1. Sandrine Blanchemanche Uncertainty, Decision Making & Field experiment Met@risk, Food Risk Analysis Methodologies Unit INRA, Paris & S. Marette, J. Roosen and P. Verger PAP: Analyse des choix alimentaires et méthodes expérimentales, 3 dec 2008

2. Context « Risk Analysis » Food safety regulation: reduce uncertainty to obtain a « scientifically-based » policy Framework of Risk Analysis: Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk Communication Increase of health and risk information used as a regulatory tool to manage some food risks (labelling, educational programs, hazard warnings, consumption advisory) Advisory –Not just an information given to public –Suggests a change in consumption behaviour

3. Problem Regulators give some information coming from risk assessment to public & try to change consumers’ behaviour This regulatory approach is rooted in normative theory in which optimality and rationality are central It assumes that individuals are unable to optimize their decisions because of imperfect knowledge about risk that the advisory is supposed to overcome by offer them proper information Can a regulatory tool based on rational choice theory be efficient in reducing risky behaviours?

4. Case: Fish Consumption Advisory Despite the initial scientific uncertainty about the risk it leads to a consumption advisory assuming a consumer who is a rational decision maker

5. Health problem: risk and benefit of fish consumption Methylmercury occurs in the environment and accumulates in fish (larger, longer-living and predatory species) This neurotoxin can cause damage to the central nervous system when young or unborn children are exposed to it The degree of exposure to methylmercury may vary depending on fish species and quantity consumed Fish is a healthy food: Omega 3 confers benefits to the foetus such as infant cognition and improvement of cardiovascular health for the whole population The regulation is tricky and will be based on the risk assessment

6. Uncertainty & Risk Assessment Several uncertainties to deal with: –Level of contamination of mercury in fish –Adverse health effects (controversy between epidemiological studies) –Consumption of fish by population –Age cut-off for the main period of risk to neurodevelopment –Extrapolation from animals to humans Risk assessment defined a safe upper exposure limit to methylmercury to determine the appropriate level of protection for the population Risk management (most of countries): issued an advisory

7. Advisory It mentions the group at risk: Women who might become pregnant Pregnant women, nursing mothers Young children It describes the health benefits (from Omega 3) and the risks (from mercury) of fish consumption It gives the following consumption advices: - Limit to 2 meals per week fish and sea food - Within these 2 meals, limit to 1 meal per week: Canned tuna, or rock salmon, or grenadier, or ling (blue ling) - Do not eat: Fresh tuna, Shark, Swordfish, Marlin, Grouper

8. Field Experiment Objective: The experiment focuses on decision- making of household receiving the advisory 201 households in Nantes (803 individuals) –Eat fish at least twice a week –With a woman member with age between 24-38 years –With a child member under age of 15 years. Selection of households is representative for age and socio-demographic charac. Field experiment : measurement of fish consumption of each individual household member during 5 months Nantes

9. Treatment group (H=99, N=400) 1st Visit Introduction & Questionnaire Control group (H=102, N=403) 2nd Visit Consumption data May 3rd Visit Consumption data June 4th Visit Consumption data Sept. Reminder by phone AdvisoryQuestionnaire May June September July/August Time

10. Fish Consumption Frequencies per week  Short term information effect: treatment effect (treatment/control) is effective (weak, but statistically significant) in June, but not in September: Traffic Cop Effect

11. Compliance & Rational Behaviour Advised The rational behaviour advised is: –Women and children should reduce their fish consumption and to limit it to 2 meals per week –While men should not reduce their consumption Household do not comply with the advisory after few months > Different advices for individuals in the household are not consistent with the usual habit of consumption

12. Discussion People do not know precisely how much fish they eat > They do not see themselves as a « group at risk » Ambiguity and Complexity in the Advisory –Contradicting previous communication about fish consumption « fish is good for health » –Too much information At the end of the experiment, they remember the main information (to limit fish) But there is a low level of recall of species, limits per week and people targeted

13. Uncertainty of risk vs Certainty of the status quo Initial scientific uncertainty leads to a specific advisory where co-exist precaution and rationality Ambiguity, complexity, precaution, and risk which cannot be experiment directly leads to confusion and seems unlikely to provoke behaviour changes People feel uncertain about the risk and are not confident that they are really at risk so they prefer the certainty of the status quo

14. Conclusion -Consumers change their consumption to a small extent but insufficiently to comply with the advisory. -Finally, we conclude that the advisory doesn’t reduce uncertainty (as it is supposed to do) but transfers the initial uncertainty onto consumers turning it into ambiguity and complexity.

15. Thank you for your attention!

16. Rationale given to do not change behaviors 75% of women did not change their behaviour