Citation

Leiss W. Toxicol. Lett. 2004; 149(1-3): 399-404.

Affiliation

McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Room 311, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1N 6N5. bill@leiss.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.050

PMID

15093287

Abstract

Major public controversies over the management of health and environmental risks have been ongoing since the 1970s, starting with chemicals (pesticides and dioxins) and running through risks associated with many other industrial technologies. We can find in those controversies many common features, which cut across differences in both the technologies themselves and the types of risks they engender. This understanding also enables us to propose strategies to organizations to help them better respond to the public's needs (and the public interest) when concerns over risks arise. Effective risk communication practices are among the most important responsibilities for industry and governments in this regard. Since its origins in the late 1980s, risk communication practice has achieved a better understanding both of its goals and of how to achieve them. We are now in a position to specify with some precision what the fundamental requirements of good risk communication are, and they fall into three basic areas: (1) undertaking "science translation," (2) addressing uncertainties, and (3) dealing with the science/policy interface. Within these three areas there are a set of ten specific tasks, representing what may be called the minimum essential content requirements for every effective risk communication effort.

Language: en