Please Enter Your Survey ID #:
Agriculture/Ag-Food Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Health Canada Natural Resources Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency Other (please specify)
0 – 1 years 1– 2 years 2 – 3 years 3 - 4 years 4 – 5 years More than 5 years: How many years ?
Director Director General Assistant Deputy Minister Associate Deputy Minister Other (please specify)
Basic Sciences Business Engineering Environmental Sciences Law Medical/Life Sciences Social Sciences Public Administration Other: Please Specify
Yes No
1% to 25 % 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% 0% (Not Used) [Goto End of Survey]
Very Important Not Important 1 2 3 4 5 Please rate:
Yes, for the better Yes, for the worse No
As a general concept that governs all risk related management decisions As a specific concept that is invoked in individual cases
Little Degree of Understanding Moderate Understanding Completely Understand
"Where there are threats of damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm" "Where there are threats of damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent harm" "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm" "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent harm"
Agree Neutral Disagree Waiting for definitive evidence of risk can have serious consequences Human and environmental systems are too complex to be understood through evidence alone. Science has limits in establishing risks. Conventional risk-benefit analyses underplay potential risks.
Agree Neutral Disagree The definition of the principle is unclear The principle makes scientific evaluation of risk irrelevant. The principle encourages economic protectionism. The principle can deny the public access to the benefits of a technology.
Prima facie evidence (suggestion of evidence) Preponderance or weight of evidence High scientific confidence
Similar At least moderately more serious Significantly more serious
Very Important Not Important Not Relevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 Public pressure to appropriately manage risk. The influence of special interest groups. Evidence/ testimony provided by academics. Legal concerns. The perceived seriousness of the threat. (i.e. The more serious a threat the more likely to apply principle). Ambiguity of evidence regarding the seriousness of the threat. (i.e. The less understood the magnitude of the threat, the more likely to apply the principle). The application of the precautionary principle in other countries on the same risk management question.
Not Important Not Relevant
The precautionary principle does more good than harm The precautionary principle does more harm than good The precautionary principle does neither harm nor good
Agree Disagree