Food safety and the consumer – perils of poor risk communication

Abstract

Powell, D. A. 2000. Food safety and the consumer -perils of poor risk communication. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 393-404. The potential for stigmatisation of food is enormous. Well-publicised outbreaks of foodborne pathogens and the furore over agricultural biotechnology are but two current examples of the interactions between science, policy and public perception. Current risk management research indicates that it is essential for risk managers to show that they are reducing, mitigating or minimising a particular risk. Those responsible must be able to effectively communicate their efforts and must be able to prove they are actually reducing levels of risk.The components for managing the stigma associated with any food safety issue involve the following factors: • effective and rapid surveillance systems;• effective communication about the nature of risk; • a credible, open and responsive regulatory system; • demonstrable efforts to reduce levels of uncertainty and risk; and, • evidence that actions match words.Appropriate risk management strategies, such as on-farm food safety programs, are essential to demonstrate to consumers and others in the farm-to-fork supply chain that producers and regulators are cognisant of their concerns about food safety. • autrement dit qu'on ne se contente pas de promesse. Des stratégies effectives de gestion des risques comme les programmes de sécurité alimentaire à la ferme sont essentielles si l'on veut montrer aux consommateurs et aux autres intéressés dans la chaîne d'approvisionnement que les producteurs et les pouvoirs de réglementation sont conscients de leurs préoccupations en matière de sécurité des aliments. Mots clés:Biotechnologie agricole, sécurité microbienne des aliments, aliments génétiquement modifiés, perception des risques, gestion des risques, transmission de l'information sur les risques Risk communication, the science of understanding scientific and technological risk and how it is communicated within a socio-political structure, is a relatively new scientific endeavour. Starr's 1969 paper was the first attempt to offer a scientific basis for thresholds of risk which were accepted by the public. As public concerns regarding nuclear power gained prominence in the 1970s, investigators tried to establish general principles of public risk acceptability. This was usually based on mortality statistics and the de minimis risk principle, which argued that if a risk can be effectively lowered to less than one additional fatality per million citizens, the risk is effectively zero (US National Research Council 1989). Such a morbid approach was uniformly unsuccessful. In the 1980s, several groups developed models that incorpo-393

Designing effective messages for microbial food safety hazards

“…Communication of risks involving food may be best received at teachable moments, following outbreaks of foodborne illness (Miles, Braxton, & Frewer, 1999). Timeliness is imperative in effective risk communication to overcome entrenched perceptions that are broadly dispersed in the social environment (Powell, 2000;Powell et al, 2007). Messages based on current and emerging issues must be developed and shared in a timely fashion accompanied by timeless, basic food safety information, such as the importance of hand washing (Woteki et al, 2001).…”

“…Food safety messages reach consumers directly through brochures, labels and advertising and indirectly though newspapers (reporting on foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls), magazine and cookbooks (Ralston et al, 2000). Doing risk communication early is of little benefit if it is not also done often (Powell, 2000).…”

Food quality and safety––consumer perception and public health concern

“…The aim of QS is to install a system for quality management and control which covers all stages from birth through to slaughtering, cutting and processing and including transportation and storage of meat and meat products and to regain the confidence of consumers over the long term. As Powell (2000) states, it is essential for risk managers to communicate that they are reducing or mitigating a particular risk, but they also have to make sure that actions match their words.…”

A risk communication model for food regulatory agencies in modern society

“…Other factors that impact the social experience of risk include how well the risk event can be recalled and what effect it has on perceptions of risk in the future (Kasperson et al, 1988). Moreover, consumers may also incorporate the values of their peers, other groups, or society when assessing risk (Powell, 2000). Characteristics of the target audience can also influence risk perception, including: knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, personality, psychological factors and socio-demographic factors, and previous experience with the risks (McGloin et al, 2009;Sandman P. M., 1987).…”

“…There must be increased dialogue between scientists, risk assessors, risk managers, and consumers to counter the challenges of food safety in an increasingly complex and interdependent food system (Charlebois, 2009;Havelaar et al, 2010;Powell, 2000). A vital component of this dialogue exists via the risk communication strategy of food regulatory bodies such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).…”