Requires DOA to apply the precautionary principle in making a decision on a permit application.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

SECTION 1. The old adage, "better safe that sorry," is known in policy circles as the "precautionary principle." In the absence of scientific certainty, a party should err on the side of caution. The precautionary principle is very simple and often boils down to just good old common sense, "If we are embarking on something new, we should think very carefully about the risks." This principle has been used throughout the world and was incorporated in the 1992 Earth Summit's Rio Declaration, as well as the 2000 Montreal Summit's Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.

The non-precautionary principle is supported by those who believe that the potential of new technologies is so great that new technologies should be accepted even with inadequate testing, and any negative impacts of the technology should be absorbed by society as externalities. Externality is an economic term that refers to a cost or benefit that is experienced by someone who is not a party to the transaction that produced it. However, this raises the issue of whether society should be so accepting of new, untested technologies, and if it is, these companies should be held liable for the their products' consequences or pay financial damages.

The precautionary principle correctly places the burden of proof on the proponent of new technologies. It is the proponent's responsibility to demonstrate that the new technology is safe beyond reasonable doubt.

In any situation where there is uncertainty, mistakes will occur. The legislature finds that the aim must be to minimize the damage as much as possible. Just as society does not require a defendant to prove his or her innocence, society should not require objectors to prove that a particular technology is harmful. Objectors should be required to present evidence that stands up to scrutiny; however, they should not have to prove that serious dangers are inevitable. The burden of proof should be on the innovators. It is up to those who want to introduce something new to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the product is safe.

Society balances trials in favor of the defendant because it believes that convicting an innocent person is far worse than failing to convict someone who is actually guilty. Using that same reasoning, society should balance the risks and hazards in favor of safety, especially when damages may be very serious and irredeemable.

SECTION 2. Section 26-16, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:

"(c) The department shall:

SECTION 3. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.