Improving Risk Analysis: Policies, Practices and Individual Needs

Nearly all of the papers in this issue present challenges and suggested improvements to existing government, industry, and scientific risk-related policies and practices and the plurality focus on the needs of local populations and individuals. The issue begins with a new feature – our first presentation about a historic figure in risk analysis – Dr. Arthur Upton. Dr. Upton’s career epitomizes efforts to base policy on science, which is the unofficial theme of the issue. Starting with government examples, Jamie Donatuto and Barbara Harper assert that existing fish consumption data and risk assessments are not appropriate for tribal nations that have their own consumption patterns. They urge grounding practice in local values and realities. There is a deep history of this critique in risk analysis, most notably perhaps dating from the debates about the setting of the national ambient air quality standards. Branden Johnson evaluated New Jersey’s communications to well-owners about drinking water quality. Observing that many recipients of reports were dissatisfied with the message and that some did not trust the messenger or the message, he offers some ideas that could improve the message and the reception. Andrea Gurmankin Levy et al. studied perceptions of the causes of cancer clusters, concluding that government experts were reassured by information that decreases the chances of a local environmental cause, but many local residents were not persuaded. The cancer cluster information gap has been the subject of considerable deductive and inductive analysis, and this expert-public gap has proven hard to close. Part of difficulty faced by “authorities” like state health department officials is the subject of a study by Katherine McComas et al. in which the authors surveyed public opinion about scientists in two New York counties. They observed that experts’ failure to enjoy public support had more to do with their interpersonal relationships and faceto-face dealings with the local community than with their knowledge and importance of their scientific contributions. If you have had the opportunity to testify about a risk analysis issue, this finding will likely resonate with your experience. John Besley’s book review underscores the broad issue of trust in policy formation. Our globalizing economy increases the difficulty of recognizing and addressing local needs. For example, Yasushi Suwazono et al. studied worker stress in the Japanese steel industry and found that while current practices protected much of the work force, some jobs had schedules that appeared to be excessive, increasing the probability of stress and accidents. Mei-Fang Chen focuses on increasing consumer concerns about food quality in Taiwan, concluding that modern business practices and government control of the industry clash with local cultural and historical practices, thereby worsening risk perceptions. Jerry Busby adds an interesting twist to Chen’s presentation by focusing on those who react to a hazard with anger, asserting that many of them attribute the risks they face to complicit wrongdoing. A potential case in hand is in Uche Okpara and Vicki Bier’s study of protecting commercial airliners. The authors’ study leads them to support the practice of maintaining a large secured area around airports. If this means expanding airport space and modifying runway use at some locations, then the policy will surely lead to social and environmental injustice charges aimed at government and industry who will be portrayed as supporters of global business and affluent fliers at the expense of less advantaged airport neighbors. Perceived risk and perceived benefit were found to be the dominant factors influencing consumer acceptability of food technologies, according to a study by Henson, et al. Jamie Wardman’s