Risk Comm Guidelines

7/31/2019 Risk Comm Guidelines

1/52

A joint initiative o the European Food Saety Authority and national ood saety organisations in Europe

WHEN FOOD IS COOKING UP A STORMPROVEN RECIPES FOR

RISK COMMUNICATIONS


2/52

2.

Risk CommuniCation guidelines

www.esa.europa.eu/riskcomm

Preace by EFSAs Advisory Group on Risk Communications 04

Preace by Anne-Laure Gassin, Chair o the Advisory Forums Communications Working Group 05

and EFSAs Communications Director

I. Introduction and objectives 06

II. Principles guiding good risk communications 08

II. 1. Principles in practice 10

III. Factors impacting on level and type o communications 12

III. 1. Level o risk rom a communications perspective 13

III. 2. The nature o the hazard 14

III. 3. Who/what is aected? 14

III. 4. How people/animals/plants/the environment are aected 15

III. 5. Levels o exposure to the hazard/risk 16

III. 6. Ability to control risk 16

III. 7. Other actors relating to risk perception 17

III. 8. Levels o communication required 18

Index


3/52

3. www.esa.europa.eu/riskcomm

INDEx

IV. Tools and channels 19

IV. 1. Media relations 20

IV. 2. Websites 21

IV. 3. Printed publications 22

IV. 4. Digital publications 23

IV. 5. Meetings and workshops 24

IV. 6. Public consultations 24

IV. 7. Partner/stakeholder networks 25

IV. 8. Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.) 26

IV. 9. Blogging 27

IV. 10. Microblogging (Twitter) 27

V. Learning rom eperience 28

EFSAs Risk Assessment on Animal Cloning 29

EFSAs thematic communication approach to oodborne zoonotic diseases 32

Salt Campaign 35

University o Southampton research looking at the eect on children o certain articial colours 38

Q-ever in the Netherlands: Openness and transparency 41

Case history on ood supplements in Sweden 44

Case Study Irish Dioxin Crisis 47

Further reading 50

Examples o other guideline initiatives 51


4/52

4.


To reach this goal, there are our general guidelines

that apply to all risk areas, not only to ood:

Start with a critical review o your own risk

assessment and management perormance.

Design an integrative risk communication

programme that ensures a continuous eort

to communicate with the most important

stakeholders including consumers rom thebeginning o the assessment process.

Tailor communication according to the needs o

the targeted audience and not to the needs o the

inormation source.

Adjust and modiy the communication programme

in an organised eort to collect eedback and to

sense changes in values and preerences.

This document here wants to assist all proessional

risk managers and communicators in the ood sectorto design a communication programme that will

be responsive to these general requirements and

attentive to the needs o the various audiences.

Such a programme needs to ensure high quality

scientic input as well as air representation o public

values and preerences. There exists a great variety o

communication and stakeholder involvement manuals.

Preace by EFSAs Advisory Group on Risk Communications

The ultimate goal o risk communication is to assist

stakeholders, consumers and the general public in

understanding the rationale behind a risk-based

decision, so that they may arrive at a balanced

judgement that reects the actual evidence about the

matter at hand in relation to their own interests and

values. Risk communication should not be seen as an

attempt to convince or persuade people to adopt the

judgement o the communicator about the tolerability

or acceptability o risks. It is rather the attempt to

help people to make more inormed judgements

and enable them to have agency over the risks that

they ace in their own lives. In addition, eective risk

communication is a central prerogative or taking an

active part in contemporary discourses about risks,

and in particular ood risks. Being well inormed

about and aware o ood risks is also paramount to all

involvement and participation programmes that are

directed towards more direct co-determination or

designing and shaping regulations and standards.

Eective risk communication can make a strong

contribution to the success o a comprehensive and

responsible risk management programme. Through

eective risk communication one can: (1) ensure that

consumers are aware o the risks associated with a

product and thereby use or consume it saely; (2)

build public condence in appropriate risk assessment

and management decisions and the associated risk/

benet considerations; (3) contribute to the publics

understanding o the nature o risk in ood and the

standards that ensure ood saety; and (4) provide

air, accurate, and appropriate inormation, so that

consumers are able to choose among a variety o

options that can meet their own risk acceptance

criteria.

Risk communication needs to address the ollowing

issues o how to:

provide inormation to the public on hazards and

risks (emphasising the dierence between hazards

and risks);

provide inormation to the public about the

process or conducting risk assessments and

making risk management decisions, including a

description o the various actors and procedures

involved in both tasks;

organise eective two-way communication;

enhance trust and credibility o all actors in the risk

assessment and management process;

involve stakeholders in the process and resolve

conicts.



5/52

5.

PREFACE

It gives me great pleasure to provide the preace or

these practical Risk Communications Guidelines,

intended to assist communication colleagues

throughout Europe and beyond who are tasked with

the challenging responsibility o communicating

about risks that are underpinned by science.

Communicating on risks associated with the ood

chain is a key element o the European Food Saety

Authoritys (EFSA) mandate. By communicating on

risks in an open and transparent way based on the

independent scientic advice o its scientic expert

panels, EFSA contributes to improving ood saety in

Europe and to building public condence in the way

risk is assessed.

In its Communication Strategy 2010-2013, EFSA

highlighted the importance o communicating

coherent messages as a means o re-enorcing

consumer condence in the ood chain. In order to do

this, EFSA works with the communications departments

o the national ood saety agencies, through the

Authoritys Advisory Forum Communications Working

Group (AFCWG), to build a more collaborative and

inormed approach to communicating risks in the ood

chain and to promote coherence o messages across

the European Union (EU).

However, EFSA appreciates that scientic results

cannot always be converted into simple advice

that non-scientists can easily understand or ollow.

Recognising the need to share best practice, EFSA

initiated this project together with the members

o the AFCWG. The contribution o colleagues in

Member States to this project has not only assured

that this is a joint initiative but that the content is

relevant across the EU. It is thereore hoped that

these guidelines will prove useul to a great many

communication colleagues.

We have chosen to produce this document

electronically allowing or easy periodic updates

and the addition o new case studies. EFSAs AFCWG

will consider this on an annual basis.

In keeping with the spirit o this collaborative

initiative, any eedback that practitioners may have

about these guidelines will be grateully received.

Anne-Laure Gassin

Preace by Anne-Laure Gassin, Chair o the Advisory Forums

Communications Working Group and EFSAs Director o Communications


Some are meant to tackle specifc risk issues, such as

governance o radioactive waste, electromagnetic

felds, and chemical acilities. Rather than issuing

another generic guidebook on risk communication,

this document provides specifc inormation or all

interested parties with respect to ood saety, risk

assessment methods and the tasks o the European

Food Saety Agency (EFSA).

I am convinced that these guidelines will be o

great value to all risk communication proessionals

in the ood sector and beyond. It provides advice

based on substantive research or long-standing

experience and is specically directed towards

governmental agencies that regulate the ood

sector. It also addresses the needs o risk assesors

and managers within and outside o EFSA to

integrate risk communication demands in the risk

assessment and management portolio. It should

be mandatory reading or all who deal with risks in

the ood sector.

Parma, 2 April 2012

Ortwin Renn


6/52


6.www.efsa.europa.eu/riskcomm

Introduction and objectives

The objective o these guidelines is to provide a ramework to assist decision-making about appropriate

communications approaches in a wide variety o situations that can occur when assessing and

communicating on risks related to ood saety in Europe. The aim is to provide a common ramework

applicable or developing communications approaches on risk across public health authorities in

dierent countries.

Communicators rom EFSA, Member States and the European Commission work together in EFSAs

Advisory Forum Communications Working Group (AFCWG). A key aim o that group is to promote co-

operation and coherence in risk communications, particularly between risk assessors in Member States

and EFSA one o the key priorities laid down in EFSAs Communications Strategy.

I


7/52

I. IntroductIon and objectIves

7.

These guidelines are an initiative o that group,recognising two important points: 1) there is a need

or more practical guidance with respect to principles

laid down in scientic literature and 2) the literature on

risk communications guidance specic to ood saety

is limited. As it is the groups desire to continue to learn

rom experience and strengthen risk communications

within the European ood saety system, this will be a

living document which will be periodically revisited

and updated with best practice case studies.

As dened by Codex Alimentarius, risk communications

is the: exchange o inormation and opinions

concerning risk and risk-related actors among

risk assessors, risk managers, consumers and other

interested parties.

Within the European ood saety system, risk

communications responsibilities rest with risk assessors

at both EU and national level (EFSA and Member States

respectively) and also with risk managers at EU and

national level (the European Commission and Member

States respectively). At the European level, risk

assessment and risk management roles are separated

institutionally; in some Member States they are within

the same institution. These guidelines do not make

specic recommendations or either risk managers or

risk assessors but provide support to communicators

in making decisions about risk communications

underpinned by science and allow readers to benet

rom the learnings o practical case studies. In theircreation, valuable input was received rom scientic

risk assessment colleagues, reecting the need or

communicators, whether assessors or managers, to

liaise and collaborate with their scientic counterparts.

Given dierent structures and approaches across the

European Unions 27 Member States, there is no one

uniorm approach that ts every situation. There is

also a clear recognition that dierences exist between

countries with respect to risk perception. This can

be attributed to many dierent actors including

cultural, historical, economic and societal inuences.

Public opinion studies have shown that levels o

concern about dierent risks vary widely between

countries. In addition, risk communications guidelines

related to ood concerns need to take into account

country dierences in the ood supply, dietary habits

and practices as well as specic attitudes to ood and

its relation to health. Furthermore, communicators

should consider the social and political environment

into which messages are being communicated.

Despite these dierences, guidelines can help develop

approaches based on best practice and underlying

principles applicable across dierent issues and

scenarios.

It is also important to note rom the outset that this

document is not a crisis communications manual but

rather serves as a means o sharing best prac tice in risk

communications more generally. Readers interestedin EFSAs work relating to crisis situations, should

reer to the Authoritys Procedures or responding

to urgent advice needs that can be ound at the

ollowing web link: http://www.esa.eropa.e/e/

spportig/pb/102e.ht

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/102e.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/102e.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/102e.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/102e.htm


8/52


8.www.efsa.europa.eu/riskcomm

Principles guiding

good risk communicationsII


9/52

II. PrIncIPles guIdIng good rIsk communIcatIons

9.

1 OpennessOpenness is crucial to good risk communications and

the reputation o an organisation. I advice and action

in relation to ood saety risks are to be trusted, it is

important that risk assessments are published in a

timely way and that inormation on which decisions

are made can be scrutinised. Open dialogue with

stakeholders and interested parties is also critical to

building trust in the risk assessment process.

2 Transparency

Transparency is closely linked to openness and is

equally important in building trust and condence.

Transparent decision-making and a transparent

approach to explaining how an organisation works,

its governance and how it makes its decisions, are

also crucial. Communications must always convey

clearly any areas o uncertainty in the risk assessment,

whether and how these can be addressed by the risk

assessor and/or risk manager, and the implications o

these remaining uncertainties or public health.

3 Independence

Communicating on risks will always be perceived

as more trustworthy i it is demonstrable that those

undertaking the risk assessments, and communicating

them, are independent rom political decision makers,

industry, NGOs or other vested interests.

EFSA places the utmost importance on ensuringthe impartiality o its scientic advice and has put

in place a comprehensive series o mechanisms

and processes to saeguard the independence and

integrity o its scientic work. These are laid down in

its Policy on Independence and Scientic Decision-

Making Processes, adopted by the EFSA Management

Board in December 2011 (http://www.esa.eropa.

e/e/abotesa/keydocs.ht). In March 2012,

EFSA published implementing rules relating to

Declarations o Interest, one o the cornerstones o the

abovementioned Policy, which provide a clearer, more

transparent and more robust set o general principles

applicable to all those eng aging in EFSAs work(http://

www.esa.eropa.e/e/abotesa/keydocs.ht).

4 Responsiveness/timeliness

Communicating in a timely and accurate manner, even

when all the acts are not known will, in the long-run,

contribute to ensuring the source o inormation is seen

as credible and trustworthy. Early communications are

oten crucial.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htmhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/aboutefsa/keydocs.htm


10/52


11/52

II. PrIncIPles guIdIng good rIsk communIcatIons

11.

4 Dialogue between risk assessors and managersRisk assessors need to have a good dialogue with

risk managers; including terms o reerence or risk

assessments which are clear enough to ensure that

usable and understandable conclusions are reached.

By applying knowledge o audience needs, risk

assessors and risk managers can consider the related

areas o interest that may arise rom a scientic

opinion. Predicting the types o questions that could

be asked o a risk assessment will ensure that the terms

o reerence serve both scientic and communications

purposes as well as those o the risk manager.

When there is a possible risk, most people whether

risk managers, industry, NGOs or consumers want

to know what the risk is, what is going to be done

about it and what they themselves can or should

do. Communicating this inormation is the role o

the risk manager and dialogue acilitates joined up

communications.

See the ollowing case study or best practices in this

area: Irish dioxin crisis

5 Dialogue with stakeholders, understanding

audiences

Two-way dialogue and engagement are essential

good practice in communications. Understanding

the needs and concerns o both stakeholders and

other target audiences is essential to maximise theefectiveness o communications.

See the ollowing case studies or best practices in this

area:Animal cloning and Q-ever

6 Acknowledging and communicating

uncertainty

It is not always possible to be clear about a risk. But

principles o openness and transparency still apply,

backed up by good communications practice. Where

there is uncertainty it should be acknowledged and

described, such as outlining any data gaps or issues

relating to methodology. What is being done to

address the areas o uncertainty is also important so

that the intended audience can understand what steps

are being taken and oer reassurance that uncertainty

is being addressed.

See the ollowing case study or best practices in this

area:All case studies

Institutions that reect the above principles and ways

o working in their day-to-day practices are well placedto gain condence and trust. Importantly, eective risk

communications requires having good communicators

(scientists and communications proessionals) who

can eectively translate science into meaningul

communications or a variety o audiences so that risk

assessment is understandable and usable.



12/52

IIIThese guidelines aim to identiy the key actors that need to be taken into account when considering

the type and level o communications activities needed. Decision-making on risk communications

cannot be made into an exact science, and judgements need to be made, but a thorough and systematic

consideration o all possible relevant actors can help to make that judgement more inormed. Some

elements impacting on the decision-making are purely based on scientic evidence the actual hazard

and risks o exposure to that hazard, or example. Risk perception should always be taken into account but

even more so when a possible risk, however unlikely, could involve vulnerable groups such as children or

babies. The wider environment o political and stakeholder views or sensitivities are also actored in, as

well as risk management measures that may already be in place to reduce any potential risk.

This section summarises the actors that have been identied by both academics and practitioners as

crucial to risk communication decision-making. All need to be considered, but each actor will not always

be relevant or every scenario. Furthermore, the actors are not necessarily mutually exclusive and although

categories have been dened or the purpose o simpliying a very complex task, communicators should

not lose sight o the act that some scenarios may need to address multiple actors.

At the end o each section, there are some questions that may assist practitioners in dening the

appropriate communications approach.

Factors impacting on level

and type o communications


13/52


14/52


14.

III.3. Who/what is aected?

At a glance:

How many people are likely to be aected by

the risk?

Which sectors o society are likely to be aected by

the risk? Do they include vulnerable groups such

as children or the elderly?

What is the impact on the environment?

What is the impact on plants?

What is the impact on animals?

Who or what is aected by the hazard or risk can alsohave an impact on risk perception and this, in turn,

aects the targeting o communications in relation to

appropriate audiences and communications channels.

For example, it is possible to be more ocussed with

communications targeting a particular at-risk group

than with communications or an unknown audience.

Also, when certain vulnerable groups are aected,

such as children or babies, the media and stakeholder

interest and concern are oten heightened. The

ollowing categories have been identied as oten

relevant when considering likely levels o interest and

possible targeting o communications approaches.

General consumer

- Men

- Women

Vulnerable groups

- Babies

- Children

- Pregnant women

- Elderly

- Other

Plants

Animals

Environment

Etent o the risk?

Aecting many people/species/regions

Unknown/Lottery eect

Aecting ew people/species/regions

III.2. The nature o the hazard

Hazards can take many dierent orms and, in relationto ood saety, may include: substances, products,

processes, technologies and conditions. The type

o hazard will have an inuence on what is needed

in terms o communications, particularly as certain

hazards/substances may elicit a subjective ear actor,

or example when something is articially added to

ood as opposed to occurring naturally. Some hazards

will simply be well known and potentially have a

higher prole as reected by the quantity o media

coverage, political attention, public health ocus as

well as consumer, industry and NGO-related activities.

The ollowing actors have been identied:

The nature o the hazard (or example, substance) is:

Occurring naturally

Added to ood or created during processing

Where the hazard is used or ound

Used or ound in a product/brand commonly used

in the home or or ood production purposes

Used or ound widely in a range o products

Not widely used or ound

Illegal/regulated under EU law

At a glance:

Is the substance natural or articial?

Does the hazard occur naturally or does it arise

rom technological intervention?

Is the technology perceived as unacceptable due

to the possible related risk?

Is there an acceptable alternative to the technology

associated with the risk?



15/52

III. Factors ImpactIng on level and type oF communIcatIons

15.

III.4. How people/animals/plants/the environment are aected

How people/animals/plants/the environment areaected is also an important actor to consider when

deciding on communications approaches. This is

closely related to the level o risk, but speaks more

specically to the type o risk and the perceptions o and

reactions to diering risks. This is important because,

or example, acute risks need to be communicated

with particular urgency and directness in contrast to

the way in which risks associated with chronic illness

in humans are communicated. For instance, it may be

difcult to raise interest in a gradual increase in the risk

o coronary heart disease linked to diet and liestyle

actors as the risk is not imminent and target audiences

may consider that they are not concerned.

The ollowing categories o risk types have been

identied.

Acute/immediate health risks that could be lie

threatening (e.g. ood poisoning)

Lie threatening without immediate risk (e.g.

carcinogenic)

Chronic/long term health risks (e.g. allergies,

obesity)

Unknown

Not believed to be a risk

At a glance:

How immediate is the risk in terms o its eect on

human, animal health or the environment?

How severe is the risk in terms o its impact on

human, animal health or the environment?

Are there dierences with respect to the

immediacy and severity o the risk as assessed

by scientic experts compared to how it may be

perceived by the public (non-experts)?

Experts Rely on risk assessment

Objective and general

Analytical argumentation

Balance risk against benets

Public

Rely more on perception o risks

Ask: What does it mean or me?

Want answers on concerns

Balance risk against dread and outrage

Dierent risk approaches



16/52


16.

III.6. Ability to control risk

This actor can have a consi derable eect onattitudes to risk and possible risk management

options including that o individual choice, all o

which are relevant when deciding on appropriate

communications. The ollowing actors have been

identiied as crucial to decision-making:

The ri sk is :

Avoidable by individual

Unavoidable by individual

Risk management action can address

Risk management action cannot address or a clear

approach is not immediately obvious/available

Risk management action not applicable/

necessary (or example, a perceived risk that is not

scientically proven)

At a glance:

Can exposure o a population to the hazard/risk be

avoided? Is exposure voluntary or involuntary?

Are certain groups within the population likely to

be exposed in dierent ways?

Can individuals take action to protect themselves

against possible exposure ( e.g. reducing ones own

dietary at intake)?

Can measures be taken by public authorities toavoid or reduce the risk?

III.5. Levels o exposureto the hazard/risk

This acto r is impo rtant or decis ion-m akin g oncommunications and the distinction between

hazard and risk is oten diicult to convey. A hazard

is not necessarily a risk i we are not exposed to it,

or not in large enough amounts or the hazard to

become a real risk.

There is also the important element o choice:

consumers, as a result o personal preerence or

awareness-raising campaigns, may choose to

determine their own level o exposure to a potential

hazard and the associated risk (e.g. the eect o salt

consumption on blood pressure). In times o economic

austerity, it is also important to recognise that

purchasing power may be an increasingly important

actor inuencing consumer choice. I we are widely

exposed, a small risk can sometimes be signicant, in

turn increasing the need or communications so that

people can i possible avoid the risk and so allowing

risk managers to take action. When communicating, it

is also important that the issue o time is addressed,

that is the length o exposure rom particular source(s).

No exposure

Limited exposure

Wide exposure

Exposure aects particular groups

Unknown exposure

At a glance:

What are the levels o consumer exposure to the

hazard?

No exposure; limited; wide; unknown; dierent or

dierent population groups?

What is the impact or possible eect o exposure

over time on human health, animal health and/or

the environment?



17/52


18/52


18.

III.8. Levels o communicationrequired

An assessment o the actors impacting on possiblecommunications approaches should inorm decision-

making about both levels and types o communications.

A simple denition o levels o communications

has been identied, to provide a basic ramework

within which to place dierent communications

approaches. The types o communications that best

suit these dierent levels (and take account o the

actors identied above) are addressed in the later

section on tools and channels. The ollowing levels o

communication have been identied (accompanying

examples are indicative only and may vary depending

on the target audience(s) in question):

Low-level public health impact/low public interest

(e.g. additives used in animal eed)

Low-level public health impact/high public

interest (e.g. substances such as GMOs or ood

colours only authorised or market ollowing risk

assessment)

Medium-level public health impact/medium

public interest (e.g. salt consumption)

High-level public health impact/low public interest

(e.g. contamination o oods with Salmonella or

Campylobacter)

High-level public health impact/high public

interest (e.g. the 2011 E.coli 0104:H4 outbreak in

Germany and France)

This is a simple classication, but it broadly identiesdierent approaches in most cases. When there is low

impact or interest, a basic commitment to transparency

and openness should still apply, or example with a risk

assessment being published.

When the impact or interest is likely to be high, wide

ranging pro-active communications initiatives would

need to be undertaken. For something between

the two, some targeted pro-active activity may be

appropriate.

The most appropriate use o resources is o particular

importance to organisations receiving public unding.

Thereore the categories Low-level impact/high

interest and High-level impact/low interest may

be areas o concern as a disproportionate amount o

resources are invested in responses to scientically

unproven popular media topics rather than public

awareness-raising initiatives on real public health

issues.

Regardless o the level o public h ealth impact and third-

party interest, it is important that the communicatoris amiliar with the scientic acts. Context needs to

be provided and the risk communicator should be in

a position to respond to layman questions in a way

that is proportionate to the level o risk e.g. Yes this is

possible but unlikely because...

At a glance:

What impact is the risk likely to have on the

audience you want to communicate with?

What level o interest is this audience likely to have

in the risk?

Is the impact o the risk proportionate to the level

o interest expressed by the intended audience?

Is the audience likely to be interested in the causes

o the risk and/or take an active role in managing

the risk (e.g. diet-related risks)?

Are they likely to want to take action themselves

to avoid exposure to the risk?



19/52

IV. Tools and channels

19. www.efsa.europa.eu/riskcomm

Tools and channelsIV

The tools that we select and the channels that we use need to be the right ones or the task at hand.

Communications objectives must rst be clear and the target audience known. With this understanding,

appropriate umbrella messages can be tailored. Then the right tools can be identied and channels can

be selected rom a menu o options. A press release does not work or every issue or every audience.

This section is not intended to be prescriptive, rather illustrative, providing an overview o possible uses

or dierent tools. National dierences should always be taken into account when tailoring messages

and considering the appropriate tools and channels.


20/52


20.

Media relations

There are many dierent types o media and risk communicators should aim to gauge interest and send press

releases only to those which are particularly interested in a given area. However, regardless o the quality o therelationship, media relations will not succeed in isolation and needs to be accompanied by a good website with

access to quality background inormation.

1

GOOD FOR

Urgent public health announcements, especially

acute health risk (press releases, press briengs,

targeting TV and radio news, interviews, etc.).

Issues o high concern and public prole (pressreleases, interviews, eatures, etc. targeting media

relevant to the issue).

Caveat The necessary resources need to be

invested in media relations during peace times

in order to ensure eectiveness o proactive work.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Other types and levels o risks including changes

in the level o risk. Take care o the possibility

that media ocus on cancer and other ear actors

even i the risk is minimal. Use media pro-actively

when there is genuine news, especially in these

scenarios.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Low risk, no action or advice needed; low interest

not news!

Institutional and process stories o interest to

other stakeholders but not the media (except incertain cases to specialised media).



21/52


21.

2Websites

GOOD FOR

Communications to a broad audience where

eedback is not a priority an indispensable part

o the communications mix.

Appropriate or all levels o risk and ensures ree

access to dierent types o inormation or all

interested parties (e.g. rom Frequently Asked

Questions to ull scientic opinions).

Particularly useul or the publication o time-

sensitive content that may need to be edited/modied on a regular basis.

Allows or the easy addition o supplementary

inormation.

Allows or links to other relevant players.

Puts inormation in the right context.

Further outreach through digital eeds.

Publication o electronic documents such as pd,

Word, etc. (as long as they are accompanied by

explanatory web texts).

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Engaging with the audience and receiving

eedback unless accompanied by special

applications that allow users to provide specic

eedback to very specic questions (e.g. online

public consultations).



22/52


22.

Printed publications

3GOOD FOR

Reaching specic target audiences with tailored

messages (newsletters, periodicals, leaets),

through managed mailing lists, distribution at

conerences etc.

Important key documents, reecting the nancial

resources associated with the print, production

and distribution (strategies, annual reports,

compendia o scientic data).

Content that is not time-bound or likely to requiresignicant changes over time.

Useul in countries/or stakeholder groups who

may have limited internet access.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Special inserts, alerting readers to online content

when relevant.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

High risk, urgent public health announcements

due to the time associated with printing and

production.



23/52


23.

Digital publications

4GOOD FOR

Reaching specic target audiences with tailored

messages (newsletters, periodicals, leaets) via

managed mailing lists, distribution at conerences,

etc.

Content that is time-bound as the costs o updates

are lower than print publications.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Attracting attention using eye-catching layout to

increase readership o important messages.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Important key documents taking into account

the nancial resources associated with the print,

production and distribution (strategies, annual

reports, compendia o scientic data).



24/52


24.

Public consultations

6GOOD FOR

Receiving dierent perspectives on potentially

controversial or complex issues where eedback

will be considered and used to shape the nal

output.

Testing messages with dierent audiences.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Facilitating dialogue between dierent stakeholders.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Requesting eedback when there is no intention to

include it in the nal output.


Meetings and workshops

5GOOD FOR

Engaging with key target audiences on sensitive

issues where debate and inormed decisions are

required.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Inormation sharing/explaining why certain

decisions have been made.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Reaching large numbers o people across a wide

geographical area, though this can be overcome

at a nancial cost by webcasting.

Short-term announcements due to logistical/

organisational constraints.


25/52


25.

Partner/stakeholder networks

7GOOD FOR

Listening to dierent perspectives.

Getting a better understanding o the environment

in which the organisation operates.

Relationship building and engaging in dialogue

with key organisations interested in the European

ood saety supply chain.

Gaining input to help shape an organisations

direction/priorities/work programme.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Inorming stakeholders o current activities.

Forward dissemination o key messages through

stakeholders own communication tools and

channels.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Engagement when views/contributions will not

be considered in relation to a nal output.



26/52


26.www.esa.europa.eu/riskcomm

Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.)

8GOOD FOR

Rapidly inorming and engaging with interested

parties.

Simple, narrow messages that need to reach a

broad range o consumers.

Can be very eective due to online community

discussions to use as a catalyst or behavioural

change.

Can support outreach to new audiences.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Inormal engagement with consumers.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Duplicating organisations website content.

Sensitive subjects i resources cannot be ound to

manage community discussions and needs.


27/52


27.

Blogging

9GOOD FOR

Inorming and engaging with interested parties

about all types o risks.

Sharing reective, opinion pieces that provide

situational overviews.

Sending messages that remain pertinent over

time (archives will be accessed unlike in Micro-

blogging sites).

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Rapid dissemination o news.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

One-way communications - communicators must

be prepared and have the resources to engage,

explain and answer questions that may arise.


Microblogging (Twitter)10

GOOD FOR

Sending ast, topic-related alerts (maximum 140

characters) to interested subscribers.

Driving subscribers to online content where there

is more inormation and greater context.

Enabling dissemination o the original message

as accurately as possible, given the ease oorwarding unction.

SOMETIMES GOOD FOR

Inorming subscribers about latest news, updates,

publications, etc.

Engaging with interested parties to a limited

extent.

Testing concepts with loyal ollowers.

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

Obtaining in-depth user eedback. Characters

are limited and these online ora do not ocus on

dialogue.




28/52

Learning rom experienceV

In this section, communicators rom EFSA and Member State representatives rom its Advisory Forum

Communications Working Group share their experience and lessons learned, exempliying how dierent

tools and channels have been put to eective use or dierent purposes. The case histories provide

a valuable insight into how key organisations managed the communication aspects o signicant

issues that have aected the European ood supply chain in recent years. These guidelines are a living

document and the case studies will be regularly updated to reect developments and capture best

practices in the eld.


29/52

V. Learning from experience

29.

EFSAs Risk

Assessment onAnimal CloningJuly 2008

Background inormation

Animal cloning reers to the production o an animal

that is essentially a copy o the original. This most

commonly involves a technique known as som atic cell

nucleus transer (SCNT). A genetic copy o an animal is

produced by replacing the nucleus o an unertilised

ovum (egg cell) with the nucleus o a body (somatic)

cell rom the animal to orm an embryo. The embryo

is then transerred to a surrogate emale animal where

it develops until birth. Plants have been produced

or many years using these cloning techniques. They

have also been practiced on a larger commercial scale

or some time in the production o some ruit and

vegetables, or example bananas.

Animal cloning techniques are being used in a number

o non-EU countries and several ood saety authorities

have issued scientic advice on this issue.

Following public consultation, in July 2008, EFSA

adopted a scientic opinion on the implications o

animal cloning on ood saety, animal health and

welare and the environment. Subsequently, in 2009,

2010 and 2012, EFSA has adopted statements that

conrmed the conclusions and recommendations in

the 2008 opinion. The opinion and both statementsollowed requests rom the European Commission or

advice on this issue.



30/52


30.

Factors to take ito accot Cocsios Coets

Level o risk High or animals

Food saety concerns considered unlikely

Uncertainties remain

High risk at the moment or animals although could decrease as technology

improves.

Level o communications

required

Low level public health impact/high public

interest

How people/animals

are afected

Animals acute and lie-threatening eects on

mothers and ospring

People ood saety concerns unlikely

Big risk o animal health and welare issues possible, e.g. birth o large ospring.

Eposure to the hazard Limited or no exposure The technology is not yet widely in use in Europe so limited impact on animals

and has not entered the oodchain; no eect on humans yet.

Ability to control

the risk

Can be addressed by risk management action Uncertainty in some areas or risk management around identiying and tracing

ospring rom cloned animals (2nd generation) in ood chain.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

Articially created although not yet widely used

Who is afected Animals

None/ew people currently

Other actors relating to

risk perception

Subject o diverging/strong political & stake-

holder opinion; o public concern

Traceability issues

Big public and stakeholder debates on ethics.



31/52


31.

Discussion

A high level o pro-active work was required. Issue

with high prole, strong stakeholder opinion, emotive

issues, signicant uncertainties. Also linked to issues

outside EFSAs remit that could lead to conusion

without proactive communications to explain roles

and process; not just a content issue.

This approach was positivey perceived. Iportaty

or EFSA, there was a broad derstadig o its roe

ad the act that the Athority was ot resposibe

or ethica or societa isses or risk aageetdecisios.

I spport o coicatig the paraeters o its

reit, it was particary hep that i additio to

seekig scietic advice ro EFSA, the Eropea

Coissio sitaeosy soght advice ro the

Eropea Grop o Ethics. Costatio geiey

heped shape thikig ad sa bt iportat

diereces ade betwee the drat ad aopiio (e.g. arod certaities) were very we

received. Beig prot ad visibe (deig EFSAs

roe, costatio, stakehoder egageet) o

sch a high proe ad sesitive isse ike this paid

divideds.

OuTCOmES & lESSOnS lEARnT

Conclusions on level o communications

High level o proactive communications required

targeting a broad audience o specialists and

laypersons.

Conclusions on appropriate communications,

tools & channels

High level o media engagement including a media

brieng on the EFSA opinion; wide stakeholder

dialogue as part o a major public consultation

initiative.



32/52


32.

EFSAs thematic

communicationapproach to ood-

borne zoonotic

diseases


Zoonoses are inections or diseases that can be

transmitted directly or indirectly between animals and

humans. Food-borne zoonotic diseases are caused

by consuming ood or drinking water contaminated

by pathogenic micro-organisms such as bacteria,

bacterial toxins and parasites. The severity o these

diseases in humans varies rom mild symptoms to lie-

threatening conditions. The risks o contamination are

present rom arm to ork and require prevention and

control throughout the ood chain.

Food-borne zoonoses are a signicant and widespread

public health threat. More than 320,000 human cases

are conrmed in the European Union each year, but thereal number is likely to be much higher. A coordinated

approach by all EU actors on zoonotic diseases has

helped reduce human cases o Salmonella by almost

one-hal in the EU over ve years (2004-2009). EFSA

helps to protect consumers rom this public health

threat by providing independent scientic support

and advice on the human health and ood saety-

related aspects o these diseases, and by monitoring

progress in the EU.

In line with EFSAs communications strategy, zoonotic

diseases were selected as one o the key thematic

areas or communication. A long-term communication

plan was developed or coming years identiying key

ocus areas in oder to raise awareness ( Salmonella

and antimicrobial resistance), identiying key internal

and external milestones and relevant communication

channels or target audiences. Based on the plan,

several activities were undertaken: a comprehensive

package o zoonoses-related inormation was

developed or the EFSA website providing general

inormation o the diseases and bringing together all

key outputs, act sheets were produced or selected

areas to be used at key events and distributed tostakeholders, and media activities were ocused on key

outputs. Short online videos explaining these diseases

will also be produced at a later stage and additional

communications activities are being considered.



33/52


33.


Level o risk High level risk or humans dependent upon type o zoonose and

population group

Annually, over 190,000 cases o campylobacteriosis and

over 100,000 cases o salmonellosis in humans are reported,although the actual number is believed to be much higher.

Some pathogens, although less requently reported, can

have serious health eects especially or vulnerable groups

(e.g. Listeria has a higher mortality rate amongst older

population groups).


required

High level public health im pact/low public interest. With the exception o crisis situations (such as the 2011 E. colicrisis in Europe),

generally consumers do not eel overly concerned by bacterial contamination o oods and there is relatively little/low stakeholder

interest.

How peope/aias

are aected

People can be aected by consuming contaminated oodstus. Sae handling o raw meat and other raw ood ingredients,

thorough cooking and good kitchen hygiene can prevent or

reduce the risk posed by these micro-organisms.

Eposure to the hazard Relatively wide exposure through dierent oodstus Dierent oodstus can be contaminated with pathogenic

micro-organisms, such as eggs, raw meat and vegetables.

Ability to control

the risk

An integrated approach by risk managers and risk assessors required

to control the risks and monitor progress.

Controlling the risk requires reducing the presence o

pathogenic bacteria in ood-producing animals and derived

products, as well as educating consumers on the sae

handling o ood.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

Pathogenic bacteria, bacterial toxins, parasites Many o the micro-organisms are commonly ound in the

intestines o healthy ood-producing animals.

Who is afected

EU consumers; animals


risk perception

The impact o zoonotic diseases is not well known in EU and

consumers are more concerned about chemical hazards than

biological hazards.

With the exception o large ood-borne outbreaks, zoonotic

diseases and EU actions to combat them tend to receive less

media coverage than many other ood saety issues.



34/52


34.

Discussion

Achieving a comprehensive communication approach

or zoonotic diseases required thorough long-term

planning, including identiying key external issues

and events in the eld. A high level o pro-active

work was required to produce general inormation

providing urther context suitable or all audiences.

Media activities were ocused on key 2011 scientic

outputs based on key milestones identied during the

planning phase.


The risk o ood-borne zoonotic diseases is an

important public health threat but public interest is

quite low compared to other more high-prole issues.

The overall economic burden o zoonotic diseases in

the EU is signicant (e.g. as high as EUR 3 billion a year

or human salmonellosis). For these reasons, proactive

production o communication materials targeted at

laypersons was considered appropriate in addition

to continued media activities on selected scientic

outputs mainly targeted at specialist journalists.


tools & channels

A wide range o dierent communications tools and

channels were needed or a comprehensive thematic

approach. Online communication activities and act

sheets were selected as tools suitable or providing

general inormation to all audiences. Media activities

were considered or specic issues, particularly

targeted at specialist audiences. New communications

tools will also support the approach, such as online

videos.

EFSAs theatic coicatio approach o ood-

bore zoootic diseases is sti beig deveoped ad

the otcoes wi be thoroghy assessed i the

coig years. As a key payer i Erope i hepig

to cobat ood-bore zoootic diseases, the

Athority is i a idea positio to provide meberStates ad other stakehoders ad iterested parties

with vaabe pbic heath ioratio abot the

risk posed by zoootic diseases. I particar, the

coprehesive package o geera ioratio

pbished o EFSAs website ad the act sheets ad

videos have bee positivey received. Frtherore,

withi the orgaisatio, the ioratio provides

coprehesive reerece aterias to be sed

by dieret its or dieret prposes (e.g. i

respodig to extera qeries, at evets).

I the ear tre, the ai o this coprehesiveapproach is to bid awareess aog a EFSAs

target adieces o this pbic heath threat, o

EFSAs roe i cobatig it aog with other Eu

actors ad o the progress achieved to date.




35/52


36/52


36.


Level o risk High or those who habitually consume high

levels o salt.

Following a comprehensive risk assessment on salt and associated health

outcomes the independent Scientic Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2003)conrmed that the population as a whole would benet rom reducing their

intake to a maximum o 6g per day. A lower recommended maximum level was

set or children under 11 years old.


required

Medium level public health impact/medium

public interest

How peope/aias

are aected

Chronic risk Eating too much salt can raise your blood pressure, which triples your risk o

developing heart disease or stroke. Reducing the daily UK salt intake to 6 g could

prevent an average o 20,200 premature deaths a year.

Eposure to the hazard Wide exposure Approximately 75% o salt

consumed is rom processed ood, 10-15% isadded by consumers and 10-15% is naturally

present in ood.

When the campaign began, adults were consuming on average 9.5 grams o salt

per day.

Ability to control

the risk

Requires consistent eort to control risk.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

Salt is naturally present at low levels in most

ood. It is also present in processed oods and is

added to ood by consumers themselves.

Salt is a very amiliar product and many people may not be aware o the level o

risk associated with high consumption.

Who is afected Due to the presence o salt in most oods

everyone is exposed to salt on a daily basis.

The whole population could potentially be at risk rom a high salt intake.


risk perception

Salt is o low public concern and yet the risk is

real. This low level o concern partly stems rom

salts amiliarity.

Salt is important or taste o oods obstacle to behavioural change.



37/52


37.

Discussion

A high-level o proactive work was required. In order

to build support or the campaign, it was necessary to

engage with a wide range o stakeholders including

key industry organisations, charities and other non-

governmental organisations. All sectors o the ood

industry retailers, manuacturers, trade associations,

caterers and suppliers to the catering industry

supported the salt awareness message, responding

positively to calls to reduce salt in oods and continue

to be engaged in this programme.


The risk posed by salt could have a high level impact

on peoples lives and yet interest is quite low. It poses

a signicant risk to the whole population but it is a risk

that only has eects over a long timescale. For these

reasons a wide-ranging, proactive communications

initiative, executed in a number o stages and involving

a wide range o stakeholders seemed appropriate.


tools & channels

The communications initiative ocused on women

aged 35-65. Although men are more likely to suer

rom heart disease and stroke, women continue to be

the gatekeepers with regard to buying and preparing

ood in amily households in the UK. A range o media

were used to deliver the messages, including TV

advertising, posters, articles in the womens press and

national newspapers as well as news coverage.

In addition to online consumer-ocused inormation,

all phases o the campaign produced material or

consumers such as leaets and credit-card-sized

prompts to help increase awareness o the issues andthe actions that can be taken to reduce salt intake.

Work was also undertaken by a range o stakeholders

both in the ood industry and non-governmental

organisations to get the campaign messages across

to hard-to-reach groups. For example, in addition

to routinely communicating Agency salt reduction

messages to local authorities, public health and ood

partners through targeted e-bulletins and publications,

the teams worked with a number o regional partners

on specic local projects to increase awareness o theeect o salt on health and to reduce salt consumption.

Specic riary aaysis codcted ater the

third phase o the capaig, showed that adts

cosed o average 8.6g o sat i copariso

with 9.5g beore the capaig bega. I additio

evaatio o the capaig, throgh oitorig

chages i cosers caied behavior, sggested

that beore the start o Phase 4:

the ber o cosers cttig dow o sat

had icreased by arod oe-third

there had bee a 10-od icrease i awareess o

the 6g a day essage

the ber o cosers tryig to ct dow o

sat by checkig abes had dobed.




38/52


38.

University o

Southamptonresearch looking

at the eect on

children o certain

artifcial coloursFood Standards Agency (FSA), the United

Kingdom (September 2007 to April 2008)


In 2006 the FSA unded a study, undertaken by the

University o Southampton, investigating the eects o

articial ood colour additives on child behaviour. The

results o the study, published on 6 September 2007,

ound evidence or a link between six articial ood

colours and the preservative sodium benzoate and

increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old

children in the general population. The six colours in

question were Sunset Yellow (E110), Tartrazine (E102),

Carmoisine (E122), Ponceau 4R (E124), Quinoline

Yellow (E104) and Allura Red (E129).



39/52


39.


Level o risk Low The level o risk was considered to be low as only a small

number o the children tested experienced the hyperactivitylinked to the ar ticial colours concerned.

Uncertainty regarding a cause and eect relationship.


required

High level impact/high interest

How people/animals

are afected

Possible acute risk. According to the study, consumption o mixes o

certain articial ood colours and the preservative sodium benzoate

have been linked to increased hyperactivity in some children.

Eposure to the hazard Wide exposure At the time these particular articial colours were used in

a wide range o oods that tend to be brightly coloured,

including some sot drinks, sweets, cakes and ice cream,thereore children were ubiquitously exposed to this hazard.

Ability to control

the risk

By law, ood additives must be listed on the ingredients label so

people can make the choice to avoid the product i they want to.

However, it is unlikely that both children and parents can, and

would, scan the label o every item bought in order to control this

risk. Furthermore, it is suggested that people do not see the label on

about hal o the ood and drink they consume.

Without the steps taken by industry to reduce levels in

processed oods, individuals would not be able to completely

avoid the potential risk posed by these additives.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

Food colourings are intentionally added to a wide range o products

to make them more attractive and sodium benzoate is used as a

preservative.

Who is afected Children, more specically a subpopulation o individuals who aresensitive to ood additives in general or to ood colours in particular.

Children showing signs o hyperactivity or those withattention decit hyperactivity disorder may be most at risk .


risk perception

Articial colours are perceived by some to be unnecessary

and potentially damaging to health. In the days ollowing the

publication o the Southampton study in September 2007 the

Daily Mail launched a campaign to have these colourings banned

in Britain.

A alse comparison was later made between the colourings

and leaded petrol with newspaper headlines such as

Articial colourings as harmul as leaded petrol or children.

These additional actors heightened the publics perception o

the risk posed by these additives.



40/52


40.

Discussion

A high level o planning was required beore publication

o the study in order to be prepared or the reactions o

NGOs, industry and other stakeholders. Initial Agency

response was cautious as no causal link between

consuming products containing these colours and

hyperactivity had been established. Agency advice

concentrated on what practical help could be given to

parents to avoid oods containing these colours i they

wished to do so.

Subsequent discussion by the Board and a review o

the study by EFSA led the FSA to advise UK Ministers

that there should be a voluntary ban on theseparticular colours, to be implemented by the end o

2009. Dame Deirdre Hutton, FSA Chair at the time,

said: It is the Agencys duty to put consumers rst.

These additives give colour to oods but nothing

else. It would thereore be sensible, in the light o the

ndings o the Southampton study, to remove them

rom ood and drink products. UK industry has already

taken great strides to remove these colours rom ood;

this decision builds on the work already done and will

encourage industry to continue down this path.


Meetings and Q&As with stakeholders and other

interested parties were scheduled or the days

ollowing the publication o the study. Because not

all children may show an increase in hyperactive

behaviour rom certain sets o additives the Agency

decided, in the rst instance, to target advice at

parents o children showing signs o hyperactivity.

This was later broadened to include a wider range o

consumers who, although not immediately concerned

about these colours and childrens hyperactivity, might

be reassured by the steps being taken by the Agency

and the ood industry to remove them.

Conclusions on appropriate communications, tools

& channels

The Agency set up a dedicated page on its website to

provide inormation about what action industry was

taking, together with details o company websites and

consumer care-line numbers. Inormation was also

provided on the Agencys Eat well website to help

consumers better understand E numbers.

The Agency continues to publish on its website

updated lists o caterers, restaurants, manuacturers,

retailers and product lines that were ree rom the six

colours identied in the Southampton study.

Iediatey ater pbicatio o the

Sothapto stdy the Agecy cod have

taked ore abot how it was ecoragig the

ood idstry to give parets ore ioratio

sooer to hep the ake choices.

I additio the Agecy ay ot have bee cear

eogh abot why a iediate ba wast

the aswer, priariy becase there was o

overridig pbic heath risk.

Accordig to Regatio (EC) no 1333/2008,

which cae ito eect i Jy 2010, the se i

ood prodcts o oe or ore o the six coors

cited i the Sothapto stdy reqires the

icsio o a adatory heath warig o theabe idicatig the possibe ik to hyperactivity

i soe chidre.




41/52


41.

Q-ever in the

Netherlands:Openness and

transparency2009


Q-ever was one o the main topics in the Dutch media

at the end o 2009. There was public concern over the

increasing number o inected people. The Ministry

o Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) was

responsible or the Q-ever policy (in cooperation with

the Dutch Ministry o Health, Welare and Sport). It was

a very emotive subject rom an animal welare point o

view as thousands o pregnant goats had to be culled.

The culling had to be implemented by the Dutch Food

and Consumer Product Saety Authority (VWA).

Q-ever is an inectious disease which can be

transmitted rom animals to humans. In the

Netherlands, inected dairy goats and dairy sheep arethe main source o the illness among humans. Most

people become ill by breathing in air contaminated

with the bacterium known to cause Q-ever. This

bacterium is most commonly ound in the air during

the lambing season (sheep)/kidding season (goats).

It can also be present in raw milk, manure and urine.

However, the bacterium is not ound in goat or sheep

meat. Other animals (e.g. cows and household pets)

can be inected and can transmit the inection to

humans. This has rarely happened in the Netherlands.

In an open environment, the bacterium can still pose a

contamination threat or a period o months to years.

The disease is very rarely transmitted rom human to

human. More than hal o people with Q-ever develop

virtually no symptoms. Those who do have symptoms

generally experience ever and severe headaches.

Other symptoms include coughing, painul muscles,

painul joints, chills, night sweats, listlessness and

atigue.

Serious cases can involve pneumonia accompanied

by a dry cough and chest pain. Some people inected

with Q-ever develop hepatitis. Men develop Q-ever

more requently than women and smokers more o ten

than non-smokers. Many people who have had Q-ever

experience atigue or an extended period ater theirrecovery.



42/52


42.


Level o risk Low with increased risk or those who are regularly in

contact with sheep and goats

Human to human transmission is very rare.


required

High level impact/high interest in aected regions

How people/animals

are afected

Most people catch Q-ever by breathing in air

contaminated with the bacterium known to cause

Q-ever. This bacterium is most commonly ound in the

air during the lambing season (sheep)/kidding season

(goats). It can also be present in raw milk, manure and

urine.

The bacterium is not ound in goat or sheep meat. Other animals (e.g.

cows and household pets) can be inected and can transmit the inection

to humans who are in contact with these animals.

Eposure to the hazard Moderate. Only people who have contact with animals

on a regular basis.

In the Netherlands, inected dairy goats and dairy sheep are the main

source o illness among humans.

Ability to control

the risk

Low Several risk management measures were taken in 2008 and additional

measures were introduced in 2009 including compulsory vaccination or

high-risk goat and sheep arms and culling o pregnant goats.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

Bacterium known to cause Q-ever

Who is afected People working or having direct contact with animals More than hal o people with Q -ever develop virtually no symptoms.

Those who do have symptoms generally experience ever (persistent

ever) and severe headaches. Other symptoms include coughing, painul

muscles, painul joints, chills, night sweats, listlessness and atigue.

Serious cases can involve pneumonia accompanied by a dry cough and

chest pain. Some people inected with Q-ever develop hepatitis. Men

develop Q-ever more requently than women and smokers more oten

than non-smokers. Many people who have had Q-ever still experience

atigue or an extended period ater they recover.


risk perception

The risk management measure was to cull 35,000

pregnant goats.

This decision was taken by competent authorities in the Netherlands and

supported by open and transparent communications.



43/52


43.

Discussion

There was increasing concern about animal welare in

the Netherlands and the government was aware o this.

As the amniotic uid and placenta o inected pregnant

animals in particular can contain large quantities

o the bacterium, the decision was taken to kill the

pregnant goats on inected arms. However, this had

to be done in a respectul and ethical way to reect the

concerns about animal welare. The animals thereore

rst received a sedative injection, ollowed by a lethal

injection while they were sleeping. The veterinarians

were brieed and care was taken to devote attention

to the eelings o aected armers. One such event was

lmed by one camera crew and the ootage was sharedwith all o the television stations and key media.

The aim was to show the governments concern or

animal welare and distress suered by goat armers.

The key communication message was: It is very sad but

to protect human health it is necessary.


Due to the enormous media attention on Q-ever and

concern about animal welare the decision was taken

to show the rst cull openly and transparently on 21

December 2009. Prior to this date the addresses o the

inected goat arms were published and residents in

the vicinity o an inected arm were inormed.


tools & channels

The media coverage was huge: all the main radio and

TV news channels reported the story on the same

day. The next day all national and local newspapers

did the same. The Dutch Agency, was pleased with

the tone, images, pictures and content o the news.

The communications had a high impact and was very

emotive but also respectul and honest. It represented

the original intention o openness and transparency.

The communication strategy and the implementation

generated a positive result both internally and

externally. The more open approach was a stimulus

or the veterinarians and all others involved in this

emotive operation. It also showed understanding orthe armers with inected goats.

A newspaper article (Dagblad Pers) stated that the

Ministry o Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has

learned rom negative exposure o the ormer swine

ever and Foot and Mouth disease crisis.

http://os./artike/124250-eerste-geite-gerid-

op-brabatse-qkoortsbedrijve.ht

News o the Dutch national broadcast organization:

NOS (21 December 2009)

The good cooperatio betwee VWA ad the

Dtch miistry o Agrictre, natre ad

Food Qaity was paraot to accopish

this otcoe i sch a short tierae.

There were jst a ew days betwee the

aoceet o the easres ad the start

o this operatio.

It takes corage to ipeet opeess.

The edia derstad that they caot have

excsive rights whe there are good reasos.

They wi cooperate.

Yo ca oy ipeet sch a orchestrated

ad restricted press approach or very rare

ad specia occasios. Otherwise it wi be

perceived as iitatio o press reedo.

(Soe criticis o Dtch associatio o chie

editors ad a poitica party.)

Opeess ad trasparecy stiate the

iterest o joraists.


http://nos.nl/artikel/124250-eerste-geiten-geruimd-op-brabantse-qkoortsbedrijven.htmlhttp://nos.nl/artikel/124250-eerste-geiten-geruimd-op-brabantse-qkoortsbedrijven.htmlhttp://nos.nl/artikel/124250-eerste-geiten-geruimd-op-brabantse-qkoortsbedrijven.htmlhttp://nos.nl/artikel/124250-eerste-geiten-geruimd-op-brabantse-qkoortsbedrijven.html


44/52


44.

Case history on

ood supplementsin Sweden


On 25 February 2009, the Medical Products Agency

o Sweden issued a warning against the herb-based

dietary supplement Fortodol. Following inormation

about our cases o liver damage among Swedish

patients who had taken Fortodol, the Agency posted

inormation on the homepage o its website. In one

o the cases, the patient developed acute liver ailure

and died. The Norwegian Medical Products Agency

also had inormation about ve cases o liver damage,

and one death, with possible association relating to

Fortodol intake.

Food supplements are preparations intended to

provide nutrients, such as vitamins, minerals, ber,atty acids or amino acids, which are missing or are not

consumed in sufcient quantity in a persons diet.

The Directive 20 02/46/EC o the European Parliament

and Council and its modications on the approximation

o the laws o EU Member States relating to ood

supplements establishes harmonised rules or the

labelling o ood supplements and introduces specic

rules on vitamins and minerals in ood supplements.

The aim is to harmonise the legislation and to ensure

that these products are sae and appropriately labelled

so that consumers can make inormed choices.

Despite this aim, more than 250 notications on ood

supplements have been listed in the database o the

Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed o the European

Union since 1996.



45/52


45.


Level o risk Unknown not able to quantiy as consumption data are not available The global distribution via the e-market is difcult

to control, products are hard to trace and towithdraw at national level. Another challenge was

the distribution o the product under dierent brand

names.


required

Medium level impact/medium interest

How people/animals

are afected

Liver damage, symptoms e.g. poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal

pain, dark urine, yellow skin, one death

Eposure to the hazard Unknown no consumption data available

Ability to control

the risk

Limited public advised not to purchase or use this ood supplement General messages: Consumers should be careul

when buying ood/ood supplements online.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

Unauthorised substance. Analyses o the product (that had been processed

in Mexico, with raw material likely coming rom India, packaged in the USA),

revealed that two o nine analysed batches contained the drug substance

nimesulide (not listed among the ingredients) which is suspected to have

caused the severe public health repercussions.

The mentioned case illustrates that some

preparations distributed on the market may contain

substances that have adverse health eects. The

risk rom such products is hard to assess, since no

consumption data are available.

Who is afected People consuming the ood supplement Fortodol, which has been on sale

on the internet and in health ood shops and is claimed to relieve arthritis

and muscle pains as well as headaches.


risk perception

This ood supplement was available in health ood shops and thereore was

associated with well-being.



46/52


46.

Discussion

The case illustrates that some preparations distributed

on the market may contain substances that have

adverse health eects. The risk o such products is hard

to assess, since no consumption data are available.

Food supplements which may be contaminated,

illegally marketed or contain unauthorised substances

or novel ood ingredients can aect many consumers.

The global distribution via the internet is difcult to

control, making it difcult to trace back products or

to withdraw them at national level. Another challenge

was the distribution o the product sold under dierent

brand names. Despite this, there was little media

interest in the topic.


Many EU countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark,

Finland, UK, Republic o Ireland, Portugal, Spain) took

action to withdraw the product sold under other brand

names containing the substance also as Donsbach

Miradin, Lepicol Miradin, Leppin Miradin and Miradin

rom their markets.

As the product was sold via the internet, many other

countries were also aected.


tools & channels

No inormation about panic among consumers. Media

inquiries were low.

The key messages communicated were as ollows:

Not to purchase or use this ood supplement;

Not to purchase it over the internet;

This is a product which has been launched as a

ood supplement not as a medicinal product,

which implies a risk that people use it or longer

periods o time;

Those who suer rom symptoms such as poor

appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dark

urine, yellow skin, etc. should seek a liver check-up.

General messages: Consumers should be careul when

buying ood/ood supplements online.

These communications were shared via online

communication channels and the media.

Stregths: Co-operatio betwee meber States

via RASFF ad e-ai.

Opportities: History o ow edia iterest i

sbject area gave space or broader expaatio

throgh oie edia chaes.

Weakesses: Sow reactio betwee oticatio

ad prodct withdrawa.

Threats: Ifece o the goba e-arket at

atioa eve coped with the pro-ood-

sppeet iestye treds.




47/52


47.

Case Study Irish

Dioxin CrisisFood Saety Authority o Ireland (FSAI), 2008


Dioxins are a group o persistent toxic chemicals

which are by-products o industrial combustion

and chemical processes. They are highly resistant to

breakdown and thereore persist in the environment.

Up to 90% o human exposure to dioxins results rom

the consumption o ood containing dioxins, mainly

oodstus o animal origin with a high at content,

since these contaminants accumulate in atty tissues.

Foodstus in which dioxins can occur include meat,

sh, eggs and milk.

The crisis began with the discovery, during routine

monitoring, o the presence o marker PCBs (indicative

o possible dioxin contamination) in pork at. Further

analysis conrmed on 6 December 2008 that dioxins

were present in the samples. It was estimated that

approximately 10% o pigmeat rom the Republic o

Ireland was aected by the contamination. However,

general traceability issues in the ood chain augm ented

by the act that all Irish pigs are slaughtered and

processed in a small number o processing plants

made it impossible to distinguish between potentially

contaminated and non-contaminated products.

Consequently, as a precautionary measure and in the

interest o protecting public health, all pork products

manuactured rom pigs slaughtered in Ireland

between 1 September and 6 December were recalled.



48/52


48.


Level o risk Low consumers The risk to public health was low, due to the recall and because o the limited

exposure over a three month period that did not contribute signicantly to thebody burden o consumers.


required

High level impact/high interest

How peope/aias

are aected

Dioxins are toxic chemicals that can aect the

skin, immune system and are known to be

carcinogenic.

No immediate health eect, but can contribute to the body burden.

Eposure to the hazard Very limited exposure Level o exposure limited to between 1 September and 6 December 2008.

Ability to controlthe risk

Risk management decision to recall all Irish porkand pork products addressed this

Implicated products removed rom trade and uncontaminated pork productsback on the market within six days.

Nature o hazard

(e.g. substance)

All Irish pork and pork products

Who is afected All consumers o Irish pork and pork products


risk perception

Consumers advised not to be unduly concerned

about the health risks. This led some consumers

to question why the recall took place.



49/52


49.

Discussion

During the crisis, the story moved rom one about

consumer protection, through to one about consumer

rights, to the damage to the industry and desire or

compensation, to the return o Irish pork products

back to the market. As with many stories o this

scale, numerous voices, with a corresponding level o

opinions, entered the media debate. Within this heated

and cluttered space, the FSAI continued to keep its

message clear. Consumers were advised that they

should not be unduly concerned about health risks,

but that dioxins cannot be permitted in th e ood chain.


The specic communications objective was to inorm

consumers o the risks as appropriate. In addition, the

recommendations to government were that dioxins

should not enter the ood chain and that whilst there

was little or no immediate health risk to people who

might have consumed contaminated pork over

the dened 1 September to 6 December period, it

was nonetheless not tolerable to continue to allow

people to be exposed to dioxins in ood. This was

the underlying message at all times rom the FSAI. In

addition, sub-messages were dened, including:

The FSAI is instructing retailers and manuacturers

to remove implicated products rom the shelves

immediately. It is also reminding industry o its legal

obligation to do so;

Consumers are advised to check i they have these

products in their home. I they have them they

should not eat them. They should be thrown out

or taken back to the retailer;

The FSAI will continue to act switly to have

aected products removed rom the ood chain

in the interest o protecting consumer health and

consumer interests;

Inormation is available rom th

Documents

Risk Comm Guidelines