The following text is about environmental ethics.
The precautionary principle holds that where threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage exist, lack of full scientific certainty should not postpone cost-effective protective measures. This principle reverses the usual burden of proof: rather than requiring proof of harm before regulation, it requires proof of safety before potentially harmful activities proceed. Critics argue the principle is too vague to guide policy, could block beneficial innovations, and ignores opportunity costs of regulation. Supporters counter that asymmetric risks—where damages are irreversible but precaution is costly but reversible—justify the approach.
How does the precautionary principle shift the burden of proof?
It requires proof of harm before any regulation can occur
It requires proof of safety before potentially harmful activities proceed
It eliminates all scientific requirements for policy
It applies only when there is complete scientific certainty
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. The principle "reverses the usual burden of proof: rather than requiring proof of harm before regulation, it requires proof of safety before potentially harmful activities proceed."
- Evidence: Proof of safety required before proceeding.
- Reasoning: Burden shifts to those proposing the activity.
- Conclusion: Safety demonstration, not harm demonstration, is required.
Choice A is incorrect because this is what the principle reverses. Choice C is incorrect because cost-effective measures and scientific assessment remain. Choice D is incorrect because it applies specifically when certainty is lacking.