vehicle’s fire hazards? Since charging an EV reduces the nearby transformer’s lifespan 30 or 40 years to three years, would it help if users coordinated charging times? What can an EV battery do once it can no longer power a car?

·        Phones. Given the energy, extractions, water, hazardous working conditions (including child labor) and toxic emissions involved in manufacturing, operating and discarding mobile phones (and other computers), could you buy one with modular/replaceable parts? Do we keep a landline to maintain communication during power outages? What tools keep children from addictive screen-time?

·        Internet access. How do wired systems affect ecosystems? What about wireless systems? How do these systems impact public health? How does wireless access impact health? Can I turn a wireless system off while we sleep?

·        Food. Where was this food grown? Where was it processed? Were GMOs, pesticides or herbicides involved in growing it? Can I buy this food without plastic packaging? Does a local farmer grow it? Could I cook and/or grow it myself? Does this baby bottle have lead paint?  

·        Birth control. How/does the method impact users’ health? Offspring’s health? How does urinating its residues impact ecosystems? Does the method change users’ relationships? What are the alternatives? (Taking the Pill for two years before age 25 increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 85%.)

·        Clearing aphids from roses. Since hummingbird babies feed on aphids, what harm comes from leaving them on the plants?

·        Dental floss. Does it have PFAs?

Precautionary questions for manufacturers and municipalities:

·        Proposed mining sites or factories. How will their water use (including used water) impact farmers’ and community water? How will their use impact wildlife habitats? What particulates will they emit?

·        Proposed power plants. For whom will this facility provide power? What energy, extractions, water, concrete, international shipping does manufacturing this facility require? What fire hazards, radiation risks, toxic emissions will the facility carry? Who will monitor these risks? What’s our emergency plan if a battery storage system catches fire? If/when the system fails to provide power, what’s the backup? In the event of fire, what’s the evacuation plan? Is the facility’s waste hazardous? Who will pay to dispose its waste?

·        Data storage center. What entities will this storage center serve? From where will it get power and water? Will its electricity and water demands impact local businesses and households?

·        Telecom access networks. How/can we legally minimize our community’s risks from access networks’ radiation, fire hazards, failure at power outages, hacking, increased energy consumption?

·        E-vehicle charging stations. How can we minimize fire hazards? What new equipment (i.e. lead blankets) and budgetary increases do we need to extinguish EV fires? Since charging EVs reduces nearby transformers’ lifespan, should we budget for new transformers? How can we safely dispose of municipally-owned batteries?

·        How/could we teach ourselves and our children to limit our consumption? Could we limit our purchases to products that biodegrade?

Please add your questions to these lists! Mine don’t scratch the surface.

            I’m also sobered to realize that no individual or even municipality can adequately research safer alternatives to our current world’s harmful products and services. Most of us don’t learn about hazards from GMOs, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, telecom access networks, power systems, computers, TVs, electric vehicles…until after they’ve been purchased and deployed. Few laws and regulations protect us from their hazards.

Still, precautionary questions encourage minimizing harmful consequences. A few weeks after I gave my neighbor permission to spray that swarm of ants, I asked an old gardener what he’d have done. “Nothing,” he said. “When the sun shines, ants go back underground.”

Next time, may his caution be with me.

RESOURCES & OTHER NEWS

The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook, 1999 by Joel Tickner, Carolyn Raffensperger and Nancy Myers, 1999, for the Science and Environmental Health Network.

            How Mining Hurts Communities, by the Protect Thacker Pass Campaign, Feb., 2024.

            The Staggering Ecological Impacts of Computation and the Cloud, by Steven Gonzales Monserrate, MIT Press Reader, 2022. Illuminates some of the diverse environmental impacts of data storage.

            How to start a mutual aid network, by Aaron Fernando, Shareable, 2.22.24.

            “Equinox Balance Act: Addressing Unhealed-Pandemic-Telecom-Dependency,” by Patricia Burke, March 15, 2024.

Manville AM, Levitt BB, Lai HC. Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Vol. 11, 2024. A concerned citizen reports: Around Monterey Bay, CA, agencies are implanting and/or attaching RF devices to animals. 24/7 microwave antennas are also located at nesting or feeding sites. Agencies include the Packard-funded Monterey Bay Aquarium, UCSC, the Ventana Wildlife Society, and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Solar PVs

“How a Solar Revolution in Farming is Depleting World’s Groundwater,” by Fred Pearce, Yale, Feb. 27, 2024.

            San Diego County has reviewed an application from AES for a Minor Use Permit to construct up to 400 megawatt hours of battery storage on approximately 22.55 acres. AES has also proposed an 800-acre solar and battery facility in Santa Fe County, New Mexico. See what San Diego County officials require of AES in order to protect public and wildlife health…while Santa Fe County has no emergency plan.

Landlines and mobile phones

San Mateo County raises concerns over AT&T’s efforts to eliminate landlines.

            Norway's government has made a concerted push to ban smartphones and tablets from classrooms nationwide. This move reflects a broader effort in Norway to prioritize community well-being and address the effects of digitalization on children's development, including declining reading abilities.

            A French village has voted to ban scrolling in public.  

E-vehicles

Mercedes Benz ditches plan to sell only EVs by 2030.

            Why Car Dealers are Rejecting Second-Hand Electric Vehicle Trade-Ins, G. Edward Griffin’s Need to Know, March 1, 2024.

            Repeated fires at a GM EV plant have Detroit fire officials demanding changes, Detroit Free Press, March 1, 2024.