Löfstedt Ragnar
King's Centre for Risk Management, School of Social Science and Public Policy, King's College London, London, UK.
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2003 Jan;22(1):35-7; discussion 43-9. doi: 10.1191/0960327103ht317oa.
Professor Ortwin Renn should be congratulated for authoring the definitive piece on risk communication with regard to hormesis. Most of his conclusions I agree with, specifically the importance of labelling hormesis as a possible natural effect, thereby reducing the stigmatization associated with a technical/chemical label. Rather than discussing all the points that Renn raises, in this comment I will focus on the issue of trust, a topic that Renn does examine but which I feel does not get adequate attention and which I do not completely agree with. In so doing, in my conclusions I am more optimistic than Renn is in preparing risk communication strategies regarding hormesis and other new paradigms to target audiences (defined in most instances as the general public and stakeholders).
奥尔特温·伦恩教授撰写了关于兴奋效应风险沟通的权威性文章,值得祝贺。他的大部分结论我都认同,特别是将兴奋效应标记为一种可能的自然效应的重要性,从而减少与技术/化学标签相关的污名化。在这篇评论中,我不会讨论伦恩提出的所有观点,而是将重点放在信任问题上。伦恩确实探讨了这个话题,但我觉得它没有得到足够的关注,而且我也不完全赞同。这样做的话,在结论部分,我比伦恩在为目标受众(在大多数情况下定义为公众和利益相关者)制定关于兴奋效应和其他新范式的风险沟通策略时更乐观。