I think that the precautionary principle, in my view, and I've always said this, should be paired with what I've called a utility filter. I'll give you an example. I have a family member who twice has had her life saved by an experimental drug, twice was at the brink of death with cancer and was saved by an experimental drug. The drug was not well understood and there was risk, but everyone of course was willing to tolerate it because of the huge benefit.
We haven't so far had that utility filter so that you can experience a risk of possible harm for a substance that does some crucial thing in the economy or for a substance that makes your life greater.
In my opinion, in the European Union and in Japan, for substances of high concern they have a presumptive ban. Then the onus shifts to industry and if they can show that there's a crucial socio-economic reason why it's needed, there's no safer substitute and we need it....
I think there are certainly circumstances. I'm not suggesting that we go back to making fire with two rocks, but the way we've done it now is we've given so much of the benefit of doubt to the substance. We've assumed that an absence of evidence of risk is evidence of an absence of risk, and it's simply not so.