Food risk management practices: consumer evaluations of past and

emerging food safety incidents

Ellen van Kleef, Heleen van Dijk, Julie Houghton, Athanasios Krystallis, Uwe Pfenning, Gene Rowe, Gregory Theodoridis, Øydis Ueland, Lynn Frewer and

SAFEFOODS workpackage 4 members [a]

[a] George Chryssochoidis, Hilde Mortvedt, Britt Signe Granli WP4 SAFE FOODS

Consumer research on food risk management

Literature review Focus group discussion in five EU countries,

with consumers and food safety experts Large-scale survey in five EU countries Consumer information experiments In-depth consumer interviews about cases

• Germany (BSE; Nematode worms in fish), • Greece (mould in Greek yogurt/carcinogenic honey

incident; Avian Influenza),• Norway (E-coli O103 in meat; contaminants in

Norwegian salmon)• UK (BSE; contaminants in Scottish salmon).

The consumer’s point of view

1. Proactive consumer protection

2. Transparency

3. Trust

4. Priority setting

5. Education and media

Proactive consumer protection (1)

Communicating to the public which efforts are being done is a key factor of good risk management across all countries studies

Consumers want authorities to show efforts regarding: • systems of control in place (make them

obvious)• Focus on prevention and inspection• Respond quickly when a food safety problem

appears

Proactive consumer protection (2)

Quote UK consumer about BSE crisis in relation to the authorities’ proactivity:“There seemed to be quite a bit of floundering around amongst the policy makers at one stage.  You know, beef was perfectly safe and then there was a half-way position when ‘well it might be ok if we change the feed that’s given to cattle’ and then ‘it might be ok if we move some of the offal in the slaughterhouse’ […] and they seemed to be constantly changing and I think that reduced confidence.  And I suppose in retrospect it would appear that they didn’t really know what they were doing and they were making up their policies on the hoof.”

Proactive consumer protection (3)

Experts are slightly more positive than consumers because of believed efficacy of well-developed and implemented control systems

Being proactive is particularly needed when experts are uncertain in their risk assessments

Be careful: consumers perceive information overload about food safety• Information not consistent or confusing • Sensational media coverage• Information difficult to understand

Results experiment: vitamin A Potato

Uncertainty x Proactive

When there is high uncertainty about the risks associated with the VAP, people prefer proactive FRM activities.

When there is low uncertainty about the risks associated with the VAP, people prefer low proactive FRM activities.

F(1)=9.85, p<0.01

Mean FRMQ for uncertainty*proactive FRM

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

Low uncertainty High uncertainty

Mea

n F

RM

Q

Low proactive FRM

High Proactive FRM

Consumers are sometimes skeptical about risk assessment, science and scientific progress • Varies across countries: particularly in UK, less

or not in other countries studied (e.g. Denmark)

Transparency in food risk management

Quantitative results survey: country differences

Proactive

Sceptical

Trust inexpertise

FRMquality

(0. 51*) (0. 27*) (1.97*) (0. 57*) (0. 45*)

(-0.22) (-0.34*) (-0.30*) (-0.16*) (-0.71)

(*p<0.05)(0.57*) (0.99*) (0.30) (0.87*) (0.94*)

Opaque

Trust in honesty

Trust in risk managers is more positive when they are open about the decisions they made than when they were closed

Admitting an occasional mistake could make risk managers more trustworthy because• It shows they are open and honest• People accept that even experts make

mistakes sometimes

Transparency in food risk management (2)

(see also White and Eiser, 2006)

Trust in food risk managers

Trustworthiness is largely determined by• Perceived competence of food risk managers

(expertise is key factor across countries)• Value similarity • Power and ability to act• Accessibility

Priority setting in food risk management

Consumers wonder whether motivation of risk management is primarily consumer protection

“So, I have ranked mad cow disease as being the best under control. And I have put it there because it has to do with export. It does not have very much to do with whether the rest of us get the mad cow disease.” [Danish consumer about BSE]

“I’m not aware whether the government pursued any studies.  […] It was a closing off type thing, or an attempted closing off, because they were quite concerned that the bottom would fall out of the [salmon fishing] industry if they weren’t quite careful how they did it and too much openness would probably have been commercially quite damaging I would assume. [UK consumer about Salmon]

Media

Media • Perceived quality of management is largely

determined by amount of media attention• High levels of media attention potentially

indicate good and bad risk management practices (institutional attention, what went wrong, sensational images)

• Only experts believe that media attention is causing unnecessary worry among consumers

Effective food risk management/communication

Implications• Communicate on a continuous basis

about what is being done• Communicate about expertise upon which

management systems are based • Understand country differences in public

opinion, information needs• Be open about decisions made• Target communication at vulnerable

groups• Important: consumer trust in motives of

crisis manager

Thank you!