Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians.

Differences in risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in various poultry husbandry systems by various stakeholder groups, may affect the acceptability of those husbandry systems. Therefore, the objective was to gain insight into risk perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians regarding food safety and public health hazards in poultry husbandry systems, and into factors explaining these risk perceptions. We surveyed risk perceptions of Campylobacter contamination of broiler meat, avian influenza introduction in laying hens, and altered dioxin levels in eggs for the most commonly used broiler and laying hen husbandry systems in Dutch citizens (n = 2,259), poultry farmers (n = 100), and poultry veterinarians (n = 41). Citizens perceived the risks of the three hazards in the indoor systems higher and in the outdoor systems lower than did the professionals. Citizens reported higher concerns regarding aspects reflecting underlying psychological factors of risk perception compared to professionals. Professionals indicated a relatively low level of personal control, which might imply risk denial. Of the socio-demographic characteristics, gender and childhood residence were associated with risk perceptions. The influence of other factors of risks perception are discussed. It is suggested that risk perceptions of all stakeholder groups are influenced by affect, stigma, and underlying values. To adapt current or new husbandry systems that can count on societal support, views of key stakeholders and multiple aspects such as animal welfare, public health, food safety, and underlying values should be considered integrally. When trade-offs, such as between animal welfare and public health have to be made, insight into underlying values might help to find consensus among stakeholders.

Uncertainty and precaution in environmental management.

In this paper, two different visions of the relationship between science and policy are contrasted with one another: the "modern" vision and the "precautionary" vision. Conditions which must apply in order to invoke the Precautionary Principle are presented, as are some of the main challenges posed by the principle. The following central question remains: If scientific certainty cannot be provided, what may then justify regulatory interventions, and what degree of intervention is justifiable? The notion of "quality of information" is explored, and it is emphasized that there can be no absolute definition of good or bad quality. Collective judgments of quality are only possible through deliberation on the characteristics of the information, and on the relevance of the information to the policy context. Reference to a relative criterion therefore seems inevitable and legal complexities are to be expected. Uncertainty is presented as a multidimensional concept, reaching far beyond the conventional statistical interpretation of the concept. Of critical importance is the development of methods for assessing qualitative categories of uncertainty. Model quality assessment should observe the following rationale: identify a model that is suited to the purpose, yet bears some reasonable resemblance to the "real" phenomena. In this context, "purpose" relates to the policy and societal contexts in which the assessment results are to be used. It is therefore increasingly agreed that judgment of the quality of assessments necessarily involves the participation of non-modellers and non-scientists. A challenging final question is: How to use uncertainty information in policy contexts? More research is required in order to answer this question.

The precautionary principle in times of intermingled uncertainty and risk: some regulatory complexities.

This article explores the use of the precautionary principle in situations of intermingled uncertainty and risk. It analyses how the so-called uncertainty paradox works out by examining the Pfizer case. It reveals regulatory complexities that result from contradictions in precautionary thinking. In conclusion, a plea is made for embedment of uncertainty information, while stressing the need to rethink regulatory reform in the broader sense.

Uncertainty management in integrated assessment modeling: towards a pluralistic approach.

Integrated Assessment (IA) is an evolving research community that aims to address complex societal issues through an interdisciplinary process. The most-widely used method in Integrated Assessment is modeling. The state of the art in Integrated Assessment modeling is described in this paper in terms of history, general features, classes of models, and in terms of the strengths and weaknesses, and the dilemmas and challenges modelers face. One of the key challenges is the issue of uncertainty management. The paper outlines the sources and types of uncertainty modelers are confronted with. It then discusses how uncertainties are currently managed in Integrated Assessment modeling, on which evaluation it is argued that complementary methods are needed that allow for pluralistic uncertainty management. The paper finalises with discussing pluralistic concepts and approaches that are currently explored in the IA community and that seem promising in view of the challenge to incorporate explicitly more than one hidden perspective in models.