Technical assistance in the field of risk communication

EFSA Scientific Committee, More SJ, Benford D, Hougaard Bennekou S, Bampidis V, Bragard C, Halldorsson TI, Hernández‐Jerez AF, Koutsoumanis K, Lambré C, Machera K, Mullins E, Nielsen SS, Schlatter J, Schrenk D, Turck D, Naska A, Poulsen M, Ranta J, Sand S, Wallace H, Bastaki M, Liem D, Smith A, Ververis E, Zamariola G, Younes M. Guidance on risk-benefit assessment of foods

The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose-response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value-based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk-benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice.

Vaccine Refusal and Hesitancy among Iranians Participated in the National COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Survey: A Qualitative Study

Background

Success in COVID-19 vaccination depends on understanding why people refuse or hesitate to take the vaccine. This study aims to explore vaccine refusal and hesitancy among Iranians who participated in the national COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy survey.

Methods

A qualitative content analysis approach was used. Twenty-six participants were selected by purposive sampling. In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted during the year 2022. A directed content analysis approach was used for analyzing the data by extracting the codes, subcategories, and categories.

Results

Four major categories and their respective subcategories related to refusal and/ or hesitancy against COVID-19 vaccination emerged: "lack of confidence" (distrust in policymakers and pharmaceutical companies, distrust in national media, belief in conspiracy theory, and lack of confidence in the vaccine's safety and effectiveness), "complacency" (Fatalism and philosophical beliefs, low perceived risk, and belief in the adequacy of the precautionary principles), "constrains" (personal and psychological barriers), and "coercion" (coercion by relatives and unsteady imposed mandatory vaccination by the government).

Conclusion

Distrust, fatalism, low perceived risk, and overconfidence in traditional Persian medicine were important barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability needing a variety of measures for improving COVID-19 vaccine uptake, including enhancing public trust in government and policymakers, clarifying vaccine safety and effectiveness, dealing with religious fatalism, and regulating anti-science messages on social media.

A model framework to communicate the risks associated with aflatoxins

Risk communication is defined as the interactive exchange of information and opinions concerning risk, risk-related factors and risk perceptions amongst all the stakeholders of food safety throughout the risk analysis process. The interactive exchange of information occurs at three different levels i.e. informed level, dialogue level and engagement level. For an effective food safety risk communication (FSRC), it is important that the information should adhere to the core principles of risk communication which are transparency, openness, responsiveness and timeliness. Communication of a food safety risk within all the components of risk communication strategy constitutes a complex network of information flow that can be better understood with the help of a framework. Therefore, a model framework to communicate the risks associated with aflatoxins (AFs) dietary intake has been developed with the aim of (a) creating general awareness amongst public and (b) involving industry stakeholders in the prevention and control of risk. The framework has been motivated by the learnings and best practices outlined in the identified technical guidance documents for risk communication. Risk assessors, risk managers, industry stakeholders and general public have been identified as the major stakeholders for the present framework. Amongst them, industry stakeholders and general public has been selected as the major target audience for risk managers. Moreover, population residing in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) has been identified as the main target group to reach.

Food Risk Analysis: Towards a Better Understanding of "Hazard" and "Risk" in EU Food Legislation

For risk communication, it is important to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk". Definitions can be found in Codex Alimentarius and the European Union (EU) General Food Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. The use of these terms as synonyms or their interchange is a recurrent issue in the area of food safety, despite awareness-raising messages sent by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and other interested entities. A quick screening of the EU's food regulations revealed several inconsistencies. Hence, it was considered necessary to further investigate if regulations could act as a source for this problem. A software tool was developed to support the detection and listing of inconsistent translations of "hazard" and "risk" in certain EU food regulations. Subsequently, native-speaking experts working in food safety from each EU country were asked to provide their individual scientific opinion on the prepared list. All data were statistically analysed after applying numerical scores (1-5) describing different levels of consistency. Results showed that the most common problem was the interchange of "hazard" with "risk" and vice versa. This lack of consistency can create confusion that can further translate into misjudgments at food risk assessment and communication levels.

Theoretical and practical aspects of risk communication in food safety: A review study

Currently, food safety hazards have introduced as one of the most important threats to public health worldwide. Considering numerous crises in the field of food safety at global, regional, and national levels, and their impact on the physical and mental health of consumers, it is very vital to evaluate risk communication strategies in each country. Food safety risk communication (FSRC) aims to provide the means for individuals to protect their health from food safety risks and make informed decisions about food risks. The purpose of this study is to present FSRC as one of the key parts of risk analysis, its importance considering the prevalence of food contamination and recent crises related to food. Additionally, the stages of implementation of FSRC are mentioned. In FSRC, it is essential to comply with the principles and prerequisites. There are various strategies for FSRC nowadays. Different platforms for FSRC are rapidly evolving. Choosing and evaluating the appropriate strategy according to the target group, consensus of stakeholders, cooperation and coordination of risk assessors and risk managers have a significant impact in order to improve and implement FSRC.

Implementation of food matrix effects into chemical food contaminant risk assessment

Food risk assessment plays an important role in protecting public health worldwide. Stakeholders involved in food risk assessment, such as national authorities, agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), industry and consumers, need to properly understand the terminology of food risk assessment effectively. In this respect, the first part of the EU-FORA work programme (WP1) aimed to provide insights into the actual translation of two essential terms used in food risk assessment. 'Hazard' and 'risk' were first identified and compared between the English version of various food regulations and their equivalents in the national legislation of EU Member States. The comparison and critical evaluation revealed several inconsistencies. These inconsistencies could lead to misinterpretations, followed by errors in conducting risk assessments or communicating risks. We recommend that consistency is restored and maintained so that the message is properly communicated. The second part of the work programme (WP2) was focused on a specific area within chemical risk assessment (CRA). In this context, special attention was given to the impact of the food matrix on the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of heavy metals and metalloids. After collection and careful selection of data from scientific journals, a database with information on the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and arsenic (As) in different food matrices was created for future statistical analyses related to dietary exposure.

[Risk communication of policy advising scientific organisations: a thematic outline using the example of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment]

Regulierungswissenschaftliche Organisationen wie das Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) sehen sich in ihrer wissenschaftsbasierten Risikokommunikation mit diversen Herausforderungen konfrontiert: Einerseits wird die Kommunikation gesundheitlicher Risiken immer komplexer und dementsprechend voraussetzungsreicher, weshalb unter anderem Fragen nach der Gesundheitskompetenz von Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern sowie zielgruppengerechter Risikokommunikation an Bedeutung gewinnen. Andererseits sehen sich die Wissensbestände regulierungswissenschaftlicher Organisationen zunehmend der Politisierung und öffentlichen Kritik ausgesetzt. In diesem Rahmen werden Fragen nach der Objektivität und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Gutachten, Risikobewertungen und Stellungnahmen sowie der Legitimierung und Reputation regulierungswissenschaftlicher Organisationen relevant. Zusätzlich intensiviert wird dies durch das Aufkommen neuer Akteure in den sozialen Medien, die eigene Informations- und Kommunikationsmaterialien produzieren und veröffentlichen. In diesem Kontext verbreitete Fehl‑, Des- und Malinformationen stellen eine weitere Herausforderung dar, welche eng mit Fragen nach einer adäquaten Kommunikation über gesundheitliche Risiken sowie der Stabilisierung von Legitimität, Reputation und Vertrauenswürdigkeit zusammenhängt.

Der Artikel diskutiert verschiedene Lösungsansätze, darunter die Optimierung und visuelle Aufbereitung von Gesundheitsinformationen, die Ermöglichung gesellschaftlicher Partizipation und die Einbettung dieser Maßnahmen in das strategische Stakeholder- und Reputationsmanagement. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Aufruf zu offenerer Diskussion inhärenter Dilemmata.