September 20, 2007

At the China International Food Safety and Quality Conference held in Beijing September 12-13, the Asian Food information Centre (AFIC) presented the case for including risk communications into food safety control.

Confusion and mistrust can arise between the general public and scientific experts: The technical details of food safety can be fascinating to those who spend years researching and managing their complexities. The general public who are not so deeply involved, usually simply want to know if a food is safe to eat or not safe. Experts find it difficult to provide yes/no answers and when worried or anxious, consumer ability to absorb new information freefalls to almost zero. This mix of complex science and demand for a simple answer can easily escalate into a public outcry of concern. Such a crisis of confidence can result in hasty actions and an onslaught of scare stories that do nothing to improve the safety and quality of food products available or public confidence.

Recognising that the public have a right to ask questions about how food safety is monitored and managed, experts around the world have spent many years exploring how to provide information to the general public in a way that is useful and informative.

Helen Yu, Executive Director of AFIC described some of general principles that have been identified to ensure that the science of food safety can be communicated to members of the general public, with little or no training in science. The most important golden rule is that the expert must demonstrate they are also a real person with the same problems, concerns and interests as everyone else. Helen commented that “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”.

Research finds that about 50% of the credibility of information about a food safety concern is determined by the experts’ ability to prove they are as warm and caring and concerned as those seeking answers to food safety concerns. Of course, competence must also be demonstrated but research find this only contributes to about 20% of the impact and credibility of expert comment and explanation. Other basic rules, such as avoiding the use of jargon, keeping sentences short seem obvious but can be very challenging if the subject matter is very scientific. Helen advised all those with responsibility for explaining food safety risk to devote a great deal of time to advance planning to ensure final information is relevant, convincing and useful. Consulting fellow experts and agreeing common messages is also vital, because information from different sources that seems contradictory has been found to significantly increase anxiety levels of the concerned general public.

The AFIC recent research that compared Australian, Malaysian and Chinese responses to information about food and health risks provides insight into effective risk communications to Asian consumers. The results found that in many respects response between the 3 nationalities were the same, but there were also some very significant differences.

Firstly, Chinese and Malaysian audiences were found to be much more likely to believe information provided by mass media such as TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and the Internet, than the Australians in the study.

A second significant finding was that, Australians included in the survey were less concerned about perceived technological risk than the Chinese and Malaysian respondents. For example, many more Chinese and Malaysian respondents than Australians responded negatively to the word chemical. Similarly, the Asian respondents reported higher levels of concern than Australians about modern, man-made technologies such as food additives.

Thirdly, when asked about who was responsible for food safety, all nationalities agreed that government authorities had a lot of responsibility, but the survey also found that more of the Chinese and Malay than the Australians respondents, felt that community groups, and international campaign groups had some responsibility for safety respondents.

Helen outlined the conclusions that may be drawn from the AFIC survey. She suggested they should be interpreted as evidence for more proactive, science-based risk communication strategies in the Asia region.

For example, it is clear that the general public in China and Malaysia need more information about who is responsible for managing risk, where to go for science-based safety assessment, and more information about how technologies are assessed for safety.

AFIC has an ongoing programme of food safety communications and works closely with regulators, scientists and other all across the Asia region to improve the impact and usefulness of food safety communications.