SUMMARY ASSIGNMENT # 2: CONTEXTUALIZED SUMMARY
(Course Name and Number)
(Date Submitted)
Food safety issues pose important questions concerning risk management, as those constitute a major public concern on health and safety in food consumption. Understanding how risk management experts confront food safety issues requires a deeper understanding of the underlying literature, given the controversy arising from mismatching perceptions between consumers and experts. Such a discrepancy serves as an important point for clarifying the conduct of risk management on food safety issues, hence my choice of the article by Krystallis et al. (2007) entitled: A Perceptual Divide? Consumer and Expert Attitudes to Food Risk Management in Europe.
Article Summary
Krystallis et al. (2007) contended that conflicting perceptions pertaining to good practices in food risk management does not just arise from a lack of knowledge and understanding but also from the lack of agreement between experts and consumers. Thus, Krystallis et al. (2007) fashions what they dub as the “expert-lay consensus” as the one currently lacking for the resolution disposition of food management crises. Without a strong concurrence between consumers and experts, both of which thrive within their self-interested perspectives, food risk management would be difficult to solve, hence the emphasis of Krystallis et al. on the following themes concerning perceptual discrepancies between experts and consumers, block-quoted as follows:
(a) consumer awareness and knowledge of food hazards; (b) consumer satisfaction with food risk management efforts; (c) responsibilities for food safety; (d) priorities in food risk management; (e) the role of the media in food risk management; and (f) food safety-related scientific uncertainty (2007).
Another theme, which concerns the general idea of food safety, has also been a matter of agreement and dissension between experts and consumers. Krystallis et al. (2007) identified and elaborated on the agreements and disagreements of experts and consumers in each of the seven themes mentioned above.
The expert-lay consensus is in agreement with the premise that consumers lack knowledge when it comes to food safety. Experts contend that consumers do not have the will to acquire additional information with regard to food safety. Consumers, for their part, lament the fact that the information they receive on food safety is either inadequate or hard to understand in layman terms. When it comes to food risk management efforts, the expert-lay consensus is in concurrence with the premise that authorities exercise sufficient efforts in ensuring food safety. Differences in opinion in that regard, however, lie on the assumption of experts that consumers are happy about what the authorities are currently doing with regard to food safety. Yet, consumers have since refuted the experts by asserting that authorities have yet to address particular areas in food safety that they have yet to cover. Such, therefore, leads to the discussion of priorities in food safety, where the expert-lay consensus is lenient towards the idea of prioritizing consumer protection. However, experts in the foregoing regard think that economic interests prevail in the need to protect consumers, who hold a contrary view considering the importance of protecting their interests. The expert-lay consensus views the concept of food safety as a shared responsibility, although ideational deviations arise in terms of identifying the focus of responsibility. Experts argue that shared responsibility in food safety must focus on state and industry roles, while consumers regard their protection as the key concern. On the matter of uncertainty in food safety, both experts and consumers think that there are numerous uncertain instances that may taint food safety. Yet, experts contend that uncertainty in food safety is natural in science, whereas consumers noted that not all institutions recognize such problem. Finally, the expert-lay consensus on the general concept food safety is supportive of the fact that experts and consumers alike think about it differently (Krystallis et al., 2007). Given the overall picture of perceptual discrepancies between experts and consumers on food safety, Krystallis et al. (2007) pressed for the urgency of developing “effective communication about technical risk assessments,” with the objective to increase consumer confidence in the effectiveness of practices in food risk management, apart from the rather pessimistic manner of direct communication of dangers to food safety. Essentially, Krystallis et al. (2007) noted the importance of understanding consumer perceptions for experts, specifically among food risk management practitioners.
The article by Krystallis et al. (2007) is highly instrumental in terms of explaining my research question: how is risk management conducted for food safety issues? Although Krystallis et al. (2007) did not answer my research question directly, their focus on the nature of perceptual discrepancies on food safety between experts and consumers provide a thorough exposition of the reality that differences in perspectives on food safety make the question of food risk management more complicated. As long as consumers and experts fail to unite within a single set of perspectives on food safety, answering my research question would prove to be an endeavor that would inevitably require the presentation and explanation of conflicting sides for every given theme. Given that, it is therefore presumable that my research question would definitely produce multiple answers – all being recommendatory in nature.
References
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.
