Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D07366
Notes:
Pages 215-228 in Peter Bennett, Kenneth Calman, Sarah Curtis and Denis Fischbacher-Smith (eds.). Risk communication and public health. Second edition. Osvord University Press, Oxford, England. 339 pages.
Wigley, Shelley (author) and Pfau, Michael (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2010
Published:
USA: Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C36169
Notes:
Pages 568-590 in W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Halladay (eds.), The handbook of crisis communication. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, U.K. 737 pages., Research study based on a pet food company that had suffered a real-life crisis in 2006 - a recall due to dog food contaminated with afllatoxin, a fungus that may occur in corn. Researchers assessed the effects of three pre-crisis public information strategies.
9 pages., Via online journal., As a consequence of recent food safety incidents, consumer trust in European food safety management has diminished. A risk governance framework that formally institutes stakeholder (including consumer) consultation and dialogue through a transparent and accountable process has been proposed, with due emphasis on risk communication. This paper delivers actionable policy recommendations based on consumer preferences for different approaches to food risk management. These results suggest that risk communication should be informed by knowledge of consumer risk perceptions and information needs, including individual differences in consumer preferences and requirements, and differences in these relating to socio-historical context associated with regulation. In addition, information about what is being done to identify, prevent and manage food risks needs to be communicated to consumers, together with consistent messages regarding preventative programs, enforcement systems, and scientific uncertainty and variability associated with risk assessments. Cross-cultural differences in consumer perception and information preferences suggest a national or regional strategy for food risk communication may be more effective than one applied at a pan-European level.
