Risk In Perspective: Hazard and Risk Are Critically Different Things

This series is something neuroscientist Alison Bernstein and biologist Iida Ruishalme have been brewing over for a long time. Risk perception is such a big crux in science communication that it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on. We decided to cross-post it both on SciMoms and Thoughtscapism in the hopes of spreading the message far and wide.

The difference between hazard and risk is a critical distinction

Hazard and risk describe two different but related concepts. The difference may sound like an unimportant jargon-filled distinction, but this difference is critical to understanding reports of hazards and risks.

A hazard is an agent that has the potential to cause harm.

Risk measures the likelihood of harm from a hazard.

risk hazard sharksHazards only become risks when there is exposure. Sharks are a hazard. But if I never go near the ocean, I have no exposure to sharks and face no risk of a shark attack. (Granted, even if you go in the ocean, the risk of shark attack is actually very low.) Despite this difference, we tend to consider all hazards as risks, regardless of our level of exposure.

The video from Risk Bites embedded at the bottom of this article explains this distinction very well.

Hazard classifications are not risk assessments

One area where this confusion between hazard and risk is very visible is in the classification of carcinogens. Hazard identification is the first step of risk assessment, but is not in and of itself a risk assessment. However, we consistently see reports of hazard identification presented as evidence of actual risk.

These problems are particularly prominent in connection to the reports by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC). IARC has come under fire by scientists for not being clear about its communication of hazard vs risk.


You can read more about the criticism of IARC and the papers in an earlier blog article here.

In a 2016 paper (Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society) toxicologists explicitly call for more modern approaches based on both hazard and risk characterization instead.

If we look at IARC classifications as an example, it becomes apparent why only relying on information about hazards is a problem. As Ed Yong wrote in 2015 in The Atlantic in “Beefing With the World Health Organization’s Cancer Warnings”,

These classifications are based on strength of evidence not degree of risk.

Two risk factors could be slotted in the same category if one tripled the risk of cancer and the other increased it by a small fraction. They could also be classified similarly even if one causes many more types of cancers than the other, if it affects a greater swath of the population, and if it actually causes more cancers.

So these classifications are not meant to convey how dangerous something is, just how certain we are that something is dangerous.

But they’re presented with language that completely obfuscates that distinction.

This may seem like an unimportant distinction, but it is critical. Strength of evidence reflects how certain we are of the potential to cause harm (in this case to cause cancer). Degree of risk reflects how much a compound increases risk, the number of people it increases risk in, or the numbers of cases of cancers caused by that compound. These categories are a confusing measure of the quality of the data, not how risky exposure to that chemical is.

This graphic by Compound Chemistry and the accompanying post shows which exposures fall into these categories.

Smoking and eating meat

An example that highlights the confusing nature of these classifications: smoking and eating meat are in the same category (Group 1). However, as noted on Compound Chemistry:

According to Cancer Research UK, smoking causes 19% of all cancers; by contrast only 3% of all cancers are thought to be caused by processed meat and red meat combined. To put this in a little more perspective, it’s estimated that 34,000 cancer deaths worldwide every year are caused by diets high in processed meat, compared to 1 million deaths per year due to smoking.

While we have strong evidence that both can cause cancer, these clearly pose different amounts of risk. Confused yet? Not surprising. As Ed Yong writes in the article mentioned above, these classifications are “confusogenic” to humans.

When we, as parents and consumers, see these classifications, understanding the difference between hazard and risk can help us to keep risks and dangers in perspective.


If you would like to read more about different aspects of risk perception, please see the other parts of the series which this article belongs to (more coming soon):

Introduction: Risk in Perspective

1) The difference between hazard and risk is a critical distinction.

2) All hazards are not equal.

3) Zero risk and zero exposure are impossible expectations.

4) Population risk is not the same as individual risk.

logo basic

For more perspectives to specific risks, such as those associated with food, medicine, and energy, you can read more under Farming and GMOsVaccines and Health and Climate and Energy.

If you would like to have a discussion in the comments below, please take note of my Commenting policy. In a nutshell:

  1. Be respectful.
  2. Back up your claims with evidence.

About Thoughtscapism

Cell Biologist, science communicator, an agricultural and biodiversity analyst, and a fiction writer.
This entry was posted in health, science communication and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Risk In Perspective: Hazard and Risk Are Critically Different Things

  1. Pingback: Risk In Perspective | Thoughtscapism

  2. Pingback: Risk In Perspective: Hazards Are Not All Created Equal | Thoughtscapism

  3. Pingback: 1. Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer? | Thoughtscapism

  4. Pingback: Risk In Perspective: Zero Risk Is an Impossible Dream | Thoughtscapism

  5. Randy Way says:

    This article does a nice job of separating statistically significant findings from clinically significant findings… with a powerful enough study, everything either causes or prevents cancer…


  6. Pingback: Risk In Perspective: Population Risk Does Not Equal Individual Risk | Thoughtscapism

  7. Billy Gogesch says:

    Thank you for this brilliant explanation. There is an other critically important example — risk assessment for nuclear power. We are presently allowing what attorneys call “contingent risk” prevent us from making correct choices. Worse yet, the utterly false choice of 100% “renewable” energy is held up as an ideal for all societies to strive for. Sadly, that impetus will only lead to burning more natural gas… as we wait for batteries… and nuclear fusion.

    Thank you for keep it real by pointing out that expectations of absolute purity and zero risk are not among the choices we will ever have!


  8. Billy Gogesch says:

    It occured to me after reading this that the often misunderstood pair. power and energy are analogous. I see them misused in discussion about grid power. Energy is power applied over time much in the same way that Risk is a Hazard applied over a time interval.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s