Whenever a group says the public needs to be educated about food safety, biotechnology, trans fats, organics or anything else, that group has utterly failed to present a compelling case for their cause. Individuals can choose to educate themselves about all sorts of interesting things, but the idea of educating someone is doomed to failure. And it’s sorta arrogant to state that others need to be educated; to imply that if only you understood the world as I understand the world, we would agree and dissent would be minimized.???

On the same day the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its Strategic Plan for Risk Communication, which outlines the agency’s efforts to disseminate more meaningful public health information and has lots of pretty words about “two-way communication through enhanced partnerships,” FDA said its “new web videos educate consumers about food and medical product safety.”

No evidence is provided that anyone found the videos educational. And the language in the headline is not consistent with ”two-way communication.” What’s with the dualities? Good and bad, heaven and hell? How about multiple communications with a variety of audiences, to use bureau-speak; and chew gum at the same time.

It’s important to tell people how information is developed and released. We updated the bites.ksu.edu information protocol last week. But actions speak louder than words.

One of the tenets of effective risk communication to inform, discuss and participate in give and take when it comes to information, rather than educate. I co-wrote a book about it, 1997’s Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk. And people learn through stories, not facts.

There is a dearth of scientific studies applying proven risk communication concepts to issues of microbial food safety. There is, however, an abundance of academic, industrial and government pronouncements on how to improve communications activities related to food safety, based on anecdotal evidence and almost always citing the need for “educated consumers” or “a better-educated public.”

Such proposals invoke a one-way, authoritarian model of communication; and exactly how this mythical consumer will become better educated remains a mystery. What is known is that the traditional approach of scientists clearly explaining the facts is “naive—and probably a recipe for failure. … ???Too often, risk communicators are more concerned with educating the public, rather than first listening to them and then developing communication policies.”

Food Safety Education Month, whatever that is, ended yesterday. People are still eating this morning. I wonder if they got educated?

An honest Food Safety Education month would include food safety stories, tragic or otherwise, and a rigorous evaluation of what has worked, what hasn’t worked and what can be improved, rather than a checklist of ineffective and often inaccurate food safety instructions with the cumulative effect of blaming consumers. Telling people to wash their hands isn’t keeping the piss out of meals. ??????