What the food safety risk monitoring network is, the average person may not be very clear. However, careful people will notice that when a food poisoning or suspected food contamination incident occurs in a small place, people can often learn about the situation from the notification of the health department and understand the follow-up treatment results.
Insufficient daily risk communication can make the food safety management system fall into a certain embarrassment. There is a relatively ready-made example in this regard. Not long ago, there was a big controversy in the media about the new national standard for dairy products. Many people expressed strong concern that the national standard for dairy products was "kidnapped" by large companies. After being engaged, the relevant departments have patiently explained that the term "kidnapping" is not valid, and the new national standard for dairy products has not risen but declined as people have guessed. However, this controversy reflects a problem, that is, food legislation, including the formulation of food safety standards, has not been standardized into the risk communication mechanism.
From another perspective, risk communication is a two-way process, which means that the risk monitoring system should not only release information in a timely manner, but also find potential safety hazards in a timely manner from public feedback. The risk monitoring network has been initially perfected, and its coverage has reached a quarter of the counties. Such progress is very powerful. However, we must face up to the grim situation of food safety in our country. Food insecure factors dominated by illegal additions are often hidden in dark corners, and general risk identification and assessment may not be able to be insightful.
If you want to control the risk within a small limit, you must establish an effective feedback system to find the source of information from public opinions, so as to quickly realize risk management.
