For some chemical substances in food, scientific uncertainty prevents definitive statements about the presence of risk for human health. In this qualitative study, we explored the public’s understanding and risk appraisal of these substances. During semi-structured interviews, participants from the public were presented with inconclusive risk information about either a food additive or one of two food contaminants. Findings show that interviewees had no prior knowledge and constructed their risk appraisal on the spot. Results suggest that generic and case specific beliefs and inferences affect understanding and appraisal. Respondents’ interpretations of the risk messages used in this study were often not in line with what the message intended to convey. In addition, specific use of scientific jargon was associated with increased risk. In general, respondents were more apprehensive about the presence of the chemical in food than that they were worried about the chance of experiencing health effects.
AvenT (2011) On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Risk Analysis31(10): 1515–1525.
2.
AvenT (2017) Further reflections on EFSA’s work on uncertainty in scientific assessments. Journal of Risk Research. Epub ahead of print 23 October 2017. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1391321.
3.
BearthACousinM-ESiegristM (2014) The consumer’s perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference38: 14–23.
4.
BearthACousinM-ESiegristM (2016) “The dose makes the poison”: Informing consumers about the scientific risk assessment of food additives. Risk Analysis36(1): 130–144.
5.
BearthASalehRSiegristM (2019) Lay-people’s knowledge about toxicology and its principles in eight European countries. Food and Chemical Toxicology131: 110560.
6.
BreakwellGM (2000) Risk communication: Factors affecting impact. British Medical Bulletin56(1): 110–120.
7.
CampbellP (2011) Understanding the receivers and the reception of science’s uncertain messages. Philosophical Transactions Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences369(1956): 4891–4912.
8.
Dickson-SpillmannMSiegristMKellerC (2011) Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference22(1): 149–156.
9.
EFSA (2019) Special Eurobarometer. Food Safety in the EU. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
10.
European Food Safety Authority, HartAMaximLSiegristMVon GoetzNCruzCD, et al. (2019) Guidance on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments. European Food Safety Authority17(1): e05520.
11.
EmertonVChoiE (2008) Essential Guide to Food Additives. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
12.
European Commission (2006) Special Eurobarometer 238: Risk issues. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
13.
FairgrieveWTRustMB (2003) Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific northwest: V. Human health and safety. Fisheries Research62(3): 329–338.
14.
Fife-SchawCRoweG (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis16(4): 487–500.
15.
FischhoffBDavisAL (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America111(Suppl. 4): 13664–13671.
16.
FlageRAvenTZioEBaraldiP (2014) Concerns, challenges, and directions of development for the issue of representing uncertainty in risk assessment. Risk Analysis34(7): 1196–1207.
17.
FrewerLHuntSBrennanMKuznesofSNessMRitsonC (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research6(1): 75–85.
18.
FrewerLJ (2004) The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology Letter149(1–3): 391–397.
19.
FrieseS (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS. Ti. London: SAGE.
20.
GuestGBunceAJohnsonL (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods18(1): 59–82.
21.
HanssonSO (2002) Uncertainties in the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal54(171): 39–46.
22.
HanssonSO (2018) Representing uncertainty. In: HanssonSOHendricksVF (eds) Introduction to Formal Philosophy. Cham: Springer, pp. 387–400.
23.
HylandK (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics16(4): 433–454.
24.
JansenTClaassenLvan KampITimmermansDRM. (2019) Understanding of the concept of “uncertain risk”: A qualitative study among different societal groups. Journal of Risk Research22: 658–672.
25.
JansenTClaassenLvan PollRKampIVTimmermansDRM. (2018) Breaking down uncertain risks for risk communication: A conceptual review of the environmental health literature. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy9(1): 4–38.
26.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis15(4): 485–494.
27.
Johnson-LairdPN (2004) The history of mental models. In: MantelshelfKChungMC (eds) Psychology of Reasoning: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 179–212.
28.
KherSVDe JongeJWentholtMTDelizaRde AndradeJCCnossenHJ, et al. (2013) Consumer perceptions of risks of chemical and microbiological contaminants associated with food chains: A cross-national study37(1): 73–83.
29.
KrausNMalmforsTSlovicP (1992) Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis12(2): 215–232.
30.
LevinR (2006) Adequacy conditions for reporting uncertainty in chemical risk assessments. Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment12(5): 834–855.
31.
LevinRHanssonSORudénC (2004) Indicators of uncertainty in chemical risk assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology39(1): 33–43.
32.
LofstedtR (2006) How can we make food risk communication better: Where are we and where are we going?Journal of Risk Research9(8): 869–890.
33.
LofstedtR (2013) Communicating food risks in an era of growing public distrust: Three case studies. Risk Analysis33(2): 192–202.
34.
LofstedtRBouderF (2017) Evidence-based uncertainty analysis: What should we now do in Europe? A view point. Journal of Risk Research. Epub ahead of print 27 April 2017. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1316763.
35.
MacGregorDGSlovicPMalmforsT (1999) “How exposed is exposed enough?” Lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Analysis19(4): 649–659.
36.
MilesSFrewerLJ (2003) Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research6(3): 267–283.
37.
MorganMGFischhoffBBostromAAtmanCJ (2002) Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
PoortingaWPidgeonNF (2005) Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?Risk Analysis25(1): 199–209.
39.
SiegristM (2003) Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research6(1): 45–60.
40.
SlovicP (2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
41.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorDG (2007) The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177(3): 1333–1352.
42.
SmithsonM (2008) The many faces and masks of uncertainty. In: BammerGSmithsonM (eds) Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 13–26.
43.
ThompsonKM (2002) Variability and uncertainty meet risk management and risk communication. Risk Analysis22(3): 647–654.
44.
TosunJ (2013) How the EU handles uncertain risks: Understanding the role of the precautionary principle. Journal of European Public Policy20(10): 1517–1528.
Van AsseltMBVosE (2008) Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. Journal of Risk Research11(1–2): 281–300.
47.
Van den BroekP (2010) Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science328(5977): 453–456.
48.
Van der BlesAMVan der LindenSFreemanALMitchellJGalvaoABZavalL, et al. (2019) Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science6(5): 181870.
49.
Van der LindenSLöfstedtRE (2019) Risk and Uncertainty in a Post-Truth Society. Abingdon: Routledge.
50.
VandermoereF (2008) Hazard perception, risk perception, and the need for decontamination by residents exposed to soil pollution: The role of sustainability and the limits of expert knowledge. Risk Analysis28(2): 387–398.
51.
VerbekeWFrewerLJScholdererJDe BrabanderHF (2007) Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta586(1–2): 2–7.
52.
WiedemannPMBoernerFURepacholiMH (2014) Do people understand IARC’s 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?Bioelectromagnetics35(5): 373–378.
53.
ZanderJ (2010) The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice: Comparative Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
