This is a note posted on the Peeriodical of "Hype and overpromising in science and technology."

Both, hype and alarmism, describe the hyperbolic attention and expectation patterns of issues, often inducing negative consequences. Ragnar E. Löfstedt reconstructs and analyzes the “Swedish Acrylamide Alarm”, a popular subject for workshops and discussions in risk and science communication, using content analysis and interviews with journalists, politicians, regulators, and scientists involved in the science communication process. The story centers on a press conference about new findings on "health risks associated with eating fried and baked foods such as potatoes and bread," after which chips and fried food sales and manufacturers' share prices fell substantially (p. 407). Soon after, however, everything seemed back to normal, and the case has become subject of critical discussions and workshops about what makes good risk and science communication (p. 416).

On the background of theory and these discussions, Löfstedt, assesses alternatives to the held press conference, its organization, conduction, and media coverage, given the contested significance of preliminary study findings (p. 413) and uncertain communication aims. The study also explains how risk classifications and trust of involved institutions help estimate the public response. The article closes with take home lessions for risk & science communication (know the audience, define the message and communication tool, don't amplify risks, avoid involving too many actors and authors and clarify their roles, avoid communicating uncertainties and company names, build trust and avoid making enemies with the media, practice press events and involve professional support, avoid communication vacuums).

Even though the case dates 20 years by now, it lost nothing of topicality and draws attention to crucial variables of science commuinaction that might cause hype and alarmism. However, I find it difficult to assess if some study recommendations need a revision (e.g. avoid communicating uncertainties), given almost 20 years of science communication research and mass media developments.