Every now and then someone puts an idea into such powerful words that it shifts our ways of thinking. Sometimes groups get together and hammer out statements that are meant to change the way people think about the world or a particular issue. Many such statements are quickly forgotten. But some have unusual durability and influence.

Here is the Science and Environmental Health Network's collection of definitive statements on our range of issues. We - as individuals or as an organization - have had a hand in most of them. They express the ideas and values that guide our work and that we believe are widely shared. Use them and quote them freely.

The release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of resources, and physical alterations of the environment have had substantial unintended consequences affecting human health and the environment. Some of these concerns are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma, cancer, birth defects and species extinctions; along with global climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and worldwide contamination with toxic substances and nuclear materials.

We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions, particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect adequately human health and the environment - the larger system of which humans are but a part.

We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and the worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new principles for conducting human activities are necessary.

While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.

Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: 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 scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

Participants

Dr. Nicholas Ashford	M.I.T.
Katherine Barrett	Univ. of British Columbia
Anita Bernstein	Chicago-Kent College of Law
Dr. Robert Costanza	Univ. of Maryland
Pat Costner	Greenpeace
Dr. Carl Cranor	Univ. of California, Riverside
Dr. Peter deFur	Virginia Commonwealth Univ.
Gordon Durnil	Attorney
Dr. Kenneth Geiser	Toxics Use Reduction Inst., Univ. of Mass., Lowell
Dr. Andrew Jordan	Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Univ. Of East Anglia
Andrew King	United Steelworkers of America, Canadian Office
Dr. Frederick Kirschenmann	Farmer
Stephen Lester	Center for Health, Environment and Justice
Sue Maret	Union Inst.
Dr. Michael M'Gonigle	Univ. of Victoria, British Columbia
Dr. Peter Montague	Environmental Research Foundation
Dr. John Peterson Myers	W. Alton Jones Foundation
Dr. Mary O'Brien	Environmental Consultant
Dr. David Ozonoff	Boston Univ.
Carolyn Raffensperger	Science and Environmental Health Network
Dr. Philip Regal	Univ. of Minnesota
Hon. Pamela Resor	Massachusetts House of Representatives
Florence Robinson	Louisiana Environmental Network
Dr. Ted Schettler	Physicians for Social Responsibility
Ted Smith	Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Dr. Klaus-Richard Sperling	Alfred-Wegener- Institut, Hamburg
Dr. Sandra Steingraber	Author
Diane Takvorian	Environmental Health Coalition
Joel Tickner	Univ. of Mass., Lowell
Dr. Konrad von Moltke	Dartmouth College
Dr. Bo Wahlstrom	KEMI (National Chemical Inspectorate), Sweden
Jackie Warledo	Indigenous Environmental Network