In July 2017 Dutch consumers were aroused by media reports about the illegal use of the biocide fipronil in the poultry sector. The first news bulletins mentioned a blockage of 7 Dutch poultry holders and a recall of the eggs of 4 of them because these eggs were contaminated with fipronil. Soon after, the number of blocked farms increased as the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) identified more farms that had been treated with a product containing fipronil against bloodlice in laying hens. As the incident expanded rapidly, a scientific and public debate started and expanded about the risk assessment, risk management and risk communication.
In the Codex Alimentarius is described how 'risk analysis should follow a structured approach, comprising the three distinct but closely linked components of risk analysis (risk assessment, risk management and risk communication) as defined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, each component being integral to the overall risk analysis'.
The fipronil incident was not limited to the Netherlands. And although the countries involved all acted in line with the abovementioned Codex-approach, and based their risk assessment mainly on an EFSA-report about fipronil (2006) and the EU Regulation EC 396/2005 about Maximum Residu Levels, the risk management actions taken in the different countries were not similar. This stimulated the responsible ministers in the different countries to call for more harmonization and centralization of risk assessment and risk communication.
However, our analysis of this incident shows that harmonization at national and/or local scales will create more difficulties for risk communication. By applying national and local exposure data (in this case about egg consumption and the concentration of fipronil in eggs) risk assessment outcomes and the following management actions will vary per region or even per authority. These differences can easily be interpreted by media and the general public as a scientific conflict, which might lead to a declining trust in the capability of how (responsible) authorities are able to handle and care of the risk and finally to distrust in the authority itself.