Whether you choose to wear a seatbelt, but forgo a bike helmet; balk at skydiving but travel abroad without insurance; you are – consciously or not – making calculations about risks on a regular basis.
People have tried to evaluate and manage risks since as early as the 14th century, when concepts of risk assessment were first developed by insurers seeking to share the risk of shipping goods among a pool of investors[i].
Today, government and industry perform risk assessments on a continual basis, typically through formal risk assessments, which provide a structured, systematic process to determine the likelihood of the occurrence of an event and likely magnitude of the consequences following exposure to a hazard (Healthy Animals, Healthy Canada).
It was with regard to formal risk assessments that, in 2009, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, asked the Council of Canadian Academies to assess the state and comprehensiveness of risk assessment techniques in animal health science, and more specifically the risks that could impact human health. Relatively recent events such as the outbreaks of SARS, BSE (more commonly known as “mad cow disease”) and H1N1 brought some of the risks associated with animal and human health to the forefront.
After examining the evidence, the Panel determined that although animal health risk assessment in Canada is built on a solid foundation of knowledge and expertise, risk assessment practices could be enhanced by taking a more integrated approach. The Panel also found that in order for Canada to stay at the forefront of animal health risk assessment there are several activities that can be improved such as: strengthening expertise and knowledge capacity; considering a broader range of consequences related to an animal health event; improving communication among risk assessors, managers and stakeholders; enhancing the transparency of the decision-making process; and setting aside resources for foresight assessments.
Also in 2009, the Minister of Health asked the Council of Canadian Academies to evaluate the scientific status of integrated testing strategies in assessing and regulating the risks of pesticides to both humans and environments.
The Panel found that Canada has an opportunity to embrace and integrate new technologies and approaches into current chemical testing practices. By drawing upon knowledge from fields such as information science, biology and computational toxicology, testing will become more predictive, specific, reliable, faster, less expensive, and better inform human health risk assessment.
The Panel also produced a summary of key factors that affect public perceptions of acceptability with regards to chemical risks. These include:
- The distribution of risks and benefits is more important than the balance of risks and benefits
- Unfamiliar risks are less acceptable than those considered to be familiar
- Hazards that invoke dread are perceived more negatively, even when the risk level is low
- Risk that is voluntarily taken is more acceptable than a risk that is imposed
- Risks that people feel they can control are more acceptable than those they cannot
- Risks imposed by unethical actions are perceived negatively
- Anthropogenic risk is generally less tolerable than “natural” risk
- Relative risk is more significant than absolute risk
- Trust in the risk manager is critical
Read the full report, Healthy Animals, Healthy Canada
Read the full report, Integrating Emerging Technologies into Chemical Safety Assessment
[i] Mazur, A. (1980). Societal and Scientific Causes of the Historical Development ofRisk Assessment. In J. Conrad (Ed.), Society, Technology and Risk Assessment.Toronto (ON): Academic Press