Although the PADM is primarily a descriptive model as opposed to prescriptive, its formulation does allow for translation and application to inform decision and management during a disaster or hazard situations. The eight questions Lindell and Perry identify, for example, can be used to inform the development of messages and information systems. The role of hazard intrusiveness and proximity in promoting hazard adoption might also inform risk communication campaigns. Although applications are, according to Lindell and Perry, in their early stages, the model shows promise.
Integrated Model of Food Recall
One framework that has sought to describe the warning process within a very specific risk context is the integrated model of food recall (Seeger & Novak, 2010). Recalls are warning messages sometimes associated with distribution and supply chain systems for informing distributors, retailers, and the public that a product is somehow deficient or defective. Recalls are a way of reducing the potential harm of a defective or contaminated product by removing that product from the public.
Seeger and Novak (2010) have developed a model of the food recall process involving four stages or phases (see Figure 3.4). Stage I in this model is a recognition stage where cues accumulate regarding some harm and are made available to decision makers, usually at regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration. Cues may be generated in a number of ways, but this stage is primarily institutional or organizationally grounded. For a recall to be recommended and/or initiated, there must be a general recognition of and consensus about a harm or potential harm. In addition, there must be an identification of a specific commodity or product. In a case involving a serious outbreak of E. coli bacteria in Europe in 2011, the specific commodity could not be identified, thus making a specific recall or warning impossible. Initially, cucumbers grown in Spain were suspected, but eventually the outbreak was traced to sprouts produced on a German farm. This identification may be slower when medical authorities are confronted with novel contaminations that do not fit into expected or historical patterns. Regulatory agencies and producers may also weigh the cost of the recall against the seriousness of the potential harm. A recall has the potential to damage a company’s reputation and may be very costly in terms of effort and lost product. In some cases, companies are forced into bankruptcy and markets for specific agricultural products can collapse. Without specific identification of a product and expectation of a relatively serious harm, recalls generally do not happen. Time is a particularly critical variable in the recognition stage, with more extended time limiting recall effectiveness (Teratanavat et al., 2002).
Figure 3.4 Integrated Model of Food Recall.
Source: Seeger and Novak (2010).
Stage II involves messaging where recall notices are distributed by regulatory agencies, producers, and distributors. For recovery of stock from distribution channels, food producers directly communicate with notices to distributors, warehouses, retail outlets, and, in some cases, other secondary food distributors. In addition, food companies and producers attempt to announce recalls to consumers by posting press releases on company and governmental websites. These often involve specific information such as lot number, production date, and location where the item was produced so consumers can make specific choices about how to respond. Gibson (1997) also describes the use of direct mail, display ads, and point-of-sales messages when consumers are the intended message recipients. Message characteristics interact with demographic elements of the audience (age, gender, and ethnic background) and channel distribution elements (width and speed of distribution), which therefore affect the reception and interpretation of a message. Tailoring and targeting messages improve effectiveness. For example, some retail stores are using the information given by customers enrolled in their customer loyalty and rewards programs to contact customers if a recall has been issued for an item in their store.
Stage III is the point where reception and interpretation of the message by the intended audience occurs. During this stage, the audience must receive and interpret the messages. The audience may also seek to confirm the information received in the recall. This may involve collecting additional, confirmatory information before the recall warning can be personalized and thereby lead to action. Consumers may need to hear the message from multiple sources, repeated several times; to confirm the consistency of messages; to assess if they own the product and check lot numbers; and to personalize the projected harm by assessing their own risk.
Stage IV is the response stage, when the intended audience takes some action as a response to the recall message. These actions vary depending on the nature of the event, the interpretation of the message, and the recommendations. Possible actions include disposing of or returning the unsafe product, seeking medical attention, or simply avoiding the unsafe item. One important factor for consumer compliance may be the ease of the recommended action and the ability to do what is suggested. Some consumers may find it easy to dispose of the product, while others may see disposal as a significant economic burden. For example, some consumers may be able to readily purchase alternative food items. Others may not have the ability simply to dispose of a food item.
Applications of the Integrated Model of Food Recall
Although the food recall model describes communication and decisional processes within a very common risk context, it has not yet been applied broadly. One exception is Novak and Biskup’s (2011) examination of readability in food-related warning and recall messages produced by the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture. The authors concluded that food-related warnings and recalls were written at reading levels above those of nearly half of the adult U.S. population. Messages at this level exclude a significant portion of the public from understanding and believing the messages as described in Stage III of the model. The high reading levels of these written warnings and alerts about food contamination limit their effectiveness.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Integrated Model of Food Recall
The model as currently constituted is limited in its scope to recall and warning messages related to food in contexts where the agencies and processes of recalls and warning are generally well defined. In other contexts, variables and processes may be much more equivocal. The scope of the warning, those who issue the warning, and the desired actions in many cases are not predetermined. In addition, this form of warning message typically does not include the same level of urgency and time sensitivity that might be associated with other warning contexts, such as major weather events or chemical or radiological spills.
The integrated food recall model includes various feedback loops representing information seeking, expanded recalls, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the recall. These loops, as well as the specific elements and dynamics of the recall process, describe places in the process where decisional points or information may require the repetition of earlier stages or processes. In this way, the model seeks to capture a more dynamic notion of the communication elements of the recall, including the fact that the audience/consumer is an active participant in the warning process. Like the PADM, the food recall model integrates communication and decisional systems to create a much more complex and complete understanding of these processes.
Emerging Warning Systems
Technology