Food safety is a hot issue. From GM foods to BSE to Foot and Mouth, we are inundated with stories about food risks. But why is it that certain food risks generate a high degree of public concern whereas others, which are equally or more serious, often generate little or no concern? Or, to put it another way, why is it that certain risks considered to be insignificant by scientists and experts sometimes provoke public outrage and fear?
Recent research has indicated that risk perceptions are often determined by the prominence of a range of Fright Factors that can increase public anxiety. The presence or absence of one or more of these factors can influence how the public responds to a risk.
The risk is generally more worrying and less acceptable if:
Let us look, fox instance, at the factor of involuntariness. The understanding here is that the degree of individual choice involved in a risk will impact upon the way in which the risk is perceived. When people think they have little choice and the risk is potentially uncontrollable by personal actions, then their reactions are very negative. However, if the risk allows scope for individual choice, the public will perceive the risk as less serious.
These perceptions take little account of actual risk. For example, the fact that most people feel `in control' of smoking and drinking explains why these risks rank low on the public's comparative risk scales, despite the damage that these activities are known to inflict. However, many people perceive that they have no control over their exposure to GMOs and this explains, in part, why people are so anxious about potential GM risks - a fear that has prompted vociferous consumer campaigns for clear labelling. Thus how a person is exposed to a risk may be just as important as the actual likelihood that they will be harmed by it.
Another fright factor, dread, is used to refer to risks that have the capacity to produce fearful forms of injury or death. The dread factor has been attached to threats that have potentially catastrophic effects, such as genetic engineering, war, environmental pollution and nuclear power. Individuals fear the `worst imaginable accidents' that may stem from these types of risks.
Both the BSE crisis and the current speculation about the effects of GMOs have connotations of dread. In the case of BSE, dread is mobilised not only by the threat of death, but by the degenerative nature of variant CJD, graphically illustrated by media images of stumbling livestock and identifiable vegetative human victims. Similarly, recent media reporting of GM foods has traded on the dread factor, alluding to 'Frankenstein Foods' and the emergence of a `Jurassic Park Scenario'. The presence of dread explains why people tend to overestimate the risk of death from rare and catastrophic events and underestimate more ubiquitous health risks such as cancer and heart disease.
Other fright factors associated with food scares relate to the degree of uncertainty surrounding the risk. The inescapable component, for instance, occurs when people perceive that they are unable to identify and protect themselves from a risk. This factor is common to many food risks and has been identified as a reason for the high level of public insecurity over BSE. It is notoriously difficult to `see' or `taste' contamination, given that food-related risks are often imperceptible to the senses.
Uncertainty may also be brought about by a lack of scientific knowledge or by disagreement over the knowledge that currently exists. If a risk appears to be poorly understood by those responsible for regulation, public anxiety is likely to be accentuated.
The indeterminate character of certain food risks has important consequences for practitioners of risk communication. If threats to health are presented in an ambiguous or contradictory fashion it is likely that public discontent will emerge. A respondent in one study into attitudes to food aptly illustrates this point:
"The reports contradict themselves, don't they? I mean they come out one year and say don't eat this, don't eat that because your cholesterol is too high, you've got to watch your cholesterol. Then they come out the next year and say no, no your cholesterol is OK, you don't need to worry about it."
The increased public awareness of uncertainty throughout the BSE crisis brought about a simultaneous decline in trust in expert systems. This climate of uncertainty and scepticism, if left unattended, can only deepen the rift between the powerful decision-makers within our institutions and the wider public.
As illustrated by the Fright Factors, the difference between how scientists and the public may perceive a risk fuels this general mistrust and insecurity. Perhaps we must accept these climatic conditions as part of our contemporary existence. In some ways, this has led to positive developments: government departments and regulatory bodies have been opened up to greater transparency and now consult with a plurality of voices.
One of the toughest challenges facing risk communicators today is how to communicate about risks in the face of an uncertain world. What is clear, however, is that the public has the right to know about food risks, to decide voluntarily which risks to expose themselves to, and to feed back their views to the relevant authorities. Communicators must try their utmost to fulfil these requirements without triggering public anxiety.
Gabe Mythen and Dr. Corinne Wales are members of a collaborative project team from Leeds University Business School, Manchester Business School and Luther Pendragon, an issues management consultancy. An important aspect of the three year project called "Understanding Stakeholder Concerns and their Reactions to Communications about Food Safety" is the participation of members of the public in a series of postal and one-day face-to-face workshops.
If you are interested in taking part in either or both of these types of interactions, or if you would like further information on the project generally, please contact the authors: Gabe at Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester. Tel: 0161 275 6469 or e-mail gmythen@man.mbs.ac.uk; Corinne at Leeds University Business School, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT. Tel: 0113 2334510 or e-mail: caw@lubs.leeds.ac.uk
back to menu
Click Logo to Return to
Main Magazine Index