‘System Destroys Trust?’—Regulatory Institutions and Public Perceptions of Food Risks in Taiwan

This article aims to explore public perceptions of global food risk issues and public attitudes towards government capacity to respond to concerns with technological and health uncertainties in an era of rapid economic development in newly industrialized countries. From cross-national comparative research on global food risk issues in the EU, UK, Germany, and Taiwan, survey results revealed distinct structural problems existing in Taiwan. In particular, it revealed that a long-term culture of authoritarian technological decision-making and positivistic risk assessment has lead to social risk perceptions being institutionally amplified and public trust gradually being destroyed.

[1]  Sally J Macintyre,et al.  Risk communication: The relationships between the media, public beliefs and policy-making , 1999 .

[2]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk communication and the social amplification of risk , 1991 .

[3]  Hannot Rodríguez,et al.  The World Risk Society , 2001 .

[4]  R. Löfstedt.  The precautionary principle - Risk, regulation and politics , 2003 .

[5]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[6]  P. Slovic.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  H. Kastenholz.  Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind , 2008 .

[8]  T. V. Dijk.  Discourse and knowledge , 2011 .

[9]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[10]  P. Strydom.  Discourse and knowledge : the making of Enlightenment sociology , 2000 .

[11]  Timothy L. Sellnow,et al.  Effective Risk Communication , 2009 .

[12]  Kuei-Tien Chou.  Conflicts of Technology Policy and Governance Paradigm in a Knowledge-Based Economy: A Case Analysis of the Construction of the Taiwan Biobank , 2007 .

[13]  Kuei-Tien Chou.  Glocalized Dioxin – Regulatory Science and Public Trust in a Double Risk Society , 2008 .

[14]  Roger E. Kasperson,et al.  Evaluating Risk Communication , 1989 .

[15]  U. Beck.  Die Erfindung des Politischen : zu einer Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung , 1993 .

[16]  Battelle-Institut,et al.  Society, technology, and risk assessment , 1980 .

[17]  Roger E. Kasperson,et al.  Communicating Risks to the Public , 1991 .

[18]  R. Hoppe,et al.  Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’ , 1999 .

[19]  Timothy C. Earle,et al.  Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind , 2007 .

[20]  Jenn-Hwan Wang,et al.  From technological catch-up to innovation-based economic growth: South Korea and Taiwan compared , 2007 .

[21]  Peter Bennett,et al.  Risk Communication and Public Health , 2010 .

[22]  M. Rutgers,et al.  Scientific expertise and public policy: resolving paradoxes? , 1999 .

[23]  Aaron Wildavsky.  Speaking Truth to Power , 1987 .

[24]  J. Ravetz,et al.  The post-normal science of precaution , 2004 .

[25]  C. Harding.  Making Sense Together , 2005 .

[26]  U. Beck.  Die Erfindung des Politischen , 1997 .

[27]  Kuei-Tien Chou.  Biomedtech island project and risk governance. Paradigm conflicts within a hidden and delayed high-tech risk society , 2007 .