Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food and Chemical Toxicology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemtox

‘All chemical substances are harmful.’ public appraisal of uncertain risks of T

food additives and contaminants
Tom Jansena,b, Liesbeth Claassenb,c,∗, Irene van Kampa, Daniëlle R.M. Timmermansb,d
a
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
b
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute (APH), Van der Boechorststraat 7,
1081, BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
c
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Environmental Safety and Security, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
d
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, the Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In toxicological health risk assessment, epistemic uncertainties (e.g. about a chemical's intrinsic properties or
Scientific uncertainty toxicity) often remain, preventing definitive statements about whether a chemical constitues a risk. In this study,
Chemical substances in food we analyzed public appraisals of uncertain risks of food additives and contaminants. We identified three major
Food hazard characteristics of public appraisal. First, hazard appraisals differed consistently from risk appraisals: respondents
Risk communication
were less disturbed by a possible health risk than by the mere presence of the chemical substance in food.
Risk appraisal
Second, while a majority understood that exposure determines whether a chemical constitutes a risk, many
Risk perception
respondents thought that all chemicals are equally harmful. This suggests a mismatch between beliefs about
exposure and beliefs about toxicity. Finally, the higher people valued certainty about food safety and the less
they considered uncertainty about a risk acceptable, the more severe they appraised the presence of the chemical
substance in food. This suggests that a mismatch between the level of uncertainty that people expect about food
safety and the actual level of scientific uncertainty, affects how people evaluate the presence of chemical sub-
stances in food. Following the findings, implications for risk communication are discussed.

1. Introduction inconclusive statements about the presence or existence of risks (e.g.

Toxicological information is central to decision making about risks
of chemical substances. When risks are determined (i.e. probabilities
can be assigned to the occurrence of adverse effects), policy makers
may for example decide to allow or restrict usage of a chemical on the
market (see e.g. Williams et al., 2009). Consumers may also use this
information to decide whether or not to buy products containing the
chemical.
However, new insights in toxicology may lead to the identification
of new, potential, hazards (e.g. chemicals), the reevaluation of exposure
norms, or may disprove old ideas about risks. Epistemic uncertainties
often remain, for example about a chemical's intrinsic properties or
toxicity (van Leeuwen and Vermeire, 2007), preventing definitive
statements about whether the chemical constitutes a risk to health
(Jansen et al., 2018, 2019b). Consequently, people are confronted with
inconclusive messages about risks. While experts may be familiar with
‘possibly carcinogenic’), public understanding often does not corre-
spond with the scientific meaning (Wiedemann et al., 2014). Ad-
ditionally, the public may use values, beliefs and attitudes associated
with a known risk based on similarity of characteristics to interpret the
unfamiliar information (Visschers et al., 2007). Misinterpretation of
jargon, and associations with determined risks may affect appraisal and
lead to unintended responses to inconclusive risk information. There-
fore, it is important to understand public responses to inconclusive risk
information. While much is known about how the general public
evaluates hazards and risks associated with chemicals substances (see
paragraph 1.2 and 1.3), less is known about how the general public
evaluates hazards and risks when they are inconclusive. With the aim to
find leads to foster effective risk communication about uncertain che-
mical risks this study addresses public values (e.g. ‘food should be free
of artificial food additives’), beliefs (i.e. ideas people hold to be true, for
example ‘all chemicals are harmful’) and attitudes (e.g. whether

Corresponding author. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Centre for Environmental Safety and Security, P.O. box 1, Bilthoven,
∗

3720 BA, the Netherlands.

E-mail addresses: tom.jansen@amsterdamumc.nl (T. Jansen), Liesbeth.claassen@rivm.nl (L. Claassen), Irene.van.kamp@rivm.nl (I. van Kamp),
Drm.timmermans@amsterdamumc.nl (D.R.M. Timmermans).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.110959
Received 16 July 2019; Received in revised form 25 October 2019; Accepted 7 November 2019
Available online 13 November 2019
0278-6915/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T. Jansen, et al.
someone generally has a positive or negative stance on chemicals) and
studies how these are related to appraisal of hazards and risks asso-
ciated with three cases of food contaminants and food additives for
which science is still uncertain whether they constitute a health risk.
1.1. Public appraisal of uncertain risks
Public risk appraisal is the result of an interplay between cognitive
(more rational) and affective (more emotional) evaluations of risk
(Loewenstein et al., 2001; Slovic et al., 2004; Slovic and Peters, 2006).
When risks are unfamiliar, people lack prior beliefs on which they can
base their appraisal. Nevertheless, people will still form appraisals
(Scheufele and Lewenstein, 2005), for example by using heuristics
(mental shortcuts) to evaluate the risk. For example, people tend to
judge risks as high and benefits as low when they have unfavorable
feelings toward an activity (Slovic et al., 2005, 2007). Additionally,
when people lack knowledge about a hazard, strong correlations exist
between trust in authorities managing the hazard, and perceived risks
(Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000).
Public appraisal of risks of chemicals are also subject to by inter-
pretation of scientific information (Taarup-Esbensen, 2019). The con-
tents, wording, and phrasing in risk messages may also affect how
people make sense of new information. This can be explained through
the way humans store and retrieve information in memory. Human
memory can be understood as an organized set of interconnected va-
lues, beliefs and attitudes someone holds about that specific topic (for
example: chemicals). In these so-called ‘mental models’, knowledge and
beliefs are hierarchically categorized (Anderson, 2005; Morgan et al.,
2002). A risk message about a specific unfamiliar chemical in food may
elicit someone's beliefs and affective evaluations about chemicals in
general (Sjöberg, 2007; Storbeck et al., 2006). For example, someone
who believes and feels chemicals are dangerous (Slovic, 2000), is also
likely to believe and feel (new) specific cases of chemicals are dan-
gerous. What values, beliefs, and attitudes are ultimately used to make
sense of new information is also determined by the decision context
(Kintsch, 1991). For example, a risk message about the safety of a
chemical in food may evoke different beliefs and feelings than a risk
message about the safety of a chemical in cosmetics. (Anderson, 2005;
Boersma et al., 2019; Collins and Loftus, 1975; Visschers et al., 2007).
1.2. Public beliefs and attitudes about chemicals in general
While a chemical's ability to cause adverse effects depends strongly
on its toxicity and exposure (Klaassen and Watkins, 2015), studies on
public appraisal of chemicals suggest that a significant proportion of the
public is insensitive to the principle of toxicity (see e.g. Kraus et al.,
1992; Rozin et al., 1996; Slovic et al., 1995). MacGregor et al. (1999)
showed that, presented in the context of carcinogens, more than half of
the respondents believed that the term ‘exposure’ refers to ‘contact
large enough to cause cancer’. Recent studies suggest that a lack of
knowledge and these types of misconceptions are associated with
higher levels of concern (Bearth et al., 2019; Saleh et al., 2019). A
common interpretation of these findings is that the public does not
clearly differentiate between toxicological hazards and risks. Some
studies suggest that the public does distinguish between the seriousness
of a hazard and the human health risk Jansen et al., 2019a;
Vandermoere, 2008). Because public attitudes towards chemicals in
general are generally negative (Kraus et al., 1992; Slovic, 2000), they
may negatively affect public appraisal of uncertain risks from un-
familiar chemical substances in food (Dickson-Spillmann et al., 2011).
1.3. Public values, beliefs and attitudes about chemical substances in food
When prior knowledge is lacking, food related values may also af-
fect how new or unfamiliar risks from chemical substances in food are
appraised (Kintsch, 1991). Recently, a survey by the European Food
2
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
Safety Authority (EFSA, 2019) showed that for Europeans food safety is
among the most important factors when buying food (see also Lusk and
Briggeman, 2009). While food safety is generally guaranteed in Europe,
sometimes fundamental uncertainties prevent clear-cut statement about
food safety. This may for example be the case with the application of
novel nanomaterials in food products (Dekkers et al., 2013). In these
specific cases, scientific uncertainties arguably do not fit public ex-
pectations about food safety and people may view that the uncertainty
is unacceptable (Gregory and Dieckmann, 2014). Research has identi-
fied several other aspects that affect risk appraisal. For example, even
when there may not be a risk, people generally express a preference for
‘natural’ food products and have an aversion to artificial food additives
(Bearth et al., 2014; Dickson-Spillmann et al., 2011). While people
generally lack knowledge about risk assessment and regulation of food
additives (Bearth et al., 2016), they may still have beliefs about the
regulation of food safety or about the safety of chemicals applied to
food. These beliefs may play a role in their risk appraisal of these un-
certain risks. Additionally, unfavorable attitudes towards chemicals in
general, as well as unfavorable attitudes about food additives and
(plastic) food packaging in general may affect appraisal of novel che-
mical substances in food (Raats and Shepherd, 1996; Siegrist, 2008).
1.4. Current research
In a previous qualitative study we studied public appraisal of un-
certain risks from chemicals in food in the context of three existing
inconclusive risk messages about a novel food additives (Synthetic
amorphous Silica (SAS)) or one of two food contaminants (Bisphenol A
(BPA) and Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH)). Several be-
liefs, attitudes and values were identified. The aim of the current study
is to quantitatively explore these values, beliefs and attitudes, and ex-
plore their relationships with people's appraisal of hazards and risks
associated with the uncertain risk of BPA, MOAH and SAS in food. We
aim to answer:
1. How does the public appraise the hazard and risk of BPA, MOAH
and SAS in food?
2. What are people's values, beliefs and attitudes about:
a. Chemical substances in general
b. Chemical substances in food?
3. How is public appraisal of hazard and risk of BPA, MOAH and SAS in
food associated with values, beliefs and attitudes about chemical
substances in general, and about chemical substances in food?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were recruited via a national online research panel
(Flycatcher Internet Research, www.flycatcher.eu; ISO 26362).
Members of this panel sign up voluntarily. Through participation in
research, panel members can earn points that can be exchanged into
gift cards. A total of 1550 panel members participated in the ques-
tionnaire (response rate 56%). The sample was a priori stratified on
sociodemographic variables age, gender, education and geographical
location to be comparable to the characteristics of the researched
sample of the Dutch general population in 2018 based on data from
Statistics Netherlands (2018). The study discussed in the current paper
includes 766 respondents. The remaining respondents are included in
an experimental study that was embedded in the questionnaire (dis-
cussed elsewhere). Table 1 presents the sociodemographic character-
istics of the sample included in the analysis reported here.
2.2. Materials and procedure
Three examples of existing communications about uncertain risks
T. Jansen, et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959

Table 1
Respondent characteristics.
N (%) % in Dutch populationa

Total 766
Gender
Male 405 (53) 49
Age
15-24 66 (9) 11
25-34 104 (14) 16
35-44 98 (13) 16
45-54 142 (19) 20
55-64 157 (21) 17
65+ 199 (26) 22
Education
Low 221 (29) 29
Intermediate 315 (41) 43
High 230 (30) 28

a
Based on data from Statistics Netherlands (2018).

from a novel food additive (Synthetic Amorphous Silica) and food con-
taminants (Bisphenol A and Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons) were
selected. Scientific uncertainty differed between cases:

• Residues of Bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disrupter, can

transfer from plastic food packaging to food. Uncertainty exists
about whether small amounts of BPA in food can cause adverse ef-
fects (i.e. uncertainty about toxicity).
• Residues of Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH), is a col-
lective term for a large group of chemicals substances, some of
which are known to be carcinogenic. Uncertainty exists about
whether the composition of MOAH residues in food contains carci-
nogenic variants.
• Synthetic Amorphous Silica (SAS) is a novel nanomaterial that is used
in food as an anti-clotting agent. Uncertainty exists about the in-
trinsic properties of the nanomaterial, and because of this, whether Fig. 1. Overview of questionnaire design
SAS can cause adverse health effects. Note. Q = Questions and statements, i = Information.

BPA and SAS texts originated from the website of the Dutch
were a priori randomly assigned to one the cases. To improve clarity,
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). The
the procedure as described here only includes the questions and state-
MOAH text originated from the news website of the Dutch Broadcast
ment discussed in this article. Fig. 1 provides an overview of the pro-
Foundation (NOS) (see Table 2 and Appendix B).
cedure. At the start of the questionnaire participants were instructed to
In November 2018, 2757 panel members were invited via e-mail to
think of chemical substances as ‘substances you can find in air pollu-
participate in a questionnaire about their ‘knowledge, beliefs and
tion, industrial chemicals, paint, household cleaning products, food
feelings about chemical substances and health’. A pilot study was
additives, plastics, pesticides, cosmetics, medicines, drugs, and so on’
conducted among 33 panel members, who commented on length, dif-
(cf. Kraus et al., 1992) and answered questions about chemicals in
ficulty, comprehensibility, and intrusiveness of the questionnaire.
general. After this, the questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first
Based on the responses, several adjustments in format and wording
set of questions was similar for all respondents and consisted of ques-
were made and some questions were removed to reduce the length of
tions that addressed general beliefs and attitudes about chemicals,
the questionnaire. The questionnaire was programmed so respondents
general beliefs about food safety , and food values. In the second part,

Table 2
Excerpts from baseline and case information.
Case Excerpts of baseline information Excerpts of case information

BPA […] Food packaging can also carry risks. Substances that are in the packaging, for
example substances that are used to produce the packaging, can ‘leak’ from the
packaging to the food.
MOAH
SAS A nanomaterial is a substance that consists of very small particles: 0–100 nm […]
This means that a material of normal size can be considered safe, but that same
material at Nano size could be able to cause health effects. […]
Bisphenol A possibly has effects on, for example, the reproduction and development,
the metabolism and the immune system. These effects may already occur if you
ingest very small amounts of BPA.
Commonly used food products such as rice, pasta, cornflakes and sprinkles often
contain possibly carcinogenic substances.
Possible health risks of nanomaterials in food can primarily be expected from
exposure to nanomaterials that cannot be digested in the gastrointestinal tract […]
The RIVM looks into the health risks of SAS in food. At this point these are
uncertain.

Note. Baseline information was adapted from the websites of the Netherlands Nutrition Centre (Food packaging) and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health
and the Environment (RIVM). Case texts were adapted from the websites of the RIVM (BPA and SAS) and a news article from the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (NOS)
(MOAH).The same baseline information was presented in the BPA and MOAH vase because both substances originate form food packaging materials. Texts as
presented here are translated from Dutch.

3
T. Jansen, et al.
respondents of the BPA and MOAH case read baseline information
about the risks of food packaging materials. Respondents in the SAS
case read baseline information about nanomaterials in food. Table 1
shows excerpts of the information (translated from Dutch) presented in
the study. Baseline information (see Table 2 and Appendix A) was se-
lected to describe contextual information necessary to interpret the
cases presented (e.g., that Bisphenol A is used to produce plastic food
packaging and that chemical substances in food packaging can transfer
to food). In the BPA and MOAH case questions addressed beliefs about
food packaging; in the SAS case questions addressed beliefs about food
additives (see Table 5 in the results section). To establish whether
participants had prior beliefs and attitudes about the cases addressed, a
control questions was added to determine whether participants had
ever heard of, for example, Bisphenol A (BPA) and if so, how much they
knew about the substance. After this, the case information was in-
troduced and respondents answered questions addressing risk and ha-
zard appraisal of the case.
2.3. Measures
All items were presented in a statement format and were rated on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from completely disagree to completely
agree, unless stated otherwise. Items measuring constructs (e.g. atti-
tudes), are discussed and analyzed at a scale level (summed and aver-
aged).
2.3.1. Appraisal of BPA, SAS and MOAH in food
Four items assessed cognitive an affective risk and hazard appraisal
at the case level. Hazard appraisal was assessed by asking ‘How serious
do you think it is that [the substance] is found in certain food products?
(Severity of hazard)’ (not at all - very much so) and ‘Are you worried
about the fact that [the substance] is in some food products? (Worry about
hazard)’ (not at all - very much so). Risk appraisal was assessed by
asking ‘How big do you estimate the risk of [the substance] to your health
(Magnitude of risk)?’ and ‘‘Are you worried about the risk of [the substance]
for your health? (Worry about risk)’
2.3.2. Beliefs and attitudes about chemicals in general
Table 4 in the results section provides an overview of all items used
to assess respondents' beliefs about chemical substances in general.
Items were formulated based on results from a previous qualitative
study (Jansen et al., 2019a). For example, a deliberate distinction was
made between items addressing ‘chemical substances’ and ‘harmful
substances’. Statements used to assess beliefs of toxicity were framed in
the context of ‘harmful’ substances to illustrate determined hazardous
properties.
Respondents' attitude towards chemicals was measured by asking,
“What do you think of chemical substances?” Respondents replied to six
items on a five-point semantic differential. Items included ‘not frigh-
tening – very frightening’; ‘acceptable – not acceptable’; ‘not concerning
– concerning’; ‘unnecessary – necessary’; ‘not useful – useful’; and ‘bad –
good’. Items were recoded so that higher scores are indicative of a more
negative attitude. Scores were summed and averaged. Items had good
internal consistency (α = .90).
2.3.3. Values, beliefs, and attitudes about chemical substances in food
Adapted from Lusk and Briggeman (2009), 11 items assessed in-
dividuals' food values regarding packaged food like rice, fruits, canned
vegetables, meat, and so on. Participants were asked to rate how much
they valued a variety of aspects such as affordability, tastefulness, nu-
tritional value and naturalness of food. Values were rated on a 5-point
Likert scale (very unimportant - very important). After this, respondents
were asked to arrange the three most important values. One item was
adjusted to address valuation of certainty about food safety, instead of
food safety in general (‘it should be 100% certain that chemicals applied to
food are safe’). To determine respondents' acceptance towards
4
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
uncertainty about food safety we asked ‘How acceptable do you think it is
that the health risk of [the substance] is still uncertain?’(1 = completely
unacceptable, 5 = completely acceptable).
Six items measured respondents' general beliefs about (the safety) of
food packaging and food additives (see Table 5 in the results section).
Trust in food safety regulation was measured using 4 items that addressed
beliefs about value similarity, capacity, integrity and one general item
(e.g. ‘The Dutch Government thinks the safety of food is as important as I
think it is’ (value similarity). Internal consistency was good (α = .83).
Scores were summed and averaged.
Depending on the case, attitude items addressed plastic food packa-
ging (BPA), cardboard food packaging (MOAH) or food additives (SAS).
The same attitude scale as previously described was used. Internal
consistency was good to excellent: α = .88 (plastic food packaging), α
= .87 (cardboard food packaging) and α = .90 (food additives). Items
were recoded so that higher scores are indicative of a more negative
attitude. Scores on items were summed and averaged.
2.4. Data analysis
All data analyses were conducted with SPSS version 22.0. Main
analyses include descriptive statistics for all variables to investigate
appraisal outcomes, and the prevalence of beliefs, attitudes and values.
A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with direct Oblimin rotation and
reliability analysis were conducted to analyze the scales. In the PCA,
Oblimin rotation was chosen to adapt for correlations between factors.
Reliability analyses (Cronbach's α) were conducted to ensure that items
could reliably be summed and averaged to form a scale. Spearman
correlations were used to investigate associations between beliefs, at-
titudes and values and appraisal outcomes. An ANOVA was used to
analyze appraisal differences between BPA, MOAH and SAS.
3. Results
3.1. Appraisal of BPA, MOAH and SAS in food
Table 3 summarizes the hazard and risk appraisal outcomes for each
case. The vast majority of respondents had never heard about the cases
before the survey (BPA = 81%, MOAH = 90% and SAS = 94%). One
sample t-tests show that, within cases, respondents' cognitive and af-
fective rating of the hazard was consistently more negative compared to
the scale's midpoint (3) than the cognitive and affective evaluation of
the risk. For the MOAH and SAS cases risk appraisal ratings were not
significantly different from the scales' midpoint (see Table 3). To re-
search differences between cases a one way ANOVA was conducted.
Results show that there are significant differences between cases for all
appraisal outcomes: F(2,763) = 12.07, p < .01 (severity hazard), F
(2,763) = 3.86, p = .02 (worry hazard); F(2,763) = 5.65, p = .00
(magnitude risk); and F(2,763) = 3.28, p = .04 (worry risk). Post hoc
comparisons show that the presence of SAS in food is evaluated sig-
nificantly less severe than BPA (p = .00) and MOAH (p = .00); worry
about the presence of BPA in food is significantly higher than MOAH
(p = .05) and SAS (p = .05); the magnitude of risk of BPA is evaluated
significantly higher than MOAH (p = .00); and worry about the risk of
BPA is significantly higher than MOAH (p = .04). All other comparisons
are non-significant.
3.2. Beliefs and attitudes about chemicals in general
Table 4 shows respondents’ beliefs about chemicals. Around 90% of
respondents agree that exposure affects whether a chemical substance
can cause adverse effects. At the same time, 44% of respondents agree
there are no safe amounts of harmful substances. The majority of re-
spondents (62%) disagree that a chemical can cause illness when ex-
posure is below safe exposure levels. However, when exposure is in-
creased within safe exposure levels, 14% of the respondents are less
T. Jansen, et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959

Table 3
Hazard and risk appraisal of BPA, MOAH and SAS in food: Perceived severity that the substance is found in food; worry that the substance is found in food; perceived
magnitude of risk for health and worry about the risk for health.
Caseb Appraisal Mean (SD) Mean difference (95% CI) T-values mean difference (df)

BPA Hazard Severity 4.01 (.86) 1.01 (.91–1.12)a 19.14 (261)

Worry 3.54 (1.00) .54 (.42–.66)a 8.71 (261)
Risk Magnitude 3.22 (.96) .22 (.10–.34)a 3.73 (261)
Worry 3.22 (1.02) .22 (.10–.34)a 3.53 (261)
MOAH Hazard Severity 3.92 (.88) .92 (.81–1.03)a 16.44 (249)
Worry 3.32 (1.02) .32 (.20–.45)a 5.05 (249)
Risk Magnitude 2.95 (.89) -.05 (−.16 – .06) -.92 (249)
Worry 3.00 (1.03) -.00 (−.13 – .12) -.06 (249)
SAS Hazard Severity 3.64 (.95) .64 (.52–.75)a 10.74 (253)
Worry 3.32 (1.03) .32 (.20–.45)a 5.00 (253)
Risk Magnitude 3.06 (.92) .06 (−.06 – .17) 1.02 (253)
Worry 3.07 (1.02) .07 (−.06 – .19) 1.05 (253)

Note. Higher scores (max = 5) indicate a more negative appraisals. Test value for mean difference = 3 (scale neutral).
a
Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
b
BPA = Bisphenol A, MOAH = Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons, SAS = Synthetic Amorphous Silica.

confident about whether the substance can or cannot cause adverse
effects.
The Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with Oblimin rotation
was conducted on a subset of 13 items (see Table 4) to identify 3 factors
representing a) beliefs about the role of exposure (Eigenvalue = 3.09,
explained variance = 28.09%); b) beliefs about the role of toxicity
(Eigenvalue = 2.09, explained variance = 19.03%); and c) beliefs
about the role of individual characteristics (Eigenvalue = 1.80, ex-
plained variance = 16.33%) in whether a chemical can cause adverse
effects. Reliability analysis showed moderate to good reliability for
beliefs about the role of exposure (α = 86), toxicity (α = .69) and in-
dividual characteristics (α = .75). Items on the subscales were summed
and averaged to be included in correlation analysis (paragraph 3.5).
Higher scores on the resulting scales indicate higher correspondence
with expert beliefs about the role of exposure, less correspondence with
expert beliefs about the role of toxicity (i.e. ‘all chemicals are equally
harmful’ in Table 6), and higher correspondence with expert beliefs
about the role of individual characteristics. On average, public attitudes
about chemicals was relatively neutral (M = 2.78, SD = .69)
3.3. Values, beliefs, and attitudes about chemical substances in food
Respondents most frequently rated tastefulness as most important
food value (29.9%), followed by naturalness (24.4%) and certainty
about safety (10.4%). Respondents most frequently rated affordability
(19.7%) as second most important food value, followed by nutritional
value (17.2%) and tastefulness (15.1%). Third most important food
value was, again, affordability (22.3%), followed by nutritional value
(12.9%) and tastefulness (11.5%). Acceptability of scientific un-
certainty about the risk was relatively low for all cases: BPA (M = 2.1,
SD =.88), MOAH (M = 2.3, SD =.94) SAS (M = 2.2, SD =.97).
Table 5 presents respondents’ beliefs about the safety of food
packaging and food additives. Results show that, in general, beliefs
about the safety of food packaging and food additives are similar. One
difference stands out: While 66% of the respondents in the SAS case
agreed that strict safety requirement apply to food additives, only 22%
of the respondents (N = 512, BPA and MOAH cases combined) agreed
that strict safety requirements apply to food packaging. Trust in food
safety regulation was moderate (M = 3.3, SD = .73).
Attitude scores show that respondents evaluated plastic food
packaging rather unfavorable (N = 262, M = 3.3, SD = .83) and were
more positive about cardboard food packaging (N = 250, M = 2.2, SD
= .69). Respondents were also relatively positive about food additives
(N = 254, M = 2.5, SD = .66).
3.4. Correlations between public values, beliefs and attitudes about chemical
substances in general, and chemical substances in food, with public appraisal
of BPA, MOAH and SAS in food
All variables with a moderate or strong correlation with at least one
of the appraisal outcomes of the cases are presented in Table 6. Results
show different interaction patterns within cases and between cases.
Additionally, the strength of the correlation may vary between cases.
Some correlations are present consistently between cases. For example,
the value that food should be natural is moderately correlated
(0.31 < rs < 0.50) with appraisal outcomes for all cases. Ad-
ditionally, the belief that all chemicals are equally harmful is moderately
correlated with worry about the presence of the substance in food,
perceived magnitude of the health risk and worry about the health risk
in all cases (0.30 < rs < 0.40). The beliefs that exposure affects
whether a chemical constitutes a risk is not significantly correlated to
the appraisal outcomes in the MOAH and SAS case (ps > .06). The
belief that individual characteristics affect whether a chemical constitutes
a risk is not significantly correlated to any of the appraisal outcomes for
all cases (ps > .06).
Results show an inverse correlation between a) perceived severity of
the presence of the substance in food and the value about certainty
about food safety and b) perceived severity of the presence of the
substance in food and acceptance of scientific uncertainty about the
risk.
Trust in food safety was significantly, but weakly correlated with all
appraisal outcomes in the MOAH and SAS case, and worry about the
hazard and the risk appraisal outcomes in the BPA case (rs < -.21,
ps < .02). While the attitude about plastic food packaging (0.34 < rs <
0.37) and attitude about food additives (0.46 < rs < 0.51) were sig-
nificantly correlated to all appraisal outcomes in the BPA and SAS case,
the attitude about cardboard food packaging was not significantly corre-
lated to any of the appraisal outcomes in the MOAH case (ps > .07).
All other variables had weak (-.30 < r < 0.30) but significant
(p < .05) correlations with at least one appraisal outcome.
4. Discussion
In this paper, we investigated public appraisal of uncertain risks
from BPA, MOAH and SAS in food. As respondents generally had no
prior personal knowledge and beliefs about the chemical substances, we
concluded that the elicited appraisals were mostly the result of the
provided information in this survey. Results show that general values,
beliefs, and attitudes about chemical substances in general and about
chemical substances in food specifically, are significantly related to
public appraisal. Three major elements of public appraisal emerged that

5
 T. Jansen, et al.

Table 4
Beliefs about chemicals in general (N = 766).
Category/context Item (Strongly) disagree (Strongly) agree Neither

General beliefs about ‘chemical substances’ Most chemical substances are harmful for health 12 67 21
When someone often ingests a chemical substance, an increasing amount stays in the 6 65 29
human body
It is easy to prove that a chemical substance is the cause of a complaint or disease 65 10 24

Factors affecting whether a chemical substance can cause adverse effects is influenced The properties of the substance such as the composition or structure 4 80 16
by The properties of the substance such as color or scent 40 28 32
How much of the substance is present in the direct environmentb 2 89 8
How often you ingesta the substanceb 2 92 7
What amount of the substance you ingest, each time you come into contact with itb 2 90 8
For how long during your life you ingest the substanceb 2 90 8
How much you weighd 26 43 32
How healthy you ared 26 45 28
How sensitive you ared 20 55 26

6
General beliefs about ‘harmful substances’ ‘Harmful’ means that a substance has properties that can cause health complaints or illness 2 92 6
It does not matter how much of a harmful substance you ingesta, eventually you will get 41 34 25
complaints or become illc
There are no safe amounts of harmful substancesc 30 44 25
You can ingest a little amount of a harmful substance every day without getting ill 19 46 35

A harmful substance is found in bread, but the amount is below a by scientists When you eat one slice a day, you can get illc 62 16 22
determined safe threshold When you eat 5 slices a day, you can get illc 47 28 25
The substance is not harmful for health 42 29 29

Note. Cell entries are percentages. Percentages are rounded and may therefore not add up to 100. Highest percentages are highlighted.
a
The Dutch verb (‘binnen krijgen’) used in these items does not distinguish between internal exposure through ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact.
b
Included in factor ‘exposure’ (Eigenvalue = 3.09, % variance = 28.09).
c
Included in factor ‘toxicity’ (Eigenvalue = 2.09, % variance = 19.03).
d
Included in factor ‘individual characteristics’(Eigenvalue = 1.80, % variance = 16.33).
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
T. Jansen, et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959

Table 5
Beliefs about food packaging and food.
Item […] (Strongly) disagree (Strongly) agree Neither

[…] are harmful for health Food packaging 26 18 48

Food additives 28 34 48
Strict safety requirements apply to […] Food packaging 16 28 43
Food additives 8 66 26
Eating […] is safe Packaged food 13 49 39
Food with E-numbers 17 37 47
[…] are well researched for safety Food packaging 14 41 45
Food additives 15 47 37
Somebody can eat […] every day without getting complaints or ill on the long term Packaged food 11 48 41
Food with E-numbers 11 48 41

Note. Cell entries are percentages. Percentages are rounded and may therefore not add up to 100. Highest percentages are highlighted.
Food packaging (N = 512), food additives (N = 254).

may have implications for risk communication. First, differences be-
tween appraisedseverity of the substance's presence in food and the
appraised magnitude of risk (found consistently across cases), suggest
that the public makes a distinction between hazard and risk appraisal.
Second, results demonstrate that a large majority of the respondents
agree that exposure determines whether a chemical constitutes a risk.
At the same time, a significant proportion agrees that all chemical
substances are equally harmful. Because these exposure and toxicity
aspects are highly related these inconsistencies suggest there is a mis-
match between beliefs about exposure and beliefs about toxicity. Finally, the
correlations between a) values about certainty about food safety and
appraisal outcomes, and b) the acceptance of scientific uncertainty and
appraisal outcomes, suggest that there is a mismatch between expected
uncertainty and actual uncertainty about food safety. We discuss these,
and other findings in more detail below.
4.1. A distinction between hazard and risk appraisal
The current analysis suggests that, in the context of uncertain risks
from food additives and food contaminants, the general public makes a

Table 6
Moderate and strong Spearman correlations between appraisal outcomes and beliefs and attitudes about chemical substances in general, and values, beliefs and
attitudes about chemical substances in food.

Note. Only moderate (> 0.30) and high (> 0.50) correlations are presented. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
a
Acceptability is presented under values to keep the table concise.
b
Scale average.
c
Attitude about plastic food packaging in the BPA case, attitude about cardboard food packaging in the MOAH case. Higher ratings on attitude scales correspond to
attitudes that are more negative. Higher ratings on belief items correspond to more agreement. Higher ratings on value items correspond to higher valuation. Higher
ratings on severity hazard correspond to higher perceived seriousness that the substance is found in food. Higher ratings on worry hazard correspond to a higher
degree of worry about the presence of the substance in food. Higher ratings on magnitude risk correspond to higher perceived magnitude of risk. Higher ratings on
worry risk correspond to a higher degree of worry about the risk for health. Higher ratings on acceptability of scientific uncertainty correspond to a higher degree of
acceptance of uncertainty about the risk of the substance.

7
T. Jansen, et al.
distinction between appraisal of the hazard (in terms of perceived se-
verity of the presence of chemicals in food), and the risk (in term of the
perceived magnitude of human health risk posed by chemicals in food).
Regardless of the risk being uncertain, or because the risk is uncertain,
people may think it is serious that the substance is present in food. This
assertion is not in line with the popular view is that the public does not
clearly differentiate between hazard and risk in appraisal of chemical
substances (Kraus et al., 1992; Slovic et al., 1995) but supports findings
from our qualitative study (Jansen et al., 2019a) and (Vandermoere,
2008). Results show different interaction patterns within cases between
values, beliefs and attitudes, and hazard or risk appraisal outcomes.
This suggests that different aspects are used to appraise hazards com-
pared to risks. For example, the belief that all chemicals are equally
harmful is primarily associated with risk appraisal, while the value
'certainty about food safety' is primarily related to hazard appraisal.
Differences in interaction patters between cases suggest that public ap-
praisal of chemical substances in food is hazard dependent (Miles and
Frewer, 2001). Hazard specific properties and information provided in
risk messages may affect which and how general values, beliefs and
attitudes are related to public appraisal (Collins and Loftus, 1975;
Frewer, 2004; Miles and Frewer, 2001).
Experts often believe public responses to small amounts of a food
additive or food contaminant are irrational and exaggerated because
there is no associated risk for public health (see e.g. Bearth et al., 2019;
Haen, 2014; Slovic et al., 2004). Current results suggest that the public
may not be disturbed by a possible health risk, but instead may be
disturbed by the mere presence of the chemical in food. For example,
because the presence of artificial food additives violates the food re-
lated value that all food should be free of artificial food additives. From
this point of view, public responses can perhaps be considered less ir-
rational or exaggerated, because while there may not be a risk, the
substance is indeed present in food.
4.2. A mismatch between beliefs about exposure and beliefs about toxicity
The current analysis showed that, like scientists, respondents dis-
tinguished toxicity from exposure, and, like scientists, respondents
consistently believed that frequency, amount and duration of exposure
determines whether chemicals constitute a risk for health. The belief
that frequency, amount and duration of exposure determine whether a
chemical can cause complaints or illness were the most prevalent be-
liefs about factors that influence whether a chemical constitutes a
health risk. These beliefs were also the most prevalent in other studies
that addressed public knowledge and beliefs about toxicological prin-
ciples (Bearth et al., 2019; Saleh et al., 2019). A strict reliance on the
deficit model in explaining differences between expert and public risk
appraisal is thus misplaced (Hansen et al., 2003).
Results of the current study also support the idea that a significant
proportion of the public is insensitive to the notion of dose-response
relationships and think that all chemicals are (equally) harmful (Bearth
et al., 2019; Kraus et al., 1992; Rozin et al., 1996; Saleh et al., 2019;
Slovic et al., 1995). In line with Dickson-Spillmann et al. (2009) the
current analysis adds to this that the stronger a person's belief that all
chemicals are (equally) harmful, the higher they perceive the risk of
and are worried about the risks from specific food additives and food
contaminants. However, people who are more convinced that all che-
micals are equally harmful do not necessarily judge the presence food
additives and food contaminants as more severe.
An individual's lack of knowledge or misconception about toxicity
may not necessarily need to hamper informed decision making about
chemical risks when risk communication is successful in addressing
public's existing beliefs about exposure (Morgan et al., 2002). In the
current study however, contrary to beliefs about toxicity, beliefs about
exposure were not (strongly) associated to appraisal outcomes. From
the viewpoint of semantic processing (Collins and Loftus, 1975) this
may be explained by the understanding that exposure, compared to
8
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
toxicity, is not a categorical property of chemicals (Anderson, 2005).
Because the cases used in the current study were defined by un-
certainties about more fundamental aspects of chemical risk (i.e. un-
certainty about intrinsic properties, composition, and toxicity), neither
one of the risk messages mentioned the principle of exposure. Beliefs
about exposure may therefore have not been triggered in memory, and
consequently have not been used in (risk) appraisal. Further research is
needed to determine whether actively informing about the elements of
exposure, or communicating scientific uncertainty about these ele-
ments, has an effect on public appraisal about chemical risks.
This study further substantiates the assertion that the public gen-
erally has a negative attitude towards chemicals in general (Kraus et al.,
1992; Slovic, 2000). In line with research by (Dickson-Spillmann et al.,
2011) our analysis shows that existing negative attitudes about che-
micals are related to more negative appraisals of unfamiliar and un-
certain risks from food additives and food contaminants. De-stigmati-
zation of the term ‘chemical’ may have a positive impact on public
appraisal of uncertain risks of food additives and food contaminants
(Bearth et al., 2019).
4.3. A mismatch between expected and actual uncertainty about food safety
In line with EFSA (2019) and Lusk and Briggeman (2009), results
show that (certainty about) food safety is among the most important
values about food to consumers. The higher people value certainty
about food safety and the less they find scientific uncertainty about a
risk acceptable, the more severe they appraised the presence of the
chemical in food. While we did not investigate a direct relationship
between the valuation of certainty about food safety and the accept-
ability of scientific uncertainty, these results suggests there is a mis-
match between expected and actual uncertainty about food safety, and
that this mismatch affects how people evaluate the presence of che-
micals (with an associated uncertain risk) in food. These findings are in
line with the 'congruence principle' or 'congruity hypothesis' (Budescu
and Wallsten, 1985; Du et al., 2011), which predicts that, translated to
the current situation, people may express an unfavorable response to-
wards uncertainty about food safety when the actual level of un-
certainty does not match the level of uncertainty that people expect
(Gregory and Dieckmann, 2014). A lack of understanding about the
inherent uncertainties associated with the risk assessment and regula-
tion of food additives and food contaminants may contribute to a
mismatch (Bearth et al., 2016). For example, while food additives un-
dergo regular reevaluations of safety (Emerton and Choi, 2008), people
may be surprised that additives are still researched after an E-number is
ascribed to a food additive (Jansen et al., 2019a). It should be noted
that the scientific uncertainties addressed in this research are more
fundamental (e.g. uncertainty about intrinsic properties of novel food
technologies) than the uncertainties generally present about the safety
of food additives. However, increasing public awareness about the
limits of toxicological risk assessment and management may narrow the
gap between expected and actual uncertainty (Carrington and Bolger,
2010).
Research suggests that when people have no prior personal knowl-
edge and beliefs about food-related hazards, trust in food safety may be
of particular importance in perception of risk (Siegrist and Cvetkovich,
2000). In the current study, we only a found a weak relationship be-
tween trust in food safety, and hazard and risk appraisal outcomes. An
explanation for this weak relationship may be that the cases used the
current study were defined by fundamental scientific uncertainties
about the presence or existence of risk. Research by (Sjoberg, 2001)
suggests that when scientific knowledge is limited, public beliefs that
there might be effects that are yet unknown are a more important
predictor than trust.
Stronger beliefs that food packaging and food additives are harmful
for health for health are significantly related to a negative appraisal of
risk from the specific cases of food additives and food contaminants.
T. Jansen, et al.
People generally expressed negative attitude towards plastic food
packaging (see also Raats and Shepherd, 1996). People expressed rather
favorable attitude towards cardboard food packaging. While more ne-
gative attitudes towards plastic food packaging and food additives were
associated with a negative appraisal of BPA and SAS, no such associa-
tion was found for cardboard food packaging and the appraisal of
MOAH. The lack of an association may be explained by the fact that
cardboard, compared to plastics and food packaging, is not strongly
associated with ‘chemicals’. An alternative explanation may be that
people perceive cardboard food packaging as more natural compared to
plastic food packaging.
4.4. Strengths and limitations
A particular strength of the current research lies in the formulation
of the items that assessed people's beliefs about chemicals. Based on our
qualitative study (Jansen et al., 2019a) we avoided risk terminology
that may have priming or framing effects (e.g. ‘harmful’, ‘toxic’) in
specific items and applied terminology used by the public (e.g. ‘ingest’
or ‘intake’) instead of terminology used by scientists (‘exposure’). We
however argue that formulation of items aimed at assessing beliefs
about chemicals needs to be judicious and well considered, and further
refinements in the current scale are needed to improve the ques-
tionnaire. For example, differences in responses between items asses-
sing public beliefs about toxicity suggest that the term ‘safe’ may be
open to interpretation.
What some may consider a limitation is that the risk messages for
the three cases of chemicals differed significantly in information con-
tent and length. We are well aware that the interpretation of risk in-
formation may affect appraisal. However, the fact that we found con-
sistent associations between values, beliefs, and attitudes, and appraisal
outcomes in all cases, provides considerable support that some beliefs,
attitudes and values are consistently associated with appraisal of un-
certain risks from chemical substances in food regardless of nuances in
information provided, while others may be dependent on the hazard
and information provided.
Research conducted using online panels are susceptible to sampling
bias. To take care of this issue as good as possible, a stratified random
sample was drawn in terms of the distribution of gender, age, education
level and geographical location in the Netherlands according to
Statistics Netherlands (2018). Because strata are not mutually exclusive
we cannot exclude that sampling bias may still have occurred on these
and other individual characteristics.
4.5. Insights for risk communication and future research
One of the aims of risk communication in case of uncertain risks
from chemical substances in food is to provide information that people
can use to make a well-informed appraisals of hazard and risk. This
study suggests several insights for the contents of risk messages to do
so. Overall, risk messages may best support public appraisal of un-
certain risks when a clear distinction is made between communication
about the hazard and communication about the risk. Three points re-
quire attention. First, ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’ are perceived and used very
differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of
stakeholders (Scheer et al., 2014). While the role of semantics is often
trivialized (Samet et al., 2019), the interchangeable use of ‘hazard’ and
‘risk’ in risk communication may lead to unintended conclusions about
the presence and existence of risk. That is, using the term ‘risk’ when a
‘hazard’ is undetermined can lead people to conclude that a hazard is
determined. After all, in the context of chemical exposure, ‘risk’ refers
to the probability of occurrence of adverse effects caused by exposure to
a (determined) hazard. By consistently distinguishing between the use
of 'risk' and 'hazard' in risk communication, unintended misinterpreta-
tion of scientific evidence may be prevented.
Second, people may consider the presence of a chemical in food
9
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
more severe when they believe a hazard is determined. The use of
scientific jargon and phrasing of scientific uncertainty may however
lead people to conclude that a hazard is determined (Jansen et al.,
2019a). Judicious phrasing of scientific uncertainty may improve
public understanding so it is more in line with the intended meaning.
For example, in the phrase ‘Bisphenol A possibly has effects on the
reproduction and development’ uncertainty may either lie in the in-
trinsic properties of the substance, or in the occurrence of adverse ef-
fects. Alternative phrasing such as ‘It is unclear whether Bisphenol A
can cause effects on reproduction and development’ may better convey
that uncertainty lies in the substance's intrinsic properties. Third, ha-
zard focused risk communication needs to cover different aspects than
risk focused risk communication. In line with (Frewer et al., 2008) our
results suggest that addressing aspects associated with the hazard ap-
praisal may affect public appraisal of uncertain risks associated with
chemicals in food more than providing additional formal knowledge
about the risk of the chemical. For example, risk communication aimed
at addressing the existing stigma or negative attitude about chemicals
may positively affect public appraisal (see also Bearth et al., 2019).
When toxicity and exposure parameters of a chemical are de-
termined, communication of these parameters generally intends to
convey that there are 'safe' levels of exposure. While a significant
minority of the public believes there are no ‘safe’ levels of exposure, the
large majority understands that frequency, amount and duration of
exposure determine whether a chemical constitutes a health risk.
Communicating exposure limits may therefore prove to support con-
sumers in making informed decisions about risk from food additives
and food contaminants. MacGregor et al. (1999) demonstrated that
public interpretation of the role of exposure is subject to interpretation
of scientific terminology (see also Taarup-Esbensen, 2019). It is there-
fore important that terminology fits public language use. When ad-
dressing exposure in communication about risks from chemical in food,
terms like ‘ingestion’ or ‘intake’, or more concretely, ‘eating’ and
‘drinking’, should therefore be used instead of ‘exposure’. Exposure
limits like Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI's) for food additives are
usually expressed as a mass (e.g. milligram) per kilogram body weight
to which a person can be exposed on a daily basis during one's lifetime
without an increased risk of getting ill (van Leeuwen and Vermeire,
2007). When these limits are translated to meaningful amounts for
consumers, and public language use is applied, for example ‘eating 2
slices a day’ or ‘drinking 5 glasses a week’, information about exposure
may indeed support informed decision making about risks associated
with (chemicals in) food. Additional research is required to test whether
this is the case.
While communicating exposure limits may support public decision
making about risk, people may still be disturbed by the presence of the
chemical substance in food because important values, like the pre-
ference for natural food products (Bearth et al., 2016; Dickson-
Spillmann et al., 2011) are violated. These values outline the context in
which risk communication is shaped and cannot be addressed with
additional formal knowledge about the risk. Awareness of the im-
portance of these values in public risk appraisal helps to understand
public responses to risk messages about uncertain risks from food ad-
ditives and food contaminants. For example, when the presence of the
chemical impedes definitive statements about food safety, a mismatch
between expected and actual uncertainty may result in increased per-
ception of severity that the chemical is present in food. If risk com-
munication aims to support public appraisal of uncertain risks from
food additives and food contaminants, information that addresses these
values may be more important than providing formal knowledge
(Frewer et al., 2008).
Funding
This research was carried out in the framework of RIVM Strategic
Programme [grant S/121003/01/PU], in which expertise and
T. Jansen, et al.
innovative projects prepare RIVM to respond to future issues in health
and sustainability.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Angela Bearth for her feedback on
the draft version of the questionnaire, and Ric van Poll and two
anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful feedback on pre-
vious versions of the manuscript.
Appendix C. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.110959.
Appendix A. Baseline information
Food packaging
Food packaging can carry risks. Substances contained in the food
packaging, such as those used to make the packaging, can transfer to
food. For this reason, food packaging and the chemical substances in
food packaging are investigated on a regular basis.
One of the chemicals substances in food packaging that is re-
searched is Bisphenol A, shortly called ‘BPA’.
Source: Adapted from voedingscentrum.nl.
Nanomaterials
Nanoparticles are extremely small particles: between 0 and 100 nm.
For comparison, a human hair is about 80,000 nm thick. Nanoparticles
can naturally be present in food. Food additives can also contain na-
noparticles. Nowadays, new insights and research techniques make it
possible to examine these tiny particles. A substance consisting of these
small particles is called a nanomaterial.
One of the nanomaterials that is researched is Synthetic Amorphous
Silica, shortly called ‘SAS’.
Source: Adapted from rivm.nl.
Appendix B. Case texts
BPA in food packaging materials
Bisphenol A possibly has effects on, for example, the reproduction
and development, the metabolism and the immune system. These ef-
fects may already occur if you ingest very small amounts of BPA. It is
still unsure whether current measures to reduce the possible risks of
BPA are sufficient, or whether further measures are required.
Source: RIVM.nl.
MOAH in food packaging materials
‘Food packaging release potentially carcinogenic substances’
Commonly used food products such as rice, pasta, cornflakes and
sprinkles often contain possibly carcinogenic substances. This is shown
in research commissioned by Foodwatch. It concerns the residues of
mineral oils. Such aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH's) are suspected of
being carcinogenic. They could also cause alterations in genetic mate-
rial. The MOAHs come from cardboard food packaging. Mainly recycled
10
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
packaging leave residues in food products.
Source: NOS.nl
SAS in food
Possible health risks of nanomaterials in food can primarily be ex-
pected from exposure to nanomaterials that cannot be digested in the
gastrointestinal tract. Only a few non-degradable nanomaterials are
applied in food. One of the non-degradable nanomaterials is found in
many food products, namely the additive E551. It is composed from
Synthetic Amorphous Silica (SAS) and is applied as an anti-clotting
agent. The RIVM looks into the health risks of SAS in food. At this point,
these are uncertain.
Source: RIVM.nl.
References
Anderson, J.R., 2005. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. Macmillan.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., Siegrist, M., 2014. The consumer's perception of artificial food
additives: influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Qual. Prefer.
38, 14–23.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., Siegrist, M., 2016. The dose makes the poison": informing
consumers about the scientific risk assessment of food additives. Risk Anal. 36,
130–144.
Bearth, A., Saleh, R., Siegrist, M., 2019. Lay-people’s knowledge about toxicology and its
principles in eight European countries. Food Chem. Toxicol. 131, 110560. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.06.007.
Boersma, R., Poortvliet, P.M., Gremmen, B., 2019. The elephant in the room: how a
technology's name affects its interpretation. Public Underst. Sci. 28, 218–233.
Budescu, D.V., Wallsten, T.S., 1985. Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 36, 391–405.
Carrington, C.D., Bolger, P.M., 2010. The limits of regulatory toxicology. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharmacol. 243, 191–197.
Collins, A.M., Loftus, E.F., 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Psychol. Rev. 82, 407.
Dekkers, S., Bouwmeester, H., Bos, P.M.J., Peters, R.J.B., Rietveld, A.G., Oomen, A.G.,
2013. Knowledge gaps in risk assessment of nanosilica in food: evaluation of the
dissolution and toxicity of different forms of silica. Nanotoxicology 7, 367–377.
Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., Keller, C., 2011. Attitudes toward chemicals are
associated with preference for natural food. Food Qual. Prefer. 22, 149–156.
Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Wormuth, M., 2009. Phthalate exposure
through food and consumers' risk perception of chemicals in food. Risk Anal. 29,
1170–1181.
Du, N., Budescu, D.V., Shelly, M.K., Omer, T.C., 2011. The appeal of vague financial
forecasts. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114, 179–189.
EFSA, 2019. Special Eurobarometer. Food Safety in the EU.
Emerton, V., Choi, E., 2008. Essential Guide to Food Additives. Royal Society of
Chemistry.
Frewer, L.J., 2004. The public and effective risk communication. Toxicol. Lett. 149,
391–397.
Frewer, L.J., de Jonge, J., Van Kleef, E., 2008. Consumer perceptions of food safety.
Medical sciences II 244–264.
Gregory, R., Dieckmann, N., 2014. Communicating about uncertainty in multistakeholder
groups. In: Árvai, J., Rivers, L. (Eds.), Effective Risk Communication. Routledge.
Haen, D., 2014. The paradox of E-numbers: ethical, aesthetic, and cultural concerns in the
Dutch discourse on food additives. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 27, 27–42.
Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., Sandøe, P., 2003. Beyond the knowledge
deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41,
111–121.
Jansen, T., Claassen, L., van Kamp, I., Timmermans, D.R.M., 2019a. ‘It is not entirely
healthy.’ A qualitative study into public appraisals of uncertain risks of chemical
substances in food. Public Underst. Sci In press.
Jansen, T., Claassen, L., van Kamp, I., Timmermans, D.R.M., 2019b. Understanding of the
concept of ‘uncertain risk’. A qualitative study among different societal groups. J.
Risk Res. 1–14.
Jansen, T., Claassen, L., van Poll, R., van Kamp, I., Timmermans, D.R.M., 2018. Breaking
down uncertain risks for risk communication: a conceptual review of the environ-
mental health literature. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 9, 4–38.
Kintsch, W., 1991. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-
integration model. Text and Text Processing 107–153.
Klaassen, C.D., Watkins, J.B., 2015. Casarett & Doull’s essentials of toxicology. McGraw
Hill Professional.
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., Slovic, P., 1992. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of
chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12, 215–232.
Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., Welch, N., 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychol.
Bull. 127, 267–286.
Lusk, J.L., Briggeman, B.C., 2009. Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91, 184–196.
MacGregor, D.G., Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., 1999. “How exposed is exposed enough?” Lay
inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Anal. 19, 649–659.
Miles, S., Frewer, L.J., 2001. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards.
T. Jansen, et al.
Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 47–61.
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Atman, C.J., 2002. Risk Communication: A
Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Raats, M.M., Shepherd, R., 1996. Developing a subject-derived terminology to describe
perceptions of chemicals in foods. Risk Anal. 16, 133–146.
Rozin, P., Ashmore, M., Markwith, M., 1996. Lay American conceptions of nutrition: dose
insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health
Psychol. 15, 438–447.
Saleh, R., Bearth, A., Siegrist, M.J.R.A., 2019. “Chemophobia” Today: Consumers'
Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals.
Samet, J.M., Chiu, W.A., Cogliano, V., Jinot, J., Kriebel, D., Lunn, R.M., Beland, F.A.,
Bero, L., Browne, P., Fritschi, L., Kanno, J., Lachenmeier, D.W., Lan, Q., Lasfargues,
G., Curieux, F.L., Peters, S., Shubat, P., Sone, H., White, M.C., Williamson, J.,
Yakubovskaya, M., Siemiatycki, J., White, P.A., Guyton, K.Z., Schubauer-Berigan,
M.K., Hall, A.L., Grosse, Y., Bouvard, V., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Ghissassi, F.E., Lauby-
Secretan, B., Armstrong, B., Saracci, R., Zavadil, J., Straif, K., Wild, C.P., 2019. The
IARC Monographs: Updated procedures for modern and transparent evidence
synthesis in cancer hazard identification. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.
1093/jnci/djz169.
Scheer, D., Benighaus, C., Benighaus, L., Renn, O., Gold, S., Röder, B., Böl, G.-F., 2014.
The distinction between risk and hazard: understanding and use in stakeholder
communication. Risk Anal. 34, 1270–1285.
Scheufele, D.A., Lewenstein, B.V., 2005. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens
make sense of emerging technologies. J. Nano Res. 7, 659–667.
Siegrist, M., 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies
and products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19, 603–608.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., 2000. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and
knowledge. Risk Anal. 20, 713–719.
Sjoberg, L., 2001. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal. 21,
189–198.
Sjöberg, L., 2007. Emotions and risk perception. Risk Manag.: Int. J. 9, 223–237.
Slovic, P., 2000. The Perception of Risk. Down Earth.
11
Food and Chemical Toxicology 136 (2020) 110959
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as
feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24,
311–322.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2007. The affect heuristic. Eur. J.
177, 1333–1352.
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C.K., Neil, N., Bartlett, S., 1995. Intuitive
toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal. 15,
661–675.
Slovic, P., Peters, E., 2006. Risk perception and affect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15,
322–325.
Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M.L., Macgregor, D.G., 2005. Affect, risk, and decision
making. Health Psychol. 24, S35–S40.
Statistics Netherlands, 2018. Expertise Center for Marketing Insights Research and
Analytics. Gold Standard.
Storbeck, J., Robinson, M.D., McCourt, M.E., 2006. Semantic processing precedes affect
retrieval: the neurological case for cognitive primacy in visual processing. Rev. Gen.
Psychol. 10, 41–55.
Taarup-Esbensen, J.J.R.A., 2019. Making sense of risk—a sociological perspective on the
management of risk. Risk Analysis 39, 749–760.
van Leeuwen, C.J., Vermeire, T.G., 2007. Risk Assessment of Chemicals: an Introduction.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Vandermoere, F., 2008. Hazard perception, risk perception, and the need for deconta-
mination by residents exposed to soil pollution: the role of sustainability and the
limits of expert knowledge. Risk Anal. 28, 387–398.
Visschers, V.H.M., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.F., Devries, N.K., 2007. How does the
general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks.
Risk Anal. 27, 715–727.
Wiedemann, P.M., Boerner, F.U., Repacholi, M.H., 2014. Do people understand IARC's 2B
categorization of RF fields from cell phones? Bioelectromagnetics 35, 373–378.
Williams, E.S., Panko, J., Paustenbach, D.J., 2009. The European Union’s REACH reg-
ulation: a review of its history and requirements. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 39, 553–575.