Writing in editorial appearing in Saturday’s edition of the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” newspaper Sven Titz criticizes the way we handle risks. The coronavirus pandemic offers a good example here. The author notes three problems: “Whenever there are new or rare threats, Europe responds, first of all, in a way that is far too inflexible; second, in a way that doesn’t succeed; and third, with insufficient communication.” The modern world is full of latent threats. The rapid pace of research and development of new technologies therefore makes handling risks adequately all the more important.

Take account of the risks and costs of not using technologies, too
Titz identifies a fundamental difference between English-speaking countries and Continental Europe when it comes to handling risks. While a cautious approach has prevailed in Europe since the 1970s, North America and the UK primarily rely on cost-benefit analysis. The cautious approach says that new technologies (including when there is incomplete knowledge regarding possible harm) should generally be avoided. Technologies should not be used as long as potential negative consequences for people or the environment cannot be ruled out. Risks should be avoided as much as possible. With a cost-benefit analysis, by contrast, the costs of not using the technology are considered in addition to the potential negative effects of the technology. This is because not using new technologies entails risk as well. The latest example of this is the authorization of Covid vaccines. Should the risk of isolated side effects be weighed more heavily than the virus itself? Or the authorization of new pesticides: In recent years, not a single new pesticide has received authorization in Switzerland. More than 200 products are in the pipeline. This poses a risk to food security and the environment, because chemical agents are more targeted and safer, as a rule.

Communicating transparently
But in addition to their troubles when handling risks, Europeans also struggle to communicate risks. For example, figures are sometimes communicated without the corresponding reference values. If a newspaper article says that eating a certain food doubles the risk of cancer, it sounds frightening at first glance. But when it turns out that the risk of the disease is a millionth of a fraction, then doubling the risk takes on a different light. It is absolutely essential to separate what seems frightening and what is actually dangerous. Titz’s conclusion: An awareness of risks and probabilities should be discussed much more – and starting as early as grade school. Business, political and administrative decision-makers should be much more conscious of risk management.

The precautionary principle should increasingly be combined with cost-benefit analyses. Forbidding risks or taking a zero-tolerance approach toward risk will result in paralysis.