[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 22, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IRRATIONAL FEARS PUT TECHNOLOGY TO REST

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 22, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues an editorial 
which appeared in the Lincoln Star on February 7, 1994. This editorial 
echoes the sentiments of this Member that, far too frequently, sound 
science is being ignored and taken hostage by special interest groups 
who specialize in exaggerating risks and exploiting people's fears. 
Unfortunately, the threat to sound public policy decisions on issues 
like safe drinking water, pesticide use, and the use of new 
technologies is real and can only be effectively fought by fully 
educating the public about the costs and benefits of each and every 
issue.

                Irrational Fears Put Technology to Test

       The Unknown, the uncontrollable, the unimaginable.
       Those are the definitions of things that strike fear into 
     the heart of the average American. Psychologists say people 
     are less accepting of risks from these types of sources than 
     from others in life, which could be defined as one (generally 
     acceptable) risk after another.
       They also note that the real risk to health and safety from 
     a given source may have little or no relation to the public's 
     perception of that risk.
       This has long been a source of frustration for scientists, 
     public health officials and others who must set public 
     policy.
       Probably no sphere of public regulation has been so ruled 
     by public fears than risks associated with the environment 
     and food safety.
       Former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, William 
     K. Reilly, now a senior fellow at the World Wildlife Fund, 
     aptly calls it ``agenda-setting by episodic panic,'' and 
     rightly notes the ``need to develop a new system for taking 
     action on the environment that isn't based on responding to 
     the nightly news.''
       But just as legislators, scientists and other officials are 
     recognizing a new scientific imperative, a whole industry of 
     professional fear-mongers has sprung up to challenge every 
     scientific break-through, to poke at people's fears and 
     exploit them for their own agendas.
       They are the Chicken Littles of our time. The sky is 
     falling with every new chemical uncovered. They are having a 
     heyday with biotechnology and the rapid-fire advances 
     announced nearly daily.
       The fact that these public interest groups might be 
     occasionally or partially right, or at least operate from a 
     genuine standard of concern makes it tougher for people to 
     sift through the conflicting opinions.
       The latest example is BST. The Food and Drug Administration 
     just approved the use of BST, a naturally occurring hormone, 
     that injected into milking cows, increases their milk 
     production.
       BST, a product of genetic engineering, over which the 
     general public has no control, fits the definition of risk 
     for which people are likely to overreact. Indeed, to read the 
     press releases from the Pure Food Coalition, which is calling 
     for a milk boycott, this genetically engineered hormone will 
     end civilization as we know it.
       We suspect the outrage over pasteurization earlier in this 
     century caused a similar panic.
       New technologies will demand we be more sophisticated.
       Seeing monsters in the dark is natural, but now that we 
     have electricity, perhaps we should use it more often.
       It's folly--expensive folly--for public policy to be led by 
     popular panic rather than sound science.