1. I would like to thank the organisers for their kind invitation to address this meeting. As the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection one of the greatest challenges we face is how to get across to consumers sound messages concerning risks to health, particularly those in relation to risk and the food supply.

2. As you know, in common with other parts of the world, the European Community has had a number of food safety scares resulting from contamination problems in food. These have contributed to a reduction in the confidence of consumers and trading partners in the safety of the European food supply. There has also been a detectable reduction in the trust of consumers in the ability of public authorities at all levels to regulate and control the safety of the food supply; in the system under which European food law is made; and in the European institutions themselves. This loss of confidence has resulted in a significant reappraisal of the existing organisational arrangements for the regulation of the food supply at Community level and I will return to this later.

3. As shown by the results of the Eurobarometer public opinion poll, many consumers in the European Union are concerned about the safety of their food. The reasons for their concerns differ between the Member States and no doubt between the individuals themselves. We know, again from Eurobarometer, that the picture of ‘to whom the consumers turn for advice’ differs from Member State to Member State. In some countries the national food administration may be the first point of contact, whereas in others the local grocer may be seen as more trustworthy than any public body.

4. In general, European institutions are not seen as the first point of contact. This is probably not a matter of trust but a measure of the relative distance of such institutions from the average citizen where food safety matters are concerned. If we in the European institutions want to become effective communicators on risk, then we have to address the problem of remoteness and put ourselves on the radar screen of the average citizen or at least find effective means of communicating through existing trusted organisations and media. This means of course committing the necessary resources to ensuring that messages penetrate through the information cacophony that surrounds the citizen today.

5. Getting the message through the background noise is of course only a beginning. The content and quality of the message then has to be such that having heard it, the citizen will be receptive and place trust in it. However, in contemporary Europe, this is not necessarily straightforward. Scepticism is widespread and not least about science itself.

6. As you know, the European system of regulating the food supply is based on the widely accepted principles of risk analysis. The scientific assessment of risk to the consumer from a product or process forms the basis for risk managers to develop risk reduction or containment measures. The risk managers naturally have to take into consideration other factors legitimate to the matter in hand but science plays the major role. However, science and technology are no longer seen as the panacea to all ills. Scientists were in the past regarded as gods at whose altars other mere mortals would worship. But more and more consumers in Europe are not convinced by a purely scientific or technical approach, or indeed of the authority of scientific opinion itself. This is not an irrational position. For many, experience has shown that one day’s scientific “truth” turns out later to have been based on a partial understanding. Science has limits and when those limits are ignored, there is a loss of credibility in the whole approach. Real examples are not lacking such as the benign nature of nuclear fall out, thalidomide or more mundanely whether cholesterol is good, bad or indifferent.

7. And against such a background, it is not perhaps surprising that consumers may resist technical innovation when they feel that there are “low tech” options available in which they have confidence because of their own direct experience. This factor can be seen at work in the reticence of the European public to accept GM technology, particularly GM foods. In the US the acceptance of new technologies and science apparently is higher and the consumer less ‘conservative, no doubt for complex and deeply rooted cultural reasons.

8. In other words, the perception and acceptance of risk by societies and individuals differs. I don’t want to go exhaustively into the various factors that influence someone’s perception and acceptance of a risk but an individual’s opinions are often influenced by non-rational as well as rational criteria. Whereas experts think about risk in terms of risk estimates arrived at through scientific methods, the general public is more value driven. Citizens may accept risks once they are made aware of them, but they may not accept the same risk if other beliefs or values are challenged; for example, if a risk is also associated with animal welfare or the genetic manipulation of living things, its acceptability may be lowered.

9. Also, and entirely rationally, consumers balance risks and benefits. In the GM field, the task of communicating the limited nature of certain risks will become easier when consumers can see for themselves clear benefits as regards the final product.

10. So much for the challenge and the difficulties. Now what are we in the Commission doing to address these complex issues?

11. We know from experts working in this field that there are a number of factors which lead an individual to place trust in an organisation providing information about risks. Such factors include the independence of an organisation from sectoral or other influences which may result in bias; the organisation’s openness; the inclusion of the general public in all aspects of the risk analysis process; truthful explanation of uncertainty and the rapid communication of information whenever an unacceptable risk is identified or suspected. Any organisation perceived to be withholding information or having a vested interest in a message will struggle to be trusted.

12. We also have to understand what consumers need to know in order to establish their understanding of an issue. Information concerning the nature of the risk, the urgency of the situation, who is at risk, uncertainty, and risk management options, are some of the key elements that need to be communicated.

13. In recent years, we have taken steps within the Commission to separate those responsible for production or the promotion of the market, from those responsible for the assessment of food safety. This process started in 1997 when the management of the scientific committees was transferred into what is now under my Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. The creation of the European Food Authority will take this evolution further as the responsibility for risk assessment will be transferred to the EFA. The independence and excellence of the scientific committees is secured by legal requirements for the selection of scientists, declarations of interests and methods of working. The EFA will build on these principles.

14. Also the regulation of the safety of food chain is separated from responsibility for developing the market by this being placed in my Directorate General which has consumer interests as the driving force.

15. We have also put in place systems which have improved the accessibility of the Commission to the public by placing detailed information on the work of the scientific committees, and in particular, their opinions on the internet, and as a matter of course, we place legislative proposals, white papers etc. also on the Europa website.

16. We take care to provide information in a factual manner, to ensure that messages do not ‘nanny’ or patronise and scientific matters are described clearly. It is important to ensure that the language of risk communication is appropriate, and we are looking at ways of improving this, particularly in relation to the clarity of language on complex scientific matters.

17. As I have already mentioned, the proposal for the Regulation on the general principles of food law and the establishment of the European Food Authority will build on the checks and balances already built into the European system. It is at the heart of our drive to improve trust in the regulation of the European food supply and in communication on risks. The EFA has one important advantage over the other institutions, as its proposed constitution is one of an independent organisation, free of political or other vested interests. It will act with openness and transparency, publishing immediately its findings concerning risks to European consumers. It will hold meetings in public; its selection processes for scientific staff and its other personnel and its methods of working will be open to public scrutiny.

18. But of course the EFA will not be the only body communicating on risk. Others also have to act responsibly and ensure that accurate information is provided in a manner that does not engender undue alarm, on the one hand, or cover up unpleasant facts on the other. This not only includes the public authorities but also industry and the media. It is essential that communication from public authorities, whether these are the national authorities, the Commission or the future Authority be credible and consistent. The regulation provides for the Authority to act in close collaboration with the Commission and the Member States to promote coherence in the risk communication process. The success of the Authority will depend to a great extent on its ability to work effectively with other key communicators in the food safety area.

19. In conclusion, not only is the involvement of the general public essential in the risk assessment process through the development of open transparent processes but also we are looking at how we address greater public involvement in the risk management process. The General Food Law part of this Regulation, will require the Commission and the national food safety bodies, proposing legislation, to consult openly with the public, either directly or through representative bodies during the preparation of food law. Integrating the citizen better into the process of developing regulations can only increase trust in the overall process.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **