First comes eating, then comes morality? Risk communication for the food industry

• In a perfect world, there would be no need to quarrel about risk information. Because clever scientists, prudent entrepreneurs, risk-aware consumers, calm non-governmental organisations and journalists concerned with the truth alone would not let things get to that point. But unfortunately, that is not the case; the world is not perfect.
• In the world of science, the gentle pressure of the better argument does not always get a chance. There are black sheep in the business world. Citizen initiatives sometimes overhype phantom risks and the media exaggerate risks into risk plagues for sensationalism. Knowledge of risk among consumers is rarely sufficient to take appropriate decisions. Under these conditions, risk communication is difficult and can have paradoxical effects.
• The most important question is what must be considered from a scientific perspective in risk communication. Yet at the same time, the focus should lie exclusively with the consumers. The other parties involved, and above all their interaction, cannot be more closely considered here for reasons of space.

What is good risk communication?

Risk communication simply means providing information about risks. Good risk communication should be correct, i. e. based on expert knowledge, it should not manipulate and it should also offer emotional support. It should be comprehensible and accessible. That is easier said than done. Certainly the most important prerequisite of all risk communication is that a risk actually exists. No risk equals no risk communication. This fact seems trivial, but it is not. More on that later. For now, we will clarify what we mean by the existence of a risk.

Full text PDF (free access)