title: Hormesis and risk communication: a comment to Ortwin Renn.
abstract: 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).
authors.affiliation: King's Centre for Risk Management, School of Social Science and Public Policy, King's College London, London, UK. lofstedt@iiasa.ac.at
authors.forename: Ragnar
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Löfstedt
mesh_terms: 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*
chemical_list: D015262:Xenobiotics