Crisis management and risk communication: Why the food industry must get it right

There is public unease about food-related issues including food additives, food poisoning bacteria and GM ingredients. The public wants evidence of no risks, but all regulators can ever offer is no evidence of risk or evidence of a very small risk. The situation is complex because experts and non-experts can perceive the same risk in vastly different ways. The way in which the food industry manages crises and communicates risks will determine the public acceptance and success of new technologies such as GM foods and nanomaterials. There is a need for the food industry (including regulators and scientific experts) to sharpen up their risk communication skills to ensure that technical innovations are accepted by consumers, and crises such as food recalls do not undermine the public's confidence in the food industry. The AIFST has a key role to play in driving the risk communication process and allaying public unease about food-related issues.

Enlisting the influence of others: Alternative strategies for persuasive media campaigns

This study investigated an Australian antidrug campaign that targeted adolescents directly and indirectly via recruiting parents into drug prevention. Eighty-six parent-child dyads completed surveys measuring campaign evaluations, discussions about drugs, and beliefs about risks to self (own child) and to the average young Australian. Adolescents were optimistic about risks, and media impact was evident only in perceptions of risk to others. Parents were less optimistic, and perceptions of campaign quality predicted perceived risk to own child and discussion about drugs. However, this was moderated by negative affect associated with the campaign. There was some evidence that discussions influenced adolescents' perceptions of personal risk. This demonstrates the importance of individual responses and communication processes in determining the impact of persuasive media messages.

The credentialing of counselling in Australia

Counselling is an unregulated activity in Australia. No statutory regulation currently exists. As a result, different counselling organizations are promoting different voluntary standards for the practice of counselling. This has led to a credentialing dilemma in which counsellors and the public are confronted with a number of counselling qualification choices. This dilemma poses a number of questions: Should counselling become more regulated in Australia? At what level should counselling be regulated? Should there be various levels of counsellor regulation? This article provides an overview of the credentialing dilemma facing counselling in Australia, compares and contrasts two main Australian accreditation efforts, and proposes cooperation as a way of navigating said dilemma. The implications for counselling as a profession are discussed along with suggestions for its development as a profession. This includes a discussion regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of greater regulation of counselling as a professional activity in Australia. Specifically, what is and is not generally considered a profession is reviewed, different forms of credentialing are outlined, and general arguments for and against accreditation efforts are presented. The efforts of the Australian Counselling Association (ACA) and the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA) are compared and are shown to have common ground. Consequently, ways in which the main counselling organizations may best work in conjunction to promote counselling as a profession in Australia are proposed. These suggestions include good communication, collaboration, and the avoidance of turf wars. Specifically, that the ACA and PACFA collaborate on developing a combined independent registration list that is supported by both organizations or, minimally, that both organizations have mutual recognition on each other's register lists.