Risk communication and the FSA: the food colourings case
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 12, Issue 5, p. 537-557
ISSN: 1466-4461
53 results
Sort by:
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 12, Issue 5, p. 537-557
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Volume 33, Issue 7, p. 1182-1187
ISSN: 1539-6924
In: European journal of risk regulation: EJRR ; at the intersection of global law, science and policy, Volume 2, Issue 2, p. 149-168
ISSN: 2190-8249
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.
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 13, Issue 1, p. 87-109
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 10, Issue 4, p. 423-447
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 9, Issue 8, p. 869-890
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Risk analysis, Volume 23, Issue 2, p. 411-421
ISSN: 0272-4332
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 1, Issue 4, p. 255-255
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 1, Issue 1, p. 1-2
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Risk, society, and policy series
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, p. 1-10
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 24, Issue 5, p. 521-540
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 20, Issue 8, p. 963-983
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Volume 19, Issue 9, p. 1120-1128
ISSN: 1466-4461
In: European journal of risk regulation: EJRR ; at the intersection of global law, science and policy, Volume 3, Issue 1, p. 57-71
ISSN: 2190-8249
Recent calls for transparency targeted towards regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration has prompted investigation into the indubitable adoption of such measures. Specifically, the FDA's quarterly postings of AERS (Adverse Event Reporting System) signals on its CDER (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research) website, stemming from FDAAA legislation introduced in September 2007, is analysed from a risk perception and communication perspective. This paper consists of two qualitative studies examining public perceptions and subsequent reported behaviour related to increased transparency. Interviews were conducted on two separate samples of seventy respondents in both Pittsburgh and New York City. The results found that signals postings may prove counter productive in terms of increased public alarm and early or inappropriate termination of a drug appearing on the list. We also found communication from the FDA perceived as inaccessible or confusing, particularly that the AERS signals are posted strictly on the web, while the majority of our respondents cited their primary and secondary media sources as broadcast television. We recommend that the FDA reconsider its communication strategy of AERS to the public as it may prove to be a 'transparency step too far.'