Folks are rightly skeptical about the safety of the food supply. Outbreaks of foodborne illness are happening daily, and some of the outbreaks involve levels of deception, malfeasance and yukkiness that are criminal.

Levels of trust ain’t good.

Lynn Frewer, formerly of the U.K. and now based at Wageningen University in The Netherlands, has been doing the food safety risk communication thing for a long time and is darn good at it. Frewer and colleagues published a new paper in Food Policy last week that summarized much of the existing research and some new work to map out a strategy for those who talk about food safety in public arenas.

The results validated what a bunch of us have been saying for decades:

• understand consumer risk perceptions and information needs;
• segment and target communications;
• institutions and industry must stress risk mitigation activities, including prevention and the effectiveness of enforcement systems;
• account for cultural and at-risk populations when creating messages;
• enhance transparency by making public information about ongoing management and research activities, the processes adopted regarding establishing regulatory and resource allocation priorities, and whether rapid responses by food risk managers to mitigate food safety incidents have been made;
• consumer protection and public health must be the top priority; and,
• tell ‘em what you don’t know (I’m sure that’s a scientific term).

How are such recommendations executed, especially during an outbreak of foodborne illness, when consumers are paying attention?

Gustavo Anaya, the owner of Oregon’s Los Dos Amigos Family Mexican Restaurant, issued a written apology to its customers after 30 patrons were sickened in a Salmonella outbreak linked to the Jackson Street, Roseburg, business.

Gustavo and his son, Manny Anaya, delivered letters to media outlets in Douglas County on Friday.

“We send our sincerest apologies to the people and family members who were affected by the salmonella outbreak,” the letter stated.

Saying, I’m sorry, is not always an admission of blame. It’s also a sign of empathy, that most basic of human traits, which is crucial in building trust.

Communications alone, however, are never enough. The restaurant will have issues if it is discovered to have improperly assessed or ignored food safety risks.

Cope, S., et al. Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy. Food Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.002

Abstract

As a consequence of recent food safety incidents, consumer trust in European food safety management has diminished. A risk governance framework that formally institutes stakeholder (including consumer) consultation and dialogue through a transparent and accountable process has been proposed, with due emphasis on risk communication. This paper delivers actionable policy recommendations based on consumer preferences for different approaches to food risk management. These results suggest that risk communication should be informed by knowledge of consumer risk perceptions and information needs, including individual differences in consumer preferences and requirements, and differences in these relating to socio-historical context associated with regulation. In addition, information about what is being done to identify, prevent and manage food risks needs to be communicated to consumers, together with consistent messages regarding preventative programs, enforcement systems, and scientific uncertainty and variability associated with risk assessments. Cross-cultural differences in consumer perception and information preferences suggest a national or regional strategy for food risk communication may be more effective than one applied at a pan-European level.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCB-502NK5Y-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F13%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=126449b7903c417060e53954e450d621

Professional golfer Tiger Woods and Japanese automaker Toyota are both struggling under the media spotlight to repair their damaged public images and resorting to public statements and advertizing. But communications alone is never enough when faced with a risky situation – it’s the combination of risk assessment and management, along with communications, that helps individuals, corporations and governments regain trust and public favor.

New research from a team led by Dr. Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University and published in the journal, Public Understanding of Science, further validate the idea that words alone are never enough when managing a food safety crisis – actions are also important.

The authors examined two incidents of dioxin contamination of food in Belgium and the Republic of Ireland in 1999 and 2008, respectively. In both cases, dioxins reached the food supply through the contamination of fat used for animal feed. The food and agricultural industries connected to each incident relied on crisis management activities of federal governments to limit adverse public reaction.

In 1999, the Belgian government delayed communicating with the public and other European agencies about possible risks, failed to acknowledge perceived risks with dioxin-laden feed, and ultimately suffered huge economic losses, a damaged food industry and deterioration in public confidence.

In the winter of 2008, the Republic of Ireland faced a similar dioxin-in-animal-feed crisis and, unlike the Belgian response, promptly communicated with the public, and acknowledged perceived risks by mandating that all pork products released for sale were to carry a special label to indicate they had no association with the potentially contaminated feed.

“Prompt communications with the public, acknowledgement of both real and perceived risks, and control of stigma surrounding a hazardous incident are important factors in effective crisis management,” said Powell. “The Irish government succeeded by not only saying the right things, but by removing potentially contaminated product from commerce in a timely manner. Actions and words must be consistent to manage any crisis and garner public support.”

Abstract below:

Government management of two media-facilitated crises involving dioxin contamination of food
23.feb.10
Public Understanding of Science
Casey J. Jacob, Corie Lok, Katija Morley, and Douglas A. Powell
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0963662509355737v1
Abstract
Incidents become crises through a constant and intense public scrutiny facilitated by the media. Two incidents involving dioxin contamination of food led to crises in Belgium and the Republic of Ireland in 1999 and 2008, respectively. Thought to cause cancer in humans, dioxins reached the food supply in both incidents through the contamination of fat used for animal feed. The food and agricultural industries connected to each incident relied on crisis management activities of federal governments to limit adverse public reaction. Analysis of the management of the two crises by their respective federal governments, and a subsequent review of crisis management literature, led to the development of an effective crisis management model. Such a model, appropriately employed, may insulate industries associated with a crisis against damaged reputations and financial loss.
First published on February 5, 2010
Public Understanding of Science 2010

From the there’s-an-award-for everything category, the U.K. Food Standards Agency has apparently copped a statue for clear communication about listeria.

“The Agency has been given an award by the Plain English Campaign for a leaflet advising the over 60s about food safety and the food poisoning bug listeria. Food safety and healthy eating messages are often based on complicated science, but the Agency strives to make these messages as accessible to as many people as possible. We are therefore pleased that these efforts have been recognised by our partners and by the Plain English Campaign.”

The U.K. government agency that has millions of dollars to engage consumers and the best they can come up with is to serve turkey ‘piping hot’ rather than use a thermometer is now blowing itself for its, ‘Look out for listeria’ campaign. The award-winning leaflet is attached, and it essentially blames old folks for getting listeria.

The science is not complicated and neither are the communications. The level of state-sponsored arrogance is somewhat alarming.
 

When Canadian bureaucrats send out a food safety press release for no apparent reason other than to remind Canadians of something it usually means there is an outbreak going on.

Once again, it’s raw sprouts, and it’s not like it’s sprout season or something (unlike the often terrible turkey food safety advice the surfaces at Thanksgiving).

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are reminding Canadians that raw or undercooked sprouts should not be eaten by children, the elderly, pregnant women or those with weakened immune systems.

Sprouts, such as alfalfa and mung beans, are a popular choice for Canadians as a low-calorie, healthy ingredient for many meals. Onion, radish, mustard and broccoli sprouts, which are not to be confused with the actual plant or vegetable, are also common options.

These foods, however, may carry harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, which can lead to serious illness.

Fresh produce can sometimes be contaminated with harmful bacteria while in the field or during storage or handling. This is particularly a concern with sprouts. Many outbreaks of Salmonella and E. coli infections have been linked to contaminated sprouts. The largest recent outbreak in Canada was in the fall of 2005, when more than 648 cases of Salmonella were reported in Ontario.