Gaby-Fleur Böl

State of the art in human risk assessment of silver compounds in consumer products: a conference report on silver and nanosilver held at the BfR in 2012

In light of the broad spectrum of products containing nanosilver, the harmfulness of nanosilver to human health and the environment was intensively discussed at a conference held in February 2012 at the BfR. The conference agenda covered the aspects of analytics of nanosilver materials, human exposure and toxicology as well as effects on microorganisms and the environment. The discussion recovered major gaps related to commonly agreed guidelines for sample preparation and central analytical techniques. In particular, the characterization of the nanoparticles in complex matrices was regarded as a challenge which might become a pitfall for further innovation and application. Historical and anecdotal records of colloidal silver have been sometimes taken as empirical proof for the general low toxicity of nanosilver. Yet as reported herein, a growing number of animal studies following modern performance standards of toxicity testing have been carried out recently revealing well-characterized adverse effects on different routes of exposure in addition to argyria. Furthermore, recent approaches in exposure assessment were reported. However, consumer exposure scenarios are only starting to be developed and reliable exposure data are still rare. It was further widely agreed on the workshop that the use of silver may lead to the selection of silver resistant bacteria. With respect to its environmental behavior, it was suggested that nanosilver released to wastewater may have negligible ecotoxicological effects. Finally, the presentations and discussion on risk assessment and regulation of nanosilver applications gave insights into different approaches of risk assessment of nanomaterials to be performed under the various regulatory frameworks.

The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology

According to numerous surveys the perceived risk of nanotechnology is low and most people feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. This article provides greater insight into risk perception and concludes that the positive attitude to nanotechnology is based not on knowledge but on hope and fascination. The perceived risk is low because of a lack of vivid and frightening images of possible hazards. If news flashes were to link nanotechnology to concrete hazards or actual harm to people, attitudes might suddenly change. Risk communication faces the problem of dealing with a public at large that has little or no knowledge about the technology. As it takes time and extensive additional research to develop appropriate communication strategies and disseminate them to the relevant institutions, this exercise should be started immediately.

Risk communication in times of crisis: Pitfalls and challenges in ensuring preparedness instead of hysterics

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is an instructive lesson on the difficulties of risk communication in times of crisis. The most effective strategy to improve communication during a crisis is to build public trust in officials and academics long before disaster strikes.

[Risk communication of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment during a food-related outbreak].

ZusammenfassungZu den Aufgabenbereichen der Risikokommunikation zählen unter anderem das Informieren über und Erklären von Risiken sowie das Initiieren von Verhaltensänderungen und Vorsorgemaßnahmen. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 waren diese Aufgabenbereiche zentrale Ziele der Risikokommunikation der zuständigen Institutionen und Behörden. Generell wird Risikokommunikation eher als eine langfristige Kommunikation über Risiken betrachtet mit dem Ziel, mit diesen Risiken besser umgehen zu können. Bei der Krisenkommunikation wird eher kurzfristig auf einen Ereignisfall reagiert, mit dem Ziel, zu informieren und angemessene Verhaltensmaßnahmen zu kommunizieren. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs ging die Risikokommunikation zum Teil in die Krisenkommunikation über. Aus Sicht des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung (BfR) wird die Risikokommunikation des Bundesinstitutes für Risikobewertung (BfR) während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 vorgestellt. Ergebnisse einer Verbraucherbefragung im Nachgang an das Ausbruchsgeschehen geben Hinweise auf den Erfolg der Risikokommunikationsmaßnahmen. Abschließend wird auf die Notwendigkeit der Kommunikation von Unsicherheiten im Rahmen der Risikokommunikation verwiesen und auf mögliche Entwicklungstendenzen der Risikokommunikation im Zusammenhang mit neuen Medien hingewiesen.AbstractInformation about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.Information about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.

Risikokommunikation des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung bei einem lebensmittelbedingten Ausbruch

ZusammenfassungZu den Aufgabenbereichen der Risikokommunikation zählen unter anderem das Informieren über und Erklären von Risiken sowie das Initiieren von Verhaltensänderungen und Vorsorgemaßnahmen. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 waren diese Aufgabenbereiche zentrale Ziele der Risikokommunikation der zuständigen Institutionen und Behörden. Generell wird Risikokommunikation eher als eine langfristige Kommunikation über Risiken betrachtet mit dem Ziel, mit diesen Risiken besser umgehen zu können. Bei der Krisenkommunikation wird eher kurzfristig auf einen Ereignisfall reagiert, mit dem Ziel, zu informieren und angemessene Verhaltensmaßnahmen zu kommunizieren. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs ging die Risikokommunikation zum Teil in die Krisenkommunikation über. Aus Sicht des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung (BfR) wird die Risikokommunikation des Bundesinstitutes für Risikobewertung (BfR) während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 vorgestellt. Ergebnisse einer Verbraucherbefragung im Nachgang an das Ausbruchsgeschehen geben Hinweise auf den Erfolg der Risikokommunikationsmaßnahmen. Abschließend wird auf die Notwendigkeit der Kommunikation von Unsicherheiten im Rahmen der Risikokommunikation verwiesen und auf mögliche Entwicklungstendenzen der Risikokommunikation im Zusammenhang mit neuen Medien hingewiesen.AbstractInformation about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.Information about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.

Pesticide Residues in Food: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Misconceptions among Conventional and Organic Consumers

Pesticide use and pesticide residues in foods have been the subject of controversial public discussions and media coverage in Germany. Against this background, a better understanding of public risk perceptions is needed to promote efficient public health communication. To this end, this study captures the German publics perception of pesticide residues in foods. A representative sample of the population aged 14 years and older (n = 1,004) was surveyed via computer-assisted telephone interviewing on their attitudes and knowledge with regard to pesticide residues. Based on questions regarding their typical consumer behavior, respondents were classified into conventional and organic consumers to identify differences as well as similarities between these two consumer types. As assessed with an open-ended question, both organic and conventional consumers viewed pesticides, chemicals, and toxins as the greatest threats to food quality and safety. Evaluating the risks and benefits of pesticide use, more than two-thirds of organic consumers (70%) rated the risks as greater than the benefits, compared with just over one-half of conventional consumers (53%). Concern about the detection of pesticide residues in the food chain and bodily fluids was significantly higher among organic compared with conventional consumers. Only a minority of respondents was aware that legal limits for pesticide residues (referred to as maximum residue levels) exist, with 69% of organic and 61% of conventional consumers believing that the presence of pesticide residues in foods is generally not permitted. A lack of awareness of maximum residue levels was associated with heightened levels of concern about pesticide residues. Finally, general exposure to media reporting on pesticide residues was associated with more frequent knowledge of legal limits for pesticide residues, whereas actively seeking information on pesticide residues was not. The possible mechanisms underlying these findings are discussed.

Risikokommunikation des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung bei einem lebensmittelbedingten Ausbruch@@@Risk communication of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment during a food-related outbreak

ZusammenfassungZu den Aufgabenbereichen der Risikokommunikation zählen unter anderem das Informieren über und Erklären von Risiken sowie das Initiieren von Verhaltensänderungen und Vorsorgemaßnahmen. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 waren diese Aufgabenbereiche zentrale Ziele der Risikokommunikation der zuständigen Institutionen und Behörden. Generell wird Risikokommunikation eher als eine langfristige Kommunikation über Risiken betrachtet mit dem Ziel, mit diesen Risiken besser umgehen zu können. Bei der Krisenkommunikation wird eher kurzfristig auf einen Ereignisfall reagiert, mit dem Ziel, zu informieren und angemessene Verhaltensmaßnahmen zu kommunizieren. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs ging die Risikokommunikation zum Teil in die Krisenkommunikation über. Aus Sicht des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung (BfR) wird die Risikokommunikation des Bundesinstitutes für Risikobewertung (BfR) während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 vorgestellt. Ergebnisse einer Verbraucherbefragung im Nachgang an das Ausbruchsgeschehen geben Hinweise auf den Erfolg der Risikokommunikationsmaßnahmen. Abschließend wird auf die Notwendigkeit der Kommunikation von Unsicherheiten im Rahmen der Risikokommunikation verwiesen und auf mögliche Entwicklungstendenzen der Risikokommunikation im Zusammenhang mit neuen Medien hingewiesen.AbstractInformation about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.Information about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.