Technical assistance in the field of risk communication

Abstract

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.

ENhanced COMmunication in Risk ANalysis (ENCOMRAN): Final report

“…According to the transparency regulation, (EU) 2019/1381, (European Union 2019), communication around the "internal processes" of risk analysis should ensure transparent and open communication (European Food Safety Authority, Maxim et al 2021). Our findings to some extent support the recommendation in the transparency regulation (European Union 2019) to "establish appropriate mechanisms of coordination and cooperation between the risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national level involved in the risk analysis process".…”

“…15], (Bier 2001) noted that "two-way communication between assessors and users" of risk assessment information is as important in dealing with government managers as with the general public. This has led to a gradual shift in paradigm for communication during risk analysis (Ibarreta Ruiz 2008), which in the EU has resulted in the transparency regulation (European Union 2019) and the future work on implementing a General Plan for Risk Communication (Authority, Maxim et al 2021).…”

“…the COMRISK project and from the results of the internet-based survey in WP1. The recommendation for closer communication in framing of risk questions is based on conclusions from COMRISK (Andersson, Elving et al 2020) and is further supported by the EFSA's scientific report on technical assistance in the field of risk communication (European Food Safety Authority, Maxim et al 2021) and references therein.…”

Implementation of food matrix effects into chemical food contaminant risk assessment

“…All these steps revolve around the terms ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’ (EUFIC, 2019 ). The use of these terms as synonyms or their interchange is a problem that has not yet been overcome, despite awareness raised by European food authorities and organisations (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012 ; EFSA, 2016 , 2021 ; EUFIC, 2017 , 2019 ). It is essential for all food safety stakeholders to differentiate between ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’.…”

Use and perception of information sources on COVID-19 measures by citizens of Belgium

“…Since the late 80s, it has been realized that peoples' perceptions of risk are not only defined by the actual threats faced, but also by the acceptability of those threats (Malecki et al, 2021). Scholars of risk analysis and communication make a distinction between hazards (i.e., situations that have the potential to cause an adverse effect on health) and risks (i.e., the number of people who are exposed to the hazard, are infected, and fall ill; Lofstedt, 2011;Maxim et al, 2021). While risk can be defined in terms of the statistical likelihood or probability of ill consequences (objective risk), the term is often used as a synonym for danger or threat (subjective risk), referring to a subjective assessment of the consequences in relation to certain reference values.…”