At least until we figure something out. Our blogging software no longer supports automatic links to these social media, and I’ve been blogging a lot.
Readers who were relying on these social media are best advised to visit barfblog.com and on the right side of the home page, choose the frequency you would like to receive barfblog updates.
Carmine Galloof wrote in the Harvard Business Review last year that ideas are the currency of the twenty-first century. The ability to persuade, to change hearts and minds, is perhaps the single greatest skill that will give you a competitive edge in the knowledge economy — an age where ideas matter more than ever.
More than 2,000 years ago Aristotle outlined a formula on how to master the art of persuasion in his work Rhetoric. A summary of Galloof’s article appears below.
1) Ethos or “Character”
Aristotle believed that if a speaker’s actions didn’t back their words, they would lose credibility, and ultimately, weaken their argument.
Once ethos is established, it’s time to make a logical appeal to reason. Use data, evidence, and facts to form a rational argument.
According to Aristotle, persuasion cannot occur in the absence of emotion. People are moved to action by how a speaker makes them feel. Aristotle believed the best way to transfer emotion from one person to another is through the rhetorical device of storytelling. More than 2,000 years later, neuroscientists have found his thesis accurate. Studies have found that narratives trigger a rush of neurochemicals in the brain, notably oxytocin, the “moral molecule” that connects people on a deeper, emotional level.
Aristotle believed that metaphor gives language its verbal beauty. “To be a master of metaphor is the greatest thing by far,” he wrote. When you use a metaphor or analogy to compare a new idea to something that is familiar to your audience, it clarifies your idea by turning the abstract into something concrete.
Those who master the metaphor have the ability to turn words into images that help others gain a clearer understanding of their ideas — but more importantly, remember and share them. It is a powerful tool to have.
Here again, Aristotle was ahead of his time. “Aristotle had discovered that there are fairly universal limits to the amount of information which any human can absorb and retain,” writes Kings College professor Edith Hall in Aristotle’s Way. “When it comes to persuasion, less is always more.”
Brevity is a crucial element in making a persuasive speech. An argument, Aristotle said, should be expressed “as compactly and in as few words as possible.” He also observed that the opening of a person’s speech is the most important since “attention slackens everywhere else rather than at the beginning.” The lesson here is: start with your strongest point.
Sorta like journalism.
The Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC) FoodNet Canada surveillance system (no, not that one, right, that’s the Canadian television network that wanted to sue me over video associated with 2004’s cooking show paper) is pleased to present this tables and figures report which provides the annual results of our surveillance activities conducted in 2019. The report is based on findings from its sentinel sites in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. It also provides preliminary findings from Quebec, representing a partial year due to their implementation part way through the year in July 2019. The report focuses on trends in enteric pathogen disease rates, as well as trends in the prevalence of these pathogens found on potential disease sources: retail meats, manure from food producing animals and water. It is our hope that this report will be used to inform and shape discussions on food safety issues regarding enteric diseases and their sources.
Key findings:
Provision of safe drinking water in the United States is a great public health achievement. However, new waterborne disease challenges have emerged (e.g., aging infrastructure, chlorine-tolerant and biofilm-related pathogens, increased recreational water use).
Comprehensive estimates of the health burden for all water exposure routes (ingestion, contact, inhalation) and sources (drinking, recreational, environmental) are needed. We estimated total illnesses, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, deaths, and direct healthcare costs for 17 waterborne infectious diseases. About 7.15 million waterborne illnesses occur annually (95% credible interval [CrI] 3.88 million–12.0 million), results in 601,000 ED visits (95% CrI 364,000–866,000), 118,000 hospitalizations (95% CrI 86,800–150,000), and 6,630 deaths (95% CrI 4,520–8,870) and incurring US $3.33 billion (95% CrI 1.37 billion–8.77 billion) in direct healthcare costs.
Otitis externa and norovirus infection were the most common illnesses. Most hospitalizations and deaths were caused by biofilm-associated pathogens (nontuberculous mycobacteria, Pseudomonas, Legionella), costing US $2.39 billion annually.
Estimate of burden ad direct healthcare cost of infectious waterborne disease in the United States
Emerging Infectious Diseases vol. 2 no. 1
Sarah A. Collier , Li Deng, Elizabeth A. Adam, Katharine M. Benedict, Elizabeth M. Beshearse, Anna J. Blackstock, Beau B. Bruce, Gordana Derado, Chris Edens, Kathleen E. Fullerton, Julia W. Gargano, Aimee L. Geissler, Aron J. Hall, Arie H. Havelaar, Vincent R. Hill, Robert M. Hoekstra, Sujan C. Reddy, Elaine Scallan, Erin K. Stokes, Jonathan S. Yoder, and Michael J. Beach
ozforex
Speaking of cooking shows, researchers from Germany have concluded poor hygiene when handling food is a major cause of foodborne illness.
To investigate whether hygiene practices visible in television cooking shows influence viewers’ kitchen hygiene, a study on the adoption of demonstrated hygiene behavior was conducted under controlled, experimental conditions. In a study ostensibly on cooking by following recipes participants (n = 65) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, in which they watched a cooking video that differed only with regard to the hygiene behavior of the chef. In condition 1, the chef engaged in poor hygiene practices while preparing the dish, in condition 2 the chef’s hygiene behavior was exemplary and in condition 3, the chef’s hygiene behavior was not visible (control condition).
After watching the video, participants were instructed to cook the recipe individually in the fully equipped laboratory kitchen. (Figure, above: Illustration of how three video versions with different hygiene levels were realized, using seasoning as an example. (Panel a) Correct hygiene video: Seasoning with spoon. (Panel b) Poor hygiene video: Seasoning with fingers (after touching raw chicken). (Panel c) Control video: Close‐up of food being sprinkled with seasoning.) Cooking sessions were videotaped and experimenters blind to condition coded hygiene lapses committed by participants. The level of kitchen hygiene displayed in the cooking video significantly affected hygiene practices of participants cooking the recipe. Participants who had watched the cooking video with correct hygiene practices committed significantly fewer hygiene lapses than those who had watched the video with poor hygiene practices. From a risk communication perspective, TV cooking shows are well placed to convey knowledge of essential hygiene practices during food preparation to a broad audience. To facilitate behavioral change toward safer food‐handling practices among viewers, visibly performing correct hygiene practices in cooking shows is a promising strategy.
Kitchen hygiene in the spotlight: How cooking shows influence viewers’ hygiene practices
Risk Analysis
Severine Koch, Mark Lohmann, Jasmin Geppert, Rainer Stamminger, Astrid Epp, Gaby‐Fleur Böl
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13584
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.13584
Research for one of our most popular paers was initiated almost 20 years ago. The abstract is below:
Mathiasen, L.A., Chapman, B.J., Lacroix, B.J. and Powell, D.A. 2004. Spot the mistake: Television cooking shows as a source of food safety information, Food Protection Trends 24(5): 328-334.
Consumers receive information on food preparation from a variety of sources. Numerous studies conducted over the past six years demonstrate that television is one of the primary sources for North Americans. This research reports on an examination and categorization of messages that television food and cooking programs provide to viewers about preparing food safely.
During June 2002 and 2003, television food and cooking programs were recorded and reviewed, using a defined list of food safety practices based on criteria established by Food Safety Network researchers. Most surveyed programs were shown on Food Network Canada, a specialty cable channel. On average, 30 percent of the programs viewed were produced in Canada, with the remainder produced in the United States or United Kingdom.
Sixty hours of content analysis revealed that the programs contained a total of 916 poor food-handling incidents. When negative food handling behaviors were compared to positive food handling behaviors, it was found that for each positive food handling behavior observed, 13 negative behaviors were observed. Common food safety errors included a lack of hand washing, cross-contamination and time-temperature violations.
While television food and cooking programs are an entertainment source, there is an opportunity to improve their content so as to promote safe food handling.
ABC (the Australian one) reports celebrity chef wannabe Pete Evans (right, exactly as shown) has been permanently booted off Instagram for sharing misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines.
Pete Evans’s Facebook page was removed last year, but he continued posting misinformation on Instagram, which Facebook owns
Facebook last week expanded the list of false claims it will remove, adding more about coronavirus and the vaccines.
The company no longer tolerates false claims the virus is man-made, that the disease is safer than the vaccine, that vaccines are toxic, dangerous, or cause autism
Facebook confirmed it deleted Mr Evans’s account on the popular picture-sharing platform on Wednesday.
The account had hundreds of thousands of followers.
Celebrity chefs are just so full of bad food safety information (except for Alton Brown).
“We removed Pete Evans’s account for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines,” the company said in a statement.
“We don’t allow anyone to share misinformation about COVID-19 that could lead to imminent physical harm or about COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts.”
Mr Evans’s Facebook page was removed in December, but he continued to share misinformation through Instagram, which is also owned by Facebook.
Facebook had earlier removed several of the chef’s Instagram posts for violating its policies on misinformation.
Facebook’s COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation policies were updated last week, with the company vowing to crack down on false claims.
Mr Evans was a judge on My Kitchen Rules between 2010 and 2020.
He has repeatedly made posts opposing COVID-19 vaccines and masks, shared discredited coronavirus cures, and claimed in a podcast that the coronavirus is a hoax.
Mr Evans regularly used his Instagram account to cast doubt on official information about COVID-19, vaccines, and other parts of mainstream science.
His company was fined more than $25,000 by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in April after he promoted a device called a “BioCharger” on a Facebook live stream, claiming it could be used in relation to coronavirus.
The TGA said the claim had “no apparent foundation”.
Mr Evans announced last week he would run for federal parliament, standing as a Senate candidate for a fringe party set up by former One Nation senator Rod Culleton.
Who knows, he may get some votes: On Saturday more that 1,000 clogged roads in downtown Brisbane to protest against the vaccine as the first inoculations were conducted in the federal capital of Canberra. Vaccines begin Monday in Brisbane.
As a risk communication dude, I am however concerned with the approach being taken by the Australian Capital Territory to win over anti-vaxxers. The Canberra Times reports the ACT government will launch a major public information campaign as part of efforts to counter anti-vaccination messages amid concern vaccination rates could be affected by misinformation. Flyers making false and misleading claims about vaccines have been distributed to households in Canberra in recent days, prompting renewed calls for people to stop undermining public health information.
On Saturday, about 150 people, including some affiliated with far-right groups, gathered near the Carillon on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin to protest mandatory vaccinations – despite no such initiative being proposed.
Ms Stephen-Smith said, “We aim to provide informative, trustworthy and up-to-date advice to the community so they understand the risks of COVID-19, our responsibilities in helping to reduce these risks and where to access healthcare services.
“As the vaccine program rolls out, we will be ramping up our public health information campaign. This will focus on educating Canberrans about the COVID-19 vaccine, where and when they can access it and how they can find factual and reliable information.”
It’s a leader’s duty to inform rather than educate. Further, the proposal reeks of a failed risk communication strategy: If I could only get that one person or group to change their minds, conflict will be removed. By focusing on vaccine opponents, leaders are not paying enough attention to vaccine proponents and the essence of good science. But I’ll let Jimmy Kimmel explain from 2015:
The Bradenton Herald in Florida, just 30 minutes from beautiful Anna Maria Island in the Gulf of Mexico where the family and friends have vacationed for years, reported for the second time in three months, there’s a multistate, multi-brand organic basil recall prompted by the possibility of cyclospora after testing done in Florida.
The recall announced by Shenandoah Growers’ last week involves a couple of brands also in November’s massive recall, which was ignited by Florida Department of Agriculture testing. This product pull, according to the company-written, FDA-posted recall notice, followed FDA testing in Miami of basil grown at Puerto Vallarta Herbs SAS farms in Colombia.
Produce-associated foodborne disease outbreaks have increased worldwide highlighting the importance of proper implementation of risk management practices (RMP). We determined the relationship between environmental characteristics (i.e., physical resources) of produce farms and implementation of RMP.
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses principles, we identified 36 studies to include in our analysis. Most study data were collected through surveys administered to growers in developed countries. Quality assessment results showed that studies on this topic should be more rigorously conducted (e.g., powering sample sizes and training data collectors) to yield better quality evidence. Agricultural waters were the most common environmental characteristic assessed, with many farms using unsafe water sources. Hygiene aids (e.g., accessible handwashing facilities), were lacking across many farms. Animal intrusion RMP were the least commonly assessed environmental characteristic. Only one study tested the relationship between on-farm environmental characteristics and RMP implementation reporting a positive relationship between accessible handwashing and worker hygiene practices.
Grower knowledge and perception of RMP combined with cost and ease in carrying out RMP might influence the availability of physical resources for proper RMP implementation. These results can inform practical interventions aimed to increase adoption of RMP on produce farms.
The relationship between environmental characteristics and risk management practices on produce farms: A systematic literature review
Agriculture
Dilhani Nisansala Jayawardhana 1 , Loan Thi Thanh Cao 2 , Thomas A. Yeargin 3 , Kristen E. Gibson 3 and Angela M. Fraser 1,*
The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) of factors influencing crisis management (CM). The study attempts to assess the main areas that have been linked to and studied CM, and the research outlets that have been provided these research.
The study adopts a qualitative approach and uses SLR method to collect relevant data. The study surveyed 223 studies from different research outlets, including the most reputed publishers; Emerald, Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, and Inderscience. The extracted articles are categorized into 8 areas based on their effect on CM. The most important factors are communication and social media, which have 66 studies with 4039 citations, leadership which have 40 studies with 2315 citations, followed by knowledge, governance, information technology, strategic planning, and professional entities, which have 38, 24, 23, 16, and 16 manuscripts with 2109, 1738, 301, 548, and 160 citations, respectively.
The current study provides an open insight for academicians and researchers on the main areas of CM investigated by prior studies. It provides a novel contribution and comprehensive understating through highlighting what has been done and what is left to be done in respect to crisis management.
Factors influencing crisis management: A systematic review and synthesis for future research, 2021
Cogent Business and Management
Yahya Maresh H. Hazaa , Faozi A. Almaqtari & Abdullah Al-Swidi
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1878979
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23311975.2021.1878979
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in Dec.2020 that each year in the U.S.an estimated 9 million people get sick, 56,000 are hospitalized, and 1,300 die of foodborne disease caused by known pathogens. These estimates help us understand the scope of this public health problem. However, to develop effective prevention measures, we need to understand the types of foods contributing to the problem.
The Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC) is a tri-agency group created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS). IFSAC developed a method to estimate the percentages of foodborne illness attributed to certain sources using outbreak data from 1998 through the most recent year for four priority pathogens: Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter. IFSAC described this method and the estimates for 2012 in a report, peer-reviewed journal article, and at a public meeting. IFSAC derived the estimates for 2018 using the same method used for the 2012 estimates, with some modifications. The data came from 1,459 foodborne disease outbreaks that occurred from 1998 through 2018 and for which each confirmed or suspected implicated food was assigned to a single food category. The method relies most heavily on the most recent five years of outbreak data (2014 – 2018). Foods are categorized using a scheme IFSAC created that classifies foods into 17 categories that closely align with the U.S. food regulatory agencies’ classification needs. Salmonella illnesses came from a wide variety of foods.
More than 75% of Salmonella illnesses were attributed to seven food categories: Chicken, Seeded Vegetables (such as tomatoes), Pork, Fruits, Other Produce (such as nuts), Eggs and Turkey. E. coli O157 illnesses were most often linked to Vegetable Row Crops (such as leafy greens) and Beef. Over 75% of illnesses were linked to these two categories. Listeria monocytogenes illnesses were most often linked to Dairy products and Fruits. More than 75% of illnesses were attributed to these two categories, but the rarity of Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks makes these estimates less reliable than those for other pathogens. Non-Dairy Campylobacter illnesses were most often linked to Chicken. Over 75% of non-Dairy foodborne illnesses were attributed to Chicken, Other Seafood (such as shellfish), and Turkey, with Campylobacter illnesses most often linked to Chicken. An attribution percentage for Dairy is not included because, among other reasons, most foodborne Campylobacter outbreaks were associated with unpasteurized milk, which is not widely consumed, and we think these over-represent Dairy as a source of illness caused by Campylobacter. Removing Dairy illnesses from the calculations highlights important sources of illness from widely consumed foods, such as Chicken.
This collaborative effort to provide annual attribution estimates continues IFSAC’s work to improve foodborne illness source attribution, which can help inform efforts to prioritize food safety initiatives, interventions, and policies for reducing foodborne illnesses. These consensus estimates allow all three agencies to take a consistent approach to identifying food safety priorities to protect public health. For more information on IFSAC projects visit https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/ifsac/projects/index.html.