Impact sports, child ‘brain abuse’, and the precautionary principle

Anderson et al. (2023) offer a multi-pronged argument for the prohibition of children’s impact sports, appealing to consent issues, UK law and UN precedent, and the precautionary principle (PP). I focus on the role of PP and argue that it does not support the ‘child abuse’ claim and contributes less to the overall case for prohibition than the authors suggest. I identify proportionality concerns that require sustained empirical attention. Arguments for prohibition may still succeed if reframed in terms of child endangerment rather than abuse.