Communication inside Risk Assessment and Risk Management (COMRISK): Final report

Abstract

A key feature of risk analysis is that risk assessment and risk management should be functionally separated. However, the usefulness of a risk assessment may be limited if the output is not designed to help with risk management decisions. The COMRISK project investigated the communication between risk assessors and risk managers. The overall goal of the project was to identify current practices and challenges in communication between risk assessors and risk managers during the risk analysis process, and thus increase and improve the understanding and the quality of the communication between them. Specific actions to achieve this aim included reviewing of historical food safety cases, analysing risk assessment requests, identifying communication guiding documents, including legislation and agreements, conducting semi-structured interviews with risk assessors and risk managers, and identifying tools for facilitating the communication between risk assessors and risk managers. It was concluded that the usefulness of a risk assessment is strongly dependent on welldefined and mutually recognised risk questions and that scarce or poor communication between risk assessors and risk managers is one of the major reasons when an output from risk assessment fails to support risk management. The communication between risk assessors and risk managers preceding the onset of the risk assessment, when the risk assessment requests with its risk questions are defined, is especially identified as one of the critical points to ensure a risk assessment that is fit for purpose. However, difficulties in understanding were also reported for the communication between risk assessors and risk managers during and after the risk assessment. Lack of communication is seldom a result of formal constraints or agreements nor can it be explained by a wish of the risk assessors or risk managers. Instead, perceived constraints or traditions appear to be possible underlying factors leading to scarce or poor communication between risk assessors and risk managers. It is essential that both risk assessors and risk managers acknowledge the crucial importance of communication between them while at the same time respect their different roles in a risk analysis. According to respondents, the best solution to facilitate the framing of the risk assessment questions is an open dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers to agree on the goal of the assessment and to build trust. Further, the interview results indicate that a formal systematic process may facilitate communication during the risk analysis. Where there is uncertainty, e.g due to data gaps or issues related to the methodology and models, it should be acknowledged and described properly by risk assessors to risk managers. Training of risk assessors and risk managers may improve the possibility of a timely and fit-for-purpose output. Such a training should give a deeper insight in the risk management process, give a better understanding of the risk managers role, and especially raise the awarenes...

Technical assistance in the field of risk communication

“…The first ‘Communication inside Risk Assessment and Risk Management’ (COMRISK) used qualitative results to characterise the risk manager–risk assessor dialogue, with a focus on improving efficacy through enhanced communication between the two parties. The final report (Andersson et al., 2020) contains some suggestions and tips in line with the literature quoted above in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, including an open and transparent ‘two‐way dialogue’, building and maintaining trust, closer cooperation on framing of risk questions, explaining the impact of uncertainties and regular feedback. However, it does not propose specific structures or mechanisms for these activities.…”

“…an action ‘intentionally causing a mismatch between food product claims and actual food product characteristics, either by deliberately making claims known to be false or by deliberately omitting to make claims that should have been made’ (Morin and Lees, 2018). In this regard, the 2013 incident where horse meat was found in products marketed as beef products shed light on the need for a plan to deal with food fraud in every Member State, which at that time were not adequately prepared for such a large‐scale scandal (Andersson et al., 2020).…”

Interactions between risk assessors and risk managers during three major food incidents in Europe

“…Risk analysis should be an iterative process, and interaction between RA and RM is needed (FAO/WHO, 2019 ). Communication between RA and RM needs to be carefully prepared in the emergency plans so that risk managers know how the results from RA should be interpreted (e.g., how uncertainty should be interpreted) and used (Andersson et al., 2020 ). Science provides hypotheses, probabilities, and uncertainties.…”