Risk communication, value judgments, and the public-policy Maker relationship in a climate of public sensitivity toward animals: Revisiting Britain's foot and mouth crisis [Book Review]

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4-5):363-383 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper offers some suggestions on, and encouragement for, how to be better at risk communication in times of agricultural crisis. During the foot and mouth epizootic, the British public, having no precedent to deal with such a rapid and widespread epizootic, no existing rules or conventions, and no social or political consensus, was forced to confront the facts of a perceived "economic disease. Foot and mouth appeared as an economic disease because the major push to eradicate it was motivated exclusively by trade and economic reasons and not because of threats it posed to the lives of human beings and livestock. The British public deferred responsibility to their elected officials for a speedy end to this non-life threatening viral epizootic. The latter, however, did not have a contingency plan in place to tackle such an extensive outbreak. The appeal to an existing policy, i.e., mass eradication, as the exclusive strategy of containment was a difficult pill for the public to swallow well before the end of the 226-day ordeal. Public outcry reflected (in part) serious misgivings about the lack of effective communication of risk-informed decisions between government agents and all concerned. The government''s handling of the matter underestimated concerns and values about animal welfare, public trust, and the plight of farmers and rural communities. A general loss of trust by some segments of the public was exacerbated by perceived mismanagement and early fumbles by government agents.Public moral uneasiness during the crisis, while perhaps symbolic of growing discontent with an already fractured relationship with farmed animals and the state of animal farming today, arguably, also reflected deep disappointment in government agents to recognize inherently and conditionally normative assumptions in their argument as well as recognize their narrow conception of risk. Furthermore, broader stakeholder participation was clearly missing from the outset, especially with respect to the issue of vaccination. A greater appreciation for two-way risk communication is suggested for science-based public policy in agriculture, followed by suggestions on how to be more vigilant in the future



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,181

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

BSE in the UK: Why the Risk Communication Strategy Failed. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4-5):405-423.
The Impact of BSE and FMD on Ethics and Democratic Process.Jo Murphy-Lawless - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4-5):385-403.
Hype and Public Trust in Science.Zubin Master & David B. Resnik - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):321-335.
Beyond Serving a Purpose: Additional Ethical Focuses for Public Policy Agents.Vanessa Scholes - 2011 - In Jonathan Boston, Andrew Bradstock & David Eng (eds.), Ethics and public policy: contemporary issues. Victoria University Press.
The Ethics of Earthquake Prediction.Ayhan Sol & Halil Turan - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):655-666.
Foot and Mouth Disease and British Agriculture: Ethics in a Crisis. [REVIEW]Ben Mepham - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):339-347.


Added to PP

33 (#350,460)

6 months
1 (#413,813)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Raymond Anthony
University of Alaska, Anchorage

References found in this work

Welfare is to Do with What Animals Feel.Ian J. H. Duncan - forthcoming - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
The Recombinant DNA Debate.Stephen P. Stich - 1978 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 (3):187-205.
Foot and Mouth Disease and British Agriculture: Ethics in a Crisis. [REVIEW]Ben Mepham - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (3):339-347.

View all 7 references / Add more references