Narratives and risk: how stories shape perceptions regarding food safety of dairy products, a narrative review.

Perceptions regarding dairy product safety are often strongly shaped by narratives that emphasise rare, high-profile events more than routine evidence-based risk assessments. This paper examines how technical and non-technical communications contributed to persistent, and sometimes disproportionate, public concern about infant formula by comparing timelines and messaging for two case studies: (i) the 2008 melamine adulteration crisis in China and (ii) the March-April 2025 Consumer Reports survey of chemical contaminants in infant formula. Using a combined scientific literature and media-timeline approach, we contrast the substance of primary toxicology, clinical and epidemiological evidence with the framing and amplification evident in news headlines and popular summaries. We find that alarm-focused stories gained rapid prominence and longevity while subsequent measured scientific findings received comparatively limited public attention. In the Consumer Reports example, categorical product labelling based on small concentration differences (e.g., µg/kg-scale differences) and conservative exposure assumptions were readily decontextualised by media outlets, producing simplified "safe/unsafe" framings that risked misleading non-technical audiences. This paper argues that distinguishing hazard detection from risk, transparently reporting analytical levels and exposure assumptions, and promoting routine surveillance "null" findings are key to producing proportionate public narratives. Practical recommendations are offered for researchers, communicators, and regulators to improve risk-framing, reduce inadvertent amplification of alarm, and support balanced, evidence-based public understanding of dairy safety.