Strategy and tactics for building up efficient risk-communications in the sphere of food products safety

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2018-4-12.pdf
UDC: 
316.77+613.2
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2018.4.12.eng
Authors: 

I.V. May1, N.A Lebedeva-Nesevrya2, A.O. Barg2

Organization: 

1 Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies, 82 Monastyrskaya Str., Perm, 614045, Russian Federation
2 Perm State University, 15 Bukireva Str., Perm, 614990, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

The authors highlight that contemporary social and economic processes require development of a new paradigm for discussing human health risks caused by food products distribution (risk-communications). Today such a model is replaced with a "prototype" of risk-communication, or simple informing. And as there is no "feedback" from risk recipients, it is impossible to adequately adjust information flows or assess their efficiency. Consequently, risks tend to be underestimated or aggravated by consumers. Working our decisions on managing risks and plans how to implement them are to be solved jointly by experts, authorities, and population.

It is shown that there are some basic ways to build up an efficient risk-communications system in the sphere of food products safety; to do that, we need to achieve greater information activity and interest of population in issues related to products quality and safety; to form a stable attitude towards self-preserving behavior among people; to improve a state system for interaction between all the concerned parties on issues related to population health and food products safety. It is extremely important to fully use channels for information dissemination that are in demand by a target audience (for example, active application of social media) and to created conditions for public discussions about risks. Tactical tasks are methodical guidance on forms and means of providing information about health risks as they are to be relevant for a target audience. Expert community involvement into a constructive risk dialogue is a significant tool for increasing risk-communications efficiency. As population tends to trust scientists, experts, and doctors more than public persons, representatives from these expert groups are to play a significant social role in a system of efficient risk-communications.

Keywords: 
food products, safety, risk-communications, consumer decisions, risk management, information activity
May I.V., Lebedeva-Nesevrya N.A., Barg A.O. Strategy and tactics for building up efficient risk-communications in the sphere of food products safety. Health Risk Analysis, 2018, no. 4, pp. 105–113. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2018.4.12.eng
References: 
  1. Khotimchenko S.A., Gmoshinskii I.V., Tutel'yan V.A. Problem of safety provision of nanodimensional objects for human health. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2009, no. 5, pp. 7–10 (in Russian).
  2. Tutel'yan V.A. Obespechenie bezopasnosti genno-inzhenerno-modifitsirovannykh organizmov dlya proizvodstva pishchevykh produktov [Ensuring the safety of genetically modified organisms for food production]. Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, 2017, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 342–347 (in Russian).
  3. Risk communication applied to food safety handbook. Rome, FAO/WHO, 2016. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5863e.pdf (10.10.2018).
  4. Improving Food Safety and Risk Communication / in Enhancing Food Safety. The Role of the Food and Drug Admin-istration.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010, 588 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17226/12892 (10.10.2018).
  5. Barg A.O. Risk-communication in the sphere of health as a sort of social communication. Diskussiya, 2017, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 50–55 (in Russian).
  6. Andriyanova E.A., Chernyshkova E.V., Sidel'nikov S.A., Dolgova E.M. Risk-communication as the factor of medicine institutionalization. Sovremennye issledovaniya sotsial'nykh problem (elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal), 2017, vol. 8, no. 3–1, pp. 69–79 (in Russian).
  7. Biblin A.M., Akhmatdinov R.R. Risk-kommunikatsiya pri obespechenii radiatsionnoi bezopasnosti: doverie naseleniya k internetu kak istochniku informatsii o radiatsionnoi obstanovke [Risk communication in ensuring radiation safety: public con-fidence in the Internet as a source of information on radiation conditions]. Fundamental'nye i prikladnye aspekty analiza riska zdorov'yu naseleniya: materialy vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi internet-konferentsii molodykh uchenykh i spetsialistov Rospotrebnadzora. In: A.Yu. Popova, N.V. Zaitseva eds. Perm, 2017, pp. 263–274 (in Russian).
  8. Kher S.V., De Jonge J., Wentholt M.T.A., Deliza R., de Andrade J.C., Cnossen H.J., Luijckx N.B.L., Frewer L.J. Con-sumer perceptions of risks of chemical and microbiological contaminants associated with food chains: a cross-national study. Inter-national Journal of Consumer Studies, 2011, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 73–83.
  9. Giles E.L., Kuznesof S., Clark B., Hubbard C., Frewer, L.J. Consumer acceptance of and willingness to pay for food nanotechnology: a systematic review. Journal of nanoparticle research: an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology, 2015, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 467.
  10. Frewer L.J., Fischer A.R.H., Brennan M., Bánáti D., Lion R., Meertens R.M., Rowe G., Siegrist M., Verbeke W., Vereijken C. M.J.L. Risk/Benefit Communication about Food – A Systematic Review of the Literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2016, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 1728–1745. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2013.801337
  11. Fischer A.R., De Jong A.E., Van Asselt E.D., De Jonge R., Frewer L.J., Nauta, M.J. Food safety in the domestic envi-ronment: an interdisciplinary investigation of microbial hazards during food preparation. Risk Analysis, 2007, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1065–1082.
  12. Van Kleef E., Ueland, Ø., Theodoridis G., Rowe G., Pfenning U., Houghton J., van Dijk H., Chryssochoidis G., Frew-er L.J. Food risk management quality: consumer evaluations of past and emerging food safety incidents. Health, Risk and Society, 2009, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–27.
  13. Lusk J.L., Briggeman B. Food values. American journal of agricultural economics, 2009, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 184–196. 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.x
  14. Martínez-Ruiz M.P., Gómez-Cantó C.M. Key External Influences Affecting Consumers' Decisions Regarding Food. Frontiers in psychology, 2006, vol. 7, p. 1618. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01618
  15. Yegiyan N.S., Bailey R.L. Food as Risk: How Eating Habits and Food Knowledge Affect Reactivity to Pictures of Junk and Healthy Foods. Health communication, 2016, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 635–642. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.987098.
  16. Hooker C., Capon A., Leask J. Communicating about risk: strategies for situations where public concern is high but the risk is low. Public health research and practice, 2017, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. e2711709. DOI: 10.17061/phrp2711709
  17. MacGregor D.G., Slovic P., Morgan M.G. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk analysis, 1994, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 815–828.
  18. Wu L., Zhong Y., Shan L., Qin W. Public risk perception of food additives and food scares. The case in Suzhou, China. Appetite, 2013, vol. 70, pp. 90–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.06.091.
  19. You M., Ju Y. A Comprehensive Examination of the Determinants for Food Risk Perception: Focusing on Psychomet-ric Factors, Perceivers' Characteristics, and Media Use. Health communication, 2017, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 82–91.
  20. Tiozzo B., Mari S., Ruzza M., Crovato S., Ravarotto L. Consumers' perceptions of food risks: A snapshot of the Italian Triveneto area. Appetite, 2017, vol. 111, pp. 105–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.028
  21. Stensgaard A., DunnGalvin A., Nielsen D., Munch M., Bindslev-Jensen C. Green, Yellow, and Red risk perception in everyday life – a communication tool. Allergy, 2017, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 1114–1122. DOI: 10.1111/all.13095
  22. Cui K., Shoemaker S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. npj Science of Food, 2018, vol. 2. DOI: 10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4
  23. Hanna H.J., Emmanuel J., Naim S., Umasunthar T., Boyle R.J. Community healthcare professionals overestimate the risk of fatal anaphylaxis for food allergic children. Clinical and experimental allergy, 2016, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1588–1595. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12846
  24. Overbey K.N., Jaykus L.A., Chapman B.J. A Systematic Review of the Use of Social Media for Food Safety Risk Communication. Journal of food protection, 2017, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 1537–1549. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-345
  25. Bearth A., Cousin M.E., Siegrist M. «The Dose Makes the Poison»: Informing Consumers About the Scien-tific Risk Assessment of Food Additives. Risk analysis, 2016, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 130–144. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12410
  26. Ramonova T.A. Kulinarnyi blog kak forma samoprezentatsii [Culinary blog as a form of self-presentation]. Istoriya edy i traditsii pitaniya narodov mira: materialy II Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma. Moscow, MGU imeni M.V. Lomonosova; Tsentr po izucheniyu vzaimodeistviya kul'tur; Akademiya gastronomicheskoi nauki i kul'tury, 2016, pp. 373–377 (in Russian).
  27. Lofgren J. Food Blogging and Food-related Media Convergence. M/C Journal, 2013, vol. 16, no. 3. Available at: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/638 (16.10.2018).
Received: 
22.10.2018
Accepted: 
14.12.2018
Published: 
30.12.2018

You are here

Home