ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019
Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natamycin in Food and Ophthalmology: Knowledge Gaps and Emerging Insights from Zebrafish Models.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Applying knowledge and experience from potato (Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective.Transgenic research · 2022Review
- Molecular characterization for food safety assessment of a genetically modified late blight resistant potato: an unusual case.Transgenic research · 2021Article
- Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2020Article
- EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society': concluding remarks.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Editorial: Special Issue on EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society'.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Envisioning the expertise of the future.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Perspectives From the Science-Policy Interface in Animal Health and Welfare.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interplay between science, risk assessment and risk management has always been complex, and even more so in a world increasingly characterised by rapid technical innovation, new modes of communication, suspicion about authorities and experts, and demands for people to have a say in decisions that are made on their behalf. In this challenging era where scientific advice on food safety has never been in greater demand, risk managers should effectively navigate the interplay between facts and values and be able to rely on robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments to aid them. The fact that societal resistance is often encountered when scientific advice on food safety operates at a distance from social values and fails to actively engage with citizens, has led to increasing emphasis on the need to advance forms of risk assessment that are more contextual, and socially sound and accountable. EFSA's third Scientific Conference explored how risk assessments could be constructed to most usefully meet society's needs and thus connect science with society, while remaining scientifically robust. Contributors to the conference highlighted the need to: (1) frame risk assessments by clear policy goals and decision-making criteria; (2) begin risk assessments with an explicit problem formulation to identify relevant information; (3) make use of reliable risk assessment studies; (4) be explicit about value judgements; (5) address and communicate scientific uncertainty; (6) follow trustworthy processes; (7) publish the evidence and data, and report the way in which they are used in a transparent manner; (8) ensure effective communication throughout the risk analysis process; (9) involve society, as appropriate; and (10) weigh risks and benefits on request. Implementation of these recommendations would contribute to increased credibility and trustworthiness of food safety risk assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.