Hormesis and risk communication: a comment to Ortwin Renn.
Professor Ortwin Renn should be congratulated for authoring the definitive piece on risk communication with regard to hormesis. Most of his conclusions I agree with, specifically the importance of labelling hormesis as a possible natural effect, thereby reducing the stigmatization associated with a technical/chemical label. Rather than discussing all the points that Renn raises, in this comment I will focus on the issue of trust, a topic that Renn does examine but which I feel does not get adequate attention and which I do not completely agree with. In so doing, in my conclusions I am more optimistic than Renn is in preparing risk communication strategies regarding hormesis and other new paradigms to target audiences (defined in most instances as the general public and stakeholders).
Löfstedt
Ragnar
R
King's Centre for Risk Management, School of Social Science and Public Policy, King's College London, London, UK. lofstedt@iiasa.ac.at
D000818:Animals; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D008954:Models, Biological; D015233:Models, Statistical; D015980:Public Health Practice / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D035502:Trust; D035501:Uncertainty; D015262:Xenobiotics / Q000009:adverse effects*
D015262:Xenobiotics