Laypeople's viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives

Abstract

The focus in this study is on the thoughts and opinions of the general public to the divergence in expert standpoints regarding additives in food. The relation of education, length of work experience, occupational field, gender, and people's ideas on this matter, as well as the changes in it, were of interest. Fifty-nine young and middle-aged Finnish adults were interviewed during the years 1986-1988 and again in 1993-1994. The semi-structured interview included straightforward questions about reasons for disagreements among experts regarding additives; in other parts of the interview people could spontaneously comment on the discrepancies. Three main categories of reasons for the disagreement emerged. General difficulty in obtaining scientific knowledge was the most common reason given. In the second interview round, a greater number of less well-educated interviewees expressed views in this category. The second category was various interest-related reasons. The increase of these notions was statistically significant among the academics. The least common category concerned differences in the caliber and personal background of experts. Especially people with long experience in working life increased their notions in all three categories. The results showed that people are well aware of the many factors that may influence the acquisition of scientific knowledge, as well as its use. Moreover, the results showed that the more education people have the more aware they are of the various interests. Because laypeople have experiences and viewpoints about various open questions and risks, it is suggested here that their opinions should receive more attention in the public discussion of similar issues.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

A. Irwin , Citizen Science. A Study Of People, Expertise And Sustainable Development (London: Routledge, 1995).

P. Slovic , T. Malmfors , D. Krewski , C. K. Mertz , N. Neil , and S. Bartlett , “Intuitive toxicology II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada,” Risk Analysis 15, no. 6 (1995): 661-675.

“A crisis of confidence. Comment,”

The Veterinary Record 138 (30 March 1996): 13.

Irwin , Citizen Science.

U. Beck , Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity (London: SAGE Publications, 1992).

A. Kajanne and A.- M. Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding of laypeople's notions about additives in food: Clear-cut viewpoints about additives decrease with education,” Appetite 27 (1996): 207-222.

P. M. King and K. S. Kitchener , Developing Reflective Judgment. Understanding And Promoting Intellectual Growth And Critical Thinking In Adolescents And Adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994).

King and Kitchener , Developing Reflective Judgment.

10.

King and Kitchener , Developing Reflective Judgment.

11.

A. M. Pirttilä-Backman and A. Kajanne , “The development of implicit epistemologies in early and middle adulthood,” Journal of Adult Development (in press).

12.

R. Inglehart , “Changing values in industrial society: the case of North America 1981-1990,” Politics and Individual 2, no. 2 (1992): 1-30.

13.

Slovic, Malmfors , Krewski, Mertz, Neil , and Bartlett , “Intuitive toxicology II,” both cit. n. 2.

14.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

15.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

16.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

17.

M. Wandel , “Understanding consumer concerns about food-related health risks,” British Food Journal 96, no. 7 (1994): 35-40.

18.

M. F. Belenky , B. M. Clinchy , N. R. Goldberger , and J. M. Tarule , Women's Ways Of Knowing: The Development Of Self, Voice, And Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1986).

19.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

20.

Pirttilä-Backman , The Social Psychology Of Knowledge Reassessed.

21.

Kitchener and King , “The Reflective Judgment Model.”

22.

King and Kitchener , Developing Reflective Judgment.

23.

Pirttilä-Backman and Kajanne , “The development of implicit epistemologies.”

24.

Pirttilä-Backman and Kajanne , “The development of implicit epistemologies.”

25.

R. Tesch , Qualitative Research: Analysis Types And Software Tools (New York: Falmer Press, 1990).

26.

H. E. A. Tinsley and D. J. Weiss , “Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 22 (1975): 358-376.

27.

Pirttilä-Backman and Kajanne , “The development of implicit epistemologies.”

28.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

29.

Pirttilä-Backman and Kajanne , “The development of implicit epistemologies.”

30.

E. Millstone , “Food safety: the ethical dimensions,” in Food ethics (Professional ethics series), ed. B. Mepham (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 84-100.

31.

A. Beardsworth and T. Keil , Sociology On The Menu. An Invitation To The Study Of Food And Society (London and New York: Routledge, 1997).

32.

S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz , Uncertainty And Quality In Science For Policy (Theory and decision library. Series A: philosophy and methodology of the social sciences, vol. 15) (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990).

33.

Kraus, Malmfors , and Slovic , “Intuitive toxicology” (cit. n. 2).

34.

“A crisis of confidence. Comment,”

The Veterinary Record, both cit. n. 3.

35.

S. M. Lipset and W. Schneider , The Confidence Gap. Business, Labor, And Government In The Public Mind (New York: The Free Press, 1983).

36.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

37.

Irwin , Citizen Science.

38.

R. L. Keeney , “Understanding life-threatening risks,” Risk Analysis 15, no. 6 (1995): 627-637.

39.

G. Pearson , S. M. Pringle , and J. N. Thomas , “Scientists and public understanding of science,” Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 279-289.

40.

Pearson, Pringle , and Thomas , “Scientists and public.”

41.

Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman , “Toward an understanding.”

42.

Millstone , “Food safety” (cit. n. 30).