@article{Dibb:175023,
      recid = {175023},
      author = {Dibb, Sue},
      title = {Managing risks or stifling innovation? Risk, hazard and  uncertainty},
      journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Management},
      address = {2013-04},
      number = {1029-2016-82285},
      pages = {5},
      year = {2013},
      abstract = {In the UK 1 million people suffer food poisoning, with  20,000 ending up in hospital, at a total cost to the UK of  £1.5bn a year.   We are not currently putting appropriate  time and resources towards addressing the most significant  food risks.   Science is not absolute. It never ‘proves’  safety, nor uniquely dictates particular decisions. Rather,  it provides crucial indications of risks and uncertainties.   

Risk assessment doesn’t address difficulties assigning  probabilities under states of uncertainty, for example with  BSE or with endocrine disrupters. Risk managers need to  take account of a wide range of factors when deciding on  appropriate courses of action including political, social  as well as ethical.  The precautionary principle says; ‘be  careful’ when we’re unable to determine clear risk  assessments under various kinds of incertitude.   A  risk-based approach can obscure how ethical issues fit into  decision making, (like animal welfare, social implications  environmental impacts, consumer choice).  

Much risk  controversy is really about the politics of technology.   Currently we don’t have effective spaces for discussing or  deciding “which way to go?” The public are typically  sophisticated at weighing up risks and benefits with  uncertainty and don’t expect ‘zero risk’. What’s needed is  a democratic space for deliberating the implications of  plural interests and values.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/175023},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.175023},
}