4.2 Article

State Messaging on Toxic Chemical Exposure: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and the Individualization of Risk on State Websites in the United States

Journal

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2021.1979619

Keywords

State websites; per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); government transparency; chemical regulation; individual responsibility

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [SES-1456897]
  2. Whitman College Louis B. Perry Summer Research Endowment
  3. Parents Fund for Student-Faculty Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Government websites in US states play a crucial role in communicating information about PFAS to the public, with an emphasis on personal responsibility over corporate accountability. Discrepancies in the type and availability of information presented across states may hinder residents from being adequately and equally informed about PFAS contamination and associated health risks.
Government websites are an important tool for communicating information about environmental exposures and emerging public health concerns to the public. This includes how US state websites frame risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and how these risks are communicated to the public through e-government. We conducted a content analysis of US states' websites about PFAS, analyzing narratives on federal regulation, health outcomes, the framing of risk, and the role of individual behavior in exposure reduction. We found that 70% (35/50) of states had PFAS-specific websites. On these sites, personal responsibility was emphasized over corporate accountability, and health risks were communicated unevenly across states. Discrepancies in the type and availability of information presented could make it difficult for residents to be adequately and equally informed about PFAS contamination and associated adverse health outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available