Suchergebnisse

The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) was founded in 2002. On the basis of internationally accepted scientific criteria for risk assessment, the institute provides opinions and statements on the safety of food and feed, chemicals, commodities and on consumer health protection. In this regard, it gives advice to the Federal Government and other institutes and Stakeholder groups. BfR does its own research on subjects which are close to its remit on risk assessment. By means of its proactive and participative risk communication, the BfR renders science visible to and beneficial for society. The following overview presents the scientific remit of the BfR and the perception of consumer health protection by the public and by interest groups from the areas economics, politics, consumer associations, the media and science by means of a representative survey. Food risks are of high individual importance, especially for consumers. Here a target-specific use of social multipliers is important to interpret the differences between existing health risks and so called perceived risks

Two studies were launched by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment to clarify the understanding of the basic terms "hazard" and "risk". These terms tend to lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations by stakeholders in the context of public authority risk communication. The first project was dedicated to the central question of how both of these terms are understood and used in the scientific arena and whether laypeople distinguish between "hazard" and "risk". It could be assumed that the two terms are well understood in the special scientific circles, although there are also differences in interpreting the terms in different scientific disciplines. Laypeople do not really distinguish between "hazard" and "risk" unless they are informed otherwise. In addition to these findings, differences were emphasized within the second project which aims to explain different interpretations between governmental institutions, industry and non- governmental organisations.

Zu den Aufgabenbereichen der Risikokommunikation zählen unter anderem das Informieren über und Erklären von Risiken sowie das Initiieren von Verhaltensänderungen und Vorsorgemaßnahmen. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 waren diese Aufgabenbereiche zentrale Ziele der Risikokommunikation der zuständigen Institutionen und Behörden. Generell wird Risikokommunikation eher als eine langfristige Kommunikation über Risiken betrachtet mit dem Ziel, mit diesen Risiken besser umgehen zu können. Bei der Krisenkommunikation wird eher kurzfristig auf einen Ereignisfall reagiert, mit dem Ziel, zu informieren und angemessene Verhaltensmaßnahmen zu kommunizieren. Während des EHEC-Ausbruchs ging die Risikokommunikation zum Teil in die Krisenkommunikation über. Aus Sicht des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung (BfR) wird die Risikokommunikation des Bundesinstitutes für Risikobewertung (BfR) während des EHEC-Ausbruchs im Frühsommer 2011 vorgestellt. Ergebnisse einer Verbraucherbefragung im Nachgang an das Ausbruchsgeschehen geben Hinweise auf den Erfolg der Risikokommunikationsmaßnahmen. Abschließend wird auf die Notwendigkeit der Kommunikation von Unsicherheiten im Rahmen der Risikokommunikation verwiesen und auf mögliche Entwicklungstendenzen der Risikokommunikation im Zusammenhang mit neuen Medien hingewiesen. ; Information about and explanation of risks as well as the initiation of behavioral changes and preventive actions are core tasks of risk communication. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak in spring 2011, the governmental agencies responsible for risk communication mainly focused on these tasks. In general, risk communication is understood as a continuous, long-term process that aims at an adequate handling of risks. In contrast, crisis communication is focused rather on an acute event and aims at timely information and behavioral measures. During the EHEC/HUS outbreak, risk communication partly changed over to crisis communication. The risk communication activities of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitüt für Risikobewertung, BfR) during the EHEC/HUS outbreak are presented here. The results of a representative survey that was conducted in Germany shortly after the outbreak show details of the success of these risk communication activities. Finally, the necessity of communication about scientific uncertainty is addressed and new ways in risk communication with regard to new media are highlighted.

In view of the rapid increase in the globalisation of the economy, assuring food safety within the European Union is a challenge. The range and variety of foods on offer in Europe continue to rise steadily. The demands not only on food companies but also on the European Union and its member states grow, that food risks should be scientifically assessed, minimised and communicated in a way that can be easily understood. Private, as well as criminal and public law aspects have to be considered, especially in possible crises. The structures of and responsibilities for the public law tasks of EU institutions and on the level of the Member States and even within the Member States themselves are often not sufficiently well known. This results in confusion and accusations in times of crisis and a duplication of efforts and negative competence conflicts in times of peace and quiet. The "EU Food Safety Almanac" published by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, BfR) is intended to help to perceive responsibilities in food safety in a proper manner. It provides an overview of the structures of food and feed safety within the Member States and the European Union. In doing so, it becomes clear how food safety is organised and implemented differently within the scope of the constitutional and administrative law of 35 respective countries.

A number of zero tolerance provisions are contained in both food and animal feed law, e.g. for chemical substances whose occurrence is not permitted or is directly prohibited in food or animal feed. In the European Union, bans of this kind were introduced to give consumers and animals the greatest possible protection from substances with a possible hazard potential within the intendment of the hazard prevention principles and current precautionary measures. This also applies to substances for which an acceptable daily intake cannot be derived and a maximum residue limit cannot, therefore, be established, e.g. due to missing or inadequate toxicological data. Zero tolerances are also under discussion as trade barriers because their use has triggered numerous legal disputes. This paper draws together the results of an evaluation of alternative risk assessment methods to be used for the risk assessment of substances to which currently only zero tolerances apply. It will demonstrate that, depending on the available toxicological data, a scientifically sound risk assessment may still be possible. In this context, the two concepts - margin of exposure and threshold of toxicological concern - are very promising approaches. Until the scientific and sociopolitical discussions have been completed, it is essential that the principle of zero tolerances be upheld, especially for those substances which may be genotoxic carcinogens. In microbiology, there is no legal room for manoeuvre with regard to food safety criteria established for reasons of consumer health protection on the basis of scientific assessments