The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose-response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value-based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk-benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) receives hundreds of requests for scientific risk assessments each year and publishes on average over 500 scientific outputs annually. To optimise the planning for its risk communications, the authors developed a two-phase approach for assessing incoming requests that follows the first two stages of the IRGC's Risk Governance Framework?Pre-Assessment (Screening) and Appraisal (Risk Perceptions and Social Concerns Assessment)?and is driven by use of social insights, analytics, and professional knowledge. During the Pre-Assessment phase requests from risk managers are pre-screened and filtered then processed using a checklist divided into sections on the characteristics of risks, knowledge/awareness of them, and the institutional and market context. A decision tree was developed to manage the combinations of factors needed to trigger preparation for future risk communications options. Use of the approach was implemented and refined at EFSA from 2019 to 2021. During the Appraisal phase, societal insights from social research, media analysis and social media listening are compiled to i) map the elements to consider for risk communication and ii) identify the overall sensitivity of the subject matter, taking into account concerns, expectations and risk perceptions. These assessments of risk perception and societal concerns have been developed for sensitive topics and potentially emerging issues with the aim of identifying risks that share similar characterises, in terms of level of knowledge and risk perception. These two stages provide mechanisms to identify topics and clusters of topics of interest for risk communication and to drive the subsequent development of communication objectives and strategies. This is expected to inform the eventual development of standardised communication responses on topics within specific clusters.

•Risk assessors, risk managers and risk communicators were involved in an experiential game-based social learning workshop.•Games mimicked situations in which risk analysis experts and risk stakeholders are in a circumstance of uncertainty, in their private or professional life.•This exploratory study investigates the potential effectiveness of game-based social learning approaches in risk analysis.

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 19, Issue 5 E200508E Technical reportOpen Access Theme (concept) paper - Evidence-based risk communication in the EU Food Safety System European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Corresponding Author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [email protected] Correspondence:[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorDomagoj Vrbos, Domagoj VrbosSearch for more papers by this authorAnthony Smith, Anthony SmithSearch for more papers by this authorJoana Sousa Lourenco, Joana Sousa LourencoSearch for more papers by this authorGiorgia Zamariola, Giorgia ZamariolaSearch for more papers by this authorKonstantinos Paraskevopoulos, Konstantinos ParaskevopoulosSearch for more papers by this authorBarbara Gallani, Barbara GallaniSearch for more papers by this authorClaudia Heppner, Claudia HeppnerSearch for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Corresponding Author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [email protected] Correspondence:[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorDomagoj Vrbos, Domagoj VrbosSearch for more papers by this authorAnthony Smith, Anthony SmithSearch for more papers by this authorJoana Sousa Lourenco, Joana Sousa LourencoSearch for more papers by this authorGiorgia Zamariola, Giorgia ZamariolaSearch for more papers by this authorKonstantinos Paraskevopoulos, Konstantinos ParaskevopoulosSearch for more papers by this authorBarbara Gallani, Barbara GallaniSearch for more papers by this authorClaudia Heppner, Claudia HeppnerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 31 May 2022 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.e200508 Amendment: Authorship of this technical report was rearranged on the 27th of June 2022. Disclaimer: This document does not present future project calls as part of EFSA's work programme, or any future position of EFSA. It aims to support the development of a roadmap for action and its content can be subject to change. AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume19, Issue5May 2022E200508E RelatedInformation

EFSA undertook consumer research on nutrition and dietary sugars awareness, knowledge and risk perception, preferred information sources and trust in different actors, plus additional research on stakeholder perspectives. The research results informed EFSA's communications and engagement for a public consultation on its draft scientific assessment of a Tolerable Upper Intake Level for dietary sugars, and upon its subsequent final publication. Interviews with the representatives of nine stakeholder organisations and two institutional partners were analysed for qualitative insights, which were used to validate and reinforce EFSA's outreach to partners and civil society organisations. A consumer survey was conducted among a representative sample of 7,469 citizens (aged between 18 and 76) across EU Member States, Iceland and Norway in October and November 2020. The analysis of the quantitative data using segments derived from knowledge and risk perception indexes delivered important improvements for audience identification, messaging and choice of formats and channels for communication to the general public. The production of tips for risk communication on this topic used in combination with country-specific data, provided both accessible and comprehensive support to risk communicators at the national competent authorities in EU Member States, Iceland and Norway.

This editorial proposes directions for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to meet its current and future obligations as a source of public information and communication on food-related risks in the EU. These directions are intended to guide EFSA's communications through changes driven by new legal obligations, a new organisational strategy cycle and social and technological evolution. This editorial summarises the rationales for shifts in some cases already underway towards embedding audience analysis throughout our risk communication practices, rolling out partnership approaches for producing and delivering public information and greater digital prowess and social media integration. It describes the main audience clusters for EU food safety risk communication, related content strategies and the technical and professional skills required to pursue them.

This report assesses peer-reviewed and grey literature on risk communication concepts and practices, as requested by the European Commission to support the implementation of a 'General Plan for Risk Communication', i.e. an integrated framework for EU food safety risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national level, as required by the revised EU General Food Law Regulation. We conducted a scoping review of social research studies and official reports in relation to risk communication in the following areas: understanding and awareness of risk analysis roles and tasks, reducing misunderstanding of the different meaning of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk', tackling misinformation and disinformation, enhancing confidence in EU food safety, taking account of risk perceptions, key factors in trade-offs about risks, audience segmentation and tools, channels and mechanisms for coordinated risk communications. We structured our findings as follows: i) definitions of key concepts, ii) audience analysis and information requirements, iii) risk profiling, models and mechanisms, iv) contributions to communication strategies. We make several recommendations for consideration by the Commission, both in terms of actions to support the design and implementation of the general plan, and research needs that we consider crucial to further inform appropriate risk communication in the EU. EFSA carried out a targeted consultation of experts and a public consultation open to all interested parties including the general public, in preparing and finalising this report.

Abstract This paper presents selected highlights from the ‘Engaging with society’ session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food and Society’ (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post‐truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio‐economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.

The first strategic objective of EFSA's strategy 2020 ‘Trusted science for safe food’ is the prioritisation of public and stakeholder engagement in the development of scientific assessment. To achieve this, objective public consultations are a key step for such a strategic framework. The draft Guidance document on communication of uncertainty underwent a web-based public consultation from 4 May to 24 June 2018. The document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's ‘Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments’. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. Overall, EFSA received 212 comments from 24 interested parties including academia, national agencies, nongovernmental organisations and communicators. This report lists the individual comments received and explains in detail how the comments were taken into account during the finalisation process of the ‘Guidance on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments’. EFSA wishes to thank all the commenters for their valuable contributions.

This document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions of uncertainty described in EFSA's document: Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments'. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various expressions of uncertainty. The document provides a template for identifying expressions of uncertainty in scientific assessments and locating the specific guidance for each expression. The guidance is structured according to EFSA's three broadly defined categories of target audience: entry', informed' and technical' levels. Communicators should use the guidance for entry and informed audiences, while assessors should use the guidance for the technical level. The guidance was formulated using evidence from the scientific literature, grey literature and two EFSA research studies, or based on judgement and reasoning where evidence was incomplete or missing. The limitations of the evidence sources inform the recommendations for further research on uncertainty communication. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article:

8 This document provides guidance for communicators on how to communicate the various expressions 9 of uncertainty described in EFSA’s Guidance document on uncertainty analysis in scientific 10 assessments. It also contains specific guidance for assessors on how best to report the various 11 expressions of uncertainty. The document provides a template for identifying expressions of 12 uncertainty in scientific assessments and locating the specific guidance for each expression. The 13 guidance is structured according to EFSA’s three broad categories of target audience – ‘entry’, 14 ‘informed’ and ‘technical’ levels. Communicators should use the guidance for the entry and informed 15 audiences, while assessors should use the guidance for the technical level. The expressions of 16 uncertainty form the basis for guidance, the discussion of evidence sources from the scientific, grey 17 literature and two EFSA research studies, and the recommendations for further research on 18 uncertainty communication. 19 © 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on 20 behalf of European Food Safety Authority. 21 22

During the development of the EFSA guidance on uncertainty analysis, the literature was found to be equivocal about the best methods for communicating scientific uncertainties and there was a lack of empirical evidence on the best approaches for reaching non-technical audiences. EFSA therefore commissioned a focus group study in 2016 on clear communication of uncertainty information to different target audiences, followed by a larger scale multilingual online survey in 2017 described in this report. The survey was open over a three-week period, from 23 February until 15 March 2017. As a result, 1,913 people across the EU responded in six languages to questions about expressions of uncertainty: qualitative and quantitative wordings, approximate and precise probabilities, and positive or negative framings. The results showed that similarly large percentages of respondents ranked qualitative and quantitative expressions more helpful for understanding risk, and there was some preference for positively-framed statements. Nearly all the respondents were positive about receiving uncertainty information. There were moderate differences between the preferences of respondents using different languages and from different professional backgrounds, but due to limitations of the survey method it was not possible to interpret the cause of these. The results are consistent with those of the earlier focus group study. Together they support using positively-framed, qualitative and quantitative expressions for all audience groups, as in every group some people prefer one and some the other, and nearly all find them useful. These findings together with those in the scientific literature will inform development of an EFSA guidance document on communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments, and updating EFSA's handbook on risk communication.

Abstract To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.

This chapter first examines the assumptions behind some recent work in the field of nationalism and national identity. In doing so, it starts with the so-called 'post-modernist' approaches of Homi Bhabha and Benedict Anderson, followed by the recent works of Eric Hobsbawm in the Marxist tradition, and finally the revised version of Ernest Gellner's modernist theory. Ethno-symbolic reconstruction is the basic process through which national identities are reconstituted out of ethnic ties and characteristics, and then reproduced or modified. It occurs in every generation, more or less thoroughly, altering but never destroying the basic patterning of the dominant ethno-heritage which underpins any popular and recognized national identity. The chapter then advances an alternative approach based on the idea of reconstruction of a distinctive ethno-heritage, and further applies this to ethnic, civic and especially plural nations.

The ambitious 21st Annual Conference of the Parties (COP21) targets of over 200 countries to limit global warming require a significant reduction in green house gas (GHG) emissions by signatories; these reductions will require major shifts in the way that countries think about their supply mix. Although renewables are often the primary focus of emissions reductions, the role of natural gas in GHG emissions warrants consideration. Gas is ‘triple A’: affordable, abundant and available. It is also lower in GHG than other fossil fuel alternatives. The future success and price stability of liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects is intrinsically linked to the success of natural gas as a bridge fuel to a lower carbon future; although there was initial optimism about the potential of natural gas as a bridge fuel under COP21, further analysis shows that forecast demand for natural gas and LNG in new policy scenarios is likely lower than original forecasts, placing Australian producers’ existing and future projects in a challenging position; moving down the cost-curve where possible is the best way to ensure resilient demand even in a slower growth future environment.

Risk analysis and risk governance face a decline in social trust at both the scientific and policy levels. The involvement of society in the process has been proposed as an approach to increasing trust and engagement by making better use of available data and knowledge. In this session, EFSA explored the challenges in building trust and engagement and the latest thinking and methodologies for increasing openness that can help the organisation to move beyond traditional dialogue and towards a more sustainable stakeholder and society interaction. The discussion centred on the needs of EFSA and of target audiences throughout the process, from risk assessment initiation through societal decision-making and communication. The main focus of the session was on methodologies and approaches that would enable EFSA to increase its scientific rigour and build trust from additional inputs gained by opening up its risk assessments at the level of data gathering, data analysis, expertise and innovation. This will require an approach that moves beyond traditional risk assessment practices that rely on a long chain of static information and knowledge such as scientific articles, reviews, expert groups and committees. (C) 2016 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

Nations and NationalismVolume 21, Issue 1 p. 1-1 EDITORIAL Editorial for 20th anniversary issue John Hutchinson, John Hutchinson Joint Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorAnthony D. Smith, Anthony D. Smith Joint Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author John Hutchinson, John Hutchinson Joint Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorAnthony D. Smith, Anthony D. Smith Joint Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 January 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12110Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume21, Issue1January 2015Pages 1-1 RelatedInformation