Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42830703›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026

Mapping Interactions Within EU Food and Feed Risk Analysis: A Comparative Study of Risk Assessors and Risk Managers.

Axel Menning, Leonie Dendler, Joao Borges, Anneluise Mader, Mats Gunnar Andersson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Axel MenningGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6404-8309
Leonie DendlerGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4442-5273
Joao BorgesWageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2580-051X
Anneluise MaderGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3298-3668
Mats Gunnar AnderssonNational Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0022-2300

Funding

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GP/EFSA/ENCO/2020/03 (ENCOMRAN)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering prominent calls for various forms of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration within risk analysis processes, this empirical research study aims to delineate current forms of interaction between risk assessors and risk managers. Utilizing an online survey, it analyses responses from 95 professionals working in the field of food and feed risk analysis across at least 23 EU countries and determines interaction scores based on the degree of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. The scores show that current interaction dominantly aligns with cooperation across multiple dimensions. However, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) reveals significant perceptual differences between risk assessors and managers regarding their mutual interaction. In particular, risk assessors perceive their interaction with risk management more cooperative and risk managers perceive their interaction with risk assessment more collaborative. A notable difference was also observed in the interaction scores for routine risk analysis versus rapid risk analysis. In addition, clustering analysis and regression analysis was conducted to examine the relation and impact of different interaction dimensions on perceived quality of risk analysis. While the results do not support uniform calls for more collaboration, they show positive effects of open and frequent communication on the perceived quality of risk analysis. These results suggest working towards more individualized and fit-for-purpose interactions as well as to extend practitioner-oriented dialogue on desired modes of interactions, to enhance mutual understanding in their collective risk analysis.

Indexed as

Animal FeedFoodRisk ManagementCluster AnalysisEuropean UnionHumansMultivariate AnalysisRisk Assessmentempirical researchenterprise risk managementmultivariate analysismultivariate analysis of varianceperceptionregression analysisrisk analysisrisk assessmentrisk managementrisk management tools

Identifiers

PMID42830703
PMCPMC13635759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.