近幾年來，台灣陸續發生多起食物風險事件。新聞報導與政府都在風險訊息傳遞與建構扮演重要角色。本研究針對 2013 年的「順丁烯二酸酐化製澱粉」以及「油品混充及違法添加銅葉綠素」事件，進行文本分析，研究目的在於探討、比較新聞媒體和政府對這兩事件的健康風險論述。

本研究發現不論是新聞報導還是政府新聞稿，所傳遞的健康風險資訊都偏少，導致民眾可能無法透過新聞媒體或政府官方新聞稿獲得需要的健康風險資訊。除此之外，雖然新聞媒體論述健康風險時，引用多方消息來源，包括專家、政治人物、民間團體和民眾，但少數幾位特定專家因為善用比喻和舉例，以淺顯易懂的方式解釋風險，又或者因為言詞有些誇張，往往能夠吸引媒體注意，而經常出現在新聞報導裡。相較之下，政府新聞稿從法律和科學角度論述健康風險，並且採取間接或反面的論述方式，使得風險論述更顯艱澀難懂。

本研究建議新聞媒體和政府在食安事件期間，應提供更多的健康風險資訊，以幫助民眾理解和處理風險。本研究也建議新聞記者避免報導過於誇大的風險言論，不要引起民眾恐慌。此外，記者應提升自身對食品安全的專業知識，以避免錯誤報導。本研究也建議受訪專家了解媒體特性，以有效地透過媒體傳播正確的健康風險資訊。

最後，本研究建議政府應顧及民眾的想法和情緒，避免只從法律和科學角度論述健康風險，可以借助溝通專家的溝通能力，回應民眾以及其它利害團體的需求。本研究也建議政府捨棄缺陷式風險溝通模式，採取對話式的溝通模式，例如追蹤新聞媒體報導和使用社交媒體，以利掌握與導引議題發展，增進健康風險溝通的效果。

In recent years, the issue of food risk has been a huge concern for the public in Taiwan. Since news reports and press releases serve as two important information sources for the public to learn about and understand food safety issues, this study examines how four major newspapers and Taiwan Food and Drug Administration (TFDA) constructed and communicated health risk in two food safety issues, “the starch scandal” and “the cooking oils scandal.”

This study found that both news report and press release offer little information on health risks. The public may thus have difficulty acquiring information they need for dealing with health risks. In addition, it is found that four newspapers heavily rely on specific experts whose risk discourse features examples, metaphors and exaggerative accounts. In comparison, TFDA's discourse of risk is characterized by laws and scientific studies and therefore, appears complicated. Moreover, health risks are addressed in an indirect way. That is to say, scientific standards of those chemicals are cited whereas their possible or potential harmful effects on human bodies are unspoken.

We suggest that four news agencies and TFDA provide the people with more information on health risks in order to help them understand and handle health risks. Next, it is suggested that newspaper journalists avoid quoting exaggerative accounts from experts. In this way, some public panic may be avoided. Since the more knowledge of food safety issues journalists have, the less likely their reports go wrong, journalists are advised to improve their knowledge pertaining to food safety.

Then, we suggest TFDA to construct its health risk discourse from the perspective of the public by avoiding addressing health risks solely from either laws or scientific standards. Cooperating with professional risk communicators and changing the deficit risk communication modal to a reciprocal one may help TFDA better communicate health risks to the public. To build a more responsive and participatory risk communication relationship with news media and the people, TFDA is suggested to keep track of news reports and make use of social media.