Accommodating public perceptions of risk · The natural, the unnatural & the (possibly) dangerous: Buddy Ferguson Risk Communication Consultant . [email protected] (651) 500-2845 . Accommodating

The natural, the unnatural & the (possibly) dangerous:

Buddy Ferguson Risk Communication Consultant [email protected] (651) 500-2845

Accommodating public perceptions of risk

Resources: • Peter Sandman (www.psandman.com)

• Vincent Covello

• MDH Risk Communication Web Page (www.health.state.mn.us/oep/comm/riskcomm)

What is “risk communication?”


A set of strategies for • dealing with the emotional

component of how people respond to risk

• helping people interpret and respond to risk in constructive ways


It’s not about getting people to see risk the same way you do.

What are people afraid of (when they “shouldn’t” be)?

What are people not afraid of (when they “should” be)?

Perception of Risk • culture • experience • framing of risks

– short term trumps long term – certain losses trump probable gains

• sense of empowerment & “control”

Perception of Risk

• primacy of absolute (individual) risk (not “comparative risk”)

• (possible) value conflict (individual good versus collective

good) • trustworthiness of sources • data often yields to “other stuff”

The Media

• sensitive to audience needs • also tend to emphasize “other stuff” • helps drive definition of “news”

How do most people look at risk?

“Hazard” (quantifiable risk)

(probability + consequence) vs.

“Outrage” (what most people look at)

How do most people look at risk?

Risk = Hazard + Outrage

“Outrage Factors”

Did I ask for this?

Who’s in charge – me or someone else? (“optimism bias”?)

Do I know how big the risk is?

Can I tell if I’m at risk?

Have we seen this before?


Do I understand what’s going on?

Do “the scientists” understand what’s going on?

Does the threat come from “nature”…..or from human beings?

How bad are the consequences?


Does all the damage happen in one place…..at one time?

Can any good come of it?

Who takes the risk – and who gets the benefits?

Is there a moral dimension?


Do you trust the people who are telling you about it?

Are people going to remember this?

Does the public have any control over the situation?

Are children involved?

Does it involve warm, fuzzy animals?


Can you go back and fix it?

Is it getting better…..or worse?

Are you directly affected?

Is it about “people”….or about “numbers?”

Are the media interested?

Covello simplifies:

Factors involving trust are twice as important

as factors involving “control” or “benefits.”

Beware of “risk comparisons”

• Being struck by lightning is not the same as being attacked by a terrorist.

• MERS is not the (non-pandemic) flu (or the common cold).

• A nuclear power plant incident is not the same as an elevated radon test.

Be aware of your own “outrage factors.”

Outrage factors & scientific credibility

Have we seen this before?

Do “the scientists” understand what’s going on?

Does the threat come from “nature”…..or from human beings?

Is it about “people”….or about “numbers?”

Gardol

The Seductive Illusion of Zero Risk

If people feel threatened enough….

• They may be tempted to think in binary terms (“safe” vs. “unsafe”)

• They may be uncomfortable with >0 risk. • They may crave a way to isolate

themselves from the risk (“gardol”). • They may have trouble believing that

“the dose makes the poison” – or that “dilution is the solution”

Hazard

Public Relations/ Image Management

Outrage

Health Education/ Precaution Advocacy Smoking....seat belts.... .....alcohol.....obesity...

......radon....etc.

Outrage Management

Vaccinations....food irradiation...

...nuclear power (in general)....etc.

Crisis/Emergency Communications

Pandemic flu… …..bioterrorism....nuclear

incident….etc.

Types of risk communication:

• public relations/ image management

– low hazard/low outrage – apathetic but credulous audience


• outrage management – low hazard/high outrage – may involve core group of

outraged individuals/activists – objective: reduce outrage


• outrage management – listen more than you talk – don’t argue – don’t take it personally


• outrage management

– acknowledge valid points – don’t “mislead toward the truth” (i.e. build a brief for your side)


• health education/ “precaution advocacy”

– high hazard/low outrage – audience may be fairly apathetic – objective: increase outrage


• health education/ “precaution advocacy”

– use fear (up to a point) – keep messages short & simple

• crisis/emergency communication – high hazard/high outrage – everybody is a stakeholder


The first 48 hours are critical!

In a crisis….

In a crisis….

»Be first. »Be right. »Be credible.

Tell them: • what you know. • what you don’t know. • what you’re doing to find out. • to “stay tuned” for more information.

In a crisis….

Trust in a Crisis…and Anytime

• Embrace candor & transparency.

• Avoid “telling the truth slowly.”

• Acknowledge uncertainty. • Take your seat on the risk

communication “see-saw.” (per Sandman)

Trust in a Crisis…and Anytime

• Be a person – not just a “professional.

• Be willing to show emotion.

• Show respect & empathy.

• Acknowledge the emotions of your audience.

Elements of Trust Determination

Empathy & Caring • acknowledge fear, pain,

suffering, uncertainty • the most important part! Competence & Expertise • personal credibility • institutional credibility

Institutional Credibility High: health professionals scientists educators advisory groups

Medium: media activist groups

Low: industry paid consultants

• “official” preferred over “p. r. person”

Elements of Trust Determination

Honesty & Openness • if you can’t talk, explain why

Commitment & Dedication • the importance of being there

Question: When – if ever – should you expend resources or change policy solely or primarily to address outrage?

A Couple of Quick Case Studies

Case study #1:

Pink Slime

“Pink Slime” Facts

• It really is beef (not strawberry yogurt) • It’s made from (high fat) beef trim • Material is treated to remove fat (in a centrifuge) • Resulting material is 90+% lean • Last step is treatment to raise PH –

and kill pathogens


• Ammonia is used for the kill step • Ammonia is widely used for this

purpose (not just for “PS”) • Until about 4 yrs. ago, “PS” was very

commonly added to hamburger • It was present in up to 70% of all

hamburger


• It was included in hamburger used for school lunches

• “Real” name of material is “lean finely textured beef” (LFTB)

• Presence of PS in product was not acknowledged (no labeling)

The Anti-PS Bandwagon

• 2002 USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein coins name “pink slime” in email to colleagues “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it…..to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

December 2009 NY Times article on safety of process (later retracted)


• April 2011 Jaime Oliver TV show (“Food Revolution”)

• December 2011 McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King announce they will stop using it

• March 6-7, 2012 Blog (stoppinkslime.org) posts petition opposing use in school lunches – generates 220,00 signatures in 24 hrs.


• March 7 ABC News runs 1st of several “whistleblower” stories on PS

• Subsequently in March Extensive traffic on Google, Facebook, Twitter; 1,470 videos posted on YouTube

• March 14 USDA allows schools to opt out of using hamburger containing “PS”


• March 21-22 Giant, Kroger, Stop & Shop, Safeway, Supervalu (Cub) and Food Lion drop “PS” products

• March 26 Beef Products Inc. – primary producer of LFTB – begins closing plants, cutting production

• March 30 Wendy’s launches “PS free” ad campaign

The Anti-PS Bandwagon • April 2

Rep. McCollum, other House Democrats, call for “PS” labeling requirement AFA Foods, the distributor for LFTB, files for chapter 11, cites “PS” controversy

• May 14 Beef Products Inc. announces that it will ultimately be closing three processing plants in Texas, Kansas and Iowa effective May 25. Closings will idle 650 workers.

The Anti-PS Bandwagon • May 16

BPI lays off another 86 workers at Nebraska headquarters.

The “Counter-Attack”

• March 23 Fox News online columnist posts article on “smear campaign”

• March 29 3 governors, 2 lieutenant governors, announce they will tour BPI plant to show support

• April 2 Iowa governor calls for congressional investigation of PS “smear campaign”

Pink Slime: Epilog • Summer 2012: 50% of the country in

moderate to severe drought. • Ranchers are forced to reduce size of

herds. • Result is shrinking supply of beef –

while demand continues to increase. • Result is increase in the price of beef.

Pink Slime: Epilog

• Demand for LFTB begins to rebound as producers seek to hold down costs.

• By summer of 2014, BPI says it will be reopening one of its plants in Kansas.

Case study #2: Genetically Engineered Food

What is it?

• technology that allows for artificial alteration of genetic material (DNA) in food crops and animals

• may involve transfer of selected individual genes from one organism to another – or even between species

What is it? terms/acronyms used to describe it (or foods produced with it): • “genetically modified” (GM) • “genetically engineered (GE) • “genetically modified organism (GMO) • “gene technology” • “recombinant DNA technology” • “biotechnology-derived” (BD) (per Society of Technology, 2003)

Why is it done?

• promote faster growth, more abundant yields

• resistance to insects, viruses, etc. – allowing for less use of pesticides

• resistance to herbicides (which actually allows for less use of herbicides)

GMOs are not new – and are in wide use

• GMO products first introduced circa 1994 (herbicide-resistant soy beans)

• GMO species now account for estimated 85-95% of corn, soy, sugar beet and canola crops

• most of the Hawaiian papaya crop is GMO

GMOs are not new – and are in wide use

• GMO species are also used to grow alfalfa, zucchini and yellow summer squash

• Industry has also explored potential for GMO tomatoes, potatoes, pigs and salmon (with limited success thus far)

They’re everywhere!

– amino acids – aspartame – ascorbic acid – sodium ascorbate – citric acid – sodium citrate – vitamin C – ethanol – natural & artificial flavorings – high-fructose corn syrup – hydrolyzed vegetable protein

– lactic acid – maltodextrins – molasses – monosodium glutamate – sucrose – textured vegetable protein

(TVP) – xanthan gum – vitamins – yeast products

GMO derived food ingredients can include:

Are they safe???

• Key to evaluating safety is:

“…whether the new plant or animal is significantly different from comparable [non-GMO species] used to produce food that is generally considered to be safe for consumers.” [SOT 2003)

GMO Safety

• 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published since 1994

• That includes five lengthy National Research Council reports focusing on health and the environment.

• FDA regulates all food products, & provides (voluntary) consultation to producers of proposed GMO products

GMO Safety

• consensus is that existing GMOs are generally no more or less risky than non-GMO versions of same crops

• GE is comparable to conventional breeding techniques that have been used for thousands of years

GMO Safety (SOT 2003)

• Safety of current BD foods “appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.”

• “Verified records of adverse health effects are absent…”

• However, current reporting system “would probably not detect minor or rare adverse effects…”

GMO Safety (SOT 2003)

• There “is no guarantee” that future genetic modifications will have similar “benign” results.

• “A continuing evolution of toxicological methodologies and regulatory strategies” will be needed to ensure safety in future.

GMO Safety (WHO 2014)

• GMO foods not all the same • They need to be evaluated on a case-by-

case basis. • GMO foods currently available on the

international market have passed safety assessments.

GMO Safety (WHO 2014)

• GMO foods are therefore “not likely to present risks for human health.”

• No human health effects have been observed in countries where sale of GMO foods has been approved.

Public Perceptions A different story?

Public Perceptions ABC News Poll (June 2015) • only one third believe GMO food is “safe” • 52% say “not safe” • 13% “uncertain” • 57% “less likely” to buy foods if they’re

labeled as “GMO” • 52% “more likely” to buy food if labeled as

“organic”

Public Perceptions ABC News Poll (June 2015) • women more likely than men to see GMO

food as unsafe (62% vs. 40%) • women less likely than men to buy food with

GMO label (and more likely to “buy organic”) • people under 45 are more likely to say GMO

foods are safe – but slight majority still say they are “unsafe”

Public Perceptions

ABC News Poll (June 2015) • Republicans divide evenly re safety of GMO

foods • Independents say they’re unsafe by 20 point

margin • Democrats say they’re unsafe by 25 point

margin

Everybody wants labels! 93% of respondents in ABC poll support labeling of GMO foods

In other polls, labeling was supported by

• 95% (Consumer Reports, 2008) • 95% (KSTP-TV, 2010 – specifically re Salmon) • 95% (Washington Post , 2010) • 93% (NPR/Reuters, 2010)

GMO Labeling

Level of support in polls: • 96% (MSNBC, 2011) • 93% (NY Times, 2013) • 92% (Consumer Reports, 2014)

What to do about it?

Strategy #1: Get them to go “HMO free.”

Chipotle founder/co-CEO Steve Ells acknowledges lack of demonstrated health risk: "I don't think this is about GMOs being harmful or not being harmful to your health. It's a bigger picture. It's really part of our food with integrity journey.“

[NPR, April 2015]

Strategy #2: Require them to “label it.”

Mandatory Labeling

According to CFS, 64 nations worldwide require labeling of “GMO foods.”

Mandatory Labeling Among others, the list includes • all member nations of the EU • Russia • China • Japan • Brazil • Australia • Turkey

Mandatory Labeling – U.S.

• state level labeling legislation has been introduced in at least 30 states

• laws have been passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine

• Conn. and Maine laws can’t take effect until other states follow suit

• Vermont law takes effect in 2016, but legal challenge is pending


• ballot initiatives requiring GMO labeling were defeated last year in Oregon & Colorado

• county-level initiatives passed in California and Hawaii

• North Dakota resolution urges that any labeling activity be handled at the federal level


• U.S. House passes bill restricting state/local authority to require labeling (“DARK” Act)

• Bill introduced in Senate would AUTHORIZE state local jurisdictions to require labeling

• Neither measure becomes law

Strategy #3: Encourage – and promote – voluntary labeling.

Documents

Accommodating public perceptions of risk · The natural, the unnatural & the (possibly) dangerous: Buddy Ferguson Risk Communication Consultant . [email protected] (651) 500-2845 . Accommodating