Scholarlink

<p>This debate explores the complexities and changing landscape of food safety risk communication, underscoring an imperative for greater transparency, public engagement, and collaborative action across disciplines. It examines the role consumer organisations might play in risk assessment to enhance legitimacy and the obstacles set by differing perspectives and a complex technical environment. In identifying some of the priority research gaps, the discussion suggests the need to examine public perceptions of this risk, scientific uncertainty affecting the issue, and the role of misinformation in cyberspace, thus also suggesting a more effective communication strategy. Transparency, the precautionary principle, and differing definitions of trust are used in this debate to illustrate the sociopolitical tensions behind risk communication. Accordingly, this discussion calls for communication about food safety risks to move from static one-way communication toward creating a new paradigm in which dynamic and participatory communication can convey trust and support informed decision-making for resilience within food safety systems. This contribution provides a timely opportunity for policymakers, scientists, and communicators to reconsider risk governance and engagement under the present societal and technological change pattern.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Risk communication in food safety: addressing the gap between scientific risk assessments and public perception, and strategies to improve transparency and trust in food safety regulations

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月31日

查看全文
  • Helen Onyeaka

摘要

This debate explores the complexities and changing landscape of food safety risk communication, underscoring an imperative for greater transparency, public engagement, and collaborative action across disciplines. It examines the role consumer organisations might play in risk assessment to enhance legitimacy and the obstacles set by differing perspectives and a complex technical environment. In identifying some of the priority research gaps, the discussion suggests the need to examine public perceptions of this risk, scientific uncertainty affecting the issue, and the role of misinformation in cyberspace, thus also suggesting a more effective communication strategy. Transparency, the precautionary principle, and differing definitions of trust are used in this debate to illustrate the sociopolitical tensions behind risk communication. Accordingly, this discussion calls for communication about food safety risks to move from static one-way communication toward creating a new paradigm in which dynamic and participatory communication can convey trust and support informed decision-making for resilience within food safety systems. This contribution provides a timely opportunity for policymakers, scientists, and communicators to reconsider risk governance and engagement under the present societal and technological change pattern.