University of Minnesota

Risk Perceptions in a Modern

Controversy

Lexie Heaver
Writing of Issues in Science and Technology
Kim Thomas-Pollei
April 28th, 2016

Most have heard the expression people hear what they want to hear,
but the idea of processing ideologies selectively can be demonstrated in
more than spoken word. The cultural cognition theory suggests that
individuals dismiss or credit ideas that support their own personal beliefs.
Individuals regularly support their beliefs through sources, but it is often
occurring that these sources are given premature certainty; if the source is in
conclusion with the individuals personal belief, the selected sources are
often given credit, regardless of their legitimacy. Dan Kahan, Hank Jenkins
Smith, and Donald Braman expressed this concept in relation to global
warming in their paper Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. They
explain that 95% of scientists agree that our climate is changing due to
human emissions, but some individuals still disagree with those 95%
because the idea of global warming contradicts their beliefs. Furthermore,
these individuals, if they feel it necessary, find evidence to suggest the
environment is going through a phase, as it has done throughout all of
history, or other supporting evidence to suggest that there is no need for
concern (Kahan et al. 2). Their personal bias created the drive to seek
evidence to support their belief, and dismiss any evidence that does not
support their belief, even if the contradicting evidence is more accurate.
Consequentially, this may leave people relying heavily on arguments that are
false, which can be dangerous. For example, in recent history, the belief that
vaccinations in children could lead to autism rose in popularity. This lead to
many parents not vaccinating their children in fear of their children getting

autism. In fact, this was not the case at all. The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine, and the American Academy of
Pediatrics have all drawn the same conclusion after many studies; there is no
correlation between vaccinations and autism (Poland 4). People with a
certain belief relied heavily on false information, leading to a dangerous
outcome. Similar to people only hearing what they want to hear, they also
only believe what they want to believe.
Although it may not be the most obvious, risk perception is a large
factor in the development in these biases. In 1982, Mary Douglas and Aaron
Wildavsky published a paper titled Risk and Culture explaining the
correlation between how individuals perceive risks and their resulting biases.
They concluded that a person who perceives risks more skeptically, because
it might limit commerce and industry, would be considered more hierarchical
or individualistic. In contrast, a person would be considered egalitarian or
communitarian if they perceive risks more acceptingly and see commerce as
self-seeking and unjust (Kahan et al. 2). In the example of global warming, a
person that is considered individualistic would be more skeptical of
environmental risks because this may require regulating commerce in hopes
of impeding the effects of global warming. Persons with these values
treasure commerce more than the communitarian, thus those that are
individualistic would be against the idea of global warming. On the other
hand, a person considered communitarian is less concerned about commerce
and believes that regulations need to be in place in order to help the

environment; they advocate that global warming is real and actions are
necessary. These risk perceptions create an individuals beliefs, which in
turn create biases on an issue, such as global warming. These biases can
sometimes create polarization among the individuals that hold an opinion on
the controversy or problem being considered.
Although, global warming is not the only modern argument where the
ideologies of cultural cognition and risk perception are reflected. In the
debate of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, there are two sides.
There is a side that supports and there is a side that opposes the creation
and distribution of GMOs. Each stance has their own set of beliefs that were
created from their own perception of risk. The controversy over the regular
use of genetically modified organisms is also subject to the consequences of
the cultural cognition theory and risk perception.
The hierarchical or individualistic person is most likely to support
GMOs. This is because the creation of GMOs opens a new door to buying and
selling goods. Farmers would not have to worry about only growing what
their land allows. With the creation of GMOs, there is now an opportunity to
grow almost anything, as long as it has been genetically modified to thrive in
the specific region. For example, researchers have begun studying the
possibility of increasing cold-tolerance in plants such as tobacco. Native to
South America, tobacco is typically grown in warmer climates, giving the
plant a low threshold for cold. By injecting genes from the soybean, scientists
have successfully raised the cold-tolerance for tobacco to one degree Celsius

for eleven days (Sanghera et al. 4). Regions that were previously
uninterested in growing tobacco may soon be given the opportunity to do so.
This is not the only reason being pro-GMO is appealing to the individualist.
Certain GMOs prove to be beneficial to malnourished citizens in other
countries, which creates a new window for trade. There are countries whose
poorer populations rely heavily on nutrient deficient food, such as rice, as
their main food supply. In South Asia, 44-50% of preschool children were
affected by a severe vitamin A deficiency (Akhtar et al. 2). A person who is
deficient in vitamin A is at risk for blindness. Most die shortly after becoming
fully blind, but with advancements made in the creation of GMOs, scientists
have been able to modify rice to be more sufficient in vitamin A (Borlaug 3).
Genetically modified organisms have also contributed to improving fertilizeruse efficiency by modifying certain crops, such as wheat, to contain higher
levels of the enzyme Glu dehydrogenase. The engineered wheat with higher
levels of Glu dehydrogenase had yielded up to 29% more with the same
amount of fertilizer than the non-GMO crop had (Borlaug 2). With higher yield
in the same amount of area, GMOs have an ability to aid in not only countries
that are suffering from malnutrition, but in hunger as well. Crops such as
this modified wheat could be invaluable to countries suffering from hunger.
Those that consider themselves individualists could see this as very
beneficial to commerce; because of the demand in certain countries for
nutritional food, or for food in general, there is a market for things such as
the rice modified with vitamin A or the wheat that can produce more yield.

In contrast to the individualists, there are the communitarians. In terms

of genetically modified organisms, those that identify as communitarians
realize that there are many risks involved in GMOs. The communitarians
believe the benefit of helping people in other countries does not outweigh
the risks of doing so, or in modifying organisms themselves. For example,
they would argue that world hunger is not a problem that GMOs need to
solve. Douglas Boucher in The Paradox of Plenty mentions that the world
produces enough grain alone to feed every human being thirty-five hundred
calories a day (Lappe 10). Knowing this information, it is reasonable to say
that there is plenty of food in the world, so lack of food is not the cause of
world hunger, but rather the distribution of food and where is it prioritized.
In light of this, the communitarian believes that there is no need to invest
time and money into GMOs. In India, there are roughly 200 million people
that are starving due to lack of food. However, in 1995 India exported $625
million worth of wheat and flour and $1.3 billion worth of rice (Lappe 11).
These numbers suggest that the poorer population, i.e. the starving 200
million, are not being allowed access to the surplus of food that India has.
This only provides more support to those that are not in favor of GMOs. There
is no reason to fund and supply GMOs to help hunger if those that are hungry
are never going to see them. If those 200 million people do not have access
to non-GMO crops, there is reason to suggest that they will not see the
supplied GMOs either. Obtaining GMOs may be hard for those in larger
countries, but the case is the same in small countries as well. As

biotechnology continues to progress, the large span of patents has made it

not only difficult, but also expensive for other poorer countries to adapt
biotechnical methods, such as using GMOs (Lappe 35). Again, this supports
the communitarians thought process that the production of GMOs might not
be worth it. Especially if one of the main points in favor of GMOs is to help
the hungry and malnourished because there is a large chance that are not
going to get the help they need with GMOs.
Genetically modified organisms have been a debate amongst people
for years, but ones own personal beliefs may reflect which stance they take.
Those that are in favor of the use of GMOs, the individualists, are more likely
to be skeptical of the risks affiliated with the creation and distribution of
GMOs. This is because they believe that there is a chance commerce would
be limited. Scientists have successfully been able to modify crops that are
higher in vitamin A and produce higher yields in others. Since there is a
market for crops that can be grown with higher nutrition and higher yields,
there is an opportunity GMOs could stimulate more trade among countries
around the world. In contrast, those that are against the use of GMOs, the
communitarians, see that there are many risks involved. For example, in
some countries, the poor and the hungry are not given access to nongenetically modified food, even though there is plenty available. Engineering
a crop that produces higher yield will not help how other countries distribute
their crops, especially if those poorer citizens will never see access to it. Both

stances on the controversy of genetically modified organisms provide

evidence that support their beliefs created by their risk perceptions.

Citations

Akhtar, Saeed, Anwaar Ahmed, Muhammad Atif Randhawa, Sunethra

Atukorala, Nimmathota
Arlappa, Tariq Ismail, and Zulfiqar Ali. "Prevalence of Vitamin A
Deficiency in South Asia: Causes, Outcomes, and Possible Remedies." J
Health Popul Nutr Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 31.4
(2014). Web.
Borlaug, N. E. "Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the
Threat of
Antiscience Zealotry." Plant Physiology 124.2 (2000): 487-90. Web.
Lappe, Francis M., et. al. "Beyond Guilt and Fear." In The Paradox of Plenty:
Hunger in a
Bountiful World. ed. Douglas H. Boucher. Oakland, Calif.: Food First
Books, 1999, 4-45.
Kahan, Dan M., Hank JenkinsSmith, and Donald Braman. "Cultural Cognition
of Scientific
Consensus." Journal of Risk Research 14.2 (2011): 147-74. Web.
Poland, Gregory A. "MMR Vaccine and Autism: Vaccine Nihilism and
Postmodern Science."
SciVee. Web.
Sanghera, Gulzar S., Shabir H. Wani, Wasim Hussain, and N. B. Singh.
"Engineering Cold Stress
Tolerance in Crop Plants." CG Current Genomics 12.1 (2011): 30-43.
Web.