Consumer Views on Food, Safety and Sustainability - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Consumer Views on Food, Safety and Sustainability

Description:

Microbial pathogens Food additives. Natural toxicants Contaminants. Contam. ... Food additives Excess calories. Consumer 'Concerns' Consumer awareness of ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:244
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: edward75
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Consumer Views on Food, Safety and Sustainability


1
Consumer Views on Food, Safety and Sustainability
  • Presentation by
  • Edward Groth III, PhD
  • at the CropLife International
  • Annual Conference
  • 3 June 2004
  • Brussels

2
Consumers
  • Everyone is a consumer
  • Many different kinds of consumers
  • Individuals (ultimate customers)
  • Organized consumer NGOs

3
Food Attributes that Matter to (Some/Most/All)
Consumers
  • Sensory qualitytaste, appeal
  • Nutritional quality
  • Price/value for the money
  • Safety
  • Sustainable production
  • Where grown/produced

4
Green Consumers
  • General consumer attitudes about buying green
    (environmentally better) products
  • 11 percent committed greens
  • 5 percent greenback greens
  • 33 percent opportunistic greens
  • 18 percent disinterested or grousers
  • 33 percent browns

5
Green Food Consumers
  • Buyers of organically grown foods (steady growth
    area, 20/yr in US)
  • A potential market for other sustainably-
    produced crops (eco-labels, etc.)
  • 23 percent committed to buying earth-sustainable
    foods
  • 22 percent less committed for ecological reasons
    but willing to buy for nutritional and other
    qualities (taste, convenience).

6
Hypothesis
  • In a rational world, there should be strong
    consumer support and potentially large markets
    for crops (and foods made from crops) designed to
    help meet world food needs and make agriculture
    more sustainable.

7
Tentative Conclusion
  • Based on available data, the hypothesized
    consumer support is not (yet) apparent.
  • I.e., most agricultural (crop) innovations seem
    to be greeted with skepticism and/or opposition
    by many consumers.
  • Why should this be?

8
Hazard vs. Outrage
  • In this terminology (coined by Peter Sandman in
    the 1980s)
  • Hazard describes the biological component of a
    food or environmental risk (magnitude and
    probability of harm occurring), and
  • Outrage describes the subjective attributes of a
    risk that determine how worried or angry it tends
    to make people

9
Perceptions of Hazards
  • Many expert authorities have observed that
    objective and consumer rankings of the relative
    importance of food hazards seem to be very
    different. Consumers (at least according to
    these analysis) have inverted priorities.

10
Relative importance of food hazards Expert vs.
consumer rankings
  • Objective Ranking Consumer Ranking
  • Excess calories Pesticides/drugs
  • Microbial pathogens Food additives
  • Natural toxicants Contaminants
  • Contam. pesticides Pathogens
  • Vet. drug residues Natural toxicants
  • Food additives Excess calories

11
Consumer Concerns
12
Consumer awareness of relative risk
13
Outrage Factors and Foods
  • More outrage Less outrage
  • Technological vs. Natural
  • Hard to control vs. Controllable
  • Novel/unfamiliar vs. Familiar
  • Involuntary vs. Voluntary
  • Unfair vs. Equitable
  • Undemocratic vs. Democratic

14
Ethical Issues and Foods
  • Food is personal
  • Consumers have a right to know
  • Consumers have a right to choose
  • Distribution (not just magnitude) of risks and
    benefits matters
  • Process matters

15
Process Issues
  • Consumers need to be listened to
  • They need to know their concerns are taken
    seriously and dealt with
  • Many would like a more open discussion of ethical
    issues and value trade-offs
  • Consumers (as consumer NGOs) want a seat at the
    table (i.e., an influence in corporate/government
    policy decisions)

16
Signs of Bad Process
  • Talking down to the consumer (Trust us, we
    know its safe.)
  • Overstressing science, dismissing value and
    ethical concerns
  • Decisions made behind closed doors or with
    non-transparent processes
  • Communication after the fact, promoting
    acceptance for decisions already made

17
Ooops
  • Some examples of recent mis-steps
  • Secret GM field trials revealed in Germany
  • Non-scientific concerns still marginalized
  • Offering (unwanted) GM maize as emergency food
    aid for Southern Africa
  • Opposition to precautionary approaches by some
    government and some sectors of industry
  • Continued resistance (in U.S.) to labeling GM
    foods, and loopholes in EU label legislation

18
Trust A Central Issue
  • A result of bad process has been general loss of
    trust in the food and agriculture industries on
    the part of many consumers
  • Lack of trust greatly magnifies outrage
  • Problem exists all around the world (in Europe,
    the Americas, Africa, Asia, etc.)
  • Trust must be earned, and once lost, is very hard
    to regain

19
Recipe for Success
  • Build effective two-way communications
  • Listen to and respect your critics
  • Always tell the truth! (Admit uncertainty about
    risks dont exaggerate benefits)
  • Insist on openness and transparency
  • Discuss value ethical issues explicitly
  • Build a broad consensus via inclusive process

20
You need to
  • BE engaged with other sectors of society in
    dialogues leading to better consensus on all
    these dimensions of food issues
  • -- and --
  • You need to be perceived as engaged on all these
    dimensions.
  • The latter may actually be harder than the former
    to achieve, but both are vital.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com