Ragnar Lofstedt

The Precautionary Principle: Risk, Regulation and Politics

The precautionary principle is a regulatory tool that has received much attention among policy makers, industry and academics. The purpose of this paper is to shed further light on this regulatory tool. I start the paper by focusing on the question what is the precautionary principle, and how its use by policy makers has changed significantly from the 1970s to the present time. The second part of the paper examines why the precautionary principle is so controversial, examining in particular the use of it in terms of trade. The third section analyses why the precautionary principle has grown in popularity, and here I touch on, among other issues, the lack of public trust in science, its promotion by the NGOs and its application as a tool for trade protectionism. In the final section of the paper I discuss whether the precautionary principle, particularly in the European context, is here to stay. I conclude, that the use of the precautionary principle will be with the Europeans only through the medium term, as arguably it appears that the EU is following a US regulator path, albeit with a 30 year time lag.

Use of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment in Decision Making: A Common Policy Research Agenda

Quantitative risk assessment (RA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are both analytical tools used to support decision making in environmental management. They have been developed and used by largely separate groups of specialists, and it is worth considering whether there is a common research agenda that may increase the relevance of these tools in decision-making processes. The validity of drawing comparisons between use of the tools is established through examining key aspects of the two approaches for their similarities and differences, including the nature of each approach and contextual and methodological aspects. Six case studies involving use of each approach in public decision making are described and used to draw out concerns about using RA and LCA in this context. The following categories of concern can be distinguished: philosophical approach of the tools; quantitative versus qualitative assessment; stakeholder participation; the nature of the results; and the usefulness of the results in relation to time and financial resource requirements. These can be distilled into a common policy research agenda focusing on: the legitimacy of using tools built on a particular perspective in decision making; recognition and role of value judgments in RA and LCA; treatment of uncertainty and variability; the influence of analytical tools in focusing attention on particular aspects of a decision-making situation; and understandability of the results for nonspecialists. It is concluded that it is time to bring together the experiences of RA and LCA specialists and benefit from cross-fertilization of ideas.

How can we Make Food Risk Communication Better: Where are we and Where are we Going?

Over the past number of years the reporting of food scares, particularly in European context, have grown in prevalence. These scares are more often than not amplified by the media leading to greater pressure on regulators, industry and other stakeholders to communicate the actual risks associated with the food issue in question accurately. The aims of this paper is three fold: firstly, provide a brief background on the history of risk communication itself. Secondly, to summarise some of the main theoretical avenues that are presently favoured by the wider academic (risk) community. The final section of the paper provides research ideas regarding what academics working in the food risk communication area may wish to look at now. Among the issues highlighted include addressing the issue of media amplification, rebuilding public trust, and better communicating uncertainty.Over the past number of years the reporting of food scares, particularly in European context, have grown in prevalence. These scares are more often than not amplified by the media leading to greater pressure on regulators, industry and other stakeholders to communicate the actual risks associated with the food issue in question accurately. The aims of this paper is three fold: firstly, provide a brief background on the history of risk communication itself. Secondly, to summarise some of the main theoretical avenues that are presently favoured by the wider academic (risk) community. The final section of the paper provides research ideas regarding what academics working in the food risk communication area may wish to look at now. Among the issues highlighted include addressing the issue of media amplification, rebuilding public trust, and better communicating uncertainty.

Risk communication: pitfalls and promises

Over the past 30 years, researchers and practitioners have discussed the importance of risk communication in solving disputes ranging from the public outcry regarding importing GMO foods from the United States to Europe, the siting of waste incinerators in many parts of Europe to the building a permanent high level nuclear waste facility in the United States. In this paper the history of risk communication is discussed, focusing particularly on the importance of the social amplification of risk and trust. This is followed by a detailed discussion on trust as it relates to public perception of risk, where it is argued that trust is composed of three variables. The third section covers the theoretical debate of how to best deal with the decline in public trust. This is followed by a short analysis in which it is concluded that there is no simple solution to increasing public trust (and thereby assuring greater risk communication successes).

Risk versus hazard: How to regulate in the 21st century

In Europe, debate as to whether one should regulate chemicals based on intrinsic hazard or assessment of risk, or possibly a combination of both, has been gaining momentum. This article first provides a brief history of this risk versus hazard debate. Secondly, it examines how European regulators are currently handling the regulation of two chemical compounds, namely Bisphenol A and Deca BDE (a brominated flame retardant), based on forty-five expert interviews with regulators, policy makers and industry representatives in eight Member States, as well as with European Commission officials. The paper shows that there is no clear consensus as to when risk or hazard considerations should be the basis for regulatory decision-making, with wide discrepancies between Member States (e.g. the UK is overall more risk based than Sweden) and between regulatory agencies within Member States. The penultimate section puts forward a series of recommendations to help regulators and policy makers develop more consistent and science based regulations for Europe.

What environmental and technological risk communication research and health risk research can learn from each other

The study of risk perception and communication has emerged in several disciplines and fields, and there has not been strong convergence between them, especially in Europe and specifically in Britain. The lack of connection between, for example, the fields of health risk and environmental and technological risk, and still more with respect to fears of crime or old age poverty or privacy violation, has meant that theories have not been shown to be adequate, and practical prescriptions for conflict containment and communication have not been made robust. This article examines the roots of the fragmentation, examining the particular case of the relationship between health and environmental/technological risk studies, considering why the flow of ideas and methods has been so limited, and much of it in a rather surprising direction. The paper concludes by offering some principles that could inform a strategy for more integrated research on risk perception and communication.

Swedish Chemical Regulation: An Overview and Analysis

This article begins with a review of the regulation of chemicals in Sweden over the past 30 years, focusing particularly on the 1997 Government Environmental Quality Bill, which called for a toxic-free society by the year 2020. The second part of the article analyzes why Sweden has taken this route. The third and final section discusses Swedens present role in formulating present EU chemical regulation, such as the recent EU Chemical White Paper, and hypothesizes future impacts of Swedish chemical regulations on the EU itself.

The impact of the Cox-2 inhibitor issue on perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry: Content analysis and communication implications

The field of risk communication has its roots in the environmental, chemical, space, and nuclear arenas. As a number of these sectors have now vastly improved their communication strategies, attention is being placed on sectors that have been more problematic as of late. Examples of such sectors, include the food industries and the pharmaceutical/health sector. This article focuses on how large, multinational pharmaceutical companies can better communicate risks by analysis of one specific case, namely, that of the Cox-2 controversy. 1 For purposes of this article, risk communication is best described as “the flow of information and risk evaluations back and forth between academic experts, regulatory practitioners, interest groups and the general public,” and “big pharma” refers to the more traditional R & D-based, innovative pharmaceutical companies. 1It should be noted that this article focuses strictly on the risk communication aspects surrounding the COX-2 scare. It does not deal with the science of C...The field of risk communication has its roots in the environmental, chemical, space, and nuclear arenas. As a number of these sectors have now vastly improved their communication strategies, attention is being placed on sectors that have been more problematic as of late. Examples of such sectors, include the food industries and the pharmaceutical/health sector. This article focuses on how large, multinational pharmaceutical companies can better communicate risks by analysis of one specific case, namely, that of the Cox-2 controversy. 1 For purposes of this article, risk communication is best described as “the flow of information and risk evaluations back and forth between academic experts, regulatory practitioners, interest groups and the general public,” and “big pharma” refers to the more traditional R & D-based, innovative pharmaceutical companies. 1It should be noted that this article focuses strictly on the risk communication aspects surrounding the COX-2 scare. It does not deal with the science of COX-2 drugs, nor does it attempt to come to grips with their actual benefits and risks, as this is beyond the scope of this article and has been discussed elsewhere (e.g., Psaty & Furberg, 2005).

Risk communication guidelines for Europe: a modest proposition

The purpose of this paper is to firstly develop a series of so‐called risk communication guidelines via the risk perception and communication literatures that in turn can be used by media, industry and regulators. In the second part of the paper, the draft guidelines are tested against a number of food scares ranging from aspartame to Sudan 1, and semicarbazides in baby food. In the final section of the paper, the usefulness of the guidelines is analysed and a number of key recommendations put forward.The purpose of this paper is to firstly develop a series of so-called risk communication guidelines via the risk perception and communication literatures that in turn can be used by media, industry and regulators. In the second part of the paper, the draft guidelines are tested against a number of food scares ranging from aspartame to Sudan 1, and semicarbazides in baby food. In the final section of the paper, the usefulness of the guidelines is analysed and a number of key recommendations put forward.

Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies

The communication and regulation of risk has changed significantly over the past 30 years in Europe and to a noticeable but lesser extent in the United States. In Europe, this is partly due to a series of regulatory mishaps, ranging from mad cow disease in the United Kingdom to contamination of the blood supply in France. In the United States, general public confidence in the American government has been gradually declining for more than three decades, driven by a mix of cultural and political conflicts like negative political advertising, a corrosive news media, and cuts in regulatory budgets. While the former approach is based on an objective assessment of the risk, the latter is driven more by the perception of the risk, consumer sentiment, political will, and sectoral advocacy. In this article, the author examines three U.S.-based food case studies (acrylamide, bisphenol A, and artificial food colorings) where regulations at the local and state levels are increasingly being based on perceived risk advocacy rather than on the most effective response to the risk, be it to food safety or public health, as defined by regulatory interpretation of existing data. In the final section, the author puts forward a series of recommendations for how U.S.-based regulators can best handle those situations where the perceived risk is markedly different from the fact-based risk, such as strengthening the communication departments of food regulatory agencies, training officials in risk communication, and working more proactively with neutral third-party experts.