Abstract
The major normative recommendations in the literature on food risk communication can be summarized in the form of seven practical principles for such communication: (1) Be honest and open. (2) Disclose incentives and conflicts of interest. (3) Take all available relevant knowledge into consideration. (4) When possible, quantify risks. (5) Describe and explain uncertainties. (6) Take all the public’s concerns into account. (7) Take the rights of individuals and groups seriously. We show that each of these proposed principles can be justified both in terms of more fundamental ethical principles and instrumentally in terms of the communicating agent’s self-interest. The mechanisms of this concordance of justifications are discussed. It is argued that the concordance is specific for areas such as food risks in which agents such as companies and public authorities are highly dependent on the public’s trust and confidence. The implications of these findings both for moral philosophy and for practical food risk communication are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, P.H. (1995) Exaggerated Risks of Chemicals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 48: 173-178.
Aquinas, St. T.: 1271/1981, Summa Theologica (Sheed & Ward, London).
Barnes, D.E. and Bero, L.A. (1998) Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions. JAMA 279(19): 1566-1570.
Beauchamp, T.L. (1994) Principlism and Its Alleged Competitors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 181-198.
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cray, D.: 2006, ‘How we Confuse Real Risks with Exaggerated Ones’, Time, Nov. 29.
Finnis, J.: 2008, Aquinas’ Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2008 edition, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/aquinas-moral-political/.
Finucane, M.L. and Holup, J.L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 60: 1603-1612.
Frewer, L.J. (1999) Risk perception, social trust, and public participation into strategic decision-making – implications for emerging technologies. Ambio 28: 569-574.
Frewer, L. J.: 2003, Briefing Paper: Consumer Science Implications for the Interface of Risk Assessment and Risk Management. European Workshop on the Interface between Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 2003.
Frewer, L.J. (2004) The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology Letters 149: 391-397.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., and Shepherd, R. (1996). What Determines Trust in Information About Food-Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs. Risk Analysis 16(4): 473-486.
Frewer, L.J., Koles, A., van de Kroon, S. and Lawere, C. (2005) Consumer acceptance of animal husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 345-367.
Frewer, L.J., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., and Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science 11: 363-372.
Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J. and Bredahl, L. (2003) Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust. Risk Analysis 23(6): 1117-1133.
Goldman, A.I. (1991) Epistemic Paternalism. Journal of Philosophy 88: 113-131.
Grill, K. and S. O. Hansson: 2005, ‘Epistemic Paternalism in Public Health’, Journal of Medical Ethics 19(11).
Hansson, S.O. (1999) The Moral Significance of Indetectable Effects. Risk 10: 101-108.
Hansson, S.O. (2003) Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis 59: 291-309.
Hansson, S.O. (2004) Weighing Risks and Benefits. Topoi 23: 145-152.
Hansson, S.O. (2007) The Ethics of Communicating Public Health Research, Harvard Health Policy Review 8(2): 158-165.
Hansson, S.O. (2009) Ethics Beyond Application. To be printed in T. Takala, P. Herissone-Kelly and S. Holm (eds.) Cutting Through the Surface: Philosophical Approaches to Bioethics, Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Hermansson, H. and Hansson, S.O. (2007) A Three Party Model Tool for Ethical Risk Analysis. Risk Management, 9(3):129-144.
Heyd, D. (1996) Experimenting with embryos: Can philosophy help? Bioethics 10: 292-309.
ICMJE (2008) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. October 2008 version. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, http://www.icmje.org/icmje.pdf. Accessed May 2009.
International Organization for Standardization: 2002, Risk Management – Vocabulary – Guidelines for Use in Standards, ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002.
Jensen, K.K. (2006) Conflict over risks in food production: A challenge for democracy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 269-283.
Jensen, K.K. and Sandøe, P. (2002) Food Safety and Ethics: The Interplay between Science and Values. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 245-253.
Johnson, R.: 2010, ‘Kant's Moral Philosophy', in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/kant-moral/
Kant, I.: 1785/1998, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Krystallis, A., Frewer, L.J., Rowe, G., Houghton, J., Kehagia, O., Perrea, T. (2007) A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe. Health, Risk and Society 9(4): 407-424.
Kuczewski, M. (1998) Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19: 509-524.
Kuhn, K.M. (2000) Message format and audience values. Interactive effects of uncertainty information and environmental attitudes on perceived risk. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20: 41-57.
Kymlicka, W. (1993) Moral Philosophy and Public Policy: The Case of the New Reproductive Technologies. Bioethics 7: 1-26.
Leiss, W., Powell, D and Whitfield, A. (2004). Mad Cows or Crazy Communications? In Leiss, W., and Powell, D. (eds.) Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Löfstedt, R.E. (2005) Risk Management in Post Trust Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Löfstedt, R.E. (2006) How can we Make Food Risk Communication Better: Where are we and Where are we Going? Journal of Risk Research 9(8): 869-890.
Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, D. (1957), Games and Decisions: introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.
Lynn, F.M. (1986) The Interplay of Science and Values in Assesing and Regulating Environmental Risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values 11(2): 40-50.
Meijboom, F.L.B., Visak, T. and Brom, F.W.A. (2006). From Trust to Trustworthiness: Why Information Is Not Enough in the Food Sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 427-442.
Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2001) Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference 12: 47-61.
Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2003) Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research 6(3): 267-283.
Mill, J. S.: 1863/1969, ‘Utilitarianism’, in J. M. Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 10, Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).
Mill, J. S.: 1991, in M. Filipiuk (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 32, Additional Letters of John Stuart Mill (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).
Millstone, E., van Zwanenberg, P., Bauer, M., Dora, C., Dowler, E., Draper, A, Dressel, K., Gasperoni, G., Green, J., Koivusalo, M. and Ollila, E. (2006) Chapter 10: Improving communication strategies and engaging with public concerns. In Dora, C. (ed.) Health, Hazard and Public Debate: Lessons for risk communication from the BSE/CJD saga. Copenhagen: WHO Europe.
O’Neill, O. (2001) Practical Principles and Practical Judgment. Hastings Center Report 31(4): 15-23.
Phillips Report (2000) The BSE Inquiry: The report. The inquiry into BSE and CJD in the United Kingdom. London: The Stationary Office.
Pliner, P. and N. Mann: 2004, ‘Influence of social norms and palatability on amount consumed and food choice’, Appetite 42, 227–237.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2003). Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation. Risk Analysis 23(5): 961-972.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2004). Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs. Risk Analysis 24(6): 1475-1486.
Pope, S.J. (ed.) (2002) The Ethics of Aquinas. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Renn, O. and Levine, D. (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In Kasperson, R.E. and Stallen, P.J.M. (eds.), Communicating Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 30(2): 251-290.
Rudén, C. (2004) Acrylamide and cancer risk – expert risk assessments and the public debate. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42: 335-349.
Scherer, C. W. and N. K. Juanillo: 1992, Communicating Food Safety: Ethical Issues in Risk Communication. Agriculture and Human Values 9(Spring issue), 17–26.
Seeger, M.W. (2006) Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process. Journal of Applied Communication Research 34(3): 232-244.
Sjöberg, L.: 2006, Myths of the Psychometric Paradigm and how they can Misinform Risk Communication. Paper presented at the conference “New Perspectives on Risk Communication: Uncertainty in a Complex Society” Göteborg University, 31 August–2 September, 2006.
Sjöberg, L. (2008) Genetically Modified Food in the Eyes of the Public and Experts. Risk Management 10: 168-193.
Sjöberg, L. and Wester-Herber, M. (2008) Too much trust in (social) trust? The importance of epistemic concerns and perceived antagonism. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 30(1-2): 30-44.
Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of Risk. Science 236: 280-285.
Slovic, P. (1993) Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6): 675-682.
Takala, T. (2001) What Is Wrong with Global Bioethics? On the Limitations of the Four Principles Approach. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10: 72-77.
Toulmin, S. (1981) The tyranny of principles – regaining the ethics of discretion. Hastings Center Report 11: 31-38.
van Asselt, M.B.A. and Vos, E. (2008) Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. Journal of Risk Research 11(1-2): 281-300.
van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., van der Lans, I., Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2008) Consumer Responses to Communication about Food Risk Management. Appetite 50: 340-352.
Van Kleef, E., Houghton, J.R., Krystallis, A., Pfenning, U., Rowe, G., Van Dijk, H., Van der Lans, I.A. and Frewer, L.J. (2007) Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe. Risk Analysis 27(6): 1565-1580.
van Zwanenberg, P. and Millstone, E. (2002). BSE: risk and regulation. London: UK National Consumer Council.
Westberg, D. (2002) Good and Evil in Human Acts. In Pope, S.J. (ed.) The Ethics of Aquinas. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Modin, P.G., Hansson, S.O. Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication. J Bus Ethics 101, 313–324 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0724-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0724-6