numerous international treaties,including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,the Bamako Convention on Hazardous Waste in Africa,the Convention on Biological Diversity,and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.A 1998 consensus statement characterized the precautionary principle in this way:"when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established."The 4 central components necessary to achieve its implementation include (1)taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty,(2)shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity,(3)exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions,and(4)increasing public participation in decision making.As noted by Applegate,"properly construed,this principle defines a process for taking environment-and health-protective actions while the dangers of not taking such protective action remain uncertain....It seeks to anticipate the risks of new and existing technologies so as to avoid or minimize them.In December 2002,the British Medical Association(BMA)issued a statement on GE foods in which it reiterated its support for the precautionary principle. Adherence to the precautionary principle is consistent with at least 3 different tenets of scientific analysis.First,it fits with the desire to minimize type II error(false-negative).Scientists in the fields of ecology,conservation biology,and natural resources management have been increasingly concerned about the tendency to downplay type II error in studies that aim to inform environmental policy.As explained by Kapuscinski, this is because the potential for harm is greater if conclusions commit a Type Il error (false negative) compared to a Type I error (false positive)since recovery from most harm to ecosystems or human health involve large time lags,and are sometimes irreversible.Type I errors,on the other hand,are usually limited to short-term economic costs borne by the developers and marketers ofGEOs. Second,the precautionary principle assists in accounting for another type of uncertainty that arises from ecological systems research,something that is inherent in all biological systems.With regard to the release of GEOs into the environment,uncertainty arises from gaps in current knowledge about the behavior of a GEO,the novel traits modified,variability in the environment,and limits in predicting the evolution of GEOs subsequent to their release in the environment.Third,by broadening participation in the risk characterization process,the precautionary principle may be helpful in reducing type III error, which occurs when scientists provide an accurate answer to the wrong problem,that is,they ask the wrong question.A realistic way to cope with such inherent uncertainty in complex biological systems is to implement an adaptive management approach to biosafety governance.Such an approach for assessing the ecological and human health effects for the release of GEOs into the environment that is consistent with the CBD adherence to the precautionary principle has been developed by the Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety. It should be acknowledged that the precautionary principle has been criticized by some as being overly vague.Other criticisms of the precautionary principle include(1)current regulatory processes are already precautionary,(2)the precautionary principle is not scientifically sound because it advocates making decisions without adequate scientific justification,and(3)if it were implemented,the precautionary principle would stifle innovation by requiring proof of safety before new technologies could be introduced.However,a recent analysis has concluded that implementing the precautionary principle is not only good science,it is also good economics for at least 4 reasons:(1)precautionary action benefits workers,(2)precautionary action does not impose damaging costs on industry,(3) precautionary policies can stimulate technological innovation,and(4)economic logic supports timely action to avoid substantial health and environmental costs. Who Participates in Risk Analysis and Risk Decision Making?numerous international treaties, including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Bamako Convention on Hazardous Waste in Africa, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. A 1998 consensus statement characterized the precautionary principle in this way: "when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established." The 4 central components necessary to achieve its implementation include (1) taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty, (2) shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity, (3) exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions, and (4) increasing public participation in decision making. As noted by Applegate, "properly construed, this principle defines a process for taking environment- and health-protective actions while the dangers of not taking such protective action remain uncertain.... It seeks to anticipate the risks of new and existing technologies so as to avoid or minimize them." In December 2002, the British Medical Association (BMA) issued a statement on GE foods in which it reiterated its support for the precautionary principle. Adherence to the precautionary principle is consistent with at least 3 different tenets of scientific analysis. First, it fits with the desire to minimize type II error (false-negative). Scientists in the fields of ecology, conservation biology, and natural resources management have been increasingly concerned about the tendency to downplay type II error in studies that aim to inform environmental policy. As explained by Kapuscinski, this is because the potential for harm is greater if conclusions commit a Type II error (false negative) compared to a Type I error (false positive) since recovery from most harm to ecosystems or human health involve large time lags, and are sometimes irreversible. Type I errors, on the other hand, are usually limited to short-term economic costs borne by the developers and marketers of GEOs. Second, the precautionary principle assists in accounting for another type of uncertainty that arises from ecological systems research, something that is inherent in all biological systems. With regard to the release of GEOs into the environment, uncertainty arises from gaps in current knowledge about the behavior of a GEO, the novel traits modified, variability in the environment, and limits in predicting the evolution of GEOs subsequent to their release in the environment. Third, by broadening participation in the risk characterization process, the precautionary principle may be helpful in reducing type III error, which occurs when scientists provide an accurate answer to the wrong problem, that is, they ask the wrong question. A realistic way to cope with such inherent uncertainty in complex biological systems is to implement an adaptive management approach to biosafety governance. Such an approach for assessing the ecological and human health effects for the release of GEOs into the environment that is consistent with the CBD adherence to the precautionary principle has been developed by the Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety. It should be acknowledged that the precautionary principle has been criticized by some as being overly vague. Other criticisms of the precautionary principle include (1) current regulatory processes are already precautionary, (2) the precautionary principle is not scientifically sound because it advocates making decisions without adequate scientific justification, and (3) if it were implemented, the precautionary principle would stifle innovation by requiring proof of safety before new technologies could be introduced. However, a recent analysis has concluded that implementing the precautionary principle is not only good science, it is also good economics for at least 4 reasons: (1) precautionary action benefits workers, (2) precautionary action does not impose damaging costs on industry, (3) precautionary policies can stimulate technological innovation, and (4) economic logic supports timely action to avoid substantial health and environmental costs. Who Participates in Risk Analysis and Risk Decision Making?