Comunicación de riesgos y seguridad alimentaria en la era 2.0

DOI: 10.3145/epi.2012.jul.08


Jordi Prades-Tena es licenciado en ciencias de la información (UAB) y master en derecho ambiental (URV). Ha trabajado como periodista durante 16 años en varios medios (como La vanguardia, El punt, Cadena SER, Europa Press) y en gabinetes de comunicación institucionales (Generalitat de Catalunya) y de la empresa privada (Centro Tecnológico de Nutrición y Sa-lud). Es técnico de investigación y doctorando del DEC de la URV. Juan-Luis Gonzalo-Iglesia es doctor en comunicación y profesor de teorías de la comunicación en el DEC de la URV. Su inves-tigación se centra en los procesos de comunicación social de los riesgos tecnológicos propios de la industria petroquímica, la energía nuclear, el cambio climático y el sector alimentario. Resumen En las últimas décadas, a raíz de varias crisis, la comunicación de riesgo ha cobrado especial importancia para los respon-sables de la seguridad alimentaria. La desconfianza ciudadana ha llevado a la UE a fundamentar su estrategia comunicativa en la información científica. Pese a la institucionalización y profesionalización de la comunicación de riesgo, los resultados no han sido los previstos en el nuevo entorno mediático. La irrupción de las redes sociales o web 2.0 ha creado culturas digitales que dan forma a nuevos conceptos sobre los riesgos y los beneficios. Así, para las instituciones, las redes sociales añaden nuevos problemas a la comunicación de riesgo tradicional: a la vez que se sienten obligadas a participar del entorno virtual, temen perder el control del mensaje y la legitimidad y no saben dialogar con los usuarios. Por ello, consideran que las redes sociales son una oportunidad incierta.

Download full-text


Available from: Jordi Farré, Oct 09, 2015
134 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Communicating risks has become a core ingredient in the regulatory functions of government, interest group advocacy, public health, and corporate relations. The channels of risk communication have grown in complexity along with the development and expansion of the Internet and the birth of personalized blogging. This paper discusses three stages in the development of risk communication as an area of study and research. It examines the way risk is framed in three channels of communication, newsprint, the Expanded Academic Index, and Google using the example of the controversial chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The paper concludes that the Internet, as illustrated by the Google search engine, has created more opportunities for citizen learning and expanded the breadth and channels of risk communication, while also providing new opportunities for stakeholders to influence the message. Democritization of information does not necessarily create greater concordance between the cultural and technical assessment of risk.
    Environmental Hazards 01/2007; 7(2):157-164. DOI:10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.05.006 · 0.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Checklists can be useful improving qualitative research methods, but overzealous and uncritical use can be counterproductive Reducing qualitative research to a list of technical procedures (such as purposive sampling, grounded theory, multiple coding, triangulation, and respondent validation) is overly prescriptive and results in “the tail wagging the dog” None of these “technical fixes” in itself confers rigour; they can strengthen the rigour of qualitative research only if embedded in a broader understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis Otherwise we risk compromising the unique contribution that systematic qualitative research can make to health services research. This paper gave rise to some debate in the BMJ's rapid response section and has been instrumental in the issuing of several invitations to speak at international symposia. Research Group 4 - Quality of Life and Quality of Care in Acute and Chronic Illness
    BMJ Clinical Research 06/2001; 322(7294):1115-7. DOI:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public perceptions of risk have often been dismissed on the basis of "irrationality", and have tended to be excluded from policy processes by risk assessors and managers. People's responses to different risks are determined by psychological factors. The technical risk estimates traditionally provided by experts do not influence people's behaviours and responses in the same way as their risk perceptions. Some concerns are very specific to particular hazard. It is also important to communicate the difference between probability and variability associated with risk estimates. Risk communication must take account of the actual concerns of the public (for example, potential for negative environmental impact, unintended human health effects, or vulnerable groups within the population). When the public want information about a risk, they prefer a clear message regarding risks and associated uncertainties, including the nature and extent of disagreements between different experts. Furthermore, societal priorities for risk mitigation activities may not align with those identified by expert groups. Dismissing the former as irrelevant may result increased distrust in the motives of regulators and industry, with consequences for public confidence in regulatory activities linked to public protection. Awareness and understanding of public concerns must be the basis of an effective risk management strategy.
    Toxicology Letters 05/2004; 149(1-3):391-7. DOI:10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.049 · 3.26 Impact Factor