Mark Lohmann’s research while affiliated with Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung and other places

Little is known about knowledge and perceptions of the public and farmers on livestock feed. However, it is important to know their perspectives to find widely accepted and sustainable solutions in agriculture, which account for animal welfare, societal expectations, economy and the environment alike. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess knowledge, perceptions and informational needs regarding livestock feed among the general population and farmers. A German-wide online survey was conducted with n = 1000 participants from the general population (representative for age and gender) and n = 251 farmers. Differences in answers were compared between the general population and farmers as well as between subgroups of the general population. Results indicate that the public is correctly informed about some livestock feeds, although knowledge gaps and misconceptions became evident. The general population rated potatoes, fodder beets, kitchen waste and bread as common feedstuffs for pigs, which was rather a common practice in smallholder “backyard” pig husbandry several decades ago. Ratings of relevant aspects of feed differ between the two groups and partially depend on sociodemographic variables (i.e. gender, rural/urban upbringing, age) in the general population. Farmers were more likely to have heard and know the meaning of the term feed additives and are better informed about the functions that are fulfilled by feed additives. Farmers also expressed higher agreement for use of most alternative feeds than participants from the general population, although no differences of acceptance levels were found for algae, insects, animal by-products and fungi. In the group of the general population, 56% agree with the use of cereals and only 17% with the use of soy as livestock feed. When asked for the level of knowledge on livestock feed, 42% of participants from the general population indicate low or very low knowledge, whereas 97% of farmers judged the knowledge among the public to be low or very low. Both groups rate the need for information on controls of feed highest. Providing more information on livestock feed to the public seems necessary to improve knowledge, increase acceptance of alternative feeds and of sustainable solutions in agriculture.

Zusammenfassung Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Beschreibung der Entwicklung einer webbasierten, interaktiven Darstellung von maximalen tolerierbaren Verzehrmengen für ausgewählte Lebensmittel, die beispielsweise in einer Ereignissituation als potenziell kontaminiert angenommen werden („Kontaminantenrechner“). Die vorliegende Arbeit beschreibt einen Katalog wissenschaftlicher Anwendungskriterien für einen solchen Kontaminantenrechner. Als Anwendungsbeispiel wird der Fipronil-Ereignisfall im Sommer 2017 verwendet.

Taking the public discourse on health risks due to aluminum in antiperspirants as an example, we conducted a randomized controlled study with repeated measurements to research how selective reporting of risk information affects risk perception and trust in risk information. First, the study varied the information scope that the experimental subjects received (selective vs. complete information). Selective information highlighted that a health risk is given. Considering the full range of studies, complete information is indicated the opposite. A second variation referred to the facticity of the hazardous agent mentioned in the risk information (a reference to either an actual or fictitious agent). Moreover, the selectively informed subjects received the complete information after the effects of the selective information were measured. Four risk perceptions constructs were chosen as dependent variables, differing on two dimensions (affective vs. cognitive and personal risk vs. risk for others). In addition, subjects´ trust in the given risk information was measured. The study reveals that presenting selective information amplifies risk perceptions. The effect was observed, irrespective of whether the hazardous agent mentioned in the risk information was actual or fictitious. When subjects who first received the selective information obtained the complete information, indicating no elevated risk, risk perceptions decreased. However, the analysis also indicates that corrective information (indicating no risk) is less trusted than selective information that points to health risks. Furthermore, proper toxicological understanding, i.e., taking into account the dose-response relationship, supports the effect of corrective information on risk perceptions.

Objective To improve consumer decision making, the results of risk assessments on food, feed, consumer products or chemicals need to be communicated not only to experts but also to non-expert audiences. The present study draws on evidence from literature reviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders to identify content to integrate into an existing risk assessment communication (Risk Profile). Methods A combination of rapid literature reviews and focus groups with experts (risk assessors (n = 15), risk managers (n = 8)), and non-experts (general public (n = 18)) were used to identify content and strategies for including information about risk assessment results in the “Risk Profile” from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Feedback from initial focus groups was used to develop communication prototypes that informed subsequent feedback rounds in an iterative process. A final prototype was validated in usability tests with experts. Results Focus group feedback and suggestions from risk assessors were largely in line with findings from the literature. Risk managers and lay persons offered similar suggestions on how to improve the existing communication of risk assessment results (e.g., including more explanatory detail, reporting probabilities for individual health impairments, and specifying risks for subgroups in additional sections). Risk managers found information about quality of evidence important to communicate, whereas people from the general public found this information less relevant. Participants from lower educational backgrounds had difficulties understanding the purpose of risk assessments. User tests found that the final prototype was appropriate and feasible to implement by risk assessors. Conclusion An iterative and evidence-based process was used to develop content to improve the communication of risk assessments to the general public while being feasible to use by risk assessors. Remaining challenges include how to communicate dose-response relationships and standardise quality of evidence ratings across disciplines.

Background The difference between hazard and risk is crucial in risk assessment but rather unknown by non-experts. Hyper-partisan activists could use this knowledge gap to amplify risk perception by framing hazards as as-if risks, i.e., describing hazards as if their exposure is critical. Thus, using this as-if risk framing can trigger impressions that a risk is present. Until now, this framing technique and its rebuttal was not empirically analyzed. Method An experimental 2 × 2 factorial online study (N = 404) with repeated measures after intervention was conducted to investigate how framing (hazard vs. as-if risk) and stigmatization (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized chemical agent) affects affective and cognitive risk perception using an example of exposure to drifting pesticides. Results As-if risk framing increased risk perception, effects of stigmatization were not observed. However, the a-priori risk perception influences the recorded risk perceptions after the experimental treatment. Rebuttal was successful, i.e., subjects with elevated risk perceptions due to as-if risk framing reduced their risk perception after receiving corrective information. Conclusions As-if risk framing investigated here is not a sequestered case. Accordingly, the present study may offer general insights into correcting biased information that neglects the difference between hazard and risk. Risk communicators can benefit from these insights.

The project entitled “Novel foods as red meat replacers – an insight using Risk Benefit Assessment methods (NovRBA)” aimed to develop and test harmonised Risk Benefit Assessment (RBA) methods to estimate the overall health impact of replacing red meat with an edible insect species (a novel food). Based on an appraisal of insect products that are more likely to be consumed in Europe, project participants decided to compare the consumption of a beef patty consisting of 100% minced beef meat (reference scenario) with a patty in which beef meat would be fully replaced by an edible insect dough (alternative scenario). The target population was adults. The RBA steps included the problem definition, the identification, prioritization and selection of components together with associated health outcomes. The assessment included the selection of dose‐response relationships based on their internal validity (hazard characterisation) and an exposure assessment of nutrient intake and exposures to microbiological hazards and compounds of toxicological concern associated with the reference and alternative scenarios. All health outcomes were quantified according to the disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs) composite metric. The project standardised the pivotal step of selecting model components through developing a tiered approach to prioritise components establishing the “long”, the “short” and the “final” list. The final list comprised thirteen nutrients, two heat‐resistant spore‐forming bacteria and inorganic arsenic. The RBA model was developed using @Risk® add‐in software using Monte Carlo simulations considering variability and/or uncertainty. Overall the expected change in DALYs when moving from the reference scenario to the alternative one was estimated to be around 8,753 DALYs (per 100,000 population) saved in Greece, 6,572 DALYs in Denmark and 21,972 DALYs in France. This is mainly due to the overall beneficial nutritional and microbiological impacts. The proposed actions to communicate the project’s findings can be summarised in providing understandable scientific evidence to policy makers; creating opportunities for consumers to engage in‐depth with information about insect consumption; making use of multipliers who enjoy a high level of trust and establishing informational exchange with trusted sources.

Objectives The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, and can only be contained if the majority of the population takes measures to protect themselves against infection. The present study aimed at investigating personal protective measures, their development over the course of the pandemic in Germany, and potential differences in behavior regarding gender, age, and education. Methods Data from 20 waves of the serial cross-sectional study “BfR-Corona-Monitor” were analyzed. The total sample consisted of N = 20,317 respondents (about 1,000 per wave). Data were collected via telephone surveys between June 2020 and March 2021. Results To protect themselves from infection, participants primarily relied on wearing covers for mouth and nose, keeping their distance from other people and washing their hands thoroughly. Analyses over time showed a strong positive correlation between the number of measures taken and the national incidence rate. Sociodemographic differences also emerged, with women, higher educated as well as younger respondents taking a higher number of protective measures. Conclusions Results indicated that in times of greater infection risks, people adapted accordingly and took more protective measures. However, based on sociodemographic differences, campaigns should especially focus on older, male and lower educated persons to enhance their protective behavior.

Objective To improve consumer decision making, the results of risk assessments on food, feed, consumer products or chemicals need to be communicated not only to experts but also to non-expert audiences. The present study draws on evidence from literature reviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders to identify content to integrate into an existing risk assessment communication (Risk Profile). Methods A combination of rapid literature reviews and focus groups with experts (risk assessors (n = 15), risk managers (n = 8)), and non-experts (general public (n = 18)) were used to identify content and strategies for including information about risk assessment results in the “Risk Profile” from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Feedback from initial focus groups was used to develop communication prototypes that informed subsequent feedback rounds in an iterative process. A final prototype was validated in usability tests with experts. Results Focus group feedback and suggestions from risk assessors were largely in line with findings from the literature. Risk managers and lay persons offered similar suggestions on how to improve the existing communication of risk assessment results (e.g., including more explanatory detail, reporting probabilities for individual health impairments, and specifying risks for subgroups in additional sections). Risk managers found information about quality of evidence important to communicate, whereas people from the general public found this information less relevant. Participants from lower educational backgrounds had difficulties understanding the purpose of risk assessments. User tests found that the final prototype was appropriate and feasible to implement by risk assessors. Conclusion An iterative and evidence-based process was used to develop content to improve the communication of risk assessments to the general public while being feasible to use by risk assessors. Remaining challenges include how to communicate dose-response relationships and standardise quality of evidence ratings across disciplines.

The term “superfood” is linked to food that is beneficial to health. However, there is no legal or clear scientific definition, and little is known about individual perceptions of this food group. Therefore, an online survey was conducted (n = 1006 respondents) to assess the public’s understanding of superfoods in Germany, including (a) the conceptual understanding of the term “superfood”, (b) corresponding consumption behavior, and (c) the risk–benefit appraisal. In total, 70% of respondents were aware of the term “superfood”, and 33% reported consuming superfoods at least once a week. The term was mainly associated with positive food properties, such as “healthy” and “contains vitamins”. Health benefits were rated to be much higher than potential health risks. In addition, imported foods were more likely to be labelled as superfoods, compared to domestic equivalents. In further analyses, we found women, younger people, and organic buyers to have an even more positive impression. That is, specific parts of the population may be particularly attracted to superfood products. Therefore, target-group specific information campaigns can be a useful tool to increase the population’s awareness of the potential health risks of superfood consumption and to highlight the presence of equivalent “domestic superfoods” in Germany.