The idea of using barcodes to keep track of large quantities of items in a store, as well as preventing shoplifting, has been replaced with a new and improved technology, radio-frequency identification tags (RFID tags). Although these tags may be beneficial in the commercial industry, the Federal Environment Agency of Germany released an article based on their study which suggested that the continuous usage of RFID tags may pose a potential threat to the recycling industry.
In the article, the agency uses precautionary thinking to strengthen the backbone of their claim. They imply that since the outcome of this action is unknown, we should act in a way that will avoid serious potential harm. They demonstrate this by giving various examples of negative obstacles that the tags may generate during the course of recycling. For instance, they state that when melting down waste glass that includes a RFID tag, the resulting material could become less shatterproof and more discoloured due to the trace amounts of aluminum and silicon that are contained in the tags (Federal Environment Agency of Germany, 2009). Furthermore, they demonstrate use of the precautionary principle by explaining that because there are hypothetical risks towards using RFID tags, usage should cease until the commercial industry takes the necessary steps in resolving the possible ecological issues.
Although an oppositional view on this argument might express that RFID tags should be used until concrete evidence of negative environmental impacts arise, the authors of this article show that the possible dilemmas in the recycling process outweigh the commercial benefit of tag usage.
By giving reasons of uncertainty concerning the system of identification tags, which leads to the precautionary principle, the agency effectively defends their idea as to why usage of these “trackers” should be put on hold until further research and solutions come into play.
Reference
Federal Environment Agency of Germany. (2009) When Tags Interfere With Recycling, 22 September 2009. http://www.packagingdigest.com/articleXml/LN1049014938.html?nid=3462. Accessed 18 Sunday October 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think that you explained the use of the precautionary principle very well in this case, but it may have been good to talk about what type of precautionary principle was used (strong or weak precautionary principle for example). I also liked how even though the blog was supposed to be short, you still gave a brief but very thorough introduction of the topic, which makes it easier for others to see why and how the precautionary principle was used.
ReplyDeleteI like how you compared the two different directions precautionary principle could take in this case. You could have explained more about the tags, I'm slightly confused as to what their use actually is. However you stated pretty well the negative effects they would have on the recycling process.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite an interesting post on a topic that is foreseeable to become more complicated in the near future. As technological devices enter more frequently into our lives, they also become smaller and less noticeable. As this happens, will we begin failing to notice when they negatively impact our lives? Do we even consider these negative impacts or weigh them against the benefits offered by the technology?
ReplyDeleteYou discuss the issue well in this post. I think you've shown that the ultimate goal of most new technologies is to improve our lives in general. Adverse implications that arise are usually secondary, and should be proven to outweigh the benefits before dismissing the technology's usefulness or helpfulness.