Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes

Table 2 Risk ranking of nanomaterials in products with comparison to perceived health risk, by stakeholder

Rank	Public	n^{^}	%	95% LCI	95% UCI	Academic	n	%	95% LCI	95% UCI	Government	n	%	95% LCI	95% UCI	Business	n	%	95% LCI	95% UCI
1	Food**	1054	84.8	82.3	87.3	Food**	144	55.4	49.3	61.4	Cosmetics*	8	44.4	20.8	68.1	Pesticides	5	23.8	5.1	42.5
2	Cosmetics**	913	72.2	69.0	75.4	Cosmetics**	107	39.5	33.6	45.3	Pesticides	6	35.3	11.9	58.7	Food	4	20.0	2.0	38.0
3	Medicines**	866	70.8	67.5	74.0	Pesticides**	106	39.0	33.2	44.8	Food	6	33.3	10.9	55.8	Cosmetics	2	10.5	0.0	24.7
4	Health	798	65.7	62.2	69.2	Medicines	88	32.6	27.0	38.2	Health	4	21.1	2.2	39.9	Medicines	1	5.0	0.0	14.8
5	Pesticides*	808	63.8	60.3	67.3	Health	71	26.7	21.4	32.0	Medicines	3	15.8	0.0	32.6	Health	1	5.0	0.0	14.8
6	Computers**	510	39.6	36.1	43.0	Computers**	20	6.8	3.9	9.7	Computers	2	10.5	0.0	24.7	Computers	0	0	0	0

Note: Within each stakeholder group all 5 products were ranked by order of agreement that manufactured nanomaterials were a risk if found in that particular product. Percentage of each product agreement was compared to the generic view of risk of manufactured nanomaterials - to health (bolded).
*P value < 0.05 when compared to “health” using paired test of proportions.
**P value < 0.01 when compared to “health” using paired test of proportions.
^{^}n = number of ‘agreed’ (don’t know /refused removed).

ISSN: 1471-2458