Session 5: Nutrition communication the challenge of effective food risk communication

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 135-141

  McGloin, Aileen ^a   Delaney, Liam ^a   Hudson, Eibhlin ^a   Wall, Pat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Audience segmentation; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; DEMOGRAPHY; FOOD ANALYSIS; HEALTH HAZARD; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT; PERSONALITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIET; ENVIRONMENT; FOOD; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; MASS MEDIUM; METHODOLOGY; NUTRITION; OBESITY; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGY; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOECONOMICS;

BEHAVIOR THERAPY; COMMUNICATION; DEMOGRAPHY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIET; ENVIRONMENT; FOOD; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; MASS MEDIA; NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; OBESITY; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGY; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 68149175193     PISSN: 00296651     EISSN: 14752719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0029665109001153     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (71)

1. Romer D & Jamieson P (2001) Do adolescents appreciate the risks of smoking? Evidence from a national survey. J Adolesc Health 29, 12-21.
2. Slovic P (2000) What does it mean to know a cumulative risk? Adolescents' perceptions of short-term and long-term consequences of smoking. J Behav Decision Making 13, 259-266.
3. Steptoe A & Wardle J (2001) Risk awareness and emotional well-being in students from Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Soc Sci Med Health Behav 53, 1621-1630.
4. Sutton S (1998) How ordinary people in Great Britain perceive the health risks of smoking. J Epidemiol Community Health 52, 338-339.
5. Weinstein N, Slovic P & Gibson G (2004) Accuracy and optimism in smokers' beliefs about quitting. Nicotine Tobacco Res 6, Suppl. 3, S375-S380.
6. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S et al. (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9, 127-152.
7. Green JM, Draper A, Dowler E et al. (2005) Public understanding of food risks in four European countries: a qualitative study. Eur J Public Health 15, 523-527.
8. Covello VT, Peters RG, Wojtecki JG et al. (2001) Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health 78, 382-391.
9. Johnson BB (1999) Ethical issues in risk communication: Continuing the discussion. Risk Anal 19, 335-348.
10. World Health Organization (2004) Sixth Futures Forum on Crisis Communication. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
11. Sandman PM (1987) Explaining risk to non-experts. Emerg Preparedness Dig Oct-Dec issue, 25-29.
12. Covello VT, McCallum DB & Pavlova MT (editors) (1989) Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press.
13. Hance BJ, Chess C & Sandman PM (1989) Setting a context for explaining risk. Risk Anal 9, 113-117.
14. Lundgren R (1994) Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
15. Boholm A (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res 1, 135-163.
16. Sjoberg L (2000) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3, 353-367.
17. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (2007) The Challenge of Obesity in the WHO European Region and the Strategies for Response. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
18. Siegrist M, Kellerb C & Kiers HA (2006) Lay people's perception of food hazards: Comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite 47, 324-332.
19. Scherer C (1991) Strategies for communicating risks to the public. Food Technol 45, 110-116.
20. Sandman PM (1989) Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations, pp. 45-49 [VT Covello, DB McCallum and MT Pavlova, editors]. New York: Plenum Press.
21. Covello V (1999) Risk perception, risk communication, and EMF exposure: Tools and techniques for communicating risk information. In Risk Perception Risk Communication, and Its Application to EMF Exposure: World Health Organization/ ICNRP International Conference (ICNIRP 5/98), pp. 179- 214 [R Matthes, JH Bernhardt and MH Repacholi, editors]. Vienna, Austria: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
22. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Anal 15, 137-145.
23. Frewer L (2004) The public and effective risk communication. Toxicol Lett 149, 391-397.
24. Siegrist M & Cvetkovich G (1999) Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20, 713-720.
25. Verbeke W, Viane J & Guiot O (1999) Health communication and consumer behaviour on meat in Belgium: From BSE until dioxin. J Health Commun 4, 345-357.
26. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19, 689-701.
27. Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ et al. (1995) Results of a national symposium on risk communication: Next steps for government agencies. Risk Anal 15, 115-125.
28. Frewer LJ, Miles S, Brennan M et al. (2002) Public p for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty: the need for effective risk communication. Public Underst Sci 11, 1-10.
29. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D et al. (1999) Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Underst Sci 8, 35-50.
30. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Bridgeman J & Ferguson- Smith M (2000) The BSE Inquiry: The Report. The Inquiry into BSE and CJD in the United Kingdom. London: The Stationery Office.
31. Wahlberg A & Sjoberg L (2000) Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3, 31-50.
32. Wynne B (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment 31, 10-39.
33. Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44-83 [S Lash, B Szerszynski and B Wynne, editors]. London: Sage.
34. Theil M (2002) The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: a meta-analysis. J Risk Res 5, 177-186.
35. Bier VM (2001) On the state of the art: risk communication to the public. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 71, 139-150.
36. Johnson FR, Fisher A, Smith VK et al. (1988) Informed choice or regulated risk? Lessons from a study in radon risk communication. Environment 30, 12-35.
37. Verbeke W, Vanhonacker F, Frewer LJ et al. (2008) Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: Impact on Belgian consumers' perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Anal 28, 951-967.
38. Verbeke W & Viaene J (2001) Effects of communication (advertising or news) on sales of commodities. In Food People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers' Food Choices, pp. 299-315 [L Frewer, E Risvik and H Schifferstein, editors]. Berlin: Springer.
39. Verbeke W & Ward RW (2001) A freshmeat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agric Econ 25, 359-374.
40. Chang HS & Kinnucan HW (1991) Advertising, information, and product quality - The case of butter. Am J Agric Econ 73, 1195-1203.
41. Richey M, McClelland L & Shimkunas A (1967) Relative influence of positive and negative information in impression formation and persistence. J Pers Soc Psychol 6, 322-327.
42. Verbeke W (2005) Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32, 347-368.
43. Noar SM (2006) A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: Where do we go from here? J Health Commun 11, 21-42.
44. Fischhoff B (1989) Helping the public make health risk decisions. In Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations, pp. 111-116 [VT Covello, DB McCallum and MT Pavlova, editors]. New York: Plenum Press.
45. Fisher AF, King RN, Epp DJ et al. (1994) Evaluating alternatives for communicating about food risk. J Appl Commun 78, 1-11.
46. Fisher A (1992) Understanding Food Safety Policy Issues. Report on Model Materials. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
47. Rowe G, Frewer L & Sjoberg L (2000) Newspaper reporting of hazards in the UK and Sweden. Public Underst Sci 9, 59-78.
48. Frewer LJ, Miles S & Marsh R (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Anal 22, 701-711.
49. Hoijer B, Lidskog R & Thornberg L (2006) News media and food scares: the case of contaminated salmon. Environ Sci 3, 273-288.
50. Hites R, Foran JA, Carpenter DO et al. (2004) Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science 303, 226-229.
51. Gassin AL & Geest IV (2006) Communication in Europe on semicarbazide and baby food. J Risk Res 9, 823-832.
52. Fessenden-Raden J & Heath JS (1987) Providing risk information in communities: Factors influencing what is heard and accepted. Sci Technol Human Values 12, 94-101.
53. Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (2003) Current Trends in Risk Communication. Theory and Practice. Oslo, Norway: Directorate for Civil Defence and Emergency Planning.
54. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J & Bredahl L (2003) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Anal 23, 1117-1133.
55. Slovic P (1997) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In Environment, Ethics, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation, pp. 277-313 [MH Bazerman, DM Messick, AE Tenbrunsel and KA Wade-Benzoni, editors]. San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.
56. Kuttschreuter M (2006) Psychological determinants of reactions to food risk messages. Risk Anal 26, 1045-1056.
57. Dosman DM, Adamowicz WL & Hrudey SE (2001) Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Anal 21, 307-318.
58. Douglas M (1978) Cultural Bias. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Occasional Paper no.
59. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
60. Sjoberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20, 1-12.
61. Boney-McCoy B, Gibbons FX & Gerrard M (1999) Selfesteem, compensatory self-enhancement, and the consideration of health risk. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25, 954-965.
62. Smith GE, Gerrard M & Gibbons FX (1997) Self-esteem and the relation between risk behavior and perceptions of vulnerability to unplanned pregnancy in college women. Health Psychol 16, 137-146.
63. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P et al. (1981) Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.
64. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236, 280-285.
65. Slovic P, Fischhoff B & Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks: the structure of expert and lay perceptions. Environment 21, 14-39.
66. Weinstein ND (1989) Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science 246, 1232-1233.
67. Frewer LJ, Shepherd R & Sparks P (1994) The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. J Food Safety 14, 19-40.
68. Kearney M, Gibney MJ, Martinez JA et al. (1997) Perceived need to alter eating habits among representative samples of adults from all member states of the European Union. Eur J Clin Nutr 51, S30-S35.
69. Redmond EC & Griffith CJ (2004) Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control and responsibility. Appetite 43, 309-313.
70. Sparks P, Shepherd R, Wieringa N et al. (1995) Perceived behavioural control, unrealistic optimism and dietary change: an exploratory study. Appetite 24, 243-255.
71. Gerrard M, Gibbons FX & Reis-Bergan M (1999) The effect of risk communication on risk perceptions: the significance of individual differences. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25, 94-100.