The prison warden told Paul Newman’s Cool Hand Luke in the 1967 film that “what we have here is a failure to communicate.”

It’s based on an authoritarian model and is the oldest excuse out there; all kinds of problems could be solved if everyone just communicated better, especially scientists and others.

Nope.

The anti-authoritarian heros of great American movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Blues Brothers and Stripes all found different ways to communicate, in unconventional ways.

So when the American Academy of Arts and Sciences' issued a ponderous report on Improving the Scientific Community's Understanding of Public Concerns about Science and Technology, which examined the ways in which scientists engage with the public, and how their mutual understanding could be improved, I thought, who writes this crap, in a release about communications?

The report concluded (in a somber tone),

Scientists and the public both share a responsibility for the divide. Scientists and technical experts sometimes take for granted that their work will be viewed as ultimately serving the public good. Members of the public can react viscerally and along ideological lines, but they can also raise important issues that deserve consideration.

Scientific issues require an ‘anticipatory approach.’ A diverse group of stakeholders — research scientists, social scientists, public engagement experts, and skilled communicators — should collaborate early to identify potential scientific controversies and the best method to address resulting public concerns.

That sounds like BS. I’ve sat in meetings for years where well-meaning people have gone on-and-on about how the public or the media gets it wrong, how the public needs to be better educated, and how communications is some sort of road to salvation.

And none of these reports recommend what people should do day-to-day.

What we’ve found from our food safety infosheet research is that elements of effective communication involve:

• storytelling focused on specific outbreaks and individual incidents of foodborne illness;

• information that gets people talking;

• surprise or shock using humorous or graphical images, and data; and,

• information that has meaning to an individual.

Another report issued last month concluded the FDA must communicate more clearly with health care professionals and consumers during foodborne illness outbreaks and food safety recalls.

"Despite awareness of recent food recalls, an illusion of invulnerability and a lack of knowledge about the food recall process appear to be widespread among American consumers. These findings signify the need for a clear, coordinated and centralized communication strategy for food recalls."

Nope. More panels and reports and Dr. Phil-style interventions are a waste: for food safety, say what you do, do what you say, prove it.
 

Really, didn’t the U.S. National Academy of Sciences say the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture and others should do this 30 years ago?

To more proactively tackle food safety problems, FDA should implement a risk-based approach in which data and expertise are marshaled to pinpoint where along the production, distribution, and handling chains there is the greatest potential for contamination and other problems, the report says. The agency would then be able to direct appropriate amounts of its resources and attention to those high-risk areas and increase the chances of catching problems before they turn into widespread outbreaks, said the committee that wrote the report.

A risk-based approach would give FDA's food safety officials the strategic vision needed to evaluate and plan for food safety concerns rather than tackling problems on a case-by-case basis, the report says. Without good information, agency officials cannot identify where its resources are needed most or determine which policy interventions are most effective. FDA has insufficient analytical expertise and infrastructure to gather, manage, and use data effectively. The agency should identify its data needs and review its policies for sharing data with other agencies and organizations.

Uh huh. How many people got sick while this report was being put together? Did the report prevent anyone from barfing?

The Department of Justice, in an action initiated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is seeking a permanent injunction against A Chau Sprouting Co., a sprout grower in Gretna, La., company owner and manager Quang “Mike” Trinh, and Hue Nguyen, the company production manager.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, charges the defendants with violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by preparing, packing, and holding sprouts under insanitary conditions, where they may have become contaminated with filth.

“The agency has repeatedly warned the company over several years that corrective actions need to be taken in this facility,” said Michael Chappell, acting associate commissioner for regulatory affairs at the FDA. “While no illnesses have been reported to date, this action is necessary to ensure that it remains that way.”

The ready-to-eat sprouts are distributed to wholesale suppliers, who in turn distribute them to customers located in Gulf Coast states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.

Five FDA inspections over the past nine years, including an inspection conducted between August 2009 and September 2009, revealed that the defendants failed to implement basic food sanitation principles and practices for their sprout growing operation, according to the complaint.

Failure to document proper refrigeration, failure to keep fish species separate to avoid cross-contamination, failure to meet sanitation standards or keep records of compliance, and failure to verify that imported fish met FDA standards has led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to shut down Congressional Seafood of Jessup, Md.

Michael Chappell, acting associate commissioner for regulatory affairs at FDA, said,

“On numerous occasions, FDA has warned the defendants, both orally and in writing, about their conduct and has emphasized the importance of their compliance with the (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic) Act.”

Under a consent decree filed Friday, to become compliant with food safety laws, Congressional Seafood must have its HACCP and sanitation plans submitted by an independent expert and approved by FDA.

The FDA complaint accompanying the decree notes that the production of fresh, frozen and ready-to-eat seafood products without adequate HACCP plans poses a significant public health risk because these products are well-known sources Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella spp., and other pathogenic microorganisms. Humans who consume food containing these bacteria can suffer serious health consequences.