Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:20:02.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Implications of the Risk Communication Guidelines for the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sweta Chakraborty
Affiliation:
King's College London
Naomi Creutzfeldt-Banda
Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Abstract

This section discusses issues related to risk communication across a range of publicly perceived highrisk industries (such as pharmaceuticals, nuclear, oil, etc.). It reports critically and provides analysis on risk communication as an outcome of risk research within these industries. Contributions are intended to include methods working towards the advancement of risk perception research and describe any lessons learned for successfully communicating to the public about risk.

Type
Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Morgan, G. M., Fischhoff, B. et al., Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach (Cambridge: University Press 2002).Google Scholar

2 Fischhoff, B., “Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process”, 15 Risk Analysis (1995), pp. 137145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3 Adapted from Ibid., p. 138.

4 Ibid., p. 138.

5 Ibid., p. 138.

6 Plough, A. and Krimsky, S., “The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context”, 12(3/4) Science, Technology, and Human Values (1987), pp. 410.Google Scholar

7 Slovic, P., “Perception of Risk”, 236(187) Science, pp. 280285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8 Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, 185 Science (1974), pp. 11241130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B., “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study Towards Technological Risks and Benefits”, 8 Policy Sciences (1978), pp. 127152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. et al., Risk Perception and Communication (Oxford University Press 2002).Google Scholar

11 D. Powell, Setting the Stage: Understanding Communication Issues with Foodborne Pathogens (1998), Workshop on Foodborne Pathogens at the University of Guelph, Ontario.

12 Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., and Bardes, J., “GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception”, 24(1) Risk Analysis (2004), pp. 185194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Risk Communication Advisory Committee, US Food and Drug Administration, available on the Internet at <http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/RiskCommunicationAdvisoryCommittee/default.htm>.

14 Renn, O., and Levine, D., “Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication”, in Kasperson, J. and Stallen, P. (eds), Communicating Risks to the Public (Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991).Google Scholar

15 The European Medicines Agency Road Map to 2015: The Agency’s Contribution to Science, Medicines, Health, available on the Internet at <http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2010/01/WC500067952.pdf>.

16 STARC Report: ‘Risk Communication Practices in EU Member States, Selected Other Countries and Industries’ (2006).

17 Vogel, David, The New Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe (London: LSE 2001), p. 1.Google Scholar

18 For example: Accutane, a drug used in the treatment of acne (July 2010); and an anti-obesity drug (August 2010).

19 Fischhoff, B., “Risk Perception and Communication”, in Kamien, D. (ed.), McGraw-Hill Handbook of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism (New York: McGraw-Hill 2005), pp. 463492.Google Scholar