"The Dose Makes the Poison": Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives

Risk Analysis

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 130-144

  Bearth, Angela ^a   Cousin, Marie Eve ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Aspartame; Communication; Knowledge; Risk assessment; Steviolglycoside

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; FOOD SAFETY; PEPTIDES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SAFETY ENGINEERING; SUGAR SUBSTITUTES;

ASPARTAME; CONTROL GROUPS; EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS; INFORMED DECISION; KNOWLEDGE; ON-LINE EXPERIMENTS; SAFETY OF FOOD; STEVIOLGLYCOSIDE;

FOOD ADDITIVES;

COMMUNICATION; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; FOOD CONSUMPTION; FOOD SAFETY; KNOWLEDGE; ORGANIC COMPOUND; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; TOXIC SUBSTANCE; TOXICITY; VIDEOGRAPHY;

FOOD ADDITIVE;

CONSUMER ATTITUDE; HUMAN; RANDOMIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWITZERLAND;

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FOOD ADDITIVES; HUMANS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 84928963900     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12410     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 1992; 12(2):215-232.
2. Emerton V, Choi E. Essential Guide to Food Additives, 3rd ed. Surrey, UK: Leatherhead Publishing; 2008.
3. Frank P, Ottoboni MA. The Dose Makes the Poison: A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
4. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Mertz C et al. Evaluating chemical risks: Results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 1997; 16(6):289-304.
5. Dickson-Spillmann M, Siegrist M, Keller C. Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference, 2011; 22(1):149-156.
6. Bearth A, Cousin ME, Siegrist M. The consumer's perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 2014; 38:14-23.
7. Altu T, Elmaci Y. A consumer survey on food additives. Developments in Food Science, 1995; 37(1):705-719.
8. Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès C. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 2012; 59(2):448-455.
9. Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z et al. Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 2004; 43(2):147-154.
10. Sloan AE. What consumers want-and don't want-on food and beverage labels. Food Technology, 2003; 57(11):26-36.
11. Buchler S, Smith K, Lawrence G. Food risks, old and new demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 2010; 46(4):353-374.
12. Bearth A, Cousin ME, Siegrist M. Poultry consumers' behaviour, risk perception and knowledge related to campylobacteriosis and domestic food safety. Food Control, 2014; 44:166-176.
13. Shim SM, Seo SH, Lee Y et al. Consumers' knowledge and safety perceptions of food additives: Evaluation on the effectiveness of transmitting information on preservatives. Food Control, 2011; 22(7):1054-1060.
14. Bronfman NC, Vazquez EL, Dorantes G. An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 2009; 47(5):686-692.
15. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236(4799):280-285.
16. Alhakami A, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6):1085-1096.
17. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D et al. Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15(6):661-675.
18. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(1):199-206.
19. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Frei M. Biased confidence in risk assessment studies. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2008; 14(6):1226-1234.
20. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A et al. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
21. Cousin ME, Siegrist M. Risk perception of mobile communication: A mental models approach. Journal of Risk Research, 2010; 13(5):599-620.
22. Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes-A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48(4):85-100.
23. Bostrom A, Atman CJ, Fischhoff B et al. Evaluating risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, part II. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(5):789-798.
24. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B et al. What do people know about global climate change? Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6):959-970.
25. Evans G, de Challemaison B, Cox DN. Consumers' ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite, 2010; 54(3):557-563.
26. Stern T, Haas R, Meixner O. Consumer acceptance of wood-based food additives. British Food Journal, 2009; 111(2-3):179-195.
27. Tarnavölgyi G. Analysis of consumers' attitudes towards food additives using focus group survey. Agriculturae Conspectus Scintificus, 2003; 68(3):193-196.
28. Rozin P. The meaning of "natural"-Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 2005; 16(8):652-658.
29. Rozin P. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgment and Decision Making, 2006; 1(2):91-97.
30. Federal Statistical Office. Statistisches lexikon der schweiz [The Swiss Statistical Encyclopedia]. Neuchâtel: Federal Statistical Office, 2013.
31. SPSS Inc. Ibm spss statistics 20. In., Series Ibm spss statistics 20. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; 2011.
32. Preacher KJ. Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients. In Series Calculation for the Test of the Difference Between Two Independent Correlation Coefficients, 2002.
33. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science and Techchnology, 2008; 19(11):603-608.
34. Lofstedt R. Risk communication, media amplification and the aspartame scare. Risk Management, 2008; 10(4):257-284.
35. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD et al. Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats. European Journal of Oncology, 2005; 10(2):107-116.
36. Renwick AG, Nordmann H. First European conference on aspartame: Putting safety and benefits into perspective. Synopsis of presentations and conclusions. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2007; 45(7):1308-1313.
37. Kroger M, Meister K, Kava R. Low-calorie sweeteners and other sugar substitutes: A review of the safety issues. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2006; 5(2):35-47.
38. Stanley L. Review of data on the food additive aspartame. In Series Review of Data on the Food Additive Aspartame, 2013.
39. Kienle U. Stevia rebaudiana - der zucker des 21. Jahrhunderts [Stevia Rebaudiana-Sugar of the 21st Century]. Bamberg, DE: Spurbuchverlag; 2007.
40. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on safety of steviol glycosides for the proposed uses as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 2010; 8(4):1-85.
41. Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argeles C. Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are "subtractives." Judgment and Decision Making, 2009; 4(6):475-478.
42. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(3):353-362.
43. Bier VM. On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2001; 71(2):139-150.
44. Breakwell GW. Risk communication: Factors affecting impact. British Medical Bulletin, 2000; 56(1):110-120.
45. European Food Safety Authority. Aspartame 2013 [cited 2013 July 28].