Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis
Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis
Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting <strong>Abstracts</strong><br />
W2-G.1 Rivers, III, L.*; Arvai, J.L.; North Carolina State<br />
University; lriversiii@gmail.com<br />
Roundtable: Effective <strong>Risk</strong> Communication: Launch of a A<br />
New Book from EarthScan<br />
The field of risk communication is at a crossroads. Interest in<br />
risk communication across multiple fields is considerable, and<br />
research and practice focused on it continues to unfold at a<br />
rapid pace. However, there is still little agreement among<br />
scholars and practitioners about what constitutes effective risk<br />
communication. The goal <strong>for</strong> this roundtable discussion,<br />
spurred by the release of Effective <strong>Risk</strong> Communication a new<br />
book from EarthScan, is to begin a critical examination of the<br />
current state of risk communication. We will explore the past<br />
and future of risk communication focusing on what we have<br />
learned from past work, and what is needed to push the field<br />
<strong>for</strong>ward. The roundtable will take a broad view of risk<br />
communication, presenting perspectives from multiple<br />
disciplines (psychology, communications, risk sciences, decision<br />
sciences, etc.), a diversity of practitioners, and a range of<br />
contexts. The roundtable will feature contributors to the book,<br />
each offering a unique perspective toward the study and<br />
practice of risk communication. The roundtable will also<br />
provide a <strong>for</strong>um <strong>for</strong> dialogue between the roundtable<br />
participants and the audience moderated by the editors of the<br />
book. The following speakers will participate: Joe Arvai, Roger<br />
Kasperson, Robyn Wilson, Cindy Jardine, Lauren Fleishman,<br />
Frederic Bouder, Julie Downs, Ragnar Lofstedt, Adam Zwickle<br />
and others.<br />
M4-J.1 Robinson, LA*; Hammitt, JK; Zeckhauser, R; Linhart, M;<br />
Harvard University; lisa.a.robinson@comcast.net<br />
Barriers to assessing the distribution of regulatory<br />
impacts<br />
Be<strong>for</strong>e they promulgate major environmental, health, and safety<br />
regulations, U.S. government agencies must assess each<br />
regulation’s aggregate economic impact and are also expected<br />
to assess how the impacts are distributed. We find, however,<br />
that agencies focus on estimating national benefits and costs<br />
and provide very little in<strong>for</strong>mation on their distribution. To the<br />
extent that the distribution is mentioned, the discussion is often<br />
limited to noting that the examined regulation will not impose<br />
disproportionate adverse health effects on children, minorities,<br />
or low income groups. We explore several reasons <strong>for</strong> this<br />
approach. First, it may reflect philosophical framing: regulators<br />
may believe that they should choose the approach that<br />
maximizes net benefits as long as groups of concern are not<br />
harmed. Second, it may reflect political concerns: regulators<br />
may be worried that considering the distribution of costs and<br />
benefits will raise issues that they lack the legal authority to<br />
address. Third, it may reflect unstated and unexamined<br />
assumptions: regulators may believe that the distribution is<br />
insignificant or inconsequential. Fourth, it may reflect analytic<br />
challenges: regulators may need more technical guidance, data<br />
gaps may be substantial, and time and resource constraints<br />
may be severe. We conclude that each of these factors<br />
contributes to the lack of attention to the distribution of costs<br />
and benefits. However, to understand whether this inattention<br />
is problematic, we first need to better understand how costs<br />
and benefits are likely to be distributed and whether these<br />
impacts are significant. Decisionmakers can then determine<br />
whether more analysis is desirable.<br />
W3-B.1 Rodricks, JV*; Kaden, DA; ENVIRON International<br />
Corp; jrodricks@environcorp.com<br />
Integration of the science necessary <strong>for</strong> assessing<br />
potential carcinogenicity of <strong>for</strong>maldehyde: Introduction<br />
Recent risk assessments have been conducted, with much<br />
scientific debate surrounding the potential <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>maldehyde to<br />
cause both nasopharyngeal cancer and lymphohematopoietic<br />
malignancies, including myeloid leukemia. Conducting a risk<br />
assessment <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>maldehyde presents many challenges. This is<br />
largely due to the significant database <strong>for</strong> this compound, as<br />
well as the increasing amount of scientific research being<br />
conducted to address the carcinogenic potential of the<br />
compound. There are also significant challenges in<br />
characterizing acceptable exposures of humans to<br />
<strong>for</strong>maldehyde in the low concentration range due to its<br />
presence endogenously from normal biological processes.<br />
Highly sensitive analytical methods have been developed to<br />
characterize differences in biomarkers of exposure resulting<br />
from endogenous versus exogenous <strong>for</strong>maldehyde. These<br />
results, combined with epidemiological, pharmacokinetic and<br />
mode of action data that are available <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>maldehyde,<br />
provide the data needed to draw conclusions regarding the<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>maldehyde to cause different types of cancer<br />
following exposure to at low concentrations (< 1 ppm).<br />
Furthermore, this issue allows <strong>for</strong> the development of new<br />
methodological approaches in assessing risk of chemicals with<br />
both endogenous and exogenous exposures. The integration of<br />
these data is critical not only <strong>for</strong> understanding the potential<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>maldehyde carcinogenicity, but also to provide high<br />
quality in<strong>for</strong>mation to in<strong>for</strong>m regulatory decisions <strong>for</strong><br />
compounds, such as <strong>for</strong>maldehyde, that present complex<br />
challenges. This session will focus on the available scientific<br />
data <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>maldehyde relevant <strong>for</strong> assessing its leukemogenic<br />
potential and demonstrate how these data can be integrated to<br />
draw conclusions critical <strong>for</strong> regulatory decision making.<br />
T2-G.4 Roh, S*; Schuldt, JP; Cornell University;<br />
sr767@cornell.edu<br />
Where there’s a will: Can highlighting future<br />
youth-targeted marketing build support <strong>for</strong> health policy<br />
initiatives?<br />
Amid concern about high rates of obesity and related diseases,<br />
the marketing of nutritionally poor foods to young people by the<br />
food industry has come under heavy criticism by public health<br />
advocates, who cite decades of youth-targeted marketing in<br />
arguing <strong>for</strong> policy re<strong>for</strong>ms. In light of recent evidence that the<br />
same event evokes stronger emotions when it occurs in the<br />
future versus the past, highlighting youth-targeted marketing<br />
that has yet to occur may evoke stronger reactions to such<br />
practices, and perhaps, greater support <strong>for</strong> related health<br />
policy initiatives. Web participants (N=285) read that a major<br />
soda company had already launched (past condition) or was<br />
planning to launch (future condition) an advertising campaign<br />
focusing on children. Measures included support <strong>for</strong> a soda tax<br />
and affective responses to the company’s actions. Greater<br />
support <strong>for</strong> the soda tax was observed in the future condition<br />
compared to the past condition, an effect that was fully<br />
mediated by heightened negative emotions reported toward the<br />
soda company in the future condition. The same action<br />
undertaken by the food industry (here, marketing soda to<br />
children) may evoke stronger negative emotions and greater<br />
support <strong>for</strong> a health policy initiative when it is framed<br />
prospectively rather than retrospectively.<br />
December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD