Abstract
As in many other areas, there is a divide between lay and expert perceptions of risk within the food sector, and this can lead to disagreement over priorities in food risk management. The risk perception literature tends to stress that the parties involved in this disagreement have different concepts of risk and hence are bound more or less to talk at cross-purposes. This paper suggests an alternative analysis: In the light of moral theory, the conflicting perspectives can be understood as a genuine moral conflict. When this conflict is conceptualised, a rational dialogue becomes possible. The paper reports a series of qualitative interviews with lay people and experts on zoonotic food risks. The interviews are used to reconstruct the values underlying some of the dominant perspectives. The conflict between these stylised perspectives is then analysed with the help of moral theory. Finally, some consequences for risk communication are made clear.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.