Managing Risk Perception - Trust and Transparency

Categories

Health

Legislation

At a recent conference in Brussels, Commissioner David Byrne who is holding the health and consumer protection portfolio, addressed the participants on the subject of risk perception. Byrne seems baffled why some risks seem to be quite acceptable, while others are perceived as severe.

To my mind, the Commission is dishonest if it wants to influence risk perception by the public, while refusing to handle the MAJOR risks in our lives. I call these risks the "untouchables", the ones that are inherent in the very system we live in. In fact there are certain risks that we do not dare talk about - just think of Aspartame, the toxic sweetener which got "official approval" by both the FDA and the EU Commission, while food supplements and herbal remedies, some of the safest products around, are in the process of being regulated by directives that are expected to profoundly interfere with our freedom to choose how we take care of our own health.

I have written to my friend Paul who sent Byrne's speech, and I want to share with you both my comments, and the actual speech given by the EU Commissioner.

To a certain extent I see Byrne here still exhibiting the "shell shock" that befell the EU administration after BSE hit the press. The very usefulness of having an EU structure was suddenly put in grave doubt by the news of BSE and the confused reaction of officialdom, so much so that a host of legislation has been passed to re-gain public confidence in the safety of food in Europe.

Supplements are, to some extent, a victim of that BSE shell shock of the EU Commission. The over-cautious approach that was likely suggested by some of our friends in the pharma camp was music to the Commission's ears as BSE was still rattling their bones (it has been for some years now and as evidenced by Byrne talking, is still doing so today).

Of course BSE itself was nowhere near the unexpected natural occurrence it is painted to be by "scientific consensus". There is an extremely interesting article on the argument by a guy named Mark Purdey (here is the article) It is somewhat lengthy but definitely worth reading. There are definite environmental causes to the BSE epidemic that are flat denied by government scientists. Coming to the end of his article, Purdey ties BSE in with an agenda by certain multinationals to corner the world protein market, and the implications of this are really worth considering.

The central thought in Byrne's mind is expressed by this sentence (in "Governance"): "The issue of mistrust in public institutions is one which we need to take very seriously."

So it is not the realities these people (the Commission) are dealing with but the perception of reality on the part of the public. Even the theme of the conference is "Risk Perception". It's not about the actual risks, it's about how to manage public perception of a risk.

Why would that be?

I submit it is because there are huge risks that are built into our lives but are "untouchable", such as risks from medical procedures and from pharmaceuticals or, if you wish, risks from environmental poisons that we happily spray around and which then are found in the bodies of just about everyone (see this recent article) or, if you wish, the risks inherent in following an insane policy of world domination enacted by certain parts of the US political scenery, which thinks nothing of contaminating large areas with radioactive uranium dust as part of the normal conduct of their warfare. Of course war itself, especially if it is war of conquest, is a risk that most of us would gladly do without.

The public institutions mentioned by Byrne have a hard time concealing these major "untouchable" risks while still keeping the public's trust. That is why we need to talk about risk perception. When the public wakes up to one of these risks, there will be the experts who can "manage our perception" of the risk.

Food supplements are a case in point. There has been ample campaigning by pharma interests and an obliging press, quick to point to the odd case of trouble with a natural product, while steadfastly overlooking the wholesale slaughter conducted by pharma dominated medicine (and tell me if hundreds of thousands of deaths yearly in the US alone - per their own official statistics - aren't worthy of the name slaughter). What are they campaigning for? The right kind of "public perception" needed to make us swallow restrictive legislation for innocuous health products, while pharma keeps its license to kill.

So perception is important (to the Commission), but it has precious little to do with really confronting and handling the major risks, one by one, to make life a little safer.

If, as Byrne says, "trust and transparency constitute two essential elements of effective risk analysis", then let's look at this. Trust is really a consequence of transparency. We trust officials when we know how they arrived at a conclusion and when we perceive that they told the truth about whatever the situation is. Transparency is exactly that - the public can perceive how a conclusion was reached and can understand and follow the train of reasoning. When there are large inconsistencies in the scientific reasoning (normally because of the exclusion of the work of "dissidents" from the process of forming the scientific opinion) then there will by necessity be a lack of transparency, hence no trust in the public institutions.

So my suggestion - if I may - to Byrne and colleagues at the European Commission: Pull out the stops on handling the "untouchable" risks - the ones that are seemingly inherent in our very system. Let all scientists come to be heard and pay special attention to the "dissidents". They are the ones whose ideas clash with the "untouchable risks" and they are the ones who must be seriously listened to and their ideas considered.

Kind regards
Josef

At 7:32 AM +0000 12/6/03, P.Taylor wrote:

Another speech from David Byrne, this time on risk perception.

One wonders why he doesn't apply some of these same arguments to the alleged "dangers" of food supplements. But then, I guess we know the answer to that one already.

Kind regards

Paul

------------

SPEECH/03/593 David BYRNE European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection "Irrational Fears or Legitimate Concerns" - Risk Perception in Perspective Risk Perception: Science, Public Debate and Policy Making Conference Brussels, 4 December 2003

Date: 04/12/2003

SPEECH/03/593

David BYRNE

European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection

"Irrational Fears or Legitimate Concerns" - Risk Perception in Perspective

Risk Perception: Science, Public Debate and Policy Making Conference

Brussels, 4 December 2003

Introduction

I am delighted to welcome you all to this conference on risk perception, science, public debate and policy making.

We have assembled an impressive line up of speakers encompassing political, academic and other expertise. I am particularly pleased that Renate Künast and Miguel Cañete are here today to give us their national perspectives on issues related to risk perception.

The subject of food safety has risen markedly in the public consciousness over recent years triggered by a spate of food crises and food scares. Public concern over the safety of food is at an all time high.

Take antibiotic and other residues for example. Public pressure calls for ever lower levels of residues which might pose a risk to public health. People are right, of course, to take this issue seriously.

But how many of us at the same time fail to treat basic hygiene issues with the same seriousness? Leaving shopping in the boot of a car in the hot sun. Eating food after its “use by” date has expired. Incorrect storage. Not washing hands before handling food. The list goes on.

In fact, salmonella poisoning alone leads, at a conservative estimate, to 200 deaths each year across the EU and some 160 000 cases of illness.

Something seems wrong here. Something doesn't quite add up. Our response to risk often appears to be inconsistent if not completely irrational. We may shun low risk situations whilst embracing those with higher risk. Why should this be so?

Are we dealing with irrational fears or legitimate concerns?

Why this conference?

The subject of risk is beginning to come of age. Scientists are being asked to quantify risk as opposed merely to identifying hazards. There has been a growing recognition over the past 15 years of the importance of proper risk analysis and increasing interest in how this can be best used in relation to governance.

This conference aims to pull some of the strands together. I hope it will help to foster a greater understanding of the factors bearing on risk perception, something I believe is instrumental in improving governance.

Of the various components of risk assessment, management, analysis, communication and perception, the perception of risk is perhaps the most difficult to understand and evaluate.

Five factors bearing on risk perception

I will first focus on five broad factors that I believe influence society's relationship and reaction to matters of risk.

Governance

First the relationship between Governments and public institutions and broader society. This touches on the important issue of public trust. The issue of mistrust in public institutions is one which we need to take very seriously.

It is no accident that the influences bearing on European democracies have shown a marked shift in recent years with the rise of the stakeholder society. At a time when interest and involvement in politics at citizen level appears to be receding across many EU countries, strenuous and significant efforts have been and are continuing to be made to engage citizens in the processes and decisions which ultimately affect them.