“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” This definition of the precautionary principle has generated considerable debate regarding its use as a decision making tool in situations where public policy decisions have to be made under conditions of scientific uncertainty. This debate has been complicated by the absence of a universal and widely accepted definition and interpretation of the principle. Aim: The purpose of this study is to examine the rhetoric surrounding the precautionary principle during the course of a contemporary fluoridation debate in Ireland and to identify how the principle has been defined and interpreted by groups opposed to water fluoridation. Methods: Qualitative documentary analysis of anti-fluoridation media including parliamentary questions, press releases, websites and anti-fluoridation literature. Qualitative Results: Explicit and implicit formulations of the precautionary principle would appear to suggest that the pursuit of ‘zero risk' is desirable. In accordance with this goal opponents of fluoridation argue that the burden of proof should rest with those advocating this public health measure, who should ‘prove' that fluoridation is ‘safe'. Interpretations are uniform in suggesting that an application of the precautionary principle is synonymous with the cessation of water fluoridation. Conclusions: The rhetoric deployed in the invocation of the precautionary principle implies a utopian goal of ‘zero risk'. It is suggested that, as interpreted by partisans, this principle does not provide a viable basis for the regulation of risk. The definitional ambiguity surrounding the precautionary principle should be resolved to prevent distortion of the meaning of this principle in environmental debates.

Back to the Behavioral Sciences Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search