Dr Nina McGrath

Food Safety & Risk Communications Manager

European Food Information Council, Brussels, Belgium

FoodRisC: Perceptions and Communication of Food Risks/Benefits across Europe

IAFP European Symposium on Food Safety 201611th May 2016

European Food Information Council

(EUFIC)

Communicates science-based information

on nutrition & health, food safety & quality,

to help consumers to be better informed

when choosing a balanced, safe and healthful diet.

Funding from agri-food chain, and European Commission (project basis)

Established in 1995

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Watch us on

Linkedin

Google +

www.eufic.org

www.coolfoodplanet.org

EUFIC Publications:explaining science to the public

EUFIC Audio-visuals:for the professional & lay public

Podcasts & webinars

Infographics & animated videos

The FoodRisC Project

The Challenge of Communicating and Managing Food Safety Risks in an era of Social

Media

• FP7 EU project led by University College Dublin,

Ireland, with 14 partners from both academia & non-

academic organisations from 9 EU member states

• Investigating perceptions and mapping out

communication networks of food risks and benefits in

the fast changing media environment across Europe

o Conflicting & confusing advice on food safety & nutrition

o Explosion of social media – online news, twitter, blogs,

forums

The FoodRisC Project -

what’s it all about?

Online information

environment

Published

content

Published

contentUser

generated

content

User

generated

content

News Generation

Professional

JournalistsCitizen

Journalists

Social Media &

Amplification of Risk

Individual’s attitudes,

perceptions and behaviours are

shaped by their social and

informational environment

We identify with some communicators

more than others, i.e. we trust and

connect with them

Media analysis of food

crises

CrisisOrigin of

crisis

Date of

crisisMonitoring

Dioxin crisis in pork Ireland 2008/2009 Retrospective,

traditional & social

media, 2 countries

Dioxin crisis in

pork, chicken and

eggs

Germany 2010/2011 Real-time,

traditional & social

media, 7 countries

EHEC crisis in

sprouted seeds

Germany 2011 Real-time,

Social media only,

7 countries

Balance of reportingTraditional & Social Media

Size of social media datasets per crisis

Irish dioxin crisis 2008/2009 1,229 records

German dioxin crisis 2010/2011 26,680 records

German EHEC crisis 2011 100,491 records

Speed of reporting duringfood crises

SM: Social Media; TM: Traditional Media

SM responded quicker than

TMSM reporting

declined quicker than

TM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Social Media

Traditional Media

Coverage of crisesSocial vs traditional media

SM responded faster, declined faster than TM

Social media channel

analysis

CRISIS

(no. of postings)Year

Micro

Blogs

Online

newsBlogs Forums Other*

Irish Dioxin

(n=1,229)2008 6.5% 27.9% 49.7% 4.8% 11.1%

German Dioxin

(n=26,680)

2010/

201123.9% 20.2% 36.3% 16.7% 1.7%

German EHEC

(n=100,491)2011 46.7% 20.5% 16.9% 11.3% 4.5%

*Other = Facebook, Video, Comments

Top 3 social media channels…

Between crises

Within crises

Between countries

Varied in prevalence…

Select a social media monitoring tool which

can track across a number of channels!

Implication…..

ECHO

CHAMBER

EFFECT

Retention of informationEcho-chamber Effect

No. of references to German Dioxin Crisis

Page 1 of Google

search results

Page 1&2 of Google

search results

Germany 5 10

Belgium

(French)

5 7

Belgium (Dutch) 9 17

Netherlands 8 17

France 7 13

UK 0 1

Results of Google search conducted 20

months after the end of the crisis

Search term: German Pork

Impact of media content on audience

Content of articles & postings

Attitude

Perception

Behaviour

Tone of

CommunicationsTraditional Media Social Media

Headline Main text Headline Main text

Irish Dioxin Crisis

Positive 11% 9% 5% 1%

Negative 40% 33% 29% 42%

Neutral/Mixed 49% 59% 65% 57%

German Dioxin Crisis

Positive 8% 2% 10% 5%

Negative 19% 17% 23% 19%

Neutral/Mixed 74% 81% 67% 76%

Top three sources quoted

Political sources

Expert sources

Food suppliers

Online news

Political sources

Expert sources

Traditional media Social media

Implication: Food risk communicators should build on this strength and ensure they are communicating in an effective manner which meets the needs of the media

Primary story topic

Traditional & Social media

Scientific Frame

Economic Frame

Political Frame

2 Points of interest:

Reporting of public perception and reaction to the crisis were more common in social media

Traditional media: Platform for national debateSocial media: Platform for global debate

Implications for Food Risk

Communicators

Do not miss the ‘window of opportunity’ to communicate in social media

SM can act as a ‘feedback loop’ to gauge how messages are received and

to correct misinformation or misunderstandings

Don’t forget the ‘echo chamber effect’

Information shared on SM provides intelligence on consumer perceptions

and intentions on a specific topic

This data can be used to optimise communication messages

Organisations must build a strong online presence with key stakeholders

during ‘peace times’ to stand out from the crowd as a trusted information

source in times of crisis

Overview/Summary

These data are a snapshot of some of the findings from

the FoodRisC project

They improve our understanding of the changing media

environment and the relationships between traditional and

social media

These and other findings from the project were used to

develop of the FoodRisC toolkit (Aim:to enable the effective

communication of coherent messages to consumers in

Europe)

FoodRisC e-resource centreA centre for food risk and benefit communication

Monitor communicationsProvides guidelines and tips on monitoring ‘what is being said’ and ‘who is saying it’.

Media channelsIdentifies the strengths and weaknesses of traditional and social media channels. Offers practical examples, advice on how to get started and tips on best practice.

Create your messageProvides tips to design understandable messages based on recent scientific findings.

Evaluate your situationSummarises key factors to consider when designing a communication strategy and implementing communication activities.

Understand youraudienceProvides guidelines to better understand and research your target audience.

Public involvementProvides tips to elicit a two-way dialogue with consumers and stakeholders to achieve a better understanding of their thoughts and needs.

http://resourcecentre.foodrisc.org/

Acknowledgments

FoodRisC Consortium

University College Dublin

University of Surrey, UK

University of Twente, The Netherlands

Research Center, Food and Veterinary Service of Latvia

University of Gent, Belgium

Centro de Investigação e de Intervenção Social, Portugal

Focus Business Communications, UK

White October, UK

Free University of Berlin, Germany

Hylobates Consulting Srl, Italy

Asterisc Communication Research Group, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain

Brunel University, UK

European Food Information Council, Belgium

26

www.eufic.org