Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, P.H. (1995) Exaggerated Risks of Chemicals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 48: 173-178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L. (1994) Principlism and Its Alleged Competitors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(3): 181-198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J. (1999) Risk perception, social trust, and public participation into strategic decision-making – implications for emerging technologies. Ambio 28: 569-574.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A.I. (1991) Epistemic Paternalism. Journal of Philosophy 88: 113-131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.O. (2003) Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis 59: 291-309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.O. (2004) Weighing Risks and Benefits. Topoi 23: 145-152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S.O. (2007) The Ethics of Communicating Public Health Research, Harvard Health Policy Review 8(2): 158-165.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermansson, H. and Hansson, S.O. (2007) A Three Party Model Tool for Ethical Risk Analysis. Risk Management, 9(3):129-144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyd, D. (1996) Experimenting with embryos: Can philosophy help? Bioethics 10: 292-309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuczewski, M. (1998) Casuistry and Principlism: The Convergence of Method in Biomedical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19: 509-524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (1993) Moral Philosophy and Public Policy: The Case of the New Reproductive Technologies. Bioethics 7: 1-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R.E. (2005) Risk Management in Post Trust Societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, D. (1957), Games and Decisions: introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, F.M. (1986) The Interplay of Science and Values in Assesing and Regulating Environmental Risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values 11(2): 40-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2001) Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference 12: 47-61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (2001) Practical Principles and Practical Judgment. Hastings Center Report 31(4): 15-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips Report (2000) The BSE Inquiry: The report. The inquiry into BSE and CJD in the United Kingdom. London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pliner, P. and N. Mann: 2004, ‘Influence of social norms and palatability on amount consumed and food choice’, Appetite 42, 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2003). Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation. Risk Analysis 23(5): 961-972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2004). Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs. Risk Analysis 24(6): 1475-1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, S.J. (ed.) (2002) The Ethics of Aquinas. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 30(2): 251-290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudén, C. (2004) Acrylamide and cancer risk – expert risk assessments and the public debate. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42: 335-349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of Risk. Science 236: 280-285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1993) Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis 13(6): 675-682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1981) The tyranny of principles – regaining the ethics of discretion. Hastings Center Report 11: 31-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zwanenberg, P. and Millstone, E. (2002). BSE: risk and regulation. London: UK National Consumer Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westberg, D. (2002) Good and Evil in Human Acts. In Pope, S.J. (ed.) The Ethics of Aquinas. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

    Peter G. Modin & Sven Ove Hansson

Authors
  1. Peter G. Modin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven Ove Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter G. Modin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0724-6

Key words

Search

Navigation