Risk Management

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 257–284 | Cite as

Risk Communication, Media Amplification and the Aspartame Scare

Article

Abstract

On 14 July 2005, the Ramazzini Foundation held a press conference on the cancer risks posed by the sweetener aspartame, which received worldwide media attention. Scientists at the Ramazzini Foundation found that when administered to rats for their entire life span, aspartame, an artificial sweetener used in more than 6,000 food and pharmaceutical products, induces an increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in female rats. This study showed that aspartame causes cancer and was published online in the Foundation's in-house journal European Journal of Oncology. After a second publication on aspartame by the same institute, a number of scientists and European regulators started to question the validity of Ramazzini's findings. Events culminated following the publication of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) expert opinion on 5 May 2006 and the resulting press conference in Rome where the Authority announced that the Ramazzini study was problematic. It pointed out:
  • The slight increase in cancers known as lymphomas and leukaemias in the treated rats was considered to be unrelated to the aspartame treatment, and most likely attributed to the high background incidence of inflammatory changes in the lung.

  • There was no dose–response relationship with respect to increasing doses of aspartame.

  • With regard to the malignant tumours of the peripheral nerves, the numbers of tumours were low with no clear dose–response relationship over a wide dose range.

  • The (cancer) findings in the kidney, ureter and bladder, observed mainly in female rats, were not specific to aspartame.

This paper evaluates the communication and active social amplification of Ramazzini's research on aspartame, from the time of Ramazzini's initial press conference to the time of EFSA's press conference, and is based on interviews with relevant regulators (most notably EFSA), scientists, stakeholders (industrialists, consumer representatives) and the media. The findings of the study note that the communication strategies used by the Ramazzini Foundation were not transparent, were focused on sensationalizing the results, were used to actively mislead the media and did not meet proper risk communication criteria.

Keywords

aspartame risk communication social amplification media Ramazzini artificial sweeteners 

References

  1. AFSSA (2002). Assessment Report: Opinion on a Possible Link Between Exposition to Aspartame and the Incidence of Brain Tumours in Humans. Paris: AFSSA.Google Scholar
  2. Aspartame Information (2006). For Brighton Evening Argus, 16th January, pp 10–11.Google Scholar
  3. Aspartame Information (2007). Aspartame Information Service responds to the Ecologist. Available at www.aspartame.info/mediaarch/medit056.html, accessed on 27 June 2007.
  4. Atkin, C. and Wallack, L. eds (1990). Mass Communication and Public Health: Complexities and Conflicts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Badaracco Jr., J.L. (1985). Loading the Dice: A Five Country Study of Vinyl Chloride Regulation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Belpoggi, F. (2007). Expert Report of Fiorella Belpoggi. Re MTBE Products Liability Litigation-United States District Court Southern District of New York, County of Suffolk and Suffolk Water Authority v. Amerada Hess Corp et al., 04Civ 5424, United Water New York Inc vs Amerada Hess Corp et al., 04 Civ.2389. 11 June.Google Scholar
  7. Bostrom, A. and Lofstedt, R.E. (2003). Communicating Risks: Wireless and Hardwired. Risk Analysis. Vol. 23, pp 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, A. (2004). Cellular Phones, Public Fears and A Culture of Precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cockburn, A. (2007). Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, C. (2006). Parliamentary Question on Aspartame, www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/sipade3?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2006-1113+0+DOC=XML+VO//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y, accessed 23 March 2007.
  11. Downs, J.S., Murray, P.J., Bruine de Bruin, W., White, J.P., Palmgren, C. and Fischhoff, B. (2004a). An Interactive Video Programme to Reduce Adolescent Females' STD Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Social Science and Medicine. Vol. 59, pp 1561–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downs, J.S., Bruine de Bruin, W., Murray, P.J. and Fischhoff, B. (2004b). When ‘it Only Takes Once’ Fails: Perceived Infertility Predicts Condom use and STI Acquisition. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. Vol. 17, p 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EFSA (2006c). Written Question E-2340/06 Aspartame Ramazzini Study. Letter from the Catherine Geslain-Laneelle [Executive Director] to Hiltrud Breyer MEP, 26 July.Google Scholar
  14. European Food Law Weekly (2006a). EFSA Aspartame Panel Under Scrutiny. 28 April.Google Scholar
  15. European Food Law Weekly (2006b). Geslain-Lanelle Defends EFSA Position on Aspartame to Green MEP. 1 September.Google Scholar
  16. European Food Law Weekly (2006c). MEPs Voice Concern over EFSA Aspartame Opinion. 6 October.Google Scholar
  17. European Food Law Weekly (2007). MEP Slams EFSA for Using Industry Experts on Aspartame. 26 January.Google Scholar
  18. European Food Safety Authority (2005a). Press Release: EFSA Urges the Ramazzini Institute to Release Data on Aspartame. 29 November.Google Scholar
  19. European Food Safety Authority (2005b). Press Release: Aspartame: EFSA Receives Data Requested from the Ramazzini Institute. Scientific experts to start the evaluation, 19 December.Google Scholar
  20. European Food Safety Authority (2006a). Press Release: EFSA Assesses New Aspartame Study and Reconfirms its Safety. 5 May.Google Scholar
  21. European Food Safety Authority (2006b). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in contact with Food (AFC) on a request from the Commission Related to a New Long-term Carcinogenicity Study on Aspartame. Question number EFSA-Q-2005-112. The EFSA Journal. Vol. 356, pp 1–44.Google Scholar
  22. European Union-Scientific Committee for Food (1985). Sweeteners. Reports of the Scientific Committee for Food (Sixteenth Series), EUR 10210 EN. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  23. European Union-Scientific Committee for Food (1989). Report of the Scientific Committee for Food (Twenty-first series), EUR 11617 EN. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  24. European Union-Scientific Committee for Food (2002). Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food: Update on the Safety of Aspartame. Brussels: DG SANCO-Scientific Committee on Food.Google Scholar
  25. Fischhoff, B. (1989). Appendix C. Risk: A Guide to Controversy. In National Research Council (eds) Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Progress. Risk Analysis. Vol. 15, pp 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischhoff, B. (1996). Public Values in Risk Research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 545, pp 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fischhoff, B. (1999). Why (Cancer) Risk Communication can be Hard. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. 25, pp 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischhoff, B. (2007). Risk Perception and Communication. In Detels, R., Beaglehole, R., Lansang, M.A. and Gulliford M. (eds) Oxford Textbook of Public Health, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Quadrel, M.J. (2002). Risk Perception and Communication. In Detels, R., McEwen, J., Beaglehole, R. and Tanaka, H. (eds.) Oxford Text Book on Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Flamm, W.G. (1997). Increasing Brain Tumour Rates. Is there a Link to aspartame? Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. Vol. 56, pp 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Flint, C. (2005). Response to Williams Speech. 14 December. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  33. Food and Drug Administration (2007a). FDA Reaffirms Aspartame is not a Carcinogen. FDA website, 24 April.Google Scholar
  34. FDA (2007b). FDA Proposes New, Tougher Procedures for Membership on Advisory Committees. Rockville, MD: FDA.Google Scholar
  35. Food Magazine (2006). Sweet and Sour: The Unanswered Questions about Aspartame. Issue 73, April–June.Google Scholar
  36. Fox, M. (2007). US FDA Says Unmoved by Aspartame/Cancer Report, Reuters, 25 June.Google Scholar
  37. Friedman, S.H., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C.L. (eds) (1999). Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Gallus, S., Scotti, L., Negri, E., Talamini, R., Franceschi, S., Montella, M., Giacosa, A., Dal Maso, L. and La Vecchia, C. (2007). Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer Risk in a Network of Case-control Studies. Avaliable at http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org.cgi/content/abstract/18/1/40?, accessed 27 June 2007.
  39. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Boy, D., de Cheveigne, S., Fjaestad, B., Gutteling, J.M., Hampel, J., Jelsoe, E., Jesuino, J.C., Kohring, M., Kronbeger, N., Midden, C., Nielsen, T.H., Prestalski, A., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Torgersen, H., Twardowski, T. and Wagner, W. (2000). Biotechnology and the European Public. Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 18, pp 935–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgensen, H. and Bardes, J. (2004). GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception. Risk Analysis. Vol. 24, pp 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M.W. and Durrant, J. (1998). Public Perceptions of Biotechnology in 1996: Eurobarometer 46.1. In Durant, J., Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (eds) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Source Book. London: Cornwell Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gurney, J.G., Pogoda, J.M., Holly, E.A., Hecht, S.S. and Martin-Prston, S. (1997). Aspartame Consumption in Relation to Childhood Brain Tumour Risk: Results from a Case-control Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. 89, pp 1072–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hailey, J.R. (2004). Pathology Working Group Chairperson's Report: Lifetime Study in Rats Conducted by the Ramazzini Foundation. Submitted to Dr. Belpoggi, 30 November.Google Scholar
  44. Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Boyce, T. (2003). Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
  45. Harrabin, R., Coote, A. and Allen, J. (2003). Health in the News: Risk, Reporting and Media Influence. London: King's Fund.Google Scholar
  46. Horton, R. (2004). MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis. London: Granta.Google Scholar
  47. Huff, J. (2002). Chemical Studies and Evaluated in Long-Term Carcinogenisis Bioassays by both the Ramazzini Foundation and the National Toxicology Program. In Tribute to Cesare Maltoni and David Rall. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 982, pp 208–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hull, J.S. (1999). Sweet Poison: How the World's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener is Killing Us-My Story. Fair Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hull, J. (2006). European Ramazzini Foundation Stands Behind Aspartame Study Results, www.sweetpoison.com, accessed 8 January 2007.
  50. Hutton, D. and Wadge, A. (2006). Oral Evidence. In House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (eds) Scientific Evidence, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, Volume ll-Evidence. London: Stationary Office, pp Ev 16–29.Google Scholar
  51. Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Pidgeon, N. and Slovic, P. (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years of Research and Theory. In Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R.E. and Slovic, P. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 13–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X. and Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis. Vol. 8, pp 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kjaernes, U. (2006). Trust and Distrust: Cognitive Decisions or Social Relations? Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 9, pp 911–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koestner, A. (1997). Increasing Brain Tumour Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame? Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. Vol. 56, pp 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lawrence, F. (2005a). Fresh Fears Raised about Aspartame: Manufacturers Dispute Study into Lab Rats Fed Sweetener. Guardian, 15 July, p 7.Google Scholar
  56. Lawrence, F. (2005b). Food Safety: Sweetener Manufacturer Disputes Validity of New Health Research: Study Links Aspartame with Cancer. Guardian, 30 September, p 7.Google Scholar
  57. Lawrence, F. (2005c). Safety of Artificial Sweetener Called into Question by MP. Guardian, 15 December, p 7.Google Scholar
  58. Lawrence, F. (2006). Food Safety Authority Says Aspartame not Linked to Cancer. Guardian, 15 May.Google Scholar
  59. Leiss, W. (2001). In the Chamber of Risks: Understanding Risk Controversies. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lim, U., Subar, A.M., Mouw, T., Hartge, P., Morton, L.M., Stolzenberg, R.S., Campbell, D., Hollenbeck, A.R. and Schatzin, A. (2006). Consumption of Aspartame Containing Beverages and Incidence of Hematopoietic and Brain Malignancies. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. Vol. 15, pp 1654–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lister, S. (2006). Sweetener is not a Cancer risk. The Times, 6 May, p 14.Google Scholar
  62. Lofstedt, R.E. (2003). Science Communication and the Swedish Acrylamide ‘Alarm’. Journal of Health Communication. Vol. 8, pp 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lofstedt, R.E. (2005). Risk Management in Post Trust Societies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lofstedt, R.E. (2006). How can we Make Food Risk Communication Better? Where are we and where are we Going? Journal of Risk research. Vol. 9, No. 8, pp 869–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lofstedt, R.E. (2007). An Academic Analysis of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report, The Future of Drug Safety, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Response – in a Risk Communication Context. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  66. Lofstedt, R.E. and Renn, O. (1997). The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong. Risk Analysis. Vol. 17, pp 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lovett, R. (2006). The Healthy Opinion? New Scientist, 6 May.Google Scholar
  68. Lurie, P., Almeida, C.M., Stine, N., Stine, A.R. and Wolfe, S.M. (2006). Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Voting Patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee meetings. JAMA. Vol. 295, No. 16, pp 1921–1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Macfarlane, J. (2006). Experts in Cancer warning U-turn. Daily Express, 6 May, p 8.Google Scholar
  70. Maltoni, C. (1974). Oncogenicity Bioassays of Vinyl Chloride: Plan, Current Results and Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Sympoisum of Medichem on Chromosome Aberrations by Industrial Chemicals and Vinyl Chloride Toxicity. Milano, Italy, pp 65–79.Google Scholar
  71. Maltoni, C., LeFemine, G., Ciliberti, A., Cotti, G. and Carretti, D. (1984). Experimental Research on Vinyl Chloride Carcinogenisis. In Maltoni, C. and Mehlman, M.A. (eds) Archives of Research on Industrial Carcinogenisis, Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. Maltoni, C., LeFemine, G. and Cotti, G. et al. (1985). Experimental Research on Vinylidene Chloride Carcinogenisis. In Maltoni C. and Mehlman M.A. (eds) Archives of Research on Industrial Carcinogenisis. Vol. 3 Princeton: Princeton Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. McComas, K.A. (2006). Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research, 1996–2005. Journal of Health Communication. Vol. 11, No. 1, pp 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mercola, J. and Pearsall, K.D. (2006). Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, Nutra Sweet, and the FDA may be Hazardous to Your Health. Nashville, TN: Nelson Books.Google Scholar
  75. National Research Council (NRC) (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  76. National Research Council (NRC) (1994). Science and Judgement in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy press.Google Scholar
  77. New York Times (2006). The Safety of Aspartame. 21 February.Google Scholar
  78. Nowotny, H., Gibbon, M. and Scott, P. (2001). Rethinking Science, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  79. Olney, J.W., Farber, N.B., Spitznagel, E. and Robins, L.N. (1996). Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame? Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. Vol. 55, pp 1115–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R.E. and Slovic, P. (eds) (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pisa, N. (2006). Sweetener Cleared of Cancer Risk. Daily Mail, 6 May, p 13.Google Scholar
  82. Popper, K.R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Powell, D. and Leiss, W. (1997). Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Poulter, S. (2005). Sweetener's ‘link to cancer’ denied. Daily Mail, 15 July.Google Scholar
  85. Price, T. (2005). Crippled Girl Walks Again After Giving Up Sweetener. Daily Express, 17 December, p 26.Google Scholar
  86. Price, T. and Guyoncourt, S. (2005). Cancer Linked to Sweetener. Daily Express, 15 December, p 1.Google Scholar
  87. Ramazzini Foundation (2005). 35 Years of Research in Cancer Prevention. Bologna: Ramazzini Foundation.Google Scholar
  88. Ramazzini Foundation (2006). Press Release. European Ramazzini Foundation Stands Behind Aspartame Study, Announces Ongoing Research on Artificial Sweeteners. 5 May, accessed 8 January 2007.Google Scholar
  89. Renn, O. and Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication. In Kasperson, R.E. and Stallen, P.J. (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  90. Renwick, A.G. and Nordmann, H. (2007). First European Conference on Aspartame: Putting Safety and Benefits into Perspective. Synopsis of Presentations and Conclusions. Food and Chemical Toxicology. Vol. 45, pp 1308–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science. Vol. 236, pp 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  93. Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) and the Amsterdam School of Communications Research (2006). MESSENGER: Media, science and society: Engagement and governance in Europe. Oxford: SIRC.Google Scholar
  94. Soffritti, M. (2006). Acesulfame Potassium: Soffritti Responds. Environmental Health Policy, 1 August.Google Scholar
  95. Soffritti, M. (2007). The Carcinogenicity of Aspartame: The Lessons that We Still Must Learn. Press conference held at the Mount Sinai Medical School, New York, 23 April.Google Scholar
  96. Soffritti, M., Maltoni, C., Maffei, F. and Biagi, R. (1989). Formaldehyde: An experimental Multipotent Carcinogen. Toxicological Industrial Health. Vol. 5, pp 699–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Cevolani, D., Guarino, M., Padovani, M. and Maltoni, C. (2002a). Results of Long-term Experimental Studies on the Carcinogenicity of Methyl Alcohol and Ethyl Alcohol in Rats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 982, pp 46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Lambertini, L., Lauriola, M., Padovani, M. and Maltoni, C. (2002b). Results of Long-Term Experimental Studies on the Carcinogenicity of Formaldehyde and Acetaldhyde in Rats. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 982, pp 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Minardi, F. and Maltoni, C. (2002c). Ramazzini Foundation Cancer Program: History and Major Projects, Life-Span Carcinogenicity Bioassay Design, Chemicals Studied and Results. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 982, pp 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Esposti, D.D. and Lambertini, L. (2005). Aspartame Induces Lymphomas and Leukaemias in Rats. European Journal of Oncology. Vol. 10, pp 107–116.Google Scholar
  101. Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Delgi Esposti, D., Lambertini, L., Tibaldi, E. and Rigano, A. (2006). First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague–Dawley Rats. Environmental Health Perspctives. Vol. 114, pp 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Soffritti, M., Belpoggi, F., Tibaldi, E., Esposti, D.D. and Lauriola, M. (2007). Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol.115, No.9, pp 1293–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. UK Committee on Carcinogenicity (UK CC) (2006). Statement on a carcinogenicity study of aspartame by the European Ramazzini Foundation. London: UK Committee on Carcinogenicity COC/06/S2.Google Scholar
  104. US General Accounting Office (GAO) (1987). Food And Drug Administration: Food additive approval process followed for aspartame. Washington, DC: US GAO.Google Scholar
  105. Walton, R.G. (1996). Survey of Aspartame Studies: Correlation of Outcome and Funding Sources. Youngstown, Ohio: Center for Behavioral Medicine, Northside Medical Centre.Google Scholar
  106. Warner, M. (2006). New Research, New Fears About a Sweetener's Risks. New York Times, 12 February, p 1.Google Scholar
  107. Williams, R. (2005). Speech on Artificial Sweeteners. Given in the House of Commons, 14 December.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King's Centre for Risk Management, King's College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations