{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02254791431792559, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.124137931034483, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Acrylamide: Lessons for Risk Management and Communication

Today’s society seems to be preoccupied with the notion of food risk. The recent examples of the so called ‘‘Mad Cow Disease’’ (BSE) in Germany, the controversy about pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables, the cancer risk from being exposed to food additives, the debate about enriched or enhanced food—to name just a few—have gained much public attention and have given rise to a growing discontent between the public’s desire to see food risks reduced and the actual performance of risk management institutions. The recent debate on the risks of acrylamide provides an interesting case study in this respect. The case history is described in the article by R. Löfstedt in this issue. With respect to risk management and communication the following aspects of the controversy about acrylamide are of special significance: