Food Facts Asia Issue 29 - The Good News or The Bad News First?

May 14, 2007

Ever-better laboratory analysis and increasing levels of commitment from those responsible for managing food safety, to sharing information about food safety risks has resulted in increasing numbers of news report about food-related health and safety matters. It might be assumed that this would result in the general public feeling better informed, more included in the scientific and regulatory processes, in short, more 'empowered'. In fact, consumer research suggests this is not the case. It would appear that the general public increasingly feel confused and in some instances let down. To understand how this has come about, and to better address concerns over potential health risks, read on…

Consumer Concern is Growing

There are many reasons why the growth in information available has done little to improve knowledge and confidence levels. Sometimes this information can be difficult to interpret - what exactly is a potential risk for example. Sometimes information seems woolly and muddled - how can a food that you have been eating for years suddenly be a 'health risk'? Sometimes it can seem outrageous to hear that foods readily available may be a threat to health.

Many members of the public are unsure both about what they know and also what to do about food safety. Many of the public also feel sceptical that scientific expert opinion can be relied upon.

The Challenge of Putting Food-Related Health Risk into Context

In fact, the reality is usually more subtle than 'danger' or 'no danger'. Many health risks are cumulative and long term eating patterns can be very important in determining if the potentially harmful substance carried in food will have any negative impact. Many substances are only a risk if consumption is unusually high, and many turn out to be negligible risk, but this is provides little or no comfort to those who are actively concerned about their own, or their children's wellbeing.

Scientists understand that the human body has had to learn to cope with small amounts of many harmful substances over many thousands of years. So many potential food safety risks that hit the news are actually theoretical risks, which present very little or no measurable risk to health. This is not the perception of many non-scientists who wish to make decisions, utilising their own knowledge base. However, attempting to put risk into context without demonstrating respect for the audience's knowledge base is likely to seem insulting and uncaring and ultimately will be unsuccessful. 2-way communication is much more complex than distant expert opinion response but is essential in building solid foundations of trust from which to expand general public understanding of relative risk.

A Classic Conflict of Science Versus Emotion

Those responsible for management of health risks are comfortable with the logic of balancing the cost of risk reduction against the quantifiable benefits. However, those who feel they are being exposed to undesirable health risks often take a very different view. It can be hard to put low levels of risk into context - whether estimates are 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1,000,000 chance of being affected, most consumers are concerned they may be the '1' affected rather than 1 of the 99 or 999,999 not affected! This is especially true if the risk appears to be created by someone or something out of one's own personal control, rather than a risk one chooses to take. For example, it might feel OK to not use the underpass to cross a busy road in order to save time, but unacceptable if the underpass is temporarily closed for maintenance without making alternative arrangements for pedestrians. Or to use a food-based example, many consumers do not consistently wash their hands with hot water and soap before eating or preparing foods, but might complain if hot water was not available in the washroom of an eatery.

Rapid Response Preferred but may be Hard to Deliver

Another challenge in providing meaningful risk information is that the risk assessment process can be a very slow. It may take many years to understand and quantify the degree of risk. However, when news is released about a potential new concern, that science is investigating, public response is one of alarm and expectation that something should be done to protect all those who may be exposed to the risk, and done quickly.

The Human Touch is Essential

Trust in expert opinion depends not just on competence. Equally important are human qualities, such as empathy, evidence of listening skills and sincerity. Before and during any technical explanation, demonstration that the expert is a 'real person' is crucial to both getting the attention of your audience, as well as having any chance that they will remember what you have said. Of course, being properly qualified and briefed is necessary, but in times of uncertainty and worry, most of us appreciate a person who is warm, wise and honest, not a 'boffin', no matter how well informed they might be about their specialist areas of expertise.

Risk without Benefit may be Very Unpopular

Unsurprisingly, exposure to risk that offers no benefit to those who are exposed to the risk is generally very unpopular. It might be that benefits are hidden or long term, in which case, highlighting these whilst also acknowledging the discomfort of feeling exposed to a food safety risk might be helpful. In those situations where those at risk are unlikely to gain any benefit, great sensitivity is required. Also, very clear accountability must be demonstrated.

Keeping It Simple, Easy to Say, Hard to Do

The technical intricacies of food safety can be fascinating to those who spend years researching and discussing their complexities. Those not deeply involved, have different pressing demands for their attention and usually have severely limited time to absorb new unfamiliar words and ideas. When worried or anxious, the ability to absorb new information freefalls to almost zero. Sticking to basic rules, such as avoiding all jargon, keeping sentences short and language at pre-high school standard is absolutely fundamental. This can be extremely difficult and will take a lot of pre-planning and careful thought. Most importantly, it is essential to decide in advance what is the absolutely essential information. Identify a maximum of 3 pieces of essential information, and then make a separate list of all the 'nice to know' information which you might be tempted to include but which could cause an information overload. The non-essential should be mentally stored away for another day. Then going back to the essential information, take each of these and jot down brief notes how to explain these with simple illustrations, easy to understand facts and uncomplicated examples. Aim for 3 of these explanations for each of the essential pieces of information. Note-taking on each of these will help to organise thoughts, and keep explanations concise and simple.

Going Forwards, the Future is Bright…

Research about how best to communicate information about food safety risk, and equally importantly uncertainty about risk levels, is ongoing. There is still much we don't yet know about this relatively new subject, but the first stages of research have provided some useful guidelines for those faced with the challenge of anticipating or indeed answering public concerns about food safety risk. Much of the early work has been based on those living in Europe and the North American continent, but additional understanding is being gathered from populations in Asia. Some of this work is being done by AFIC and in the next issue of Food Facts Asia, some of the findings of this ground-breaking regional research will be revealed.

Golden Rules for Effective Risk Communication

First establish trust by listening carefully and communicating with compassion.
Respect all stakeholders, including those with limited knowledge and meet needs of media for information and timely response.
Collaborate with credible partners and stakeholders.
Meticulously plan essential key messages in advance and refine these by consulting widely and practicing their delivery.
Limit volume of information to essentials only, and be scrupulously accurate.
Provide 3 concise statements of supporting evidence for each statement of fact, expert opinion or response to a concerned stakeholder question.
Recognise that imposed or involuntary risk is likely to be very unpopular.
Highlight any benefits, whilst taking great care to demonstrate courteous respect and empathy towards those who may be affected adversely.