USDA again

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

Count me in as a supporter and practitioner of the precautionary principle,
both on the job and in my personal life.  It is an agreeable approach, but
like anything can be taken to extremes and in my view has been taken to
absurd extremes on the issue of monarch releases.  If we applied the
principle to extremes, nothing would happen as the world grinds to a halt
through the paralysis of analysis.  Also like with everything else involving
people, we all have different views and comfort levels with the degree of
risk that we are prepared to take or support. As usual I am not saying that
any one answer is right; lets just recognize the different views and move
forward in exploring what is reasonable at the end of the day.  People with
a very low risk tolerance would take the precautionary principle far further
than I would. Maybe they are 'right' and maybe not :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gochfeld [mailto:gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 5:22 AM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
Cc: 'stanlep at extremezone.com'; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: USDA again


I can well understand and sympathize with Norbert's concise philosophical
statement below.
However, like it or not there is an underlying logic which is not grasping
at
straws.  It is a formalized policy approach called the
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.  It is, of course controversial, like not taking
precautions, but it is
a philosophical approach to governmental action that is being debated in
many
scientific-policy meetings around the world. It has many detractors and many
advocates.

It depends in part on the probability and the consequences of the "things
that
may happen".

 And not surprisingly there are people who would apply the precautionary
principle to some aspects of life but not others.

Michael Gochfeld


"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:

> the reason was given on this list from a usda official. I guess some
people
> see logic in conjuring up things that "may happen" as reasons to prohibit
a
> human activity. This is no logic at all. It is grasping at straws to
meddle
> in the lives of other people because of personal philosophical or ethical
> reasons and is not fit logic on which to base a government decision.

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl