Risk: improving government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty

Response from Institute of Food Research in response to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit report

Prepared by Dr Susan Miles and submitted by Dr Nick Walton, Institute of Food Research

24 March 2003

The consultation document can be viewed on the Cabinet Office web site at: http://www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/risk/consultation.shtml

This short Response focuses on Key Recommendation 4: "Departments and agencies should make earning and maintaining public trust a priority when dealing with risks to the public" (Summary report, p. 20)

Trust

Research indicates that trust in Government and other regulators is an important factor in people's perception of risk and their acceptance of potential hazards. Furthermore, it has been suggested that trust is particularly important when people's ability to make decisions and take action is limited (e.g. due to lack of knowledge, or to lack of control over the hazard). However, trust-building alone is not sufficient to ensure effective risk communication and risk acceptance.

• First, it is necessary to distinguish between trust in the information source and trust in the information itself. Work undertaken at IFR and funded by MAFF has indicated that the same information is rated as equally persuasive, relevant and trusted whether it is attributed to a distrusted or to a trusted source, providing it is based on salient, consumer-held concerns. Thus, it is important to ensure that messages address the issues that are important to consumers. The focus should be on getting the message right.
• Secondly, there is an expectation that specific sources will provide information about particular topics. If they fail to do so, this is likely to lead to suspicion. For example, research conducted at IFR for the FSA has indicated that although consumer trust in UK Government sources can be low, these sources are nevertheless the preferred choice for receiving food safety information. People expect to receive information from the Government about any risk associated with food.
• Finally, there is not an automatic correlation between the extent of trust in an information source and the extent to which it is used by the public as a source of information. The public's use of various information sources is affected by various factors, including the nature of the topic being communicated.

Communicating uncertainty

The Report lays out five principles for Government to follow in managing risks to the public. Research conducted at IFR for MAFF and FSA on public perceptions of food risk, and on public reactions to uncertainty about food risk, suggests that these principles are sound.

As risk communication becomes more sophisticated, the public is exposed to an increasing volume of information, some of which may include reference to uncertainty. In relation to food, statements explaining the extent of uncertainty associated with information are important in enabling members of the public to make their own informed decisions. In the past, there has been an assumption that not only does the public view of uncertainty differ from that of experts but, further, that the public does not understand uncertainty, and will not accept uncertainty if it is presented. However, there is evidence from the BSE affair that failure to communicate uncertainty can have a negative impact upon public perception and upon public trust in the regulators.

Our research at IFR suggests that consumers are comfortable with the notion that uncertainty can exist in food risk information and that uncertainty might be attributable to a variety of causes. Two types of uncertainty were recognised by consumers:

1. The majority perception related to deficiencies in the present state of knowledge, for example through conflicting evidence or incomplete information. Uncertainty was seen to arise as a consequence of a 'change' to the status quo, for example if new research became available. It was viewed as a transient state of affairs, where the source of uncertainty was expected to be resolved over time, as a result of action on the part of Government. It was important that action was being taken to resolve the source of the uncertainty, and, that action was seen to be taken. The most commonly cited method to resolve the uncertainty was the commissioning of research. However, this needed to be paired with informing the public of the actions taken, and keeping them updated with progress and new information. The public expressed a strong desire to be provided with information, including information on uncertainty, to enable them to make their own choices. Thus, information about uncertainty should be made available in the public domain, together with the means for consumer decision-making - for example effective and intelligible labelling, as soon as possible.
2. The minority perception was that uncertainty arose due to the suppression or withholding of information from the public by Government, the food industry, or both. Here, people believed that these sources were knowledgeable about the hazard and its associated risks; in other words, there actually was no uncertainty, but information was being suppressed. Perceived suppression of information was related to concerns about the public's lack of ability to take informed control of their own actions, which in turn led to anger directed towards the source(s) believed to be withholding the information. This type of uncertainty was less acceptable than uncertainty associated with a change to the status quo.

At present, not enough research has been conducted on public reactions to the use of the precautionary principle in the food domain. The use of the precautionary principle does have an impact on consumers' ability to exercise free choice. Research conducted at IFR for MAFF suggests that precautionary measures are preferred for hazards where societal control and a responsibility to protect are higher than personal control - for example, in the cases of BSE, genetic modification of food and pesticides. For such hazards, consumers are divided between a preference for informed choice and a desire that risk regulators should not allow them to be exposed to potential food risks. In contrast, for hazards high in perceived personal control, such as high-fat diets and Salmonella food poisoning, people want informed choice about potential food risks.

Frewer L. J., Miles S., Brennan M., Kuznesof S., Ness M. & Ritson C. (2002) Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science 11, 363-372.

Miles S. & Frewer L. J. (2001) Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference 12, 47-61.