Page - 207 - in Freshwater Microplastics - Emerging Environmental Contaminants?

perceivedasmorerisky than lesspotentchemicals.Thiscouldbepartof the reason whypesticides andherbicideswereperceivedasmost risky, since these chemicals are designed to kill. The level of controlmight also be an important driver for the perceivedriskinthestudy(driver2inTable1).Pesticidesandherbicidesarespread in theenvironment leading toa lossofcontrol,whereasexposure to toothpasteand hair shampooisconductedundercontrolledcircumstances (not taking theexposure to the environment fromwastewater into consideration). Furthermore, there is a general trust that cosmetic products such as sunscreen are tested and that any potential risk is therefore known to science [9], again in correlation with risk perception driver 3 (whether a risk is understood and quantifiable or unknown and unfamiliar). The report finally concludes that there is a correlation between the educational levels of citizens and their awarenessof potential riskbut also that the better a risk is understood, the less concerned citizens are about it. These observations are also in accordance with the risk perception, biases, and drivers presented inTable 1. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is another controversial topicwhich has spun an intense debate about risk perception since their introduc- tion in the 1970s [10]. Especially, European citizens have been very reluctant to accept the risk associated with GMOs, not at least due to the high degree of scientific uncertainty associated with the use. Since the 1990s, the debate about theuseofGMOsismainlycenteredoncropsandfoodproducts,whereasGMOsin pharmaceuticals have gainedbroader acceptance [10]. This tendency canpossibly beexplainedbyanumberof thebiasesanddrivers inTable1.For instance,citizens willgenerallyviewariskasmoretolerableif there isanobviousbenefitfromtaking the risk (driver 6) or if the risk is not directly affecting the individual subject, for example, if theuseofaGMOatafarmisaffecting theecosystemonageneral level and to a less extent the individual farmer. Production of new pharmaceuticals is often viewed positively, whereas enhanced crop yield might be less related to a consumer benefit and oftenmore related tomaximizing the economic outcome to the benefit of the farmer andonlyvery indirectly the consumer. Another aspect that has had importance for public risk perception ofGMOs is the so-called yuck factor [11]. It is a term thatwas first used to describe citizens’ reluctance toward new technologieswith unknownconsequences: a classic exam- ple being the unwillingness toward using purified wastewater as drinking water, regardlessofhoweffective thecleaning is [11].The“yuckfactor”can thusbeseen as anemotional response to something that peoplemightfind repulsive or inother waysconflictingwith theirbeliefs andvalues.Theemotional attitude towardnovel technologies is framed bymany factors on the individual level (e.g., age, gender, education, profession, previous experience with technologies, etc.) and on the societal level (e.g., structure and level of educational, media and legal system, normsandvalues,etc.).The“yuckfactor” is thereforeonlyasimplisticexplanation tosomeof thepublicaversion towardGMOs[11].Theperception that foodshould be grown in the field and not in the laboratory surely also plays a role for some citizens’ reluctance toward accepting this technology.GMOs thereby challenge a public idea of the relation between nature and food as a public set of values, RiskPerceptionofPlastic Pollution: Importance ofStakeholder Involvement. . . 207