Answer :
For the environmental risk, it is much better to prevent pollution than to deal with it after it has already been made. When you deal with the pollution, it is hard to say that you can eliminate completely. So, prevention is the first strategy.
Answer:
Because pollution prevention is easier than remediation of contamination
Explanation:
Today, fortunately, there is already a “Stockholm Convention” that, in addition to having among its goals reduce and eventually eliminate twelve of the most toxic POPs, paves the way for a future free of POPs, while we are witnessing a growing alternative development of biopesticides and biofertilizers, within an orientation called "Biomimicry", which seeks to be inspired by nature to move towards Sustainability.
Facts such as these have led to the systematic application of the precautionary principle, which prohibits the hasty application of a technology when its possible repercussions have not yet been sufficiently investigated. To this end, instruments such as the Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA (with different formulations such as "environmental risk analysis", "life cycle analysis" or "cradle analysis" have been introduced - although only in some countries) to the grave ”), to know and prevent the environmental impacts of the products and technologies that are proposed. A relevant example is the Reach regulation that came into force in 2007, after overcoming the fierce opposition of the powerful consortium represented by the CEFIC (European Consortium of Federations of Industry Chemistry). This is a rule that obliges industrialists to provide evidence on the safety of the products they use. Civil society itself creates partnerships to demand more rigorous policies and regulations, such as the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, which in the US comprises 440 organizations representing more than 11 million people concerned about the toxicity of the chemical compounds present in their homes and workplace.
