Reverse onus: An effective and efficient risk management strategy for chemical regulation

Abstract

This article discusses the role of the precautionary principle within risk management systems for controlling the risks associated with chemical substances. The diversity of interpretation of the precautionary principle is highlighted in a comparative analysis between two divergent approaches to the principle: Canada's Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) and the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). The author suggests that, if appropriately applied, reverse onus – a stronger approach to the precautionary principle – is a more effective and efficient risk management tool for chemical regulation.

A future for the world's children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission

“…The principle holds that when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken to mitigate this action, even if causeandeffect relationships are not fully established scientifically. 308 The precautionary principle has been widely used by environmental scien tists and regulatory authorities, 310,311 but it has been insufficiently applied to protect children from com mercial marketing-commercial entities can market products to children with little evidence that they do not pose a threat to their wellbeing. Although evidence is emerging on the harms of commercial sector marketing to children, the fastpaced nature of technological change means children are actively being harmed while the body of evidence grows.…”

“…This has been called reverse onus, when the burden of proof (ie, safety) or the analytical burden is shifted from the risk mitigator (ie, government regulators) to the risk gener ator (ie, industry). 310 The EU's Registrations, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals regulation has adopted this approach to some extent. Given the conflicts between industry interests and public good objectives, many researchers have reported that a spec trum of risk exists.…”

Regulation governance in the digital era: A new research agenda

“…It denies the entry of new products unless industry could show that its use would have no nefarious effects on humans or the environment. The results were more safety and reduced cost to the state (Briand 2010). Black and Baldwin (2012) probed what strategic choices could be made in delegating the regulation of lowrisk processes and reviewing performance.…”