Suchergebnisse

Governments' measures to control the COVID‐19 pandemic and public reaction hold important lessons for science and risk communication in times of crisis. [Image: see text]

While the demands for greater engagement in science in general and regulatory science in particular have been steadily increasing, we still face limited understanding of the empirical resonance of these demands. Against this context, this paper presents findings from a recent study of a potential participatory opening of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment ("Bundesinstitut für Riskobewertung" [BfR]), a prominent regulatory scientific organization in the field of risk governance. Drawing upon quantitative surveys of the public and selected professional experts as well as in-depth qualitative expert interviews, we identify a general support for greater engagement in science-based risk assessment. However, we also find significant contestation concerning its potential enactment and its normative and strategic merit. Underlying these contestations, we identify the persistence of a normal view of science and decisionist understanding of risk assessment, which create conflicting legitimacy demands for BfR and other regulatory scientific organizations. Together with concerns about imbalances in the power to participate, especially in highly specialized engagement processes, these pose significant challenges for the institutionalization of more participatory practices.

AbstractThe present study investigated older adults' risk perception, beliefs, and self‐perception in the field of kitchen hygiene and food safety. A qualitative study with semi‐structured focus groups was conducted. A total of 37 older adults (60–80 years of age) from Germany participated in four focus groups that were stratified by gender. Focus groups covered older adults' food‐handling practices, their perceptions of vulnerability, and their informational needs in the field of food safety. A thematic analysis approach was adopted. The coding categories and subcategories were developed inductively by the researchers based on the data. The coded data were then used to identify overarching themes and subthemes. Main results showed that older adults had confidence in their knowledge and skills with regard to food safety, perceived their post‐war generation overall to be resistant and other so‐called at‐risk groups to be more vulnerable. Moreover, they expressed low informational needs in the area of food safety. The results suggest that age‐specific aspects play a role in older adults' risk perception and highlight the need to develop age‐specific risk communication strategies that take into account older adults' beliefs, knowledge, and informational needs.

[...] In der wissenschaftlichen Risikoabschätzung sind hazard und risk deutlich unterschiedene Konzepte. Mit hazard wird das Potenzial einer Substanz oder Situation bezeichnet, einen adversen Effekt1 zu verursachen, wenn ein Organismus, System oder eine (Sub)population dieser Substanz oder Situation ausgesetzt ist. Risk dagegen meint die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines adversen Effekts in einem Organismus, System oder einer (Sub)population bei Exposition mit einer Substanz oder Situation unter spezifizierten Bedingungen. Entsprechend diesen Definitionen bedeutet die Information über hazard etwas anderes als die über risk; auch wenn diese Differenz nicht immer deutlich gemacht wird. [...] (Quelle: Einleitung)

Regulatory scientific agencies, such as the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), are confronted with various challenges in their science-based risk communication. On the one hand, the communication of health risks is becoming increasingly complex and, accordingly, more demanding, which is why – among other things – questions about the health literacy of consumers and target group-oriented risk communication are gaining importance. On the other hand, the outputs of regulatory scientific agencies are increasingly exposed to politicisation and public criticism, which increases the relevance of questions about the objectivity and trustworthiness of expert opinion, risk assessment, and official statements, as well as the legitimacy and reputation of such organisations. This is further intensified by the emergence of new social media actors who produce and publish their own information and communication materials. The misinformation, disinformation and malinformation consequently distributed in this context represent another challenge, which is closely related to questions of adequate communication of health risks and of stabilising legitimacy, reputation and trustworthiness. The article discusses various approaches to solving these problems, including the optimization and visual enhancement of health information, enabling social participation as well as embedding these measures in strategic stakeholder and reputation management. The article concludes with a call for a more open discussion of inherent dilemmas.

Food safety in the EU: A guide through public structures with concise depiction of the governmental structures in 33 European countries and the European Community level. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de