As the principle comes to the fore on the international arena and as environmental activists and academics embrace the principle with growing enthusiasm, US officials are forced to come to terms with the principle and its meaning. So far, US official responses have been mostly negative. They come not from agencies with direct responsibility for environmental and health matters but from the US Department of State, the US Trade Representative, and the US Department of Commerce, the latter two representing mainly economic and industrial interests. The bodies most competent to speak on matters of health and the environment the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services have been mostly silent. That is partly because the World Trade Organization and other international economic institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, are taking an increasingly important role in defining environmental policy throughout the world.
Any stricter standard is at risk of being challenged by another country as a trade barrier.
Any weaker standard, however, cannot be challenged as environmental dumping. The principle embodies the idea of careful planning to avoid risks in the first place, rather than trying to determine how much risk is acceptable. On the other hand, a November White House statement said nations have the right to invoke the precautionary principle to protect their citizens, although such decisions should be based on science and should not be arbitrary. The recent European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle. The Communication describes precaution as a risk management tool only a part of a risk analysis framework rather than the overall guide to its implementation.