Precautionary principle: does it play a role in EU decision-making?

The thesis answers the question what role, if any, does the precautionary principle play in actual decision making when there is uncertainty regarding potential adverse effects to human health. In the about 30 years since its formulation in the Rio Declaration, there has been a rich academic discussion on whether the principle is actually needed as also its efficacy. Proponents and detractors have been equally active in understanding its potential impact on environmental decision-making. Proponents justify its use pointing to the inadequacy of a Cost Benefit Analysis to address irreversible serious threats whose probability of occurrence cannot be truly determined. Additionally, they claim that it allows to minimize regret, reallocate risk more efficiently and make regulatory process more inclusive and cognizant of the underlying assumptions of any risk analysis. On the other hand, critics argue that it is too vague to help and would rather cause a regulatory standstill. Moreover, it would also lead to risk-aversion/excessive precaution in the bureaucracy resulting in an innovation standstill ignoring risk/risk trade-offs. The thesis uses the case of glyphosate authorization in the EU to understand if these theoretical arguments can be seen to occur in actual practice. The decision of authorization is studied at the EU level followed by a comparative case study of the national policy and regulation measures in France, Germany and the Netherlands. The case study shows that the precautionary principle has played a minimal role in its intended form in these decisions. It has neither added nor detracted from the decision-making. Additionally, though the risk gets assessed differently at the EU level and the national level, the precautionary principle is not relied on for adapting the regulations. The primary role played by the precautionary principle is to make public concerns more salient.