This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Renn, O. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Renn, O. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Hormesis and risk communication

Centre of Technology Assessment, Industriestrasse 5, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany; ortwin.renn{at}ta-akademie.de

Hormesis has been defined as a dose-response relationship in which there is a stimulatory response at low doses, but an inhibiting response at high doses, resulting in a U or inverted U-shaped dose response. Toxic agents that are detrimental to human health above certain threshold levels may induce positive effects at a dose that is significantly lower than the NOAEL level. In spite of the evidence for hormesis effects, the topic is still a matter of high controversy among toxicologists. Facing this ambiguity, the article raises the question: how should risk communication be arranged in a situation of high ambiguity, lack of empirical certainty about the effects, major policy dilemmas and significant equity problems? The article summarizes the main results of risk communication research and applies these results to the question of hormesis. First, it explains the main context variables that impact on the success or failure of any risk communication program. These refer to i) the levels of the risk debate, ii) the socio-political style of regulation, iii) different types of audiences, and iv) subcultural prototypes. Secondly, the paper addresses the major functions of risk communication: i) dealing with public perception; ii) gaining trust and credibility; iii) involving stakeholders in the communication process. The last section draws some conclusions for improving risk communication on issues of hormesis.

Key Words: risk communication • risk management • risk perception • risk regulation • stakeholder involvement • trust

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 22, No. 1, 3-24 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327103ht314oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. J Calabrese Hormesis and the law: Introduction Human and Experimental Toxicology, February 1, 2008; 27(2): 95 - 96. [PDF]

				S. Fukushima, A. Kinoshita, R. Puatanachokchai, M. Kushida, H. Wanibuchi, and K. Morimura Hormesis and dose-response-mediated mechanisms in carcinogenesis: evidence for a threshold in carcinogenicity of non-genotoxic carcinogens Carcinogenesis, November 1, 2005; 26(11): 1835 - 1845. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Flynn and D. MacGregor Commentary on hormesis and public risk communication: is there a basis for public discussions? Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2003; 22(1): 31 - 34. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Lofstedt Hormesis and risk communication: a comment to Ortwin Renn Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2003; 22(1): 35 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Poumadere Hormesis: public health policy, organizational safety and risk communication Human and Experimental Toxicology, January 1, 2003; 22(1): 39 - 41. [Abstract] [PDF]