The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foodsKönig, A., Kuiper, H. A., Marvin, H. J. P., Boon, P. E., Busk, L., Cnudde, F., Cope, S., Davies, H. V., Dreyer, M., Frewer, L. J., Kaiser, M., Kleter, G. A., Knudsen, I., Pascal, G., Prandini, A., Renn, O., Smith, M. R., Traill, B. W., Van Der Voet, H., Van Trijp, H. et al, Vos, E. and Wentholt, M. T. A. (2010) The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foods. Food Control, 21 (12). pp. 1566-1587. ISSN 0956-7135 Full text not archived in this repository. It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing. To link to this item DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.012 Abstract/SummaryThree main changes to current risk analysis processes are proposed to improve their transparency, openness, and accountability. First, the addition of a formal framing stage would allow interested parties, experts and officials to work together as needed to gain an initial shared understanding of the issue, the objectives of regulatory action, and alternative risk management measures. Second, the scope of the risk assessment is expanded to include the assessment of health and environmental benefits as well as risks, and the explicit consideration of economic- and social-impacts of risk management action and their distribution. Moreover approaches were developed for deriving improved information from genomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling methods and for probabilistic modelling of health impacts for risk assessment purposes. Third, in an added evaluation stage, interested parties, experts, and officials may compare and weigh the risks, costs, and benefits and their distribution. As part of a set of recommendations on risk communication, we propose that reports on each stage should be made public.
● Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
● Becker, H. A. (1997). Social impact assessment: Method and Experience in Europe, North America and the Developing World. London: University College of London (UCL) Press.
● Becker, H. A., & Vanclay, F. (2003). The international handbook of social impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
● Beekman, V., & Brom, F. W. A. (2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 3–12. doi:10.1007/s10806-006-
9024-7.
● Beekman, V., De Bakker, E., Baranzke, H., Baune, Ø., Deblonde, M., Forsberg, E.-M., et al. (2006). Ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food
production. The Hague: Ethical Bio-TA Tools Project, c/o Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Wageningen University and Research Centre. <http://
www.bioethics.kvl.dk/forskning/
Ethical%20Bio%20TA%20Tools%20Final%20Report.pdf> [Final Report Ethical Bio-TA Tools (QLG6-CT-2002-02594)].
● Berg, L., Kjaernes, U., Ganskau, E., Minina, V., Voltchkova, L., Halkier, B., et al. (2005). Trust in food safety in Russia, Denmark and Norway. European Societies, 7(1), 103–129. doi:10.1080/1461669042000327045.
● Boon, P. E., Svensson, K., Moussavian, S., van der Voet, H., Petersen, A., Ruprich, J., et al. (2009). Probabilistic acute dietary exposure assessments to captan and
tolylfluanid using several European food consumption and pesticide concentration databases. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47(12), 2890–2898. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.01.040.
● Boone, I., van der Stede, Y., Bollaerts, K., Vose, D., Maes, D., Dewulf, J., et al. (2009). NUSAP method for evaluating the data quality in a quantitative microbial risk
assessment model for Salmonella in the pork production chain. Risk Analysis, 29(4), 502–517. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01181.x.
● Bos, P. M. J., Boon, P. E., van der Voet, H., Janer, G., Piersma, A. H., Brüschweiler, B. J., et al. (2009). A semi-quantitative model for risk appreciation and risk weighing.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47(12), 2941–2950. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.03.009.
● Bosgra, S., van der Voet, H., Boon, P. E., & Slob, W. (2009). An integrated probabilistic framework for cumulative risk assessment of common mechanism chemicals in
food: An example with organophosphorus pesticides. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 54(2), 124–133. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.03.004.
● Council of the European Union (2006). Press release of the 2713th Council meeting, PRES/06/58, EC/6762/06, 9 March 2006. Brussels: Council of the European
Union. <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/06/58&
format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>.
● Davies, R. (1997). Environmental regulation, benefit–cost analysis and the policy environment in less developed countries. Environment and Development Economics, 2(2), 206–210. doi:10.1017/S1355770X97240167.
● Davies, H. (2010). A role for ‘‘omics” technologies in food safety assessment. Food Control, 21(12), 1601–1610.
● De Jonge, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: Its two-dimensional structure
and determinants. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 729–740. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00917.x.
● De Jonge, J., van Trijp, H. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2010). Consumer confidence in the safety of food and newspaper coverage of food safety issues: A
longitudinal perspective. Risk Analysis, 30(1), 125–142. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01320.x.
● Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
● Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Cope, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2010). Including social impact assessment in food safety governance. Food Control, 21(12), 1620–1628.
● Dreyer, M., & Renn, O. (2006). The scientific approach to comparing institutional rearrangements in European food safety governance. In E. Vos & F. Wendler (Eds.), Food safety regulation in Europe: A comparative institutional analysis (pp. 1–8). Antwerp: Intersentia [Ius Commune Europaeum, Vol. 62].
● Dreyer, M., & Renn, O. (2009). Food safety governance. Integrating science, precaution and public involvement. Berlin: Springer [Risk, Governance and Society, Vol. 15].
● Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Borkhart, K., & Ortleb, O. (2006). Institutional rearrangements in European food safety governance: A comparative analysis. In E. Vos & F.
Wendler (Eds.), Food safety regulation in Europe: A comparative institutional analysis (pp. 9–64). Antwerp: Intersentia [Ius Commune Europaeum, Vol. 62].
● EFSA (2006). Summary report, EFSA Scientific Colloquium 6, risk–benefit analysis of foods: Methods and approaches, Tabiano, Italy, 13–14 July 2006. Parma: European
Food Safety Authority. <http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/colloquiariskbenefit/
publication/comm_colloque_6_en,0.pdf>.
● European Commission (1997). Communication of the European Commission: Consumer health and safety COM(97) 183fin. Brussels: European Commission.
<http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/comec1en.pdf>.
● European Commission (2000). First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures – Part 1: The report of the scientific steering committee’s working group
on harmonisation of risk assessment procedures in the scientific committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health, 26–27 October 2000. Brussels: Scientific Steering Committee, European
Commission. <http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out83_en.pdf>.
● European Commission (2001). European governance, a white paper, COM(2001) 428 final. Brussels: European Commission. <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf>.
● European Commission (2003). Opinion of the scientific steering committee on setting the scientific frame for the inclusion of new quality of life concerns in the risk
assessment process. Brussels: Scientific Steering Committee, European Commission. <http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out357_en.pdf>.
● European Commission (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance. Brussels: European Commission.
<http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/
european-knowledge-society_en.pdf>.
● European Commission (2009). impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009) 92. Brussels: European Commission. <http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_
guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf>.
● FAO (2001). Report of the panel of eminent experts on ethics in food and agriculture, first session, 26–28 September 2000. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation.
<http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X9600E/X9600E00.HTM>.
● FAO/WHO (1995). Application of risk analysis to food standards issues. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Geneva, Switzerland, 13–17 March, 1995.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/
publications/micro/en/march1995.pdf>.
● FAO/WHO (1997). Risk management and food safety, report of a joint FAO/WHO consultation, Rome, Italy, 27–31 January 1997. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/w4982e/w4982e00.pdf>.
● Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2),
226–243. doi:10.1177/016224399001500204.
● Forsberg, E. M. (2007). Value pluralism and coherentist justification of ethical advice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 81–97.
doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9017-6.
● Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust. London: Penguin.
● Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2009). Post-normal science – Environmental policy under conditions of complexity. Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP).
<http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13>.
● Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
● Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–274). Westport, CO: Praeger.
● Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures,
25(7), 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
● Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 10(3), 197–207.
doi:10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2.
● Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M. W., Jackson, J., Howard, S., & Lindsey, N. (2003). Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes to biotechnology in the UK, 1991–2002.
London: London School of Economics and Political Science. <http://
ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/ambivalent_gm_nation_uk.pdf> [Life Sciences in European Society Report].
● Gottweis, H. (2008). Participation and the new governance of life. Biosocieties, 3(3), 265–286. doi:10.1017/S1745855208006194 [Corrigendum in BioSocieties, 3(4), 457. doi:10.1017/S1745855208006388].
● Gottweis, H., & Braun, K. (2007). Participatory governance and institutional innovation [PAGANINI]. Vienna: PAGANINI Project, University of Vienna. <http://
www.univie.ac.at/LSG/paganini/finals_pdf/WP8_FinalReport.pdf> [Contract No.
CIT2-CT-2004-505791, Deliverable Number 18, Final Report].
● Gramling, R., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1992). Opportunity-threat, development, and adaptation: Toward a comprehensive framework for social impact assessment.
Rural Sociology, 57(2), 216–234.
● Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44(2), 167–184.
doi:10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x.
● Hammitt, J. K. (2005). Willingness-to-pay measures of food safety regulatory benefits. In S. A. Hoffman & M. R. Taylor (Eds.), Toward safer food: Perspectives on
risk and priority setting (pp. 241–260). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
● Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
● Hoffmann, S. A., & Taylor, M. A. (2005). Toward safer food. Perspectives on risk and priority setting. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
● Houghton, J., Rowe, G., Frewer, L., van Kleef, E., Chryssochoidis, G., Kehagia, O., et al. (2008). The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives
and priorities. Food Policy, 33(1), 13–26. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.05.001.
● Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of the effectiveness of food risk management practices: A cross-cultural study.
Health, Risk & Society, 8(2), 165–183. doi:10.1080/13698570600677373.
● IPCS (2001). Integrated risk assessment, report prepared for the WHO/UNEP/ILO international programme on chemical safety (WHO/IPCS/IRA/01/12). Geneva:
International Programme on Chemical Safety, c/o World Health Organisation.
<http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/ira/en/index.html>.
● Janssen, P., & van der Sluijs, J. (2009). RIVM/MNP Guidance on uncertainty assessment and communication. Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP).
<http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=17>.
● Jasanoff, S. (1997). Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 221–232. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/002.
● Jasanoff, S. (1999). The song lines of risk. Environmental Values, 8(2), 135–152.
● Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320.
● Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge. London: Routledge.
● Kaiser, M., & Forsberg, E. M. (2001). Assessing fisheries – Using an ethical matrix in a participatory process. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 192–200. doi:10.1023/A:1011300811590.
● Kaiser, M., Millar, K., Thorstensen, E., & Tomkins, S. (2007). Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 65–80. doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9023-8.
● Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C. C., & Gardner, M. T. (2003). Public participation in sustainability science. A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
● Knol, A. B., Petersen, A. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., & Lebret, E. (2009). Dealing with uncertainties in environmental burden of disease assessment. Environmental
Health, 8, 21. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-21. <http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/21>.
● König, A. (2007a). Towards safer foods and more democratic decisions: Is this a contradictory goal? OCL Oleagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides, 14(2), 92–99.
doi:10.1684/ocl.2007.0130. <http://www.john-libbey-eurotext.fr/e-docs/00/04/33/F2/article.phtml>.
● König, A. (2007b). Democratizing decision-making on food safety in the EU: Closing gaps between principles of governance and practice. Minerva, 45(3), 275–294.
doi:10.1007/s11024-007-9044-0.
● König, A. (2010). Compatibility of the SAFE FOODS risk analysis framework with the legal and institutional settings of the EU and the WTO. Food Control, 21(12),
1638–1652.
● König, A., & Jasanoff, S. (2002). The credibility of expert advice for regulatory decisionmaking in the US and EU. Cambridge, MA: Mossavar Rahmani Center for Business
and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University [Working Paper RPP-2002-07].
● Krystallis, A., Frewer, L., Rowe, G., Houghton, J., Kehagia, O., & Perrea, T. (2007). A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management
in Europe. Health, Risk & Society, 9(4), 407–424. doi:10.1080/13698570701612683.
● Kuiper, H. A., & Davies, H. (2010). The SAFE FOODS risk analysis framework suitable for GMOs? A case study. Food Control, 21(12), 1662–1676.
● Lockie, S. F. (2001). SIA in review: Setting the agenda for impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(4), 277–287.
doi:10.3152/147154601781766952.
● Mepham, T. B. (2000). The role of food ethics in food policy. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 59(4), 609–618. doi:10.1017/S0029665100000860.
● Mepham, B., & Millar, K. (2000). The ethical matrix in practice: Application to the case of bovine somatotrophin (lecture 71). In Preprints, 3rd EurSafe Congress, 3–5
October 2001, Florence, Italy (pp. 353–355). Nottingham: European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EurSafe), c/o Center for Applied Bioethics,
University of Nottingham. <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.112.5376&rep=rep1&type=pdf>.
● Müller, A. K., Bosgra, S., Boon, P. E., van der Voet, H., Nielsen, E., & Ladefoged, O. (2009). Probabilistic cumulative risk assessment of anti-androgenic pesticides
in food. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47(12), 2951–2962. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.07.039.
● Muri, S. D., van der Voet, H., Boon, P. E., van Klaveren, J. D., & Brüschweiler, B. J. (2009). Comparison of human health risks resulting from exposure to fungicides and mycotoxins via food. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47(12),
2963–2974. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.03.035.
● National Research Council (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=776#toc>.
● National Research Council (1994). Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030904894X>.
● Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999). Genetically modified crops: The ethical and social issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. <http://www.nuffieldbioethics.
org/go/ourwork/gmcrops/publication_301.html>.
● Ravetz, J. R. (1999). Post-normal science [Special issue]. Futures, 31(7), 641–757.
● Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public
Policy, 30(3), 163–170. doi:10.3152/147154303781780533.
● Rayner, S., & Cantor, R. (1987). How fair is safe enough? Risk Analysis, 7(1), 3–9.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00963.x.
● Reicherzer, J. (1995). Scheu vor Transparenz. Die Zeit, 20(12), 21. <http://
www.zeit.de/1995/20/Scheu_vor_Transparenz>.
● Ruprich, J., Rehurkova, I., Boon, P. E., Svensson, K., Moussavian, S., van der Voet, H.,
et al. (2009). Probabilistic modelling of exposure doses and implications for health risk characterization: Glycoalkaloids from potatoes. Food and Chemical
Toxicology, 47(12), 2899–2905. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2009.03.008.
● SAFE FOODS (2005). Workpackage 6: Design of a new integrated risk analysis approach for foods. Wageningen: SAFE FOODS Project, c/o RIKILT – Institute of Food
Safety, Wageningen University and Research Centre. <http://www.safefoods.nl/
Paginas/SAFE%20FOODS%20overview/Workpackage%206%20overview.aspx>.
● SAFE FOODS (2007). SAFE FOODS second stakeholder consultation successful. Wageningen: SAFE FOODS Project, c/o RIKILT – Institute of Food Safety,
Wageningen University and Research Centre. <http://www.safefoods.nl/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=46&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esafefoods%2Enl
%2FLists%2FNews%2FAllItems%2Easpx>.
● Smith, M. (2002). Food safety in Europe (FOSIE): Risk assessment, of chemicals in food and diet: Overall introduction. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40(2/3),
141–144. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(01)00112-0.
● Smith, M. R., & König, A. (2010). Environmental risk assessment for food-related substances. Food Control, 21(12), 1588–1600.
● Thompson, K. M., & Graham, J. D. (1996). Going beyond the single number: Using probabilistic risk assessment to improve risk management. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2(4), 1008–1034. doi:10.1080/10807039609383660.
● Traill, W. B., & König, A. (2010). Economic assessment of food safety standards: Costs and benefits of alternative approaches. Food Control, 21(12), 1611–1619.
● Trustnet in Action (2007). Final Report, 25th June 2007. Brussels: European Commission. <http://www.trustnetinaction.com/IMG/pdf/TIA-Final_Report.
pdf>.
● Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, I., & Jones, M. (2009). Noisy and definitely not normal: Responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(3), 347–358. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.
01.004.
● Van der Voet, H., & Slob, W. (2007). Integration of probabilistic exposure assessment and probabilistic hazard characterization. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 351–371.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00887.x.
Van der Voet, H., van der Heijden, G. W. A. M., Bos, P. M. J., Bosgra, S., Boon, P. E.,
● Muri, S. D., et al. (2009). A model for probabilistic health impact assessment of exposure to food chemicals. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47(12), 2926–2940.
doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.12.027.
● Van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., van der Lans, I., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2008). Consumer responses to communication about food risk management. Appetite,
50(2–3), 340–352. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.08.011.
● Van Kleef, E., Frewer, L., Chryssochoidis, G., Houghton, J., Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, T., et al. (2006). Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders:
Results from a cross-European study. Appetite, 47(1), 46–63. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.002.
● Van Kleef, E., Houghton, J. R., Krystallis, A., Pfenning, U., Rowe, G., van Dijk, H., et al. (2007). Consumer evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe. Risk
Analysis, 27(6), 1565–1580. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00989.x.
● Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2009). Legal and institutional aspects of the general framework. In M. Dreyer & O. Renn (Eds.), Food safety governance. Integrating
science, precaution and public involvement (Risk, Governance and Society, Vol. 15)
(pp. 83–109). Berlin: Springer.
● Wardecker, J. A., de Boer, J., Kolkman, M. J., van der Sluijs, J. P., Buchanan, K .S., de Jong, A., et al. (2009). Tool catalogue frame-based information tools. Utrecht:
Copernikus Institute, Department of Science, Technology, and Society, Utrecht University. <http://www.nusap.net/article.php?sid=44&mode=thread&order=
0>.
● Weinstein, M. C. (2005). Quality-adjusted life years: Application to food safety priority setting. In S. A. Hoffman & M. R. Taylor (Eds.), Toward safer food:
Perspectives on risk and priority setting (pp. 227–240). Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
● Wentholt, M. T. A., Rowe, G., König, A., Marvin, H. J. P., & Frewer, L. J. (2009). The
views of key stakeholders on an evolving food risk governance framework: Results from a Delphi study. Food Policy, 34(6), 539–548. doi:10.1016/
j.foodpol.2009.06.002.
● Wilson, R., & Crouch, E. A. C. (2001). Risk–benefit analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
● Wynne, B. (1985). Uncertainty, technical and social. In H. Brooks & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Science for public policy (pp. 95–115). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
● Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
● Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of proportionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of
Science, 33(3), 401–417. doi:10.1177/03063127030333005. University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record |
University of Reading
CentAUR: Central Archive at the University of Reading
Accessibility navigation
The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foodsKönig, A., Kuiper, H. A., Marvin, H. J. P., Boon, P. E., Busk, L., Cnudde, F., Cope, S., Davies, H. V., Dreyer, M., Frewer, L. J., Kaiser, M., Kleter, G. A., Knudsen, I., Pascal, G., Prandini, A., Renn, O., Smith, M. R., Traill, B. W., Van Der Voet, H., Van Trijp, H. , Vos, E. and Wentholt, M. T. A. (2010) The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foods. Food Control, 21 (12). pp. 1566-1587. ISSN 0956-7135 Full text not archived in this repository. It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing. To link to this item DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.012 Abstract/SummaryThree main changes to current risk analysis processes are proposed to improve their transparency, openness, and accountability. First, the addition of a formal framing stage would allow interested parties, experts and officials to work together as needed to gain an initial shared understanding of the issue, the objectives of regulatory action, and alternative risk management measures. Second, the scope of the risk assessment is expanded to include the assessment of health and environmental benefits as well as risks, and the explicit consideration of economic- and social-impacts of risk management action and their distribution. Moreover approaches were developed for deriving improved information from genomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling methods and for probabilistic modelling of health impacts for risk assessment purposes. Third, in an added evaluation stage, interested parties, experts, and officials may compare and weigh the risks, costs, and benefits and their distribution. As part of a set of recommendations on risk communication, we propose that reports on each stage should be made public.
Altmetric Deposit Details References University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record |
Lists
Lists
