Exploring public risk perceptions of microplastics: Findings from a cross-national qualitative interview study among German and Italian citizens.

Microplastics are receiving growing attention in the public debate, while the scientific assessment of risks of microplastics to ecological and human health is still ongoing. Previous studies suggest concerns among the general public with country-specific differences. However, little is known about the reasoning underlying these concerns. By conducting qualitative interviews with German (n = 15) and Italian citizens (n = 15), this study adopted a cross-national perspective to investigate which concepts shape citizens' perceptions of microplastics. A qualitative content analysis was used, with coding categories and subcategories developed inductively. Results showed that interviewees formed assumptions around microplastics despite own uncertainties, transferred knowledge from macro- to microplastics, and used the concepts of accumulation and dose-response relationship to make sense of the topic. Moreover, they saw the domains of human health and the environment as intertwined and expressed helplessness when discussing solutions to the microplastics issue. Many themes on the topic were similar in both samples, but there were also some differences. For instance, whereas Italian participants talked about marine-related microplastics, German participants talked about airborne sources; also, German participants tended to recognize more strongly the actions their country was putting in place to address the problem. These findings underscore the need for proactive risk communication despite remaining gaps in scientific risk assessment. Beyond providing technical information, communicators should consider the reasoning behind risk perception on microplastics and address scientific uncertainty as well as the interconnectedness between the domains of human health and the environment.

A systems-based approach to the environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees.

The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems-based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent-based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

Technical assistance in the field of risk communication.

This report assesses peer-reviewed and grey literature on risk communication concepts and practices, as requested by the European Commission to support the implementation of a 'General Plan for Risk Communication', i.e. an integrated framework for EU food safety risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national level, as required by the revised EU General Food Law Regulation. We conducted a scoping review of social research studies and official reports in relation to risk communication in the following areas: understanding and awareness of risk analysis roles and tasks, reducing misunderstanding of the different meaning of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk', tackling misinformation and disinformation, enhancing confidence in EU food safety, taking account of risk perceptions, key factors in trade-offs about risks, audience segmentation and tools, channels and mechanisms for coordinated risk communications. We structured our findings as follows: i) definitions of key concepts, ii) audience analysis and information requirements, iii) risk profiling, models and mechanisms, iv) contributions to communication strategies. We make several recommendations for consideration by the Commission, both in terms of actions to support the design and implementation of the general plan, and research needs that we consider crucial to further inform appropriate risk communication in the EU. EFSA carried out a targeted consultation of experts and a public consultation open to all interested parties including the general public, in preparing and finalising this report.

Future directions for risk communications at EFSA.

This editorial proposes directions for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to meet its current and future obligations as a source of public information and communication on food-related risks in the EU. These directions are intended to guide EFSA's communications through changes driven by new legal obligations, a new organisational strategy cycle and social and technological evolution. This editorial summarises the rationales for shifts in some cases already underway towards embedding audience analysis throughout our risk communication practices, rolling out partnership approaches for producing and delivering public information and greater digital prowess and social media integration. It describes the main audience clusters for EU food safety risk communication, related content strategies and the technical and professional skills required to pursue them.

Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.

The interplay between science, risk assessment and risk management has always been complex, and even more so in a world increasingly characterised by rapid technical innovation, new modes of communication, suspicion about authorities and experts, and demands for people to have a say in decisions that are made on their behalf. In this challenging era where scientific advice on food safety has never been in greater demand, risk managers should effectively navigate the interplay between facts and values and be able to rely on robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments to aid them. The fact that societal resistance is often encountered when scientific advice on food safety operates at a distance from social values and fails to actively engage with citizens, has led to increasing emphasis on the need to advance forms of risk assessment that are more contextual, and socially sound and accountable. EFSA's third Scientific Conference explored how risk assessments could be constructed to most usefully meet society's needs and thus connect science with society, while remaining scientifically robust. Contributors to the conference highlighted the need to: (1) frame risk assessments by clear policy goals and decision-making criteria; (2) begin risk assessments with an explicit problem formulation to identify relevant information; (3) make use of reliable risk assessment studies; (4) be explicit about value judgements; (5) address and communicate scientific uncertainty; (6) follow trustworthy processes; (7) publish the evidence and data, and report the way in which they are used in a transparent manner; (8) ensure effective communication throughout the risk analysis process; (9) involve society, as appropriate; and (10) weigh risks and benefits on request. Implementation of these recommendations would contribute to increased credibility and trustworthiness of food safety risk assessments.

Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science.

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post-truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio-economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.