Food Protection Trends - September/October 2024 - 357

Simply adding more information in the form of additional
regulations and explanations appears ineffective, based on
the findings of this study. Participants in this study indicated
that they would seek additional information from additional
sources (including themselves and their peers) before they
would alter their current behavior. As Littlefield et al. (11)
suggested, government agencies and other organizations can
and should participate in food safety discussions interactively.
Trust in science and government agencies emerged as a
barrier to credibility for some participants. One person indicated
an unwillingness to trust " anyone with a Ph.D., " whereas
others emphasized the potential biases and fiscal interests of
agencies such as the FDA or European Commission. Although
difficulties achieving compliance with food safety recommendations
for food preparation in the home (3) and an increasingly
globalized food trade system (2) are well documented,
less is known about the extent to which lapses in compliance
stem from a distrust in science and in risk communication
practitioners. In the titanium dioxide case, the fact that two
science-based agencies offered contrasting recommendations
may have introduced, stimulated, or intensified frustration and
related distrust in science. However, further research is needed
to fully comprehend the source of such distrust and the impact
it has on food safety decisions.
Limitations
We attempted to avoid selection bias by sharing recruitment
duties with three members of the research team.
However, we acknowledge that our need to use a convenience
sample was a limitation. We also acknowledge that our
reliance on self-identified gender as the only demographic
variable is also a limitation.
Practitioner recommendations
From our results, we distilled several recommendations for
risk communication practitioners, focusing on transparency
in instructional information from industry to consumers
and dialogue among national and international regulatory
agencies and industry.
The participants in this study were largely unaware of the
distinction between hazard and risk. Risk communication
practitioners would likely benefit from explaining this
distinction when seeking to reconcile opposing viewpoints
from international agencies. Without knowledge of this
distinction as a foundation, consumers may perceive the
conflict as another reason to distrust or disregard safety
recommendations.
Risk communication practitioners also would benefit from
maintaining a transparent distinction between risk and crisis.
Risk has been described in detail in this study; however, a
crisis is a distinct communication event. Crises demand an
urgent response, and lives may be in immediate danger (14,
23). For example, when an outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing
Escherichia coli infections or illnesses caused by Salmonella
Newport or other deadly Salmonella strains occur among
consumers, a rapidly distributed warning recommending
specific and immediate actions is needed for self-protection
(20). Given the difficulty comprehending various hazards
that participants in this study expressed, an unequivocal and
prompt warning about food crisis events should stand apart
from other risk-related communications. If such warnings
were greeted with the same indifference we saw regarding
many messages generally focused on food hazards and risk,
lives could be lost needlessly.
Much of the disagreement in food safety issues such as
that regarding titanium dioxide stems from the broad use
of the precautionary approach in the European regulatory
framework. Application of the precautionary principle in
food safety results in the ban or withdrawal of ingredients or
products for which the European Community determines
insufficient scientific evidence exists to establish the
absence of dangerous effects (15). The expectations created
through the precautionary principle can create a schism
with countries outside Europe when determining what
constitutes sufficient proof of safety. Thus, dialogue in the
form of negotiation is needed to reconcile disagreements
about what level of evidence constitutes sufficient proof
of consumer safety (20). Thus, risk communication
practitioners may also benefit from encouraging dialogue
among governing agencies and other stakeholders where
their concerns, questions, and irritations are heard and
meaningful responses are provided. This process of assessing
stakeholder positions is collaborative and interactive. Such
an alliance is essential to advancing public understanding
and promoting concepts in a way that achieves consensus.
Through dialogue, risk communication practitioners position
themselves as information providers, leading discussions
among key stakeholders to affirm current thinking and to
assess additional findings.
Dialogue of this nature could help reconcile conflicting
perceptions of food safety related to the European Union's
reliance on the precautionary principle for managing risk.
Such dialogue could capitalize on the current high degree
of coordination between the FDA and the EFSA. Existing
alliances involving the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations and the World Health Organization (FAO/
WHO), and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee
on Food Additives could further advance the dialogue
internationally. Continued and expanded dialogue among
these agencies could enhance communication to consumers
about conflicting interpretations of hazard and risk. Future
research should explore the means for inspiring and
coordinating such dialogue.
Titanium dioxide will not likely be the final disagreement
between the FDA and European Commission. Hazardbased
and risk-based assessments will continue to produce
contradictory recommendations. This study revealed
September/October Food Protection Trends 357
Food Protection Trends - September/October 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - September/October 2024
