食品安全风险交流关注度高、专业性强、各方利益诉求驳杂，有其特殊的语境，在这个语境中“说话”必须选择适切的语体才能有助于达成有效防控风险的效果。方舟子、崔永元围绕转基因问题展开的食品安全风险交流在身份定位、说服论证、话轮交替、语用风格诸方面采取的修辞策略迥异。作为一名科普者，方舟子在逻辑推理的科学性和语言表达的条理性方面表现优异，却没有在民调中赢得支持，修辞层面的原因在于没有充分认识语体与语境适配的重要性，其失误源于以下三个方面的误判：1、把交流对象预设成科学圈内人而非公众；2、把交流目的变成压倒辩手而非与公众沟通；3、把交流等同于推理论证而忽视了德性、善意，以及对公众情绪的感知。

Food safety risk communication has its special context in which every speaker should choose proper language style so as to manage the possible risk of misunderstanding. Fang Zhouzi and Cui Yongyuan took a different rhetoric strategy during their debates on genetically modifed food in the following aspects: identity positioning, persuasion, turn-taking control, pragmatic style. Fang Zhouzi did much better in the logic reasoning and logical expression than Cui Yongyuan but surprisingly he failed in the opinion polls. The failure lies in his ignorance of the suitability of language style and the context. In detail, he made three mistakes: 1. messed up the communication object of the public with the scientifc insider; 2. pursued wrong communication purpose for overwhelming the opponent rather than communicating with the public; 3. simply equaled the communication as reasoning argument thus ignoring the virtue, goodwill and perception of the public mood.