- Risk assessors conduct risk assessments and review products and substances, while risk managers mitigate risks and make decisions. Sometimes the same person fulfills both roles. - Values and beliefs influence both the risk assessment and management processes. There are often strong disagreements between experts about what evidence is relevant and how to interpret research findings. - When assessing weight-of-evidence in risk analysis, qualitative and quantitative factors must be considered regarding the relative importance and magnitude of different pieces of available information.

1. Environmental and Human Health
Risk Assessment of Chemicals
T.J. Kasperbauer
Department of Food and Resource Economics, KU
1

2. • Risk assessors: Conduct risk assessments,
review products and substances
• Risk managers: Mitigate risks, make decisions
about products
• Often the same person
2

3. • Risk assessors: Conduct risk assessments,
review products and substances
• Risk managers: Mitigate risks, make decisions
about products
• Sometimes the same person
3

4. Values
• Extra-scientific beliefs about what is important
influence the risk assessment process
• Risk management perhaps even more so
4

5. Hunka et al. 2015
5

6. Bisphenol A
6

7. Bisphenol A
• Experts looking at the same research and
coming to very different conclusions.
• Strong disagreements about which research is
relevant.
• Disputes between EFSA and member states
(e.g., Denmark) that don’t seem particularly
scientific.
7

8. Weight-of-evidence
• An assessment of the relative values/weights
of different pieces of the available
information.
8

9. Weight-of-evidence
• Qualitative: unique attributes about certain
types of evidence.
• Quantitative: magnitude of certain types of
evidence.
9

10. Environmental Values
• REACH
– Regulatory burden on private sector
10

11. 11

12. 12

13. Environmental Values
• EU policies often take relatively clear stances
on what is valuable and worth protecting
13

14. Pesticides
Directive 91/414/EEC:
“member states shall ensure that the use of
plant protection products does not have any
long-term repercussions for the abundance and
diversity of nontarget species”
– Protection of groups and populations
– Short term negative consequences acceptable
14

15. Pesticides
• Directive 91/414/EEC:
1) Decrease in biodiversity.
2) Impact on ecosystem functioning and
functionality.
3) Decrease in perceived aesthetic value or
appearance.
15

16. Environmental Values
1. All living individual things have value in
themselves, even if they aren’t useful to
us.
2. We should always protect all species
from extinction.
3. We should regard the interests of present
and future people as being equally
important in our policy-making.
16

17. Intrinsic and Instrumental Value
• Intrinsic: value internal to a thing
– e.g., existence value
• Instrumental: value from how something is
used or what it helps achieve
17

18. 18

19. 19

20. 2013 Eurobarometer 20

21. Risk Perception Factors
21

22. Risk as Feelings
• Strong emotional arousal makes people forget
about probabilities.
• Decisions are driven by the significance of the
possible outcome, not its probability.
22

23. Risk as Feelings
23

24. 1200 birds dead
24

25. • People felt worse
• Bird death was worse
• Bird suffering was worse
25

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. Third factor
• Large exposure—necessary but not
sufficient for catastrophic effects.
• Many chemicals are pervasive, but few
people die from them.
- different than natural hazards, for
example, or cases from engineering (e.g.,
bridge collapses, plane crashes)
30

31. Laypeople's Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards
31

32. • Still another question about risk acceptability
• Perceived benefits important here.
32

33. 33

34. • Common belief: Voluntary risks are more
accepted
– E.g., smoking
• Doesn’t seem to be true
– 3 dimensions better at predicting acceptance
34

35. 35

36. • Involuntary risks often have other characteristics,
like being potentially catastrophic.
• “Voluntary” risks are often just those that have
come to be seen as normal, or have less obvious
consequences.
36

37. 37

38. Prospect Theory
• Eliminating risks is perceived very differently
than reducing risks.
• Certain outcomes are perceived differently
than merely probable outcomes.
38

39. Framing Effects
Release of a new chemical will kill 600 highly
endangered birds.
Program A: 200 birds will be saved.
Program B: 1/3 probability of saving 600 birds.
2/3 probability of saving 0 birds.
39

40. Framing Effects
Release of a chemical will kill 600 highly
endangered birds.
Program A: 400 birds will die.
Program B: 1/3 probability that no birds will die.
2/3 probability that 600 birds will die.
40