Imagine a staple crop like rice has the potential to cure an
ailing disease that millions of people face every year. By eating this
genetically modified rice, you are getting your nutritional needs for vitamin
A, which can in turn help reduce the risk of effects from not getting enough of
this nutrient. Vitamin A deficiency affects vision, which can cause night
blindness or even complete blindness. Younger populations are at the most risk.
It seems a little too good to be true right? When it comes to genetically
modified foods, when does the risk outweigh the benefits?
The golden rice is visually different than any other type of
rice. It has the yellow color that shows the presence of beta-carotene. One
bowl of golden rice can supply a child with at least 60% of their daily-recommended
intake of vitamin A. Some people are cautious of the true benefits of consuming
this type of rice, because it was discovered through biotechnology. While this
rice seems like it is a great solution for a problem that affects millions of
people each year, some people argue that genetically modified foods are not
driven to help people, but driven to gain a profit.
This can be true for many different government and private
company decisions that have been made in the past and present. In the past,
when nuclear technologies became more popular, it was believed that people
approached risk first with rational thought and considering all information
before making a decision. If you provide the people with all the information,
it will alter their perception of the risk. Many years later, the research
stated that even if you provide someone with all of the information they need
to make a decision, this still won’t quiet their irrational fears. This
methodology comes from Paul Slovic, where he “examines the particular
heuristics and biases people invent to interpret the amount of risk in their
environment”. He surveys different social and cultural factors that lead to
risk evaluation.
One of the more controversial issues in our country today is
the debate about hydraulic fracturing, or as it is more popularly known,
fracking. Fracking involves using a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals deep
into shale formations to crack and release oil to be brought to ground level.
The benefits of fracking are highly economic, while the negative impacts range
from contaminating aquifers to air pollution. In this situation do the benefits
outweigh the risks?
It has been considered why people’s perception of risk of
nuclear fallouts are much greater than automobile accidents, which have caused
much more deaths than the former. It could perhaps be linked to media coverage
in the news. Car accidents happen every day, but rarely appear in national
news. When there is a disease outbreak, natural disaster, or a shooting, they
are covered by the news in depth. The media greatly influences what we perceive
to be a risk, and can determine how we react to many different situations. With
the continuing changes on our planet, it is important now more than ever to promote public policy, and provide education to
improve the public's reactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment