Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Food Risk Communication

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_288-1
How to cite

Synonyms

Communication in the alimentation sector; Communication on food issues; Food risk discourse

Introduction

The alimentation sector, as other types of industries, has to constantly respond to the changing conditions of modern times. The most important determinants responsible for alternations are connected with the reality of a contemporary epoch. First of all, the twenty-first century is influenced and shaped by the growing role of new technologies. Thus, the Internet, offering fast communication to a relatively large number of addressees, becomes an important medium in contacting current and potential stakeholders in the food industry. Secondly, the mobility of modern times concerns not only consumers but also food products since nowadays customers may have access to comestibles coming from very distant countries. In this case, such aspects as proper transportation, storage, and methods of dish preparations should be treated with great consideration. Thirdly, modern agriculture...

Keywords

Food Production Food Allergy Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Target Audience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bennett, P. (2001). Understanding responses to risk: Some basic findings. In P. Bennett & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2009). The role of metaphors in the language of investment banking. Iberica, 17, 139–156.Google Scholar
  3. Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2011). Rola Internetu w komunikacji prowadzonej przez polskie lotniska (na przykładzie sytuacji kryzysowych spowodowanych trudnymi warunkami atmosferycznymi. Pieniądze i Więź, 51, 156–162.Google Scholar
  4. Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2014). Metaphors and risk cognition in the discourse on food-borne diseases. In J. M. Mercantini & C. Faucher (Eds.), Risk cognition. Heidelberg Springer (in print).Google Scholar
  5. Cirka, C. C., & Corrigall, E. A. (2010). Expanding possibilities through metaphor: Breaking biases to improve crisis management. Journal of Management Education, 34(2), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erdem, S., Rigby, D., & Wossink, A. (2012). Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy, 37, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO/WHO. (2001). The application of risk communication to food standards and safety matters. Rome: Publishing and Multimedia Service.Google Scholar
  8. Flynn, D. (2011). Top food safety stories of 2011: No. 1. Food Safety News. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/12/europes-o104-outbreak-2011s-most-important-food-safety-story/. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
  9. Frewer, L. J. (2012). Risk perception, communication and food safety. In: H. Alpas, M. Smith & A. Kulmyrzaev (Eds.), Strategies for achieving food security in Central Asia (pp. 123–131). Bishkek: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacob, C. J., Lok, C., Morley, K., & Powell, D. A. (2011). Government management of two media-facilitated crises involving dioxin contamination of food. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lundgren, R. E., & McMakin, A. H. (2009). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nucci, M. L., Cuite, C. L., & Hallman, W. K. (2009). When good food goes bad: Television network news and the spinach recall of 2006. Science Communication, 31(2), 238–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Qin, W., & Brown, J. L. (2006). Consumer opinions about genetically engineered salmon and information effect on opinions: A qualitative approach. Science Communication, 28(2), 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rachul, C., & Caulfield, T. (2011). Food allergy policy and the popular press: Perspectives from Canadian newspapers. Journal of Asthma & Allergy Educators, 2(6), 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thompson, B. M., & Knight, S. L. (2006). The effect of a multicomponent professional development training on the beliefs and behaviors of community health educators concerning food irradiation. Health Education & Behaviour, 33(5), 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Winickoff, D. E., & Bushey, D. M. (2010). Science and power in global food regulation: The rise of the Codex Alimentarius. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(3), 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GdanskGdanskPoland
  2. 2.Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi AvanzatiTriesteItaly