Dear editor:
One must use extreme caution when invoking the UN’s Precautionary Principal
(letter to the editor ‘precautionary principal’ Aug 19/16 )
Right now, it is Nestle Waters that is the target of this misleading
non-standard. The Precautionary Principal states the entity or individual must prove that the environment or humans will not be harmed by their activities in the “absence of scientific consensus”. For the environmental activists, the beauty if this is, scientific consensus will always be absent since science is exact and , as such, can never prove a negative. In other words,”guilty until proven innocent”. This non-standard turns our present legal system on it’s head in favour of an international model. This is the usual sneakiness of environmentalists and the United Nations.
Companies like Nestle Waters would not be in operation if they were routinely harming the environment or the product they’re harvesting and selling. If one is against bottled water, stop buying it.
So, what’s next? Will the individual user be targeted? After all, we are “water takers” every time we turn on the tap. How is an individual to ‘prove’ that their water use will not ever result in harm for future generations? Sorry folks, it can’t be done according to the Precautionary Principal.
Doreen Henschel
Rockwood, ON
Doreen Henschel