Recent crises in food production and farming have rekindled the debate about how we should balance choice and risk. With the emergence of new technologies ­ particularly the increasing use of biotechnology in agriculture ­ this debate is set to escalate. Unknown risks present challenges to producers, providers and governments keen to innovate and improve on current techniques, whether in the interests of private profit or a healthier or wealthier society. To what extent should such innovation be slowed, just in case risks to public health emerge in the future? To what extent should the desire to protect consumers from the possibility of unseen risks override the workings of competitive markets ­ global or local? How best can societies deal with unknown risks without fostering a risk-averse, overprotective economic environment? When answering these questions, NCC has always advocated a precautionary approach. It is, after all, better to be safe than sorry. Nevertheless, we do not live in a totally risk-free world ­ a fact which people generally understand. What is important is that consumers do want to be informed about the risks and be consulted on any risk-based policy decisions. Judgements about whether risks are acceptable cannot be made purely on the basis of scientific evidence. They also require consideration of the social, economic and cultural background to the situation and it is up to policy-makers ­ in consultation with consumers, producers and others ­ to make these judgements. Openness, involvement of consumers in policy making, and better understanding of consumers' needs and concerns, are vital to a better risk analysis process. And one that will have pay-offs, not only for consumer confidence, but also for better decision-making and improved public health and safety. Perhaps as much as in any other area of society, this approach is one that should be used in relation to new food technologies. {{NEWS }}