The de minimis principle states that some risks are so trivial that they can be ignored or treated categorically differently from non-trivial risks. Lundgren and Stefánsson criticize the de minimis principle, arguing that it either has to be applied locally or globally and that problems arise whichever application is chosen. Aven and Seif respond to Lundgren and Stefánsson’s argument and defend the de minimis principle as a “meaningful and useful perspective for handling risk in practice.” The response highlights some aspects of the argument in Lundgren and Stefánsson that needs clarification, which is what we do in this note.

该微量原则指出，有些风险是那么微不足道，他们可以忽略或不平凡的风险处理断然不同。Lundgren 和 Stefánsson 批评了最低限度原则，认为它要么必须在本地应用，要么在全球应用，无论选择哪个应用都会出现问题。Aven 和 Seif 对 Lundgren 和 Stefánsson 的论点作出回应，并将最低限度原则辩护为“在实践中处理风险的有意义和有用的观点”。回应强调了 Lundgren 和 Stefánsson 争论的某些方面需要澄清，这就是我们在本说明中所做的。