Designers are often faced with a dilemma when considering adoptions of a new product with putative environmental advantages instead of an established product with known environmental detriments. Even if the new product manufacturer has conducted extensive testing and offers independent verification of claims, the new product cannot match the track record of a product that has been proven in the field and tested by time.

I have recently become familiar with the Wingspread Conference, a gathering of scientists, philosophers, lawyers and environmental activists, that reached agreement on the necessity of the "Precautionary Principle" in environmental decision-making. The key element of the principle addresses the trade-offs that designers face in the absence of certainty about long term performance:

"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."

The Principle suggests that it can be acceptable to use a new product, even if there is no certainty about long term performance.

Note that this is not a free ticket to use to market any new product. The Principle also states:

"...the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof."

This means that the manufacturer of a new product must provide rigorous and transparent evidence that the new product does indeed have a lower environmental impact than the one it is attempting to supplant.

The full text of the statement follows:

Wingspread Consensus Statement on Precautionary Principle
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.