Logic goes out the window when assessing hazards
The Irish Times
Monday, March 29, 1999
People get agitated about the dangers of GM foods,
phone masts and electricity pylons but ignore much
greater threats posed by lack of exercise, smoking
and greasy fries. Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor,
considers the meaning of risk
Which of these is definitely true? Elvis Presley is alive and living
in Acapulco. Genetically modified foods are safe. Mobile
phone masts are dangerous. Taking vitamin supplements
makes you healthy. Genetically modified foods are dangerous.
Horoscopes can tell you the future. Organic foods are better
for you than nonorganic. Natural radiation is safer than
radiation from nuclear power plants. Answer: none of them.
None of these statements can be proven true, although it is
remarkable how many people firmly believe these things, even
the notion that Elvis might be working on his tan in Mexico.
Some can get positively vehement about these issues, despite
having very little real evidence to prove their view.
Take the mobile phone mast issue, for example. Violent
protests have erupted in several parts of the State as locals
campaigned to keep these masts out of their neighbourhoods.
The standard claim is that they pose "a genuine risk to health",
but in fact you are more likely to be harmed by a mast falling
over than from the signal it sends out.
The real reason people don't want the masts is that they are
ugly, but it is simpler to claim and to believe that they are a
health risk. It is also easier to rally opposition if you can scare
people into believing they are in danger.
It is much more difficult to convince people that there is
emerging evidence that the mobile phones themselves, and not
the masts, may pose a risk. Only this month researchers at
Bristol Royal Infirmary released a study which showed that
subjects exposed to radiation from mobiles experienced
temporary disruption of memory.
People want their mobiles, however, and so ignore these
findings. The masts are out because they are a danger but the
phones are OK because we want them.
This confusion, which unfortunately cannot be resolved by
applying simple scientific facts, all boils down to the way we
deal with the risks - natural and human-made - that follow us
around like shadows on a sunny day. We disregard any
dangers associated with the things we want and run scared
before those we view as optional.
All the medical studies which show that cigarette-smokers die
young don't amount to a pile of ash to those addicted to
nicotine, who will continue to smoke and risk their lives. We
don't think or worry about invisible, radioactive Radon gas in
our homes but lose sleep over Sellafield, even though Radon
poses the greater day-today risk.
We happily gobble up greasy fries, heavily processed foods
with high salt and fat content, bags of crisps and other nasties
that gum up our blood vessels and are proven to be dangerous.
Many consumers, however, are up in arms about foods, such
as soya and maize, that contain genetically modified ingredients
despite a growing body of evidence that modified foods aren't
any different when digested than their unmodified equivalents.
This is not to argue in favour of genetic modification, Sellafield
or any other potential source of risk. It is a matter of
recognising that all foods, lifestyles and activities carry a
potential for risk, but also that we do not tend to apply logic or
reason when deciding if we find a risk tolerable.
Train crashes are rare but do happen and so every journey
carries a risk even though we treat this reality with indifference.
Drinking too much is bad but statistics can show that drinking a
little is better than not drinking at all if you want a long life.
Vaccinating children against measles involves a measurable risk
of serious health damage, but statistically it is more dangerous
for the child not to be vaccinated.
The level of risk doesn't change very much, but our view of the
relative "riskiness" of a food or activity does. Hands up those
who recall the scare stories when microwave ovens were first
introduced. We were told - backed up by alleged evidence -
that carcinogens would be produced by the microwaves. Few
homes are without microwaves nowadays.
E numbers, the food additives put into processed foods for
flavouring, colouring and thickening, were also a major issue. A
whole range of ills was blamed on these additives, and there is
no doubt some individuals allergic to certain products did suffer
from their consumption.
Concern about these has passed, however, to be replaced by
worries about GM foods. The great majority of studies done
so far on GM foods haven't shown these are dangerous, but
perhaps the risks are well hidden and difficult to find, or so
those opposed to the technology argue.
There are also potential environmental risks, for example, the
spread of modified genes into the wild to unknown effect or the
loss of biodiversity if farmers go for modified crops.
Research is ongoing into what some have dubbed
"Frankenstein foods", so a cautious commentator should check
where the balance of scientific evidence lies. At the moment
this suggests that there is little risk from eating modified
products, although the jury is out about the environmental
issues.
Why then is there such a furore at the moment about GM
foods and what has governments across Europe running scared
before an electorate that is not convinced about safety
aspects? This is where perception of risk comes into play again
and evidence goes out the window.
Opponents of the technology keep banging away at the
possible health risks of these products, even though no
definitive evidence has yet been shown. The consumer doesn't
know for sure but does not see any advantage in accepting any
extra risk, real or otherwise.
These products make money for their manufacturers and for
food producers but are of no direct benefit to us so far. So we
reject these optional risks just in case. The same process
occurs wherever a community rejects a phone mast or, as
happened in Cork, proposals for overland electricity pylons.
It would have been better had Cork councillors changed their
minds about the pylons for the real reason - because they are a
blot on the landscape and because they are frightened of the
anger of the electorate - rather than on the spurious health
claims made by opponents who once again cited scientific
certainties about power lines, when none exists.
ireland.com:80/newspaper/ireland/1999/0329/hom17.htm |
