Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Betsy Barnum

17 December 2000 01:04 UTC

David MacClement wrote:

> · I hope you don't get distracted from my main point: _who_ is responsible
> for risk taking, especially when the risks are unknown or not well known.

This, IMO, is the crux of the reason why "risk assessment" is a bogus activity
designed to deflect people's and communities' legitimate concerns about
personal risk by using so-called "science."

As David points out, there are plenty of ways in which people choose to take
personal risks in everyday life. Everyone who drives a car is taking a
calculated risk. Flying in airplanes likewise. We take risks just getting up in
the morning, we might eat something that will make us sick, we might step in
front of a car or truck, we might slip and fall and break our bones. We trust
the system that delivers us food, medicine, regulation of stoplights, repair of
freeways, etc., to deliver safe and low-risk options. But of course there is
inherent risk just in living.

What risk assessment does, as a practice, is attempt to quantify an acceptable
risk to society as a whole, from the use of some chemical or technology. This
is done by contrasting the economic benefit (to a company, and indirectly to
the economy as a whole) against the number of likely injuries or deaths that
will result form the use of the chemical or technology in question. At this
level it ceases to be an individual choice, and becomes something that the
individual has no control over. The risk is being taken without consent,
without participation. It is a risk someone else--a corporation, which stands
to benefit monetarily--is willing to take with everyone's health and safety.
And it is a risk that may go directly against the accepted values of the
community, against common sense, and the "science" of risk assessment is used
to justify it and to cast aspersions on any individuals who object to others
deciding what risks they will take.

WRT to GMOs, the thing that bugs me the most is that so-called science keeps
being thrown in the face of people who object to GMOs. "People are hysterical.
They just don't understand that the science says it's entirely ok, nothing to
worry about. We have to convince them that their fears are unfounded." What
bugs me about this is that people's stated preference not to eat GMOs is
disrespected and viewed as hysteria, ignorance, unfounded fear, something that
needs to be "fixed" or "corrected," rather than as a legitimate stance that is
deserving of respect.

It boils down to a lot of people who are *unwilling* to take the risk of GMOs,
regardless of what risk assessment tells them is the "real" risk factor. If
they want to take whatever risk there is, they can choose to do so if the
products are labelled. If they choose not to take the risk, they can choose to
buy other products, just as people who fear car accidents and don't wish to
take that risk can choose not to drive a car. If there is no *need* for the
product, eg GMOs, and the main reason for its being produced is to make money
for big corporations, why should people not be given the option to avoid it?
*Not* to subject themselves to the risk of harm that someone else has decided,
for the sake of profit, to subject them to without their consent?

Personally, I think genetic engineering should be banned until long-term
comprehensive testing can be done (more, *much* more comprehensive and
long-term than stating that people have been eating genetically engineered
potatoes for a number of years with no problems that we know of). But there is
no justification, in my view, for refusing to label genetically engineered
products so people can make an informed choice. The *only* reason for biotech
companies to oppose labelling is so they can make the decision about who will
take risks (and thereby they can reap the financial rewards), rather than
allowing people to make those decisions themselves.

Betsy