RESUMEN
The study focusses on risk related generalization beliefs, i.e., the belief that the risk of a specific agent can be generalized across various conditions. These conditions are: G1: across the frequency of usage (from often to rare); G2: across exposure modalities (hot to cold); G3: across exposure routes (oral to dermal), and G4: across detrimental outcomes (specific detrimental endpoint to various detrimental endpoints). We examined how different risk descriptions impact those generalization beliefs using the risks of bamboo tableware for consumers as an example. The research followed a 2x2 between-subjects design with repeated measurements, and the test subjects were non-experts. The first factor, disclosure format, refers to the disclosure (yes/no) of risk generalization limitation. Half of the study participants were informed that bamboo tableware only poses a health risk if it is frequently used for hot beverages or foods. In contrast, the other half received no information about the risk restrictions regarding bamboo tableware use. The second factor referred to the agent description, either described by a particular unfamiliar term (formaldehyde) or a generic, more familiar term (plastics). Furthermore, we tested whether subjects who were initially not informed about the limits of risk generalizations altered their risk generalization beliefs G1 - G4 when they were informed that only frequent hot food and beverage consumption in bamboo tableware causes risks. It was found that respondents' four risk generalization beliefs G1 - G4 were statistically significantly lower for those who were informed about the risk generalization limitations. Additionally, the generalization beliefs G1 - G3 of subjects who were initially not informed, but received the information about the restrictions later, were statistically significantly lower than their initial beliefs, except for generalization across endpoints (G4). We discussed the findings in terms of their implications for risk communication.
RESUMEN
Three decades ago, several articles on the subjectivity in chemical risk judgments (i.e., labeled "intuitive toxicology") measured the divide between the public and toxicologists with different backgrounds regarding the validity of predicting health effects based on in vivo studies. Similar divides with impacts on societal discourse and chemical risk assessment practices might exist concerning alternative toxicity testing methods (i.e., in vitro and in silico). However, studies to date have focused either on the public's views of in vivo or stem cell testing or on experts' views of in vivo testing and potential alternatives (i.e., toxicologists and medical students), which do not allow for a direct investigation of potential divides. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted two online surveys, involving members of the German-speaking public in Switzerland and European human health risk assessors, respectively. This article presents the results of these two surveys regarding the divide in the public's and risk assessors' perspectives on risk assessment based on in vivo, in vitro, and in silico testing. Particularly, the survey with the risk assessors highlights that, beyond scientific and regulatory barriers, alternatives to in vivo testing may encounter individual hurdles, such as higher uncertainty associated with them. Understanding and addressing these hurdles will be crucial to facilitate the integration of new approach methodologies into chemical risk assessment practices as well as a successful transition toward next-generation risk assessment, bringing us closer to a fit-for-purpose and more efficient regulatory landscape.