The newly anointed leaders of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say in a scientific journal this week that,

“… one of the greatest challenges facing any public health agency is that of risk communication.”

Lots of public health types say that. If only there were better communication, everyone would get along.

Life is messier than that.

Communication is one of those cop-out words that people and bureaucrats routinely use but really don’t want to use; the complications are far too messy.

Because communication would involve the actual transmission of feelings, and the hurt, pain, joy and angst of whatever anyone went through.

So when Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., and Joshua M. Sharfstein, M.D., the commissioner, and the principal deputy commissioner, of the Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday that,

“We all accept small risks in our daily lives, from the risk of falling in the shower and sustaining a head injury to the risk of having a car accident on the way to the grocery store. One reason we are rarely fearful of these risks is our perception that we have control over them. When it comes to food and drugs, even small risks can cause considerable fear and anxiety, especially when they seem to be out of our control. Yet all pharmaceuticals have some potential adverse effects, and many raw foods may harbor natural pathogens.”

I fell asleep.

The author’s continued,

“Transparency is a potent element of a successful strategy to enhance the work of the FDA and its credibility with the public. Whenever possible, the FDA should provide the data on which it bases its regulatory decisions and other guidance and explain its decision-making process to the public.”

Right. So please provide public, transparent guidelines for going public about outbreaks of foodborne illness.