Principles and Practices of Effective Food Safety Risk Communication – Introducing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Food Safety Risk Communication Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the principles and practices of effective food safety risk communication developed under the “Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Food Safety Risk Communication Framework and Associated Guidelines”. The framework recommends that effective food safety risk communication needs to be centered on the clear goal of protecting consumer health by ensuring transparency and timeliness, and communication on food safety matters should be conducted in a two-way process. It emphasizes the need to provide the public with credible information based on science and evidence and highlights that food safety is a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including industry, government agencies, media organizations and consumers. It further highlights that food safety risk communication needs to be conducted in a consistent, systematic, inclusive, consultative, and preventative manner. The framework also indicates that effective food safety risk communication needs to pay attention to the backgrounds, experiences, and needs of concerned audiences. It stresses the importance of continuous improvement of the communication system to ensure food safety risk communication to be effective. Focusing on effective communications in response to food safety incidents, emergency or crisis situations, as well as everyday food safety communications, these principles and practical guidelines will help food safety regulators, food industry, food safety educators and other stakeholders improve their communications with target audiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".