An idea for the regulation of risk, basically it advocates "better safe than sorry".
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
According to Sustein, The principle threatens to be paralyzing, forbidding regulation, inaction, and every step in between. The precautionary principle is appealing due to loss aversion, the myth of benevolent nature, the availability heuristic, probability neglect, and systems neglect.
Stringent regulation (that the Principle calls for) would actually come in conflict with the precautionary principle because stringent regulation might well deprive society of significant benefits, and for that reason produce a large number of deaths that otherwise would not occur.
e.g. Risk of releasing faulty pharmaceutical drugs or further testing (and no drug for people)?
e.g. protection of marine mammals, or importance of military exercises?
e.g. genetically modified food or starvation?