To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.

This document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's document: ‘Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments’. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. The document provides a template for identifying expressions of uncertainty in scientific assessments and locating the specific guidance for each expression. The guidance is structured according to EFSA's three broadly defined categories of target audience: ‘entry’, ‘informed’ and ‘technical’ levels. Communicators should use the guidance for entry and informed audiences, while assessors should use the guidance for the technical level. The guidance was formulated using evidence from the scientific literature, grey literature and two EFSA research studies, or based on judgement and reasoning where evidence was incomplete or missing. The limitations of the evidence sources inform the recommendations for further research on uncertainty communication.

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post-truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/ stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio-economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.

This report assesses peer-reviewed and grey literature on risk communication concepts and practices, as requested by the European Commission to support the implementation of a 'General Plan for Risk Communication', i.e. an integrated framework for EU food safety risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national level, as required by the revised EU General Food Law Regulation. We conducted a scoping review of social research studies and official reports in relation to risk communication in the following areas: understanding and awareness of risk analysis roles and tasks, reducing misunderstanding of the different meaning of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk', tackling misinformation and disinformation, enhancing confidence in EU food safety, taking account of risk perceptions, key factors in trade-offs about risks, audience segmentation and tools, channels and mechanisms for coordinated risk communications. We structured our findings as follows: i) definitions of key concepts, ii) audience analysis and information requirements, iii) risk profiling, models and mechanisms, iv) contributions to communication strategies. We make several recommendations for consideration by the Commission, both in terms of actions to support the design and implementation of the general plan, and research needs that we consider crucial to further inform appropriate risk communication in the EU. EFSA carried out a targeted consultation of experts and a public consultation open to all interested parties including the general public, in preparing and finalising this report.

During the development of the EFSA guidance on uncertainty analysis, the literature was found to be equivocal about the best methods for communicating scientific uncertainties and there was a lack of empirical evidence on the best approaches for reaching non-technical audiences. EFSA therefore commissioned a focus group study in 2016 on clear communication of uncertainty information to different target audiences, followed by a larger scale multilingual online survey in 2017 described in this report. The survey was open over a three-week period, from 23 February until 15 March 2017. As a result, 1,913 people across the EU responded in six languages to questions about expressions of uncertainty: qualitative and quantitative wordings, approximate and precise probabilities, and positive or negative framings. The results showed that similarly large percentages of respondents ranked qualitative and quantitative expressions more helpful for understanding risk, and there was some preference for positively-framed statements. Nearly all the respondents were positive about receiving uncertainty information. There were moderate differences between the preferences of respondents using different languages and from different professional backgrounds, but due to limitations of the survey method it was not possible to interpret the cause of these. The results are consistent with those of the earlier focus group study. Together they support using positively-framed, qualitative and quantitative expressions for all audience groups, as in every group some people prefer one and some the other, and nearly all find them useful. These findings together with those in the scientific literature will inform development of an EFSA guidance document on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments, and updating EFSA's handbook on risk communication.