Risk
communication represents one of the three elements of
risk analysis. The Codex
Alimentarius Commission has presumably defined, through a
multilateral negotiation process, risk-related terms more accurately
than any other intergovernmental organization. Risk analysis is
defined as "A process consisting of three components: risk
assessment, risk management and risk communication" (see
Codex
Alimentarius Procedures Manual, p. 45).
Contrary to risk assessment and management which have attracted a great deal of attention in
the literature and in international negotiations, risk communication
as a topic remains very much in the shadow of these other two
elements of the risk analysis process. This applies across the board
for writings which take an interest in risk analysis in the context
of trade policy and law, i.e. the scientific literature including
the analysis of rulings in dispute settlement, (inter)governmental
studies of negotiations of trade and environment or public health
issues, and analyses by specialized NGOs.
Risk communication
arguably represents an intellectual 'green field' in a
construction zone: it should be very rewarding to fill it with some
interesting buildings. The Faculty of Law of
the University of Geneva has innovated in this domain with the
organization of a scientific
Roundtable on
"WTO Law, Science and Risk Communication" (May 11, 2006).
It should be noted that the theme of risk communication has been at the center of
the Biosafety
Protocol's 3rd Meeting of the Parties in Curitiba, Brazil, in
March, 2006, even though in general this term was very rarely used.
See also the Anton Holland's 2004 paper on
Risk Communication and Science Writing.
The mandatory
labelling and related traceability information of GM products which
fall under the Biosafety Protocol turned out to be one of the most
difficult negotiations issues, and that applies also to GM products
under Codex Alimentarius standards. In both cases the negotiations
have not been concluded yet. The Biosafety Protocol's Art. 18
specifies as a temporary measure that seeds which are destined for
consumption and not for planting must be documented as "may contain
living modified organisms." The situation is, however, relatively
easy to grasp from a policy standpoint: Europeans tend to insist
that we are living in a era were consumers consider to be fully
entitled to detailed product information and transparency, and that
applies to GM products just as it does to any other product
category. The US Administration, on the other hand, often considers
these informational requirements as "misleading" because they might
inhibit consumers from buying GM products. There are signs, however,
that the US public increasingly also insists on its right to know
whether a product is genetically modified or conventional.
