[lbo-talk] glyphosate

[Arthur Maisel]

In the real world, the precautionary principle would probably end up
meaning not outright suppression but more like not rushing to market to
make the quickest possible killing on your R&D either. The all-or-nothing
argument, while amusing, implies that the PP is the same as Luddism, which
it isn't.

"Conclusive proof" is not something that scientists can provide, but there
ought to be some way to make corporations factor in social costs, no? Make
it worth their while to be more cautious. Just the term "externalities"
itself begs the question!

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Eubulides <autoplectic at gmail.com> wrote:


> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> > Precautionary principle: Guilty until proven innocent. Nothing allowed
> until
> > conclusive proof of substantial harmlessness. Full transparency for
> product
> > content and manufacturing (no trade secrets) and regulatory processes (no
> > industry lobbying). No grandfathering.
>
> =================
>
> "So Prometheus, what's your plan if you set the forest on fire when
> you are cooking one of your so-called gourmet dinners? And how do you
> know that your fire suppression strategy won't generate additional
> adverse externalities? Fire is for the gods, not us, you putz!"
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>