One for the elf and safety sceptics - although I doubt theyd understand. And please note the reference to 12 large corporations; do we really believe that they work for our benefit? Stronger laws steer innovation on the right path From Mr Vito Buonsante, Ms Elizabeth Hiester, Mr Baskut Tuncak and Dr Mikael Karlsson. Sir, Your article “Government in danger of stifling bright ideas” (Innovation and the Economy, Special Report, October 17) unfortunately quotes self-interested assertions by 12 large corporations regarding their position on precaution, without adequate discussion of opposing views from businesses or civil society. The corporations quoted include manufacturers and consumers of toxic chemicals, whose past innovations have been responsible for untold hundreds of millions of dollars in externalised costs to governments, public resources and individuals worldwide, all of which illustrate the importance of the principle of precaution. Time and again, history shows that the prospect of stronger laws to protect people and the environment sparks innovation, helping to steer innovation in a safer direction. When EU and other governments started to restrict the use of phthalates, the rate of patenting of alternatives increased exponentially. Stronger laws spark the invention of new ideas. These CEOs are arguing that investment in innovation should be preferred to health and environmental protection. We have already seen the costs of not listening to early warnings from science; from asbestos to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), from bee-killing pesticides to DES (a pill given to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages). Innovation is about bringing benefits to society that are greater than the risks. Cars kill thousands every year, but nobody argues that they should be banned from the market as they bring great benefits. Innovation is not just about a new idea. Innovation hinges on the adoption of better ideas by the market. Stronger laws that employ precaution utilise modern scientific knowledge, enabling better ideas to be adopted at a responsible pace, avoiding situations where we substitute one bad idea with a different bad idea. Moreover, stronger laws that enable precaution help to pull better inventions into the marketplace, overcoming barriers to entry such as externalised costs, economies of scale and inadequate information in order to leverage the power of consumers to indicate which features and functionalities of everyday things society values the most. The assumption that precaution is somehow a barrier to innovation is simply false. Precaution has been shown to reorient innovation towards socially desired features, such as products and food that contain fewer hazardous chemicals. The European Commission, EU member states, industry and civil society are in the midst of a highly contentious debate on the criteria for identification and regulation of hormone disrupting chemicals, which might affect the business plan of these 12 companies. The end result of stronger laws for endocrine disrupting chemicals will be to further accelerate innovation away from entrenched hazardous chemicals and towards safer alternatives. Perhaps this is what these 12 CEOs fear most. Vito Buonsante Elizabeth Hiester, ClientEarth Baskut Tuncak, Centre for International Environmental Law Mikael Karlsson, President, European Environmental Bureau; President, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
Posted on: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:35:05 +0000