Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution Q&A The following document contains the answers to the questions from the participants at the free webinar on EU public affairs held by the European Training Academy and Burson Burson-Marsteller on 08 May 2013. It is intended for information purposes only.
Q: When it comes to substances like BPA, why aren't they just banned? A: This would not be a reasonable approach. Should public authorities ban any substance suspected of causing ausing adverse effects, very few agents would remain on the market. The paradox is that even when we know for sure about the hazardous character of certain ssubstances, such nicotine in cigarettes, society might decide to accept it. Q: You talked about US - EU trade. How about the Canada EU trad trade e agreement (CETA)? A stumbling block there is GMOs. Do you know anything about these negotiations and the regulatory approach ap of the EU to this issue vis-a-vis vis Canada. A: I sense that many of the issues that will be at the centre of the TTIP will also be highly controversial in CETA. Yet the answer remains the same: the two sides should agre agree e on some horizontal approaches (e.g. methods of risk assessment, common authorisation systems, tems, etc) before coming to the discussion of sectoral areas, such as GMOs. Q: Risk regulation, in public health or consumer protection, whether rreal eal or perceived, does not have to stop the innovation. On opposite, it may foster green innovation. Don't you think so? A: No, should public authorities focus their limited resources on regulating perceived risks that are not substantiated by evidence, we would run the risk as a society to invest badly invest its limited li resources. We should rather tackle real risks and make sure that our regulatory efforts will attain more benefits than impose costs. Q: Don’t you think that science is being used to demonstrate one theoryy and the opposite, and this is affecting negatively to the trend of giving more weight to it in the policy making process in favour of other inputs? A: While I agree on the risk of manipulating science for political purposes, scientific knowledge is there to stay and should be the first input into the policymak policymaking process. ess. This does not exclude that risk managers could (and in the EU should) also consider non scient scientific ific factors, such as societal, economic, traditional considerations, when decide whether and how to regulate a given risk.
Regulating Risk in the EU: Science, Policy and Precaution Webinar – May 08, 2013