Risky Business
Science can pinpoint potential dangers but can't tell us if those risks are real
Mad Cow Disease
What ever happened to BSE?

The Truth About SARS What we've learned about the virus and how scared we should be [5/5/03]
Mind & Body The infinite mysteries of the human mind and how it affects your health [2/17/2003]
Indicates premium content

Where does the blame lie for the public's distrust of scientists?

Scientists
The Media
Green Activists
Big Business
History



E-mail your letter to the editor




Posted Sunday, July 20, 2003; 16.11BS
How worried should we be? That depends on how much uncertainty we're prepared to live with. And these days we're prepared to live with less and less. As science, medicine and technology make life safer, healthier and more comfortable, our intolerance of risk is growing. Plenty of dangers have been eliminated — childhood mortality is way down, diseases that were once common have been eradicated, food is more plentiful and nutritious than ever. But these advances have made us even more sensitive to the risks that remain. "Before the umbrella, if it started to rain you got wet," says Raffaele De Giorgi, director of the Center for the Study of Risk at Italy's University of Lecce. "With the invention of the umbrella, the risk of getting wet was born."

Most Europeans, for example, are alarmed by the prospect of eating GM foods, but many will happily sit in a bar munching potato chips, smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol — all of which together amount to a much clearer health risk than sipping a bowl of genetically modified tomato soup. Europeans are suspicious of GM foods despite the absence of any proof that they are actually unsafe. In contrast, everybody knows smoking can kill you — but 94 million people in the E.U. do it anyway. "There are discussions about health risks that are a luxury," says Irene Lukassowitz, spokeswoman for Berlin's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. "By and large, we are very well-fed and have the time to worry about even the smallest risk. Consumers want to be protected, but prefer it if there is someone else to blame."

Helene Guldberg, a developmental psychologist at Britain's Open University, believes that our risk- aversion poses dangers of its own. Society's reluctance to accept the inevitable risks that accompany progress, she argues, could slow the pace of discovery and innovation. "There can never be a guarantee that anything is harmless," she says. "But unless there is evidence of harm, we shouldn't worry. Without risk taking there can be no experimentation, and therefore no progress."

Learning to live with risk is one of those quintessentially modern skills — like learning to order a venti-skim latte or buy groceries online — but a whole lot more difficult and important. To manage our fear of risk, we have to come to terms with some very tricky issues. Can we trust scientists, politicians and the media to interpret the dangers and benefits of new technologies? When they dump the choices back in our laps and tell us to make the decisions — test the fetus or not; eat the food or not; use the phone or not — how do we do it? Should we just stop worrying and be happy? To find out, Time examined the science and the hype around three controversial issues — GM foods, mobile phones and household chemicals. Here's our anatomy of risk.

To Eat or Not to Eat?
Looking out over a field of genetically modified oilseed rape on his 810-hectare farm in Oxfordshire, 85 km northwest of London, Christopher Lewis recalls the warm, sunny day last summer when an Oxford University scientist came to visit. Lewis, a thoughtful man who's been a farmer for 44 of his 69 years, has been growing GM crops for the past 36 months as part of a U.K. government study to track the impact of genetically modified organisms on the environment. He took the researcher down to one of the maize test fields. Conventional maize was growing on one side; on the other, the plants were genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide found in every garden store, which kills plants while leaving the soil undamaged.

On the GM side, treated with the relatively mild glyphosate, there were occasional clumps of small, stunted weeds as well as "midges, bees, beetles and a pair of partridges feeding their young," Lewis remembers. On the non- GM side — which was treated with simazine, a stronger conventional herbicide that clears weeds but can render the soil sterile — there was nothing; no weeds, no insects, no birds. "How can these anti-GM protesters continue down this route?" Lewis wonders. "What more assurance do they want?"

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next





Table of Contents
Subscribe to TIME

ADVERTISEMENT

On New Year's Eve, the Miseries of Minsk
As Russia hikes up the cost of gas for Belarus, the mood turns gloomy
Mogadishu at 60 Miles an Hour
Arms merchants are once again doing brisk business after a rapid change of power in this tough town, but so far the peace has held
The Year of The Nuke
A rundown of the world's nuclear powerhouses, and what to expect in the coming months
QUICK LINKS: Risky Business | BSE | Back to TIMEeurope.com Home
FROM THE JULY 28, 2003 ISSUE OF TIME MAGAZINE; POSTED SUNDAY, JULY 20, 2003

BANNER ILLUSTRATION for TIME by LOU BROOKS

 © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Subscribe | Customer Service | FAQ | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us
World Watch e-mail | Try AOL UK for 120 hours FREE | Try FOUR free issues of TIME