A Comparative Study on Risk Perception/Communication in Food Safety

between Japan and Western Countries

Jun Sekizawa1, Nobuko Ueno2, Hiroko Otsubo3, Shoji Tsuchida4

1 Professor, Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, University of Tokushima sekizawa@ias.tokushima-u.ac.jp 2 Institute for the Future Technology3 Institute for Media and Communication Research, Keio University4 Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University

　　　 　　　　 September 11, 2006

✔ Perception and communication of benefit and risk

associated with food depends on individual life

style choices, and also on social and cultural

factors.

✔ There are no cross-cultural risk communication

studies between Japan and Western countries in

the area of food safety, where much difference is

known to exist in the food intake pattern and also

in social and cultural factors

Background -1

♫ BSE Panic: Government Had Been Insisting No Domestic Contamination (September 2001)

♫ False Labeling of Beaf : Imported one was Labeled as Domestic one which is Better Acclaimmed (2001 and later)

♫ Illegal Use of Pesticides : Imported Food contaminated by Domestically Not Approved Pesticides (2002)

♫ ♫ Strong Objection Against Illegal Production/Labeling and Distrust of Consumers to the Government and Producers

♫ ♫ A new law, the Food Safety Basic Law promulgated, and established the Food Safety Commission in 2003

Background -2 Triggers for Changes in the Early 21st

Century in Japan

Study aims

♪ A background study for cross-cultural risk communication survey between Japan and Western countries in the area of food safety planned to show effects of food intake pattern and others.

♪ Some Important points for improving current risk communication practice considered through case studies.

Methods

♥ Comparison of messages from food safety authorities with responsibility for risk communication on food in Japan, UK and the USA

♥ Use of cases of mercury contamination in fish and BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cows

♥ Use of risk information from national authorities and its background data from their web sites and others.

♥ Comparison of subjects of academic studies on food safety from presentations of the SRA meetings, last year.

Not Much Difference In Contents of Warning Messages between Japan and Western Countries（ Tokyo Metropolitan Government Report, 2004)

♪ Target population are pregnant women & potentially

pregnant women♪ Some difference in warned fish species etc.♫ MHLW*, Japan: Swordfish, Red snapper, Shark,

etc. in 2003 (Tuna was added in 2005)♫ FDA, USA 2001: Shark, Swordfish, Horse-head fi

sh etc.♫ FSA, UK 2003: Shark, Swordfish, Marlin, Tuna

*Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

Methylmercury in Fish -1

Methylmercury in Fish -2

Comparison of Questions & Answers between Japan & UK in Warning Announcement to Pregnant Women

MHLW Japan (2003) : Lengthy with many Jargons

17 Q & A’s in 14 pages with 7 tables & figures written in 9300 letters (average 27 letters in Q; 260 letters in A) & arithmetic formula

Food Standards Agency UK (2003) : Succinct and simple 10 Q & A’s in 1 page with no tables & figures written in average 33 letters (8.1 words) in Q; 180 letters (39.1 words) with details in other document cited

♦ Sensitive Population Clearly Identified as Pregnant Women♦ Benefit of Fish Intake Mentioned Clearly♦ Precautionary Explanation to Media People♦ Tabular Presentation of Safe Amount of Fish Intake♦ Q & A Issued on the Day of the Press Release, which was Delayed Two Weeks Before♦ Comments to Risk Assessment Solicited Earlier

Some Improvements in Warning Message on Mercury in Fish from 2003 to 2005 in Japan

Methylmercury in Fish -3

BSE Issue in Beef between Japan and USA -1

♦ Beef consumption in Japan : thousand tons per year per capita of 120 million people

in 2004: 809 (450, 56%) in 2003: 894 (576, 64%) 49% & 46% of import from Australia & USA♦ Beef consumption in USA : thousand tons per year per capita of 295 million people in 2005: 12339 (1363, 11%; 1143, 9%)

Colour indicates (imported, exported)

Beef consumption ratio between USA and Japan (g/person/day)

= 6.2 (estimated from data of USDA 2005 & MAFF Japan 2004)

♦ Scientific Risk Assessment vs. Public Acceptance ♦ Not Much Mutual Understanding of Differences in the Technical Environment by Public of Both Countries♦ Balance between Economy in Sales & Worry on Food Safety in Public♦ Trust/distrust on Risk Management of the Authorities ♦ Political Background of the Governments♦ Gaps between Risk Management and Scientific Risk Assessment ♦ So far risk Communication “Not Fully” successful yet♦ Biggest claim makers appeared in the USA media are meat producers and the government*, whereas they are consumers, government and restaurants in Japan

*Personal communication from Dr. K.Tanaka, Kentucky Univ.

BSE Issue in Beef between Japan and USA -2

Subjects of Presentations:

♥ Methylmercury in fish

♥ Pesticide residues regulation

♥ Estimation of fate in the human body

♥ Consumer’s consciousness, Public perception:

Latter two cover various hazards in foods

Food Safety related subjects in the SRA Japan Annual Meeting (November 12-13, 2005)

5 presentations (2 of 5 are risk communication related)

Food Safety related subjects in the SRA (December 4-7, 2005) : 41 presentations

3 Sessions:

♣ Food-Borne Pathogens in Meat and Cheese (4)

♣ Food Safety Risk Assessment: Emerging Techniques and Issues (4)

♣ Drinking Water (4) 5 Symposia: ♣ 25 years of Food Safety Risk Analysis (9) ♣ Assessment of Human Exposures and Health Risks

from Consumption of Toxicants in Fish (8) ♣ Acrylamide in Food: The Role of Laboratory Rodents,

The Press, and Warning Labels in Risk Analysis (3) ♣ The Risk of Avoiding Food Risks (4) ♣ Risk Assessment at FDA: Applications for Informing

Science-based Decisions (5)

Topics covering both Food Safety and Risk Communication

1) Houghton et al. ： Perception of Food Risk Management Practices Among Key Stakeholders: Results from a Cross-European Study

2) Sekizawa J: A Study on Risk Communication on Food Safety in Japan

3) Tobe Y : The Transition of Consumer Role in Securing Food Safety and Their Attitude toward Effective Risk Communication in Japan

✔ Above three presentations covered BSE case and also risk communication issues, two of which come from Japan and one comes from Europe.

✔ No other presentations covered BSE case, although 12 presentations covered toxic residues in fish.

Subjects in the SRA (December 4-7, 2005) -Continued

Food Intake Change in J apan from

National Health Nutrition Survey Data

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

g/p

ers

on

/da

y

Vegetables

Cereals & rice

Drinks & seasonings

Milk, egg & theirproducts Beans, nuts & potatoes

Fruits

Fish, clams & seaweeds *

Meats **

Other food items

Fish

Meats

Average Fish intake/Meat intake in Japan (from National Health and Nutrition Survey) = 93.5 g/72.6 g = 1.3

Fish consumption ratio between Japan and Australia

(g/person/day) = ca. 15 estimated from 1995 National Nutrition Survey in Australia

Marine fish eaten by 6% (on the day of) of women of

childbearing age = 79 g corresponds to average of

4.7 g/day/women

Food Intake Difference between Japan and

Western Countries

(1) More than 10 times Fish taken by Japanese people compared to People in Western Countries

(2) Approximately 6 times more beef taken by USA people

than Japanese people

Domestic Supply Rate of Foods (Calorie-base) among Japan and Western Countries http://www.saitama-ja.net/notebook/notebook_2_2.html

♦ There are interesting differences between the information of media and academia between Japan and Western countries, such as that Western countries are more concerned about contaminants in fish, while risk of BSE seems to be worried highly in Japan recently.

♦ Conspicuous status in Japan is its high dependency of food supply to import which makes its opinion more likely to be of consumers than of food producers or exporters

Discussions

♦ Communication of risks from BSE seems to be dependent on the recent events which have occurred in the countries.

♦ Communication about risks must be well designed so that it not only takes into account scientific risk evaluation, but also social background of those to whom information is communicated to promote understanding of risk and to develop reassurance among stakeholders.

Discussions - continued

Conclusions

1- Perception and communication in food safety can be associated with food intake pattern or life style choice and hence not only to risk, but also to benefit.

2- Social and cultural factors such as traditional life style and food supply in the real world may be important factors in risk communication on food safety.

3- We are planning a cross country/cultural survey between Japan and Western countries to examine our hypothesis.

Acknowledgements

Supported by grants from the Cabinet Office and MHLW, Japan.

4- Domestic and international risk communication in food safety must take into consideration of social and cultural

factors in the decision making process and in the introduction of new regulations.

5- Considering high dependence of Japan to imported foods, a certain level of understanding of international framework in food safety is considered to be necessary for Japanese stakeholders in making relevant claims of

the national position.

Conclusions-continued

Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon, Science, 　 9 　 January, 226-229 (2004) Hites RA et al

Some interesting warning on fish intake from USA??