Final Program - Society for Risk Analysis

M4-C.2 Haines DA, Murray JL, Donaldson SG; doug.haines@hc-sc.gc.caHealth CanadaCHALLENGES IN INTERPRETING AND COMMUNICATING HU-MAN BIOMONITORING RESULTSIn Canada, national level surveys and studies, community-based Northern andFirst Nations programs, and other targeted studies are generating human biomonitoringdata for a wide range of chemicals. Advancements in laboratory methods allowfor an increasing number of chemicals to be measured at lower detection levels, butour ability to interpret biomonitoring results in relation to the risks these concentrationsmay pose to human health is limited. Current approaches for interpretingbiomonitoring results rely largely on the availability of population-based referencevalues (e.g., 95th percentile) and health-based tissue guidelines against which tissueconcentrations can be compared to determine if levels are elevated or associated withincreased health risk. With the exception of lead and mercury, few tissue guidelinesor screening approaches exist for interpreting biomonitoring data. This highlights theimportance of developing new tools to support scientists, health professionals andpolicy makers in interpreting and communicating biomonitoring data. Alternativeapproaches that translate existing health-based exposure guidance values, such as atolerable daily intake (TDI) or reference dose (RfD), into concentrations of chemicalsin biological media, are being considered. These offer a number of opportunities tointerpret and communicate what biomonitoring results mean, at the population level,with increased accuracy and clarity. Such approaches have the potential to inform riskassessment and management decisions about possible health risks associated with tissuelevels of chemicals. Further research and development are required to account forphysiological properties of chemicals, and characteristics of different subpopulationssuch as pregnant women, infants and children. These efforts will increase the valueand use of biomonitoring data.W3-F.2 Hall IS; ian_S_Hall@hotmail.comOpen UniversityCHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF RISK APPETITE THROUGH THEUSE OF SIMULATIONS AND SCENARIOSRisk assessment models and methodologies have often failed to provide optimaldecisions in the corporate world in which we operate. Gut reaction and intuition,combined with decision making through the use of internalised mental models ultimatelyaccount for the final decision in many cases. Within the environment in whichthe author operates, decision making is a manual process using risk assessment methodologiesand models to inform decision making under situations where incompleteinformation exists, and decisions are required within tight timescales. The study exploreshow the use of scenarios within such an environment can be used to improverisk assessment and decision making at little financial cost to the businessm, and howsuch scenarios have led to changes and alignment in risk appetite amongst rwo diverseorganisations which were merged in 2009. As part of the study, individuals from differentparts of a financial services organisation were brought together to participatein a range of scenarios. Tese were used to develop a better understanding of howperception and risk appetite were linked to decision making. The study revealed thatintelligence does not always provide a good indicator or the ability to make a robustdecision and a lack of ambiguity in processes can lead to a blinkered approach to riskmanagement. The ability of individuals to evaluate information from diverse source,often presented in a unique pattern is critical to effective risk decision making, and thestudy offers insights on how this might be achieved outside of the classroom.W2-A.1 Hallman WK, Cuite CL; hallman@aesop.rutgers.eduRutgers, The State University of New JerseyEGG RECALL OF 2010: HIGH AWARENESS DID NOT MATCH BEHAV-IORAL IMPACTIn August, 2010, over 500 million eggs were recalled because of a Salmonellosisoutbreak. A national Internet survey of a sample of 1,204 American adults conductedin late September through October, 2010, found that 91% of Americans had heardabout the recall, including 93% of people who eat eggs (79% who do not eat eggs hadheard about it). Although the recall affected 23 states, only 36% of the national samplethought the eggs sold in their state were affected. Of those who consume eggs,50% reported that they checked their homes for the recalled eggs. However, only 3%said that they found recalled eggs and 5% were not sure if they had found recalledeggs. Unlike the spinach recall of 2006, this recall does not seem to have had a significanteffect on consumer behavior, with over three-quarters (77%) of Americansreporting that the egg recall had not really affected the way they purchase, prepare, orconsume eggs. Only 3% said they stopped eating eggs as a result of the recall, and ofthose who cite doing something different as a result of the recall, the most commonresponses were that that they only eat eggs cooked through (10%) and that they washtheir hands more thoroughly when preparing eggs (6%). Some respondents believethat certain types of eggs are less likely to be contaminated than others, possibly indicatinga naturalness effect. While most indicated that they believed eggs to have anequal risk of Salmonella contamination, there was the belief that there was more riskassociated with eggs from chickens raised in cages inside a building than from thosenot raised in cages (31% vs. 9%), eggs from chickens fed conventional vs. organic diet(24% vs. 2%), and white compared to brown eggs (12% vs. 2%). In addition, 50% saidthey weren’t sure what a “shell egg” is, a term repeatedly used by government agenciesand news outlets. This highlights the need for continuously testing the messaging usedfor food recalls and other contamination incidents.111