Hazard versus Risk in Perceptions of Food Safety: The Case of Titanium Dioxide 

This study was conducted to explore the contrast between hazard-based and risk-based assessments of food safety through a case study of the food ingredient titanium dioxide. Based on a hazard-based assessment, titanium dioxide has been banned by the European Food Safety Authority. In contrast, the ingredient is allowed within the limits set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. We addressed the following question: How do American consumers describe their perception of threat, or lack thereof, posed by titanium dioxide when informed or reminded that the color additive is common in the United States but banned in the European Union? Focus group participants shared their reactions to a brief video reviewing the titanium dioxide issue. These consumers were comfortable with a risk-based assessment, acknowledging that the potential for harm is low. Participants also identified a paradoxical situation in which they were overwhelmed or desensitized by the wealth of information about the many potential hazards they face yet were disappointed by the lack of actionable information available. Based on these findings, practitioners of risk communication in the food industry would likely benefit from transparency by agencies regarding the distinction between hazard and risk when communicating about food safety policies. Dialogue among agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could help fill the information gap perceived by the study participants.