Abstract
Frequently, decisions related to health protection are taken directly on the basis of scientific assessment and they are not clearly understood, as is highlighted in the Xylella example. Therefore, this article suggests that coherent processing of information in risk assessment may allow also a “third party” (who has not already expressed a specific interest in the procedure) to participate. In order to truly grasp the EU administration, an accountable way of communicating is helpful. Therefore, communication around the democratic process might be based on EU administrative principles and rules supporting a composite administrative system: it must not neglect the implications of compliance with the multilingual principle and its consequences for EU law, which would also lead to greater trust in risk assessment.
Highlights
The activity of risk assessment and the communication of its results has always had different impacts for different target audiences, including the general public
Communication around the democratic process might be based on EU administrative principles and rules supporting a composite administrative system: it must not neglect the implications of compliance with the multilingual principle and its consequences for EU law, which would lead to greater trust in risk assessment
In a new Scientific Opinion dated 20 April 2016, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the experimental treatments in Apulian olive orchards infected with strain CoDiRO could potentially have positive effects, but would not eliminate the pathogen Xylella fastidiosa from the treated infected plants.[10]
Summary
The activity of risk assessment and the communication of its results has always had different impacts for different target audiences, including the general public. It is well known that science is based on certainty that might not be accurate and could be improved upon in the future[2]: its task is to contribute to risk analysis and to establish whether there might be a potential risk or danger involved.[3] making the communication of a scientific choice understandable, with due respect to the legal framework of the EU, seems to be difficult in a multilingual EU An example of this complexity is given by the Xylella case.[4] Technical assessments carried out by EFSA, which have supported the EU Commission measures enforcing the eradication the Xylella bacterium, have triggered a heated ongoing debate – above all in Italy – because many “interested parties” or “future interested third parties” would be impacted by these measures. As far as possible, respecting the EU multilingual principle might be a tool for “renewed” risk communication
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
