22.04.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!