Funding Sources & Finance

BeeCaution seminar on the role of the precautionary principle in chemicals regulation

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:16:56 +0000

full image

BeeCaution seminar on the role of the precautionary principle in chemicals regulation

On January 18th 2022, the precautionary principle in chemicals regulation was discussed in an online seminar with academics and stakeholders.

The seminar was organised by University of Bergen's BeeCaution project, which is a spin-off project of the H2020 RECIPES project. BeeCaution aims to build a Norwegian network of actionable knowledge for precaution by engaging a Nordic audience in RECIPES' discussions on precaution and innovation. The seminar gathered 47 participants with different backgrounds, including students, toxicologists, NGOs, legal scholars, and representatives from public scientific committees.

In the first half of the seminar, a presentation on the precautionary principle in the European chemicals regulation (REACH)’ was given by Christina Rudén, professor of toxicology and regulatory ecotoxicology at the University of Stockholm. Rudén criticised the lack of precaution in chemical regulations in the EU. She talked about what she termed the “Seven Sins” of the EU's chemical regulation, including: that most chemicals are insufficiently tested, that mixed exposures of chemicals are ignored, that there is a structural conflict of interest and lack of transparency in regulatory risk assessment of chemicals, and that the PP is very rarely used explicitly. Rudén also mentioned some possible improvements in the newly proposed Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability as a step in the right direction. This strategy indicates better management of endocrine disruptors and mixture risk and improved transparency. However it remains to be implemented, cross-cutting legislation is still missing, and the structural problems of conflict of interest remain unaddressed.

Prof. Ketil Hylland, toxicologist at the University of Oslo, was invited to comment on Rudén’s presentation. Hylland agreed on the need of a precautionary approach. He mentioned uncertainty around prenatal exposure to low doses of chemicals as an example. He further suggested that instead of focusing on calculating natures tolerance levels of chemicals in risk assessments, the main focus should start from the question whether the chemical is really needed (essential use). Regarding the PP, he found it strange that when looking up the PP in the EU, most of the focus is on the limitations of the principle.

After a short break, the seminar was open to comments from the audience. Topics discussed include:

The problem of ‘paralysis by analysis’
A better testing regime is needed, that is more science-based instead of volume based
The problems of regulatory silos
What counts as ‘essential use’ of chemicals should be discussed more
More interdisciplinary collaboration is needed, especially legal scholars and social scientists need to engage more in debates and research related to regulation of chemicals
The problematics of setting specific thresholds, and that the PP is applied retrospectively
There is a window of opportunity to engage with the implementation of the new chemical strategy
Other relevant cases mentioned: Norway’s GMO legislation and the EUs prolonged process of updating the so called "Bee Guidance" for pesticide assessments

A video of Rudén’s presentation will be made available at the webpage of UiB's BeeCaution project soon.

Organiser

University of Bergen

Contact

Prof. Jeroen van der Sluijs
Email: Jeroen.Sluijs@uib.no

Further Links

BeeCaution project

Themes

Endocrine disruptors, Environment, Governance, Health, Innovation, Precaution, Regulation, Science

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations

RECIPES Event

Event Date

18 January 2022

Location

Bergen, Norway

Language

English

Precaution for Responsible Innovation: New Options to Move Forward

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:32:52 +0000

full image

Precaution for Responsible Innovation: New Options to Move Forward

RECIPES Dissemination Conference

On May 11, the RECIPES project has held its dissemination conference “Precaution for Responsible Innovation: New Options to Move Forward”.

At the conference, the RECIPES project presented and discussed some of the ideas on how to improve the use of the precautionary principle that were developed in consultation with several stakeholders at various points during the project period (the RECIPES guidance). The conference brought together around 90 participants from a range of different actor groups including several of those who had participated in one or more of the RECIPES workshops. The conference was carried out in hybrid format, so the participants joined it onsite or online.

Several of the speakers and panellists stressed that the topicality of the precautionary principle has increased in the past, e.g., due to the increasing transgression of planetary boundaries. They considered the principle to be even more important in the future. They appreciated that the RECIPES guidance reconfirms the importance of the precautionary principle and reinstates its innovative potential, especially by stressing its dual role as a legal principle and safeguard and as a policy principle and compass. They identified the RECIPES guidance as a timely document.

It was emphasised that the use of the precautionary principle requires political discussions at all levels (local, regional, national, EU, global). These would need to open up complex issues to the wider public, involve the knowledge and perspectives of a wide diversity of actors, and deal with (uncertain) risks as well as (uncertain) benefits, and address questions such as “(uncertain) risks and potentially serious harm for whom?” and “(uncertain) benefits for whom?” and “what are sustainable and public-interest-oriented pathways out of interlinked multiple crises such as climate change and loss of biodiversity?”.

It was highlighted that recent reports by IPBES, IPCC and UNEP, CBD and WHO on biodiversity, climate change and environment, agree that solutions for these wicked challenges of a systemic nature, characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguities, can only be achieved by systemic, multidimensional, cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and participative approaches. The benefit of the precautionary principle would be that it enables solutions for (uncertain) risks in a systemic way that not simply shifts responsibility to the individual level.

For more information, you can find the programme of the conference HERE and the presentations held at the conference below. Moreover, you can find statements by some panellists below (the panellists were not asked to provide a written statement but some have made it available to the RECIPES team).

Welcome note by the coordinator: Guidance for the future use of the precautionary principle, Ellen Vos & Kristel de Smedt (University of Maastricht)
The RECIPES engagement approach: Reaching out to society and policy for developing the guidance - Aske Palsberg & Niels-Kristian Tjelle Holm (The Danish Board of Technology Foundation)
Discussion input no. 1 from the RECIPES guidance: The precautionary principle works best in a double role: safeguard and compass - Tijs Sikma (Rathenau Institute)
Discussion input no. 2 from the RECIPES guidance: The precautionary principle is a knowledge and participation issue - Jeroen van der Sluijs (University of Bergen) and Pia-Johanna Schweizer (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies)
Intervention by Christine von Weizsäcker
Intervention by Carolina Vigo

In the videos below Christine von Weizsächer and Nina Holland, RECIPES Advisory Board Members, offer their perspectives on the RECIPES project, during the final conference held in May 2022:

Organiser

Dialogik, DBT, IASS, UM, Ecologic Institute with support from KNAW, UiB, K&I and ARC

Contact

Dr. Marion Dreyer, Dialogik

Email: dreyer@dialogik-expert.de

Themes

Artificial Intelligence in healthcare, CRISPR-based gene drives, Endocrine disruptors, Environment, Financial risks and urban waste planning, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s), Glyphosate, Health, Innovation, Microplastics, Nanotechnologies, Neonicotinoid insecticides, Precaution, Regulation, Safety, Science

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations, Citizens & Civil Society Organisations

RECIPES Event

Event Date

11 May 2022

Location

Hybrid Format: Online & Brussels

Language

English

Guidance for future application of the precautionary principle

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 13:58:08 +0000

full image

Guidance for future application of the precautionary principle

As a last step of the project, the RECIPES team has developed a Guidance for application of the precautionary principle in the EU. The guidance advises on how to deal responsibly with uncertain risks in the development and implementation of technology in the EU. Target groups of this guidance are primarily EU policy makers, EU agencies, and EU policy support organisations and bodies that are concerned with risk regulation or the governance of science, technology and innovation.

The main documents are:

Guidance for application of the precautionary principle in the EU
The 3rd policy brief
The sector-specific briefs that illustrate the application of the guidance to chemicals and gene technology

Themes of the guidance

The guidance for future application of the precautionary principle covers the three meta-themes identified in the needs assessment:

Participation

Organisation and production of expertise

Extent of application

Development process

After having identified the needs of stakeholders for guidance to support the future application of the precautionary principle in a co-creative process, the RECIPES team developed guidance for the three meta-themes identified.

Stakeholder phase 1: Consultation workshops

During June 2021, the RECIPES team consulted twice with stakeholders: During the first consultation workshop, it gathered feedback on the first ideas developed for the three meta-themes. During the second consultation workshop, the RECIPES team asked stakeholders to perform a SWOT analysis for the first draft of the guidance.

Stakeholder phase 2: Multi-criteria assessment

During September 2021, the RECIPES team scrutinized an elaborated version of the guidance via a modified participatory multi-criteria assessment. The purpose was to ensure that the guidance will be of relevance and acceptable for different stakeholders. To this end, the RECIPES team facilitated an open-ended focus group discussion based on a range of criteria, including accessibility and concreteness. The RECIPES methodology developed for planning and implementation of the multi-criteria assessment is available HERE.

Stakeholder phase 3: Policy workshop

In February 2022, the RECIPES team discussed a pre-final version of the guidance at the European Policy Workshop: “Precaution for responsible innovation” with policy makers and policy advisors to further improve its clarity, plausibility and policy relevance.

Authors

Please refer to the individual reports for the list of authors.

ISBN/ISSN/DOI

N/A

Themes

Environment, Innovation, Precaution, Regulation, Safety, Science

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations, Citizens & Civil Society Organisations

Guidelines & Recommendations

Policy Brief

Report

Publishing Date

20 July 2022

Language

English

RECIPES' co-creative process and needs assessment results

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 08:22:33 +0000

full image

RECIPES' co-creative process and needs assessment results

From May 2020 to January 2021, the RECIPES team has engaged in a co-creative process to identify needs and ideas for guidelines and tools to support the future application of the precautionary principle. Needs expressed by stakeholders during this process relate to participation, to the organisation of expertise and to the extent of application of the precautionary principle.

Stakeholder workshops series

The RECIPES team had planned to engage stakeholders during a series of workshops to discuss scenarios for future application of the precautionary principle and to identify needs for new tools and guidelines for implementing the precautionary principle. After the co-creation process was disrupted by the restrictions for travel and in-person meetings due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the RECIPES team adjusted its methodology to ensure co-creation via online formats, including webinars and digital platforms.

During the first phase of the co-creative process, stakeholders were asked to assess three scenarios, one in which current practice continues, one in which precaution is strengthened, and on which emphasises innovation. Based on the feedback provided, the RECIPES team developed a vision for the future implementation of the precautionary principle in the EU. The vision may be summarised as follows

Implementation of the precautionary principle shall ensure a high level of proactive protection of human health and the environment, and stimulate socially desired innovation.

Needs mapping

Based on the vision for future implementation of the precautionary principle, the RECIPES team engaged in a co-creative process with stakeholders to identify and map needs. These needs can be clustered in:

Participation: Need for transparency of the process, clarity about the host and the procedure, improved quality of formats for engagement, early involvement, etc.
Organisation of expertise: Need to decrease influence of political interests, for a clear definition of scientific evidence, for institutionalised standards, etc.
Extent of application: Need to formulate the precautionary principle in a way that encourages sustainable competition and sustainable economy, to strengthen application for technologies which are already on the marked, etc.

A description of the co-creative process and the results of the needs assessment can be found in the report which is available HERE.

The main findings of the needs assessment process have been compiled in a policy brief.

Authors

Please refer to the individual reports for the list of authors.

ISBN/ISSN/DOI

N/A

Themes

Innovation, Precaution

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance

Policy Brief

Report

Publishing Date

29 October 2021

Language

English

Analysis of the case studies

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:02:10 +0000

full image

Analysis of the case studies

To fully understand the complexities and the controversies around the application of the precautionary principle, the RECIPES project conducted nine case studies. The aim was to understand and explain the potential differences in the application depending on the topic and the context. A comparison across the different cases indicates that the application of the precautionary principle had positive effects on innovation and contributed to more responsible pathways.

Back in 2019, the RECIPES project finalised the selection of the case studies and developed a conceptual framework focusing on the role of the case studies within the project as well as a methodological framework for the individual case study analyses.

An overview of all case studies can be found HERE, while the conceptual framework and the methodological framework can be found HERE.

Gender Analysis

The RECIPES project is committed to take gender aspects into account when conducting its research. To this end, a note has been developed to inform case study authors on how to reflect gender considerations in the different research steps. The note is available HERE.

Case Studies documentation

Over the course of 2020, the case study authors have engaged in research and drafting. They prepared a report, a factsheet and a short video for all nine cases:

Case study 1: CRISPR-based gene drives
Case study 2: Genetically modified organisms
Case study 3: Endocrine disruptors
Case study 4: Neonicotinoid insecticides
Case study 5: Nanotechnologies
Case study 6: Glyphosate
Case study 7: Financial risks in water infrastructure planning
Case study 8: The use of artificial intelligence in healthcare
Case study 9: Microplastics in food products and cosmetics

All case studies have been bundled in one report, which can be found HERE.

As a last step, the RECIPES project compared the different case studies and identified complexities and controversies surrounding the application of the precautionary principle in the different cases. The report, which combines the inter-case study analysis and the identification of cross-cutting issues is available HERE.

Lessons learnt

When comparing the nine case studies, the RECIPES project identified several lessons learnt in regard to the relevance of the precautionary principle, procedures for its application and effects of the precautionary principle. Lessons learnt include the following:

Relevance: It is necessary to take a broader array of potential consequences into account when developing a new technology and to openly communicate the limitations of scientific knowledge as well as of technological solutions.
Procedures: Although deliberative methods and procedures have proven valuable for public involvement, more guidance is needed on the scope of procedures and methods to acknowledge differences e.g. in the evidence base.
Effects: While the case studies indicated that there is a need to stimulate pathways for innovation, more empirical research is required to test the claim that the precautionary principle hinders innovations in the European Union.

The RECIPES project also compared the results of the case study analysis with the results of the stocktake of the precautionary principle conducted in 2019. The results of the stocktake can be found HERE. The comparison of results can be found HERE.

Authors

Please refer to the individual reports for the list of authors.

ISBN/ISSN/DOI

N/A

Themes

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance

Case Study

Report

Publishing Date

11 March 2021

Language

English

Case Study 2: Genetically Modified organisms (GMOs)

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 19:11:09 +0000

full image

Case Study 2: Genetically Modified organisms (GMOs)

About the case

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are the product of advanced biotechnology and are non-naturally occurring plants, animals and microorganisms whose genomes have been altered intentionally and artificially.

The modification is typically achieved by inserting a gene from another, often unrelated, organism into the DNA of the host, with the intention of introducing a new trait. Despite their numerous applications, commonly GMOs are most frequently associated with crops and foods.

The Case Study factsheet can be downloaded HERE

The full Case Study can be downloaded HERE

Not one opinion over more than a decade of debate has been rooted into scientific evidence, findings, or understandings without connecting these underlying values and attitudes. Instead, it was everything else, resulting in legislative provisions that equates scientific evidence of threat to any other source of information.

Brief summary of the case study

This case study looks into the evolution of the Bulgarian regulatory context around GMOs and the ensuing policy discourse. It aims to investigate and demonstrate the relevance of the precautionary principle and its integration within legislative and broader debates in the country. It recounts the legislative experience in the adoption of the Law on Genetically Modified Organisms (LGMO), and on key amendments in the period 2003-2017.

While derived from EU law, the Bulgarian LGMO is considered to be rather conservative and restrictive, and is discussed in this study as an example of a strong precautionary principle - adopting explicitly cautious approach to risk management.

The case also demonstrates how scientific uncertainty can translate into legislative uncertainty, due to different interpretations and perceptions of the scope, severity and impact of risks. It concludes with a short discussion of the repercussions on innovation, narratives on which were entirely absent from the Bulgarian parliamentary debate on the LGMO.

A short video from the case study author

In this video, Ventseslav Kozarev (Applied Research and Communications Fund) briefly presents the Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) case study, and the relevance of the precautionary principle and its integration within legislative and broader debates in his country, Bulgaria.

Authors

Ventseslav Kozarev, Applied Research and Communications Fund
Zoya Damianova, Applied Research and Communications Fund
Desislava Asenova, Applied Research and Communications Fund

Themes

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s), Precaution, Regulation, Safety

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations, Citizens & Civil Society Organisations

Case Study

Video

Publishing Date

3 November 2020

Language

English

Taking stock of the precautionary principle since 2000

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:34:04 +0000

full image

Taking stock of the precautionary principle since 2000

Application, effects, public debate and citizens’ perceptions

The precautionary principle is supposed to enable decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures even if scientific uncertainties about environmental and health risks remain. However, opinions about the precautionary principle are divided. To some, it is unscientific and an obstacle to progress. To others, it is a necessary tool to protect human health and the environment.

We have recently published the report on “The effect of the precautionary principle since 2000”, which examines the application of the precautionary principle from 2000 to 2019. According to the report, the precautionary principle is recognised as a general principle of EU law. However, a lack of clear guidelines for its implementation results in different interpretations and applications across countries and policy areas. This allows for a flexible use of the principle but also leaves stakeholders with a lack of legal certainty. The report presents both, a stocktaking of the way the precautionary principle has been applied and reflections on its limitation.

This first report, along with a selection of nine Case Studies conducted in 2019-2020, prepares the ground for the core tasks of the project: the development of scenarios where both the precautionary principle and innovation are taken into account, and the development of tools and guidelines for applying the precautionary principle. These tools and guidelines will be co-created with different stakeholders via interviews, workshops, and webinars. They will be designed to help policymakers and other stakeholders to apply the precautionary principle while encouraging innovation.

Here are the:
- Report on “The effect of the precautionary principle since 2000”
- Synthesis of the report on “The effect of the precautionary principle since 2000”

The main findings of the report have been compiled in a policy brief.

Citizen meetings
The citizen’s meetings, which were part of this project phase, allowed the research team to collect citizens’ opinions, reflections, and ideas on the precaution principle and innovation. They were participating in the meetings conducted in Bulgaria, Norway, Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands, and did not perceive precaution and innovation as a contradiction to each other. They favoured a case-by-case review for balancing precaution and innovation.

Here are the:
- Citizen Meetings’ full report
- Synthesis of the Citizen Meetings’ report

Stakeholder Database

Throughout the project, the RECIPES team engages with different stakeholders. Meetings are conducted to discuss issues related to precaution and innovation with citizens, workshops are organized to discuss the future of the precautionary principle and to develop tools and guidelines for its application, and stakeholders are interviews as part of the case studies on the precautionary principle. As a basis for the selection of stakeholders for such exercises and for dissemination activities, a stakeholder database has been established as a living document.

Media analysis
Furthermore, during the first project phase, the project team conducted a media analysis for three newspapers - the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany), Le Monde (France) and The Guardian (UK). The analysis aimed to depict how media shapes and drives the public debate on the precautionary principle. One of the RECIPES case study topics that was most frequently referred to in all of the newspapers, was GMOs.

More details can be found in:
-   the Media Analysis synthesis report
-   the Media Analysis of the Süddeutsche Zeitung
-   the Media Analysis of Le Monde and
-   the Media Analysis of The Guardian.

The project
The RECIPES (REconciling sCience, Innovation and Precaution through the Engagement of Stakeholders) project is based on the idea that the responsible application of the precautionary principle and the consideration of innovation aspects do not necessarily contradict with each other. Building on this idea, RECIPES aims to reconcile innovation and precaution by developing tools and guidelines to ensure the precautionary principle is applied while still encouraging innovation. The project (2019 - 2021) is funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and is implemented by a consortium that includes 11 partners from 7 European countries.

Authors

Please refer to the individual reports for the list of authors.

Published in

March 2020

ISBN/ISSN/DOI

N/A

Themes

Innovation, Precaution, Regulation, Safety, Science

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations, Citizens & Civil Society Organisations

Policy Brief

Report

Publishing Date

18 March 2020

Language

English

Case Study 7: Financial risks in water infrastructure planning

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:07:10 +0000

full image

Case Study 7: Financial risks in water infrastructure planning

About the case

The case study on "Financial risks in water infrastructure planning" aims to understand the complexities and controversies around the application of the precautionary principle in the context of urban waste water infrastructure provision.

The Case Study factsheet can be downloaded HERE

The full Case Study can be downloaded HERE

While the application of the precautionary principle has resulted in expensive infrastructure projects in London, it has triggered transparent processes and innovation in Milan.

Brief summary about the case study

It examines these dynamics by example of case studies in London and Milan, and begins by outlining the risks and threats associated with the cases and relates them to the conceptual core of the precautionary principle, the risk governance process, and the regulatory and legal history. The case study argues that the application of the precautionary principle through the WFD has significant impacts on urban development and that its application shifts risks from environmental impacts towards long-term planning risks and economic vulnerability of cities. The examination of the risk governance process further shows how the complexity of the water sector challenges good governance practices and how external pressures such as those instigated by the precautionary principle can lead to undesirable reconfigurations.

The London case focusses on an individual infrastructure project and shows how financial innovation has shaped the case, while the Milan case presents a longer-view perspective that shows how structural changes in the infrastructure sector have enabled an environment for sustainable financial innovation.

As a conclusion, the role of transparency and good local governance practices are essential for a successful implementation of precautionary principle requirements in a city’s water sector. A common dynamic in compromised planning processes is the creation of "white elephants", which can be avoided by harnessing the innovation dimension of the precautionary principle in a conscientious manner.

In August 2021, Fritz-Julius Grafe and Harald A. Mieg, who conducted the case study on "Financial risks in water infrastructure planning" have published the article “Precaution and Innovation in the Context of Wastewater Regulation: An Examination of Financial Innovation under UWWTD Disputes in London and Milan”, on the Sustainability journal.

Partner: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Authors

Fritz-Julius Grafe, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Harald A. Mieg, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Themes

Financial risks and urban waste planning, Precaution, Regulation, Safety

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance

Case Study

Publishing Date

3 November 2020

Language

English

Case Study 5: Nanotechnologies

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:42:23 +0000

full image

Case Study 5: Nanotechnologies

About the case

As an emerging technology and an important group within the so-called advanced materials, nanotechnologies are characterized by manifold areas of application and high uncertainty.

The Case Study factsheet can be downloaded HERE

The full Case Study can be downloaded HERE

There is uncertainty about nanotechnologies and advanced materials, which makes the definition of risks difficult. Why? While risks allow knowledge on possible outcomes and an expression of probabilities, uncertainty does not allow the assignment of probabilities to outcomes.

Brief summary of the case study

The European Commission pointed out that nanotechnologies and nanosciences will offer promising solutions for a wide variety of technical problems in a socially acceptable and environmental-friendly way. Therefore, the nanotechnology research programmes have been associated by safety and sustainability research from the very beginning. National nanotechnology research strategies and action plans followed this policy very soon.

Moreover, it has been emphasised that a transparent public communication and a serious inclusion strategy has to be applied to inform the interested public and all concerned parties about the benefits but also about possible disadvantages of these new materials and products. Additional to the nanotechnology research programmes most of the member states opened calls for safety issues mainly focusing on worker safety, consumer protection and toxicology.

The European Commission and the European Parliament debated and published detailed nanospecific regulation on topics of high concern like cosmetics, novel food and food contact materials at an early stage. Finally, these activities were carried out by establishing national and international networks to include all relevant knowledge.

This tight interaction between organising and evaluating the available knowledge on nanotechnologies and their effects on different systems, translating and disseminating these results on possible benefits and adverse effects to all interested parties and setting up specific communication and working processes such as nanotechnology commission in Austria are an illustrative example how the precautionary principle and its following concepts like responsible research and innovation can be successfully applied.

Partner: Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences

Authors

André Gazsó, Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences
Anna Pavlicek, Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences

Contributors
Gloria Rose, Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences
Sabine Greßler, independent scientist (funded by NanoTrust at ITA-OAW)
Rene Fries, independent scientist (funded by NanoTrust at ITA-OAW)

With thanks to:
Thanks to all RECIPES partners for valuable input and discussion, especially partners at Maastricht University, The Danish Board of Technology, Rathenau Institute, and Humboldt University

Themes

Nanotechnologies, Precaution, Regulation, Safety

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations

Case Study

Publishing Date

11 November 2020

Language

English

Case Study 3: Endocrine Disruptors

chiara.mazzetti@ecologic.eu — Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:02:00 +0000

full image

Case Study 3: Endocrine Disruptors

About the case

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are at the centre stage of a scientific and regulatory controversy. Chemicals shown to have endocrine disrupting effects have mostly been man-made. They were originally engineered so as to produce benefits most importantly – but not exclusively – for industry and agriculture, households and consumers, as well as for medical and personal health care.

The Case Study factsheet can be downloaded HERE

The full Case Study can be downloaded HERE

Bans on the use of particulars endocrine disruptors have actually led to so-called "regrettable substitutions": that is, the introduction oor adoption of chemicals that may not be safer and potentially worse. In this context, green chemistry can be regarded as one important innovation pathway.

Brief summary of the case study

Given the complexities, ambiguities and particularly the uncertainties surrounding the hazards of EDCs, the precautionary principle is of utmost relevance to the case. Even the definition of EDCs remains much contested, as do the scientific processes and methods through which to identify them. On the one hand, there is considerable societal pressure to regulate ECDs "now". On the other hand, this quick regulation is often impossible as the limited evidence available does not suffice in the context of traditional EU scientific risk assessment.

This results in "paralysis" and several controversies surrounding EDCs, such as regarding bisphenol A, as well a long delay by the European Commission to formulate scientific criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors. Bans on the use of particular EDCs have also led to so-called "regrettable substitutions". In turn, green chemistry can be regarded as one important innovation pathway in order to develop chemicals that are non-regrettable substitutions for EDCs.

This case study aims to better understand the complexities surrounding the application of the precautionary principle in the case of the governance of EDCs, as well as the controversies surrounding calls for innovation in this field.

Partner: Maastricht University

Authors

Afke Groen, Maastricht University*
Christine Neuhold, Maastricht University

* currently works at the think tank Mr. Hans van Mierlo Stichting

With thanks to our two anonymous interviewees

Themes

Endocrine disruptors, Precaution, Regulation, Safety, Science

Interesting for

Policy Makers, Regulatory Authorities & Agencies, Research & Academia, Industry & Business, Funding Sources & Finance, NGOs & Associations, Citizens & Civil Society Organisations

Case Study

Publishing Date

3 November 2020

Language

English