Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626444›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.

Yann Devos, Kevin C Elliott, Philip Macdonald, Katherine McComas, Lucia Parrino, Domagoj Vrbos, Tobin Robinson, David Spiegelhalter, Barbara Gallani

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Applying knowledge and experience from potato (Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  8. Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  11. Envisioning the expertise of the future.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Yann DevosGMO Unit European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Italy.
Kevin C ElliottLyman Briggs College Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy Michigan State University United States of America.
Philip MacdonaldCanadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Canada.
Katherine McComasDepartment of Communication Cornell University United States of America.
Lucia ParrinoCorporate Services (CORSER) Unit, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Italy.
Domagoj VrbosCommunication Engagement and Cooperation (COMCO) Department European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Italy.
Tobin RobinsonScientific Committee and Emerging Risks (SCER) Unit European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Italy.
David SpiegelhalterStatistical Laboratory University of Cambridge United Kingdom.
Barbara GallaniCommunication Engagement and Cooperation (COMCO) Department European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Italy.
European Food Safety Authority · ITCanadian Food Inspection Agency · CACornell University · USMichigan Department of Natural Resources · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

expertisepublic engagementriskscience communicationtransparencytrust

Identifiers

PMID32626444
PMCPMC7015513
OpenAlexW2960634915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.