1 / 21

A Comparative Study on Risk Perception/Communication in Food Safety between Japan and Western Countries

September 11, 2006. A Comparative Study on Risk Perception/Communication in Food Safety between Japan and Western Countries. Jun Sekizawa 1 , Nobuko Ueno 2 , Hiroko Otsubo 3 , Shoji Tsuchida 4 1 Professor, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, University of Tokushima

ophelia
Download Presentation

A Comparative Study on Risk Perception/Communication in Food Safety between Japan and Western Countries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. September 11, 2006 A Comparative Study on Risk Perception/Communication in Food Safety between Japan and Western Countries Jun Sekizawa1, Nobuko Ueno2, Hiroko Otsubo3, Shoji Tsuchida4 1Professor, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, University ofTokushima sekizawa@ias.tokushima-u.ac.jp 2 Institute for the Future Technology 3 Institute for Media and Communication Research, Keio University 4 Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University

  2. Background -1 ✔Perception and communication of benefit and risk associated with food depends on individuallife style choices, and also on social and cultural factors. ✔There are no cross-cultural risk communication studies between Japan and Western countries in the area of food safety, where much difference is known to exist in the food intake pattern and also in social and cultural factors

  3. Background -2Triggers for Changes in the Early 21st Century in Japan ♫BSE Panic: Government Had Been Insisting No Domestic Contamination (September 2001) ♫False Labeling of Beaf : Imported one was Labeled as Domestic one which is Better Acclaimmed (2001 and later) ♫Illegal Use of Pesticides : Imported Food contaminated by DomesticallyNot Approved Pesticides (2002) ♫♫Strong ObjectionAgainst Illegal Production/Labeling andDistrustof Consumers to the Government and Producers ♫♫A new law, the Food Safety Basic Law promulgated, and established the Food Safety Commission in 2003

  4. Study aims ♪A background study for cross-cultural risk communication survey between Japan and Western countries in the area of food safety planned to show effects of food intake pattern and others. ♪ Some Important points for improving current risk communication practice considered through case studies.

  5. Methods ♥Comparison of messages from food safety authorities with responsibility for risk communication on food in Japan, UK and the USA ♥Use of cases of mercury contamination in fish and BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)in cows ♥Use of risk information from national authorities and its background data from their web sites and others. ♥ Comparison of subjects of academic studies on food safety from presentations of the SRA meetings, last year.

  6. Not Much Difference In Contents of Warning Messages between Japan and Western Countries（Tokyo Metropolitan Government Report, 2004) Methylmercury in Fish -1 ♪Target population are pregnant women & potentially pregnant women ♪ Some difference in warned fish species etc. ♫MHLW*, Japan: Swordfish, Red snapper, Shark, etc. in 2003 (Tuna was added in 2005) ♫FDA, USA 2001: Shark, Swordfish, Horse-head fish etc. ♫FSA, UK 2003: Shark, Swordfish, Marlin, Tuna *Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

  7. Methylmercury in Fish -2 Comparison of Questions & Answers between Japan & UKin Warning Announcement to Pregnant Women MHLW Japan(2003) : Lengthy with many Jargons 17 Q & A’s in 14 pages with 7 tables & figures written in 9300 letters (average 27 letters in Q; 260 letters in A) & arithmetic formula Food Standards Agency UK (2003) : Succinctand simple 10 Q & A’s in 1 page with no tables & figures written in average 33 letters (8.1 words) in Q; 180 letters (39.1 words) with details in other document cited

  8. Methylmercury in Fish -3 Some Improvements in Warning Message on Mercury in Fish from 2003 to 2005 in Japan ♦ Sensitive Population Clearly Identified as Pregnant Women ♦ Benefit of Fish Intake Mentioned Clearly ♦ Precautionary Explanation to Media People ♦ Tabular Presentation of Safe Amount of Fish Intake ♦ Q & A Issued on the Day of the Press Release, which was Delayed Two Weeks Before ♦ Comments to Risk Assessment Solicited Earlier

  9. BSE Issue in Beefbetween Japan and USA -1 ♦Beef consumption in Japan : thousand tons per year per capita of 120 million people in 2004: 809 (450, 56%) in 2003: 894 (576, 64%) 49% & 46% of import from Australia & USA ♦Beef consumption in USA : thousand tons per year per capita of 295 million people in 2005:12339 (1363, 11%; 1143, 9%) Beef consumption ratiobetween USA and Japan (g/person/day) = 6.2 (estimated from data of USDA 2005 & MAFF Japan 2004) Colour indicates (imported, exported)

  10. BSE Issue in Beef between Japan and USA -2 ♦ Scientific Risk Assessment vs. Public Acceptance ♦ Not Much Mutual Understanding of Differences in the TechnicalEnvironment by Public of Both Countries ♦ Balance between Economy in Sales & Worry on Food Safety in Public ♦ Trust/distrust on Risk Management of the Authorities ♦ Political Background of the Governments ♦ Gaps between Risk Management and Scientific Risk Assessment ♦So far risk Communication “Not Fully”successful yet ♦ Biggest claim makers appeared in the USA media are meat producers and the government*, whereas they are consumers, government and restaurants in Japan *Personal communication from Dr. K.Tanaka, Kentucky Univ.

  11. Food Safety related subjects in the SRA Japan Annual Meeting (November 12-13, 2005) 5 presentations (2 of 5 are risk communication related) Subjects of Presentations: ♥Methylmercury in fish ♥Pesticide residues regulation ♥Estimation of fate in the human body ♥Consumer’s consciousness, Public perception: Latter two cover various hazards in foods

  12. Food Safety related subjects in the SRA (December 4-7, 2005): 41 presentations 3 Sessions: ♣Food-Borne Pathogens in Meat and Cheese (4) ♣Food Safety Risk Assessment: Emerging Techniques and Issues (4) ♣Drinking Water (4) 5 Symposia: ♣25 years of Food Safety Risk Analysis (9) ♣Assessment of Human Exposures and Health Risks from Consumption of Toxicants in Fish (8) ♣Acrylamide in Food: The Role of Laboratory Rodents, The Press, and Warning Labels in Risk Analysis (3) ♣The Risk of Avoiding Food Risks (4) ♣Risk Assessment at FDA: Applications for Informing Science-based Decisions (5)

  13. Subjects in the SRA (December 4-7, 2005)-Continued • Topics covering both Food Safety and Risk Communication • Houghton et al.：Perception of Food Risk Management Practices Among Key Stakeholders: Results from a Cross-European Study • 2) Sekizawa J: A Study on Risk Communication on Food Safety in Japan • 3) Tobe Y : The Transition of Consumer Role in Securing Food Safety and Their Attitude toward Effective Risk Communication in Japan • ✔Above three presentations covered BSE case and also risk communication issues, two of which come fromJapan and one comes from Europe. • ✔No other presentationscovered BSE case, although 12 presentationscovered toxic residues in fish.

  14. Average Fish intake/Meat intake in Japan(from National Health and Nutrition Survey)= 93.5 g/72.6 g = 1.3

  15. Food Intake Difference between Japan and Western Countries Fish consumption ratio between Japan and Australia(g/person/day) = ca. 15 estimated from 1995 National Nutrition Survey in Australia Marine fish eaten by 6% (on the day of) of women of childbearing age = 79 g corresponds to average of 4.7 g/day/women • More than 10 times Fish taken by Japanese peoplecompared to People in Western Countries • (2)Approximately 6 times more beef taken by USA people • than Japanese people

  16. Domestic Supply Rate of Foods (Calorie-base) among Japan and Western Countrieshttp://www.saitama-ja.net/notebook/notebook_2_2.html

  17. Discussions ♦ There are interesting differences between the information of media and academia between Japan and Western countries, such as that Western countries are more concerned about contaminants in fish, while risk of BSE seems to be worried highly in Japan recently. ♦ Conspicuous status in Japan is its high dependency of food supply to import which makes its opinion more likely to be of consumers than of food producers or exporters

  18. Discussions - continued ♦ Communication of risks from BSE seems to be dependent on the recent events which have occurred in the countries. ♦ Communication about risks must be well designed so that it not only takes into account scientific risk evaluation, but also social background of those to whom information is communicated to promote understanding of risk and to develop reassurance among stakeholders.

  19. Conclusions 1- Perception and communication in food safety can be associated with food intake pattern or life style choice and hence not only to risk, but also to benefit. 2- Social and cultural factors such as traditional life style and food supply in the real world may be important factors in risk communication on food safety. 3- We are planning a cross country/cultural survey between Japan and Western countries to examine our hypothesis.

  20. Conclusions-continued 4- Domestic and international risk communication in food safety must take into consideration of social and cultural factors in the decision making process and in the introduction of new regulations. 5-Considering highdependence of Japan to imported foods, a certain level of understanding of international framework infood safety is considered to be necessary for Japanese stakeholders in makingrelevant claimsof the national position. Acknowledgements Supported by grants from the Cabinet Office and MHLW, Japan.

  21. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon, Science,9January, 226-229 (2004) Hites RA et al Some interesting warning on fish intake from USA??

More Related