食品添加物のリスクコミュニケーション—消費者と専門家のリスク認識のギャップ

抄録

Food additives are used to maintain quality and enhance flavor of food, and their safety has been scientifically verified. However, many consumers remain concerned about their potential health effects. A significant gap in risk perception remains between experts and consumers, who often differ even in their basic understanding of the definition of "food safety". Experts view food safety as a condition in which the risk is within an acceptable range for humans. In contrast, consumers tend to recognize safety as "free from harmful substances (zero risk)". This difference is one of the reasons why scientific explanations of safety are not always convincing to the public.

Furthermore, technical terminology can become a major communication barrier. In particular, "hazard" and "risk" are often confused, leading to the misconception that the mere presence of a hazard implies a serious threat to human health, without considering the magnitude of the actual risk. Emotional and trust-related factors also play a significant role in risk perception. People tend to feel stronger anxiety about unknown or uncontrollable risks, especially when children are involved. Moreover, when trust in the communicator is low, even scientifically accurate explanations are less likely to be accepted. Fragmented and sensational information spread through social media and mass media can further amplify such fears. In these cases, experts should strive to understand the specific reasons and emotions behind consumers' anxieties and consider the factors influencing their perceptions.

Risk communication is one of the three components of risk analysis. It aims to build mutual understanding and trust through the interactive exchange of information and opinions among stakeholders. Risk communication regarding food additives often tends to focus on "persuasive explanation" to gain consumer acceptance. However, risk communication is not meant to be a matter of "persuasion," but rather of "dialogue". To bridge the gap in risk perception, it is essential for consumers, experts, government bodies, and the media to understand each other's perspectives and steadily create opportunities for constructive, ongoing dialogue.