This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hansson, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hansson, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ethical principles for hormesis policies

Department of Philosophy and History of Technology, KTH, Teknikringen 78, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden soh{at}kth.se

At least two major choices have to be made in the ethical analysis of hormesis policies. The first is where to put the burden of proof when it is uncertain whether a particular hormesis effect exists or not. It is argued that the burden of proof will have to fall primarily on those who claim the existence of such an effect. The second issue arises when (positive) hormesis effects of a substance are weighed against negative effects of the same substance. A decision must then be made whether negative effects affecting one person can be outweighed by positive effects on another person or only by positive effects on that person herself. It is argued that risk-weighing for hormesis effects should be individualistic. This would mean that benefits for one person do not automatically outweigh negative effects on another person.

Key Words: hormesis • risk • risk analysis • risk-weighing • burden of proof • precautionary principle

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 27, No. 8, 609-612 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327108098494


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?