To avoid wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment and an assessment of the risk weighted consequences of various options. When dealing with threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation

The assumption that where there are real threats of damage to the environment, lack of scientific information should not be used as a justification for postponing measures to prevent such damage occurring.

Taking a cautious approach to development and environmental management decisions when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate.

Well-accepted principle that in cases of scientific uncertainty, governments should take action erring on the side of protecting health and the environment.

The key principle of ecologically sustainable development. It basically states that in situations where there is lack of scientific certainty and possibility of serious or irreversible damage to the environment (both of which apply to gene technology), we should recognise this uncertainty; assess the possible impacts and our options; and put in place now whatever measures we can to avoid possible damage. We should not wait for clear scientific proof of harm.

the view that policies should account for uncertainty by taking steps to avoid outcomes that are damaging to health or the environment, especially when such outcomes are irreversible.

Taking action to prevent environmental degradation by addressing the threat of serious or irreversible damage, despite the lack of full scientific certainty.

This principle states that if the impacts on the environment from a policy or project are significant or not fully understood, that there should be measures put in place to prevent environmental detriment. In some cases, this may mean that the policy or project should not go ahead.

A regulatory principle requiring confirmation of safety for consumer exposure. This principle is frequently misunderstood to require proof of absolute safety under all conditions. In fact, one of the most radical interpretations of the precautionary principle is a requirement to prove the negative: i.e. that the product or service poses absolutely no risk to people, wildlife or environment, now or in the future. This is a departure from the disciplined, science-based process of risk assessment which is the basis for the precautionary principle and its use in the EU and which has been guiding the U.S. health and environmental regulatory framework for over 100 years. The analysis of risk by U.S. regulators is carried out using highly conservative assumptions, worst-case scenarios, and wide margins of safety.

A principle associated with risk management. It states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

a principle often invoked in the fields of environmental protection and human health when dealing with risk situations where there is significant scientific uncertainty and a potential for serious, irreversible or cumulative harm.

The precautionary principle, is the ethical principle that if the consequences of an action, especially the use of technology, are unknown but are judged by some scientists to have a high risk of being negative from an ethical point of view, then it is better not to carry out the action rather than risk the uncertain, but possibly very negative, consequences.

Where significant environmental damage may occur, but the knowledge on the matter is incomplete, decisions made and measures implemented should err on the site of caution.

The principle that advises that, in the face of uncertainty, the best course of action is to assume that a potential problem is real and should be addressed ("better safe than sorry").

A guiding rule in EIA to protect people and the environment against future risks, hazards, and adverse impacts, tending to emphasise safety considerations in the occasional absence of clear evidence.

A proactive method of dealing with the environment (= do-no-harm principle) that places the burden of proof on those whose activities could harm the environment. - If the costs of current activities are uncertain, but are potentially both high and irreversible, the precautionary principle holds that society should take action before the uncertainty is resolved.

When information about potential risks is incomplete, basing decisions about the best ways to manage or reduce risks on a preference for avoiding unnecessary health risks instead of on unnecessary economic expenditures.

The Precautionary Principle calls for care to be taken in the face of any actions that may affect people or the environment, no matter what science is able -- or unable -- to say about that action (Wingspread Consensus Statement, 1998, http://reason.com/9904/fe.rb.precautionary.shtml).

The UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development defines the precautionary principle as: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage. Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The precautionary principle is widely seen as a principle of particular relevance to the regulation of genetically modified organisms, where there is scientific uncertainty and the potential for adverse health and environmental impacts.

A proactive method of dealing with the environment that places the burden of proof on those whose activities could harm the environment rather than on the public. It is the opposite of the wait-and-see principle; acting before scientific proof of deleterious effects is applying a precautionary approach. (Norse)

An attitude that relates uncertainty to risk perception by specifying that unknown risk should be assumed harmful until proven safe.

As per Article 15 of the Rio Declaration (1992), “...where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.

Where there are threats of serious irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

when there is a possibility of serious adverse or irreversible impacts on biodiversity values that can not be predicted or evaluated with scientific certainty, the policy should be designed to avoid adverse impacts and obtain the information necessary to make a more informed decision.

A term used in Europe (by the EU member states, the Commission, and governments aspiring to join the EU) which has been rejected by virually all other governments. While many governments apply precautionary approaches in a variety of contexts (e.g. food safety, animal and plant health, the environment, etc.), the EU's precautionary principle provides that politicians can over-rule science-based decisions of regulators. One example of a precautionary approach is embodied in Article 5.7 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).

is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Principle 15) proclaims "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." The precautionary approach was reaffirmed in the Cartagena Protocol on Bisafety on 28 January 2000. Only 4 days later, on 2 February 2000 the EU Commission adopted the Communication on the use of the Precautionary Principle.

is part of the Rio Declaration that says: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" (Principle 15).

The philosophy that when faced with a situation of high risk but great uncertainty, you should avoid continuing on that path, even if this costs you something. For instance, it is not known for certain whether large climate changes will occur, but if they did, the consequences would be severe. The nations of the world, through the Convention, are applying the precautionary principle.

A principle in the Rio Declaration from the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development that states: "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation".

Taking action now to avoid possible environmental damage when the scientific evidence for acting is inconclusive but the potential damage could be great.

according to UN Rio Declaration is "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". A 'precautionary approach' would use this principle to guide actions..

As defined in the Intergovernmental agreement on the Environment. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. Forest Management

If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage by a development, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (see Ecologically Sustainable Development)

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, the precautionary principle, states: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Article 3(3) of the FCCC endorses the precautionary principle as an element of international law and emphasizes the essential connection between environmental protection and economic development. Rather than imposing a set of environmental standards or policies, the Convention sets up a process of negotiation that is expected to continue, aided by a systematic, long-term programme of scientific research to re-evaluate the adequacy of commitments.

When there is scientific uncertainty about potentially serious harm from chemicals or technologies, decision makers should act to prevent harm to humans and the environment. See pollution prevention.

The principle that the lack of scientific certainty should not be a reason to postpone preventive measures to avert threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.

an approach to the management of risk when scientific knowledge is incomplete.

When there is an activity that could threaten human health or the environment, precaution should be taken, even before there is complete scientific proof that the activity is harmful. The precautionary principle suggests that corporations, governments, organizations, communities, scientists and individuals should take a precautionary approach to all such activities.

The decision to leave a margin of safety for unexpected developments.

An internationally recognized principle for action that states where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, scientific uncertainty shall not be used to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Priority Substances List (PSL): Two lists of priority substances for assessment of toxicity. The first list of 44 substances has been assessed, and management plans are being developed or implemented for the 25 substances that were assessed, as toxics. The second list of 25 substances has been published in Part I of the Canada Gazette and is being assessed.

The precautionary principle argues that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.