Professor Lynn Frewer Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour Emerging - PDF document

Consumer perceptions of risk, benefit, Transparency: The way to enhance effective uncertainty and cost risk communication Contextualizing consumer attitudes towards food safety issues Professor Lynn Frewer Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour Emerging societal issues in the Agri-food The key questions that need to be asked sector � What is driving consumer perceptions of risk and benefit ? � Who trusts whom to inform and regulate? � How does this relate to consumer confidence in the food chain and associated science base? • Consumer Health � Are there cross-cultural , inter- and intra- individual differences in perceptions and information needs? • Food Safety � How do other consumer attitudes (ethics, wider value systems) relate to perceptions of risk and benefit? � How do the public react to information about risk/benefit • Food Quality uncertainty ? � How do we understand risk/benefit variability across different population groups • Sustainability What does this mean for consumer decision-making about health, wellbeing, and choice? Consumer risk perception Consumer risk perception • The psychology of risk perception drives public � Ethical representations, values and concerns are emerging risk attitudes as an important determinant of societal and consumer decision making • An involuntary risk over which people have no control is more threatening than one people choose to take � animal welfare � Dioxin contamination of the food chain � environmental impact, � sustainability • Potentially catastrophic risks concern people most � Major food poisoning outbreak � Perceptions that the “truth” is being hidden increases both risk perception and distrust in regulators and communicators • Unnatural (technological) risks are more threatening than natural ones � Gene technology, nanotechnology, convergent technologies � increased transparency in risk management versus Organic production, ecological foods

Risk Analysis Framework; improving trust through Increased transparency raises more increased transparency? communication needs? Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Risk Management Risk Management • Which hazards? • Which hazards? • How do values • How do values • When are they assessed • When are they assessed Risk Risk influence the selection influence the selection and with which method? and with which method? and implementation of and implementation of • What consequences are • What consequences are policy alternatives? policy alternatives? Assessment Management judged important, and with judged important, and with what level of uncertainty? what level of uncertainty? • Who is affected? • Who is affected? Risk Communication and Risk Communication and Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder Involvement Risk Communication and Stakeholder • Interactive exchange of • Interactive exchange of information and opinions information and opinions Involvement (after WHO,1998) A Risk-benefit Analysis Framework; improving Trust in regulatory institutions and risk-benefit trust through increased transparency? governance • People may not always have a view regarding different Agri- Risk-benefit Management Risk-benefit Management Risk- benefit Assessment Risk- benefit Assessment food technology applications or food safety issues • How to reach consensus • How to reach consensus • Health opinions in stakeholder opinions in stakeholder • Health • Environment • Environment groups groups • Social effects • Social effects • Trust in regulatory institutions is important, particularly in the • What is acceptable in • What is acceptable in • Economic effects • Economic effects area of potentially controversial applications or food safety • Ethical issues • Ethical issues terms of decision-making? terms of decision-making? issues • People may react emotionally in response to specific issues Risk-Benefit Communication Risk-benefit Communication (particularly if they do not want to think about relevant issues in • An iterative process? • An iterative process? depth) • Communicating in a crisis • Communicating in a crisis • Communicating chronic risks • Communicating chronic risks What determines good food risk management? Building societal trust in food risk The constructs (derived from lay-expert focus groups) management: • Proactive consumer protection • Opaque and reactive risk management What needs to be communicated? • Scepticism regarding risk assessment and risk communication practices • Trust in expertise of food risk managers • Trust in honesty of food risk managers

Quantitative results: no country differences Structural model – FRM quality Proactive Proactive (-0.11*) Opaque Opaque FRM FRM quality Sceptical quality Sceptical Trust in Trust in honesty (0.01) honesty ( χ 2(2420)=8429, Trust in Trust in p<0.01; RMSEA=0.07). expertise (*p<0.05) expertise Van Kleef et al, submitted, risk analysis Country differences Quantitative results Proactive • Factors of universal importance (0. 51*) (0. 27*) (1.97*) (0. 57*) (0. 45*) Opaque • Pro-active consumer protection • Opaque and reactive risk management FRM quality • Trust in the expertise of food risk managers (except Greece) Sceptical (-0.22) (-0.34*) (-0.30*) (-0.16*) (-0.71) • Factors of local importance related to food risk Trust in management quality evaluations: honesty • Scepticism in risk assessment and communication practices Trust in (*p<0.05) expertise (0.57*) (0.99*) (0.30) (0.87*) (0.94*) Communication example;GM potato with nutrition Explaining individual differences benefits • Uncertainty x Proactive management High uncertainty about the communication risks associated with the food, people prefer proactive FRM activities. Mean FRMQ for uncertainty * proactive FRM with 95% confidence interval 3.8 Psychological factors determine consumer attitudes, Low uncertainty about the risks associated with the decision-making and impact on self-protective 3.6 VAP, people are less behaviors and food choices mean FRMQ concerned about proactive Low proactive FRM 3.4 High proactive FRM FRM activities. 3.2 F( 1,2 ) = 9.85, p =0 .002 3 Low uncertainty High uncertainty Van Dijk, H., Van Kleef, E., Frewer L.J. et al. (in Uncertainty preparation). Consumer responses to communication about food risk management.

Determinants of consumer behaviour (food safety) Social science Natural science • Psychological factors are important barriers to effective risk communication • Locus of control (the extent to which an individual believes they can influence health outcomes) • Habitual behaviour • Optimism about own risk (Fischer & Frewer, submitted) A hierarchical view - subjective representation of food safety Item 23 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Item 24 Item 19 Calorie Item 20 Content Item 21 Item 22 Nutrition Item 01 Item 02 Variation Item 03 Mental models of food –related behaviour. Item 04 Food Item 05 Item 06 Behavior Utensil Item 07 Hygiene Item 08 Results of a hierarchical factor analysis Item 09 Item 10 Food Personal Item 11 Safety Hygiene Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Food Item 15 χ 2 =1116; df =248; RMSEA=0.065 Handling Item 16 CFI=0.93; GFI=0.90; CAIC=1517 Item 17 (Fischer and Frewer submitted) (independence CAIC=11154; saturated CAIC=2314) Item 18 Fischer and Frewer, submitted What psychological factors influence food choice Conclusions and technology acceptance? • Emphasis on risk-benefit analysis in a transparent environment • Habitual behaviour – Fischer, A, Frewer, L.J., Nauta, M. Towards improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: Assessing individual differences in the safety efficacy of domestic food handling practices (in press, – Assessment Risk Analysis). • Health • Perceived Risk versus perceived benefit • environment – Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., and Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns about general and specific • socio-economic applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98-124. • ethical impact) – Management • Role of affect or emotion De Jonge, J., van Trijp, H., Renes, R.R. and Frewer, L.J. • decision-making (submitted) • stakeholder and citizen priorities – Evaluation of consumer perceptions of benefit and risk • Implicit memory – Spence, A. and Townsend, E. (2006).Implicit attitudes towards genetically modified (G.M.) foods: A – Individual differences in consumer decision-making may comparison of context free and context dependent evaluation. Appetite, 46, 67-74. determine communication structure • Attitude activation Bring together to develop best practice in risk-benefit – Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J. and Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: Effects of different information strategies. Risk Analysis, 23, 6, 1117-1133 communication in a transparent risk analysis framework � Interactions between these….

Thank you! Any Questions?