Risk and Its Communication

1
(No Transcript)
2
Risk Communication and Food Safety

• Prof. Tim Sly, PhD, MSc, DPHI
• School of Occupational Public Health, Ryerson
  University

3
Objectives

• 1 To examine R/C and R/P as it relates to food
  safety
• 2 To identify the main failings in risk
  communication
• 3 To offer a 7-point list of tried and tested
  tips on effective R/C
• 4 To analyze some recent cases.

4
Risk communication

• Risk perception

5
How can I plan for the next crisis when I have
no idea what it will be?
6
YES YOU CAN! Many characteristics are the
same

• Public fear confusion
• Need for help sorting out the information
• Channels of communication
• Trustworthy sources
• Transparency, openness honesty and immediacy of
  response

7

• If we ask people to rate or rank the concerns
  they have about health and safety issues, . . .
  And then we correlate these with actual death
  rates, the results are quite amazing.
• The correlation coefficient is about 0.2, and the
  r-squared is about 0.04 or 4

8

• We now understand that the public and the experts
  are using DIFFERENT definitions of risk

9
The EXPERT view

• R M x P

RISK MAGNITUDE x PROBABILITY
10

• So how does the public see risk?
• - By means of a group of heuristics, rules of
  thumb, qualitative factors that Peter Sandmans
  group at Rutgers calls OUTRAGE

11

• Voluntary or coerced
• Natural or man-made
• Familiar or exotic
• Forgettable or memorable
• Not dreaded or dreaded
• Diffuse outcome or concentrated
• Known by science or unknown
• Controllable or uncontrollable
• Fairly distributed or unfairly distrib
• NOT Affecting or Affecting children
• Sources trusted or not trusted
• Responsive or unresp process

DECREASE OUTRAGE
INCREASE OUTRAGE
12
Outrage.

• .is measurable

13
Outrage.

• .is measurable
• .is predictable

14
Outrage.

• .is measurable
• .is predictable
• .has very real effects

15
Outrage.

• .is measurable
• .is predictable
• .has very real effects
• .is controllable

16

• . . .AND GOVERNMENTS AND INDUSTRY MUST REALIZE
  THAT THEY CANNOT IGNORE OUTRAGE EFFECTS

17
The costs are too great

• LOSS of
• Money
• Time wasted through delays
• Public trust/confidence in Government
• Wasted effort (planning, development, etc.)

18
(No Transcript)
19

• Governments and ministries rank very low, but
  local health agencies still command some public
  trust

20
Trust

• There is no instant trust
• You have to build trust over time
• Show you are worthy of trust through actions not
  words
• Use accountability and transparency as
  temporary substitutes for trust
• Above all NEVER ask to be trusted!!

21
Obsolete Communications Model
22
Obsolete Communications Model
23
Wheres the dialogue?

• People need to ASK QUESTIONS
• People need to be HEARD
• People need to know that their concerns are being
  addressed
• People need to have some INPUT
• People need to decide

24
In any risk-crisis.

• 80 of air time or column-inches deal with
  process, administration, agency image, who knew
  what when
• 20 deal with the actual danger, etc.

25
A Risk-communication checklist.
26
A risk-communication checklist1.Who should we
tell?

• Tell all segments of the community the same info,
  but tell the people most at risk first

27
A risk-communication checklist2.What should we
tell them?

• Tell them what is known
• Tell them what is not yet known
• Tell them the extent to which the info may be
  uncertain, unreliable, or incomplete

28
A risk-communication checklist3. What if the
info is incomplete or doubtful?

• Tell them what you are unsure of
• - and promise to release all further info as soon
  as it is received

29
A risk-communication checklist4. When should we
tell them?

• Tell them as soon as the agency knows
• And before the local TV station breaks the story
  on the 6 pm news

30
A risk-communication checklist5. How should we
tell them?

• Respect their concerns
• Explain so as to be understood
• Avoid technical jargon, very large very small
  numbers
• And rehearse the message!

31
Risk Communication Vacuum
32
A risk-communication checklist 6. Who should
tell them?

• Must be technically credible Responsive
  Believable
• Must be experienced at media relations, public
  speaking, listening!

33
A risk-communication checklist7. Have we formed
a partnership with them?

• Essential for stabilizing the concerned community
• Must be genuine tokenism or superficial presence
  can have the opposite effect

34
P R

• Perceived Risk Reality

35
The most important finding The agencys
behavior, and the agency--community relationship
have a substantial impact on the publics
perception of risk
36
The most important finding The agencys
behavior, and the agency--community relationship
have a substantial impact on the publics
perception of risk more impact than the
objective seriousness of the risk,
37
The most important finding The agencys
behavior, and the agency--community relationship
have a substantial impact on the publics
perception of risk more impact than the
objective seriousness of the risk, and far more
impact than any technical explanation of the
risk Peter Sandman
38
CASE STUDIES

• BSE (UK) 1986-1996
• PCBs in food (Belgium 2000)
• Crypto. (Milwaukee) 1994
• E. coli O157-H7 2001
• Sushi (Ontario) 2004
• Organic foods

39
More CASE STUDIES

• Previously frozen ground meat
• Toxic cooking oil
• Oat-bran
• Unpasteurized milk
• Cheese from unpasteurized milk
• Mitten crabs
• Food ingredient guide

40
Whats in a name?

• Tim Sly PhD, Professor
• School of Public Health
• Ryerson University,
• Toronto, Canada

41
(No Transcript)