1. Full citation. Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton [N.J.: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? David Vogel is professor at the Haas School of Business and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility.
3. What are the topics of the text? Risk assessment differences over time between the EU and the US; policy shifts; effects on trade
4. What is the main argument of the text? In the 70s the US policy was the most proactive at minimizing risks in environment, health, and technology. However, since around 1990 American policy makers have placed more emphasis on avoiding false positives i.e. unnecessarily stringent regulations (Type 1 policy errors), while their European counterparts, responding to a wide range of policy failures attributed to "under-regulation," have placed greater priority on reducing false negatives, i.e., insufficient stringent regulations (Type II policy errors).
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
America filed complaints against the EU at WTO because of the EU’s stricter regulations which are limiting American trade
The pattern of US support when it comes to international treaties show a transatlantic shift in regulatory stringency and global leadership. In the 70s the US often played a leadership role in numerous environmental agreements, but since the 90s they have not ratified 12 important agreements that other member states of the EU or the EU itself has supported
Recent European regulations are likely to be more stringent and often more precautionary than those of the US for those health, safety, and environmental risks that have emerged or become more salient since around 1990, such as global climate change, genetically modified food and agriculture, antibiotics in animal feed, hazardous materials in e-waste, and chemicals in cosmetics. (p 6)
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
But Pascal Lamy, the former EU trade commissioner, counters that, "in the U.S. they believe that if no risks have been proven about a product, it should be allowed. In the EU it is believed that something should not be authorized if there is a chance of risk." (p 10)
As the Wall Street Journal observes, "Americans may not realize it, but the rules governing the food they eat, the software they use, and the cars they drive increasingly are set in Brussels. European regulations have forced "changes in how industries around the world make plastics, electronics, toys, cosmetics, and furniture." (p 15)
Many American food processors and retailers also produce and sell food products that conform to European health, safety, and environmental standards. These private, market-based forms of "trading up" have reduced the gap between some European standards and American business practices. (p 16)
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
What other approaches to risk are there?
What caused the shift between the EU and the US?
Why hasn’t there been more noticeable action against the seemingly lax governmental policies with regards to people’s health and the environment?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
London Convention on Dumping at Sea (1972): I looked up the original policy but found this article instead that wrote about stricter policies that have been put in place (2006) and the differences between them. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-10-02.asp
Donkers, "US Changed Course, and the EU Surged Forward," 49: I looked at the abstract of this paper which reads that, the article compares the environmental policies of the US and the EU. It observes that the EU uses market-based instruments mixed with regulation whereas the US used the precautionary principle which is normally used by decision makers faced with harmful and irreversible effects on the environment. It also mentions that the US was better at enforcing federal legislation.
Mark Shapiro, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everday Products: Who's at Risk and What's at Stake for American Power (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007). The book description mentions that strict consumer-safety regulations have forced multinationals to manufacture safer products for European consumers, while lower U.S. standards allow them to continue selling unsafe products to Americans. The book shows that if this continues the United States will lose not only its ability to protect citizens from environmental hazards but also its economic role.
Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton [N.J.: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
David Vogel is professor at the Haas School of Business and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility.
3. What are the topics of the text?
Risk assessment differences over time between the EU and the US; policy shifts; effects on trade
4. What is the main argument of the text?
In the 70s the US policy was the most proactive at minimizing risks in environment, health, and technology. However, since around 1990 American policy makers have placed more emphasis on avoiding false positives i.e. unnecessarily stringent regulations (Type 1 policy errors), while their European counterparts, responding to a wide range of policy failures attributed to "under-regulation," have placed greater priority on reducing false negatives, i.e., insufficient stringent regulations (Type II policy errors).
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-10-02.asp