This is the third in a series that looked at how the hazard-based regulatory approach has led to the contrapreneur pushing the precautionary principle to challenge the achievements of entrepreneurs. This irrationality is only possible in a world where …
An expedient policy process relying on precaution and hazard-based regulations has allowed contrapreneurs to cement their anti-innovation strategy at the heart of Brussels
What is the difference between the risk-based regulatory approach and a hazard-based one? Why is it that hazard-based activists are so successful in pushing such an unrealistic approach?
Precaution as a policy tool has been manipulated to meet activist agendas. On climate and GMOs, we see two different, contradictory perceptions of precaution applied. How can activists deal with this contradiction?