Does the existence of food scares mean that we are bad at risk management? Not necessarily. New information brings new risks to the forefront or puts known risks into a new perspective. But in some cases food scares do indicate poor risk management. There are two key problems that explain why we are not better at managing dietary risks. The first is an imbalance of effort among the three components of risk analysis: we have Hummer risk assessment, Yugo risk management, and tricycle risk communication. The second problem is inadequate risk management. The cases of risks from mad cow disease and dioxins illustrate how the quality of risk management is affected by what we do not know well enough, what we know too well, and what we have not tried to find out. Better risk management requires a two-tier approach: (1) generate broad and shallow information on risks, health outcomes, incentives, options, benefits, and costs (Toyota Prius Hybrid risk management to be used everyday) and (2) generate narrow and in-depth information on high priority risks (Hummer risk assessment to be used sparingly).