Public perception of risk and the scientific assessment of risk are often not congruent. The lack of consensus between peer-reviewed evidence, epidemiology and the consumer view can often impact the image of the food industry and its food safety efforts. While data may show that more public health attention should be paid to microbial risks, lean finely textured beef, mercury in seafood, BPA in packaging and the stigma around pesticides in fresh produce have all affected how food safety is defined within these food systems. To confound this issue, consumers are presented with confusing messages surrounding organic, sustainable, local and other product differentiators. The goal of this roundtable session is to discuss differences between scientific assessment of risk and public perceptions, where challenges lie and how industry, regulators and academia can engage the public to discuss risks. The aim is to produce a road map of where risks/benefit discussions have gone awry in the past and provide a framework on how to address them in the future. Panel members will be provided with a set of perceived risks and data-supported risks prior to the session and moderators will generate dialogue among audience members and the panel about each of the case studies.