Watching the directives : scientific advice on the EU Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive : fourth report of session 2005-06 : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
2006
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Watching the directives : scientific advice on the EU Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive : fourth report of session 2005-06 : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    34/144 (page 30)
    approach to risk management. It does not provide a detailed explanation as to how the precautionary principle should be applied in practice to decision making. Use of the precautionary principle in the Directive 45. We sought to establish whether the Directive was based on the precautionary principle, as understood in the Commission. The ICNIRP guidelines which underpin the Directive are based, according to Dr McKinlay, on a “cautious approach in the interpretation of the science” rather than a “precautionary” approach.'’? The difference between the two has been defined by the NRPB as follows: e “caution’ and ‘cautious’ are used strictly to describe the approach taken in evaluating scientific data and in particular the uncertainties associated with these data and in making judgements as to their relevance to exposure restrictions. e ‘precaution’ and ‘precautionary are used strictly in relation to possible additional measures that might be considered in the light of the uncertainties with the evidence of long-term adverse effects of exposure.”'” By this definition, the Directive, which excludes long-term health effects, could be said to be cautious in its approach rather than precautionary. However, the Commission definition does not include the above distinction. It does provide some guidance on application. This requires decision makers to apply general principles of risk management, including an “examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action”.'* Such benefits include economic, socio-economic and, in certain circumstances, non-economic considerations such as the protection of public health. The guidance goes further, and confirms the implications of European Court case law that consideration of public health should “undoubtedly be given greater weight than economic considerations.”'’ This elaboration does not help decision-makers establish how to proceed in respect of the EMF Directive, when the economic costs of regulation as well as any other potential adverse impacts need to be weighed against the avoidance of health risks associated with occupational exposure to EMF. 46. The potential health risks were certainly given a higher priority than economic factors in this case, but there was no evaluation of the potential negative impacts on medicine and research. It could be argued that, by failing to give due consideration to the potential benefits afforded by MRI diagnosis and treatment that might be lost under the Directive, the Commission did not follow its own guidelines on applying the precautionary principle. Professor Blakemore referred to the “intransigence” of the Commission in dealing with the concerns expressed in a manner which infringes the principles outlined in the Commission’s paper.''® The Directive does not allow for an overall risk-benefit assessment to be made on a case by case basis, taking into account the benefits for the patient in using 112 Q918 113 NRPB-W59, July 2004, p 17 114 Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, COM(2000) 1, p 18 115 As above, p 20 116 Q 850