Multi-Case Review of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in European Union Law and Case Law.

The precautionary principle was formulated to provide a basis for political action to protect the environment from potentially severe or irreversible harm in circumstances of scientific uncertainty that prevent a full risk or cost-benefit analysis. It underpins environmental law in the European Union and has been extended to include public health and consumer safety. The aim of this study was to examine how the precautionary principle has been interpreted and subsequently applied in practice, whether these applications were consistent, and whether they followed the guidance from the Commission. A review of the literature was used to develop a framework for analysis, based on three attributes: severity of potential harm, standard of evidence (or degree of uncertainty), and nature of the regulatory action. This was used to examine 15 pieces of legislation or judicial decisions. The decision whether or not to apply the precautionary principle appears to be poorly defined, with ambiguities inherent in determining what level of uncertainty and significance of hazard justifies invoking it. The cases reviewed suggest that the Commission's guidance was not followed consistently in forming legislation, although judicial decisions tended to be more consistent and to follow the guidance by requiring plausible evidence of potential hazard in order to invoke precaution.

Is the EU drinking water directive standard for pesticides in drinking water consistent with the precautionary principle?

Regulations based on the precautionary principle should undertake a comprehensive assessment of all available scientific and technical data to identify sources of epistemic uncertainty. In the European Union (EU), environmental regulation is required to fulfill the principles established in Article 174 of the EU Treaty, such that it offers a high level of protection and is consistent with the precautionary principle. Pesticides in drinking water are currently regulated by the Drinking Water Directive using a maximum allowable concentration of 0.1 µg/L. This standard (a surrogate zero) was consistent with the precautionary principle when it was originally set in 1980 and remained consistent when retained in 1998. However, given developments in EU pesticide and water policy, international experience in regulating pesticides, and an increasing knowledge of pesticide toxicity, it can be argued that the level of epistemic uncertainty faced by regulators has substantially decreased. In this paper, we examine the extent to which such developments now challenge the basis of European drinking water standards for pesticides and whether, for substances for which there is good toxicological understanding, a regulatory approach based upon the World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline Value (GV) methodology would be more consistent with the principles underpinning European environmental policy.

Kinetics and Mechanism of the Reaction between Serum Albumin and Auranofin (and Its Isopropyl Analogue) in Vitro.

The first detailed kinetic analysis and mechanistic interpretation of the reactions between serum albumin and the second-generation gold drug Auranofin [Et(3)PAuSATg = (triethylphosphine)(2,3,4,6-tetra-O-acetyl-1-beta-D-glucopyranosato-S-) gold(I)] and its triisopropylphosphine analogue, iPr(3)PAuSATg, in vitro are reported. The reactions were investigated using Penefsky spun columns and NMR saturation transfer methods. Under the Penefsky chromatography conditions with 0.4-0.6 mM albumin and a wide range of Et(3)PAuSATg concentrations, the reaction is biphasic. The fast phase is apparently first order in albumin with a rate constant [k(1) = 3.4 +/- 0.3 x 10(-)(2) s(-)(1)] that decreases slightly in magnitude and becomes intermediate in order at low gold concentrations, [Et(3)PAuSATg] < [AlbSH]; it accounts for approximately 95% of the Au(I) that binds. A minor, slower step [k(2) = 2.3 +/- 0.3 x 10(-)(3) s(-)(1)), which accounts for only 5% of the reaction, is also first order with respect to albumin, and zero order with respect to auranofin. For iPr(3)PAuSATg, only the first step was observed, k(1) = (1.4 +/- 0.1) x 10(-)(2) s(-)(1), and is first order in albumin and independent of the iPr(3)PAuSATg concentration. (31)P-NMR saturation transfer experiments utilizing iPr(3)PAuSATg, under equilibrium conditions, yielded second-order rate constants for both the forward (1.2 x 10(2) M(-)(1) s(-)(1)) and the reverse (3.9 x 10(1) M(-)(1) s(-)(1)) directions. A multistep mechanism involving a conformationally altered albumin species was developed. Albumin domain IA opens with concomitant Cys-34 rearrangement, allowing facile gold binding and exchange, and then closes. In conjunction with the steady-state approximation, this mechanism accounts for the different reaction orders observed under the two set of conditions. The rate-determining conformational change of albumin governs the reaction as monitored by the Penefsky columns. Rapid second order exchange of R(3)PAuSATg at the exposed Cys-34 residue is observed under the NMR conditions. The mechanism predicts that under physiological conditions where [Et(3)PAuSATg] is 10-25 &mgr;M, the reaction will be second order and rapid with a rate constant of 8 +/- 2 x 10(2) M(-)(1) s(-)(1). The Penefsky spun columns revealed a previously unreported and novel binding mechanism, association of auranofin in the pocket of albumin-disulfide species, which was confirmed by Hummel-Dreyer gel chromatographic techniques under equilibrium conditions. This albumin-auranofin complex (AlbSSR-Et(3)PAuSATg) is weakly bound and readily dissociates during conventional gel exclusion chromatography.