The risk communication of food safety needs legal support and standard guidance. The food safety law of the People's Republic of China states that a food safety risk assessment system shall be established to assess the biological, chemical and physical hazards in food and food additives (article 13). The department of health administration under the state council shall, jointly with the relevant departments under the state council, make a comprehensive analysis of the state of food safety according to the results of food safety risk assessment and the information of food safety supervision and administration. The department of public health under the state council shall give timely warning of food safety risks to foods which, through comprehensive analysis, indicate a high degree of safety risks (article 17). A system for the unified release of food safety information shall be established (article 82). The scope of information published uniformly by the administrative department of the state council has been formulated. The food safety act does not mention the principle of "risk analysis", so it is impossible to mention "risk communication". The implementation regulations of the food safety law also fail to give a more comprehensive explanation or explanation on risk communication. At present, the risk communication process lacks legal status. In addition, "risk communication" is sometimes understood as risk management, or as an integral part of it, or simply as legal publicity or media control. The administrative responsibility of risk communication is vague, and the role and task of food safety management and the parties involved in risk communication are yet to be specified.

There are some obvious misunderstandings in the process of food safety risk communication, which need to be further understood and overcome. For example, think of risk communication as public education. The main reason why risk communication is not public education is that the object of risk communication is not "students", but consumers; And the composition of consumers is very broad. Understanding risk communication as public relations, it is often assumed that the report of GF or the party with more resources must be correct. The result of not simply telling consumers or the public that a certain food is safe is not necessarily reassuring. Since consumers want to understand the whole process of decision-making, the scientific nature of decision-making and the transparency of the process are the foundation for enhancing the effect of risk communication.

GF investment or practice in risk communication is disproportionate to consumer satisfaction. The concept of risk communication began in the 1970s, and it has been internationally recognized since the end of the last century. Its theoretical system, research methods, norms and guidelines are still not perfect, and even some fields are still blank. At present, employees still need professional foundation, specialized theory and skills training, and employees in food enterprises also need to be enthusiastic and capable to participate. It is worth mentioning that improving consumers' cognitive level and receptivity is a long-term task that requires unremitting efforts of the whole society.

From the perspective of technology and management, international studies on food safety risk communication attach great importance to the study of risk perception, risk perception and the relationship between them (figure 4). Experts and consumers engaged in food safety research have different or distant reactions to the same food safety event, namely the vacuum zone. Failure to understand these differences or to narrow the distance can affect the effectiveness of risk communication. As far as the experts are concerned, they have certain knowledge background and their own (active) cognitive ability. Their research reports or statements are based on facts or research results. The point of communication focuses on what the hazards are that lead to a food safety incident, how likely they are to cause the hazards, and the risks of those hazards are not clear or unknown, that is, uncertainty. However, consumers' participation in risk communication may be based on their own feelings (passive type) or information obtained from media, and their judgment of risk may be based on their importance, their value or subjective influence. There is often a large distance between the two. The study found that consumer behavior, including cultural background, was associated with food safety incidents and response levels. These issues also require the joint efforts of food safety experts, risk communication experts, consumer behaviorists and management experts to gradually narrow the gap and narrow the vacuum.