Risk Communication and Social Media

Risk communication is a key component of risk assessment. It is a two-way interaction process between people (e.g., a communicator and a receptor) through the exchange of information about a hazard or a public health threat. [1] There are several ways to communicate public health risks, one of which is the use of social media networks. Social media facilitates virtual interaction among individuals through activities such as sharing, co-creation or even digital content exchange. [2]

Social media is also recognized for its ability to reach diverse audiences, which becomes an advantage in times of public health crisis, as it allows people to interact with government authorities. [3] Given that approximately 70% of people in the Americas have access to at least one social media network (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and TikTok), communicating risk through these digital platforms seems adequate. Social media also appears to be an effective, quick, and affordable way for experts, institutions, and governments to communicate in real time, thereby improving the comprehension of health and safety messages when necessary. Nonetheless, the use of social media in risk communication poses challenges, including the dissemination of misinformation and message misinterpretation. In this context, official organizations must maintain an active and trusted presence on social media to ensure that published and shared information is accurate and supported by scientific evidence.

I recently had the opportunity to give a talk at the XXIV Argentinian Toxicology Annual Meeting. The focus of the presentation was toxicology, risk communication, and the use of social media. Most of us have probably used social media platforms such as those mentioned above. In fact, on my cellphone’s main menu, I have shortcuts to Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. This suggests that I frequently use these apps to interact with others, either by publishing digital content or simply by watching videos (reels) and browsing pictures.

During my talk, I analyzed the case of one oral hygiene product formulated and distributed in South America from Colgate-Palmolive. In countries such as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, several cases of local adverse reactions (e.g., pain, ulceration, redness, burning sensation, and mouth blisters) were reported by users between January and May of 2025. [4] As a result, Colgate-Palmolive voluntarily recalled its product from the Brazilian and Chilean markets, while Argentinian health authorities prohibited its commercialization in the country. Meanwhile, the product was withdrawn from the markets, a huge amount of digital content was generated by social media users-who generally have large audiences but no background in public health- and made available to both followers and non-followers. Unfortunately, much of this digital content was inaccurate and contradicted information provided by local health authorities. At this point, having a well-informed and educated audience is crucial for successful risk communication. The case described above may be considered an example in which government health authorities, through their social media networks, played a key role in informing people about the risks of using this oral hygiene product despite the abundance of misleading disinformation.

In conclusion, social media are a useful and effective tool for risk communication, provided that science-based information is consistently delivered to the general population.