Unit 1: Consumer perception of food risks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Unit 1: Consumer perception of food risks PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 42b499-ZWJkN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Unit 1: Consumer perception of food risks

Description:

Food selection and risk perception. http://www.danoneinstitute.org/danone_institutes_initiatives/pdf/09_fischler.pdf Sylvie Bonny. – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:296
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 101
Provided by: WJGerr
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Unit 1: Consumer perception of food risks


1
Unit 1 Consumer perception of food risks
  • Euromodule
  • Food Safety and Risk Assessment
  • Willem Gerritsen, Hogeschool van Amsterdam
  • Version 4, April 2004

2
Contents
Slide
  • Food safety, hazards, risk 3 - 7
  • Consumer concerns 8 - 52
  • Europe foods 11 - 19
  • UK, NL foods 23 - 30
  • Europe food issues 32 - 38
  • Ranking food issues 40 - 52
  • Willingness to pay 53 - 59
  • Risk perception models 60 - 88
  • Trust, distrust, outrage 89 - 100

3
Food safety
  • What is food safety?
  • Hazards and risks
  • What are the concerns? (ranking, consumers versus
    scientists)
  • Risk perception by consumers
  • Risk assessment by scientists

4
Food safety
  • The supply of food that will not cause harm to
    the consumer when it is prepared or eaten
    according to its intended use (European
    Commission).

5
Food safety hazard, risk
  • Food hazard a biological, chemical or physical
    agent in, or condition of, food with the
    potential to cause an adverse health effect
  • Risk a function of the probability of an adverse
    health effect and the severity of that effect,
    consequential to a hazard(s) in food
  • (Codex Alimentarius, 1997)

http//www.fao.org/docrep/W5975E/w5975e07.htm
6
Food hazards examples
  • Biological bacteria, viruses, parasites
  • Chemical naturally present chemicals, chemicals
    produced by cooking, (environmental)
    contaminants, additives, cleaning chemicals
  • Physical foreign objects, e.g. bone, rock, metal

7
Other food hazards
  • Food is not considered unsafe solely because of
    its inherent nutritional or chemical properties
    or, because of its inherent nature, causes
    adverse reactions in individuals with allergies
    or sensitivities (NSW Health).

8
Concerns of consumers which types of food?
  • About which foods do consumers (spontaneously)
    state concerns?

9
(No Transcript)
10
Concerns about types of food
  • Differences in Europe. Eurobaromètre 49, 1999 (in
    French). http//europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_co
    nsumer/library/surveys/eb49_fr.pdf
  • Trust in food in Europe. A comparative analysis,
    2003.
  • http//www.trustinfood.org/SEARCH/BASIS/tif0/all/
    publics/DDD/24.pdf
  • Consumers attitudes to food standards, wave 2. UK
    report, 2002
  • http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/c
    onsumeratt_uk
  • Weten, wensen en waarden. The Netherlands,
    2002.
  • http//www.eaae.org/84thsem/doc/sessie20120-20
    nr20220-20dagevos.pdf

11
Eurobarometer 49
1998
12
Eurobarometer 49 Spain Safe or not safe?
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
13
Eurobarometer 49 France Safe or not safe?
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
14
Eurobarometer 49 Greece Safe or not safe?
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
15
Eurobarometer 49 The Netherlands Safe or not safe?
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
16
Eurobarometer 49 Sweden Safe or not safe?
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
17
Eurobarometer 49 UK Safe or not safe?
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
18
Eurobarometer 49 Ranking top 5 not safe
Other than preserves, frozen foods and
ready-made meals
19
Eurobarometer 49 Average percentage not safe
over 12 items
Items bread, fruits, vegetables, fish, meat,
milk, cheese, eggs, preserves, frozen foods,
ready-made meals, other packed products
20
Very safe food
Trust in food in Europe, 2003
Cumulative percentages
http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2004/pr05
04en.cfm
21
Very safe ranking
Trust in food in Europa, 2003
http//www.trustinfood.org/SEARCH/BASIS/tif0/all/p
ublics/DDD/24.pdf
22
Food safety in general
23
Concerns about safety (UK)
24
UK 2001
25
Food safety perception in Portugal, 2002
http//www.eaae.org/84thsem/doc/sessie20V20-20n
r20220-20ventura.pdf
safety
low
high
26
Concerns about safety (NL)
27
Concerns of consumers specific products
  • If they consume specific products, do consumers
    have concerns about them, and if so, what are the
    main concerns?

28
Concerned about food items (NL)
The Netherlands 2002
29
Concerns about food items (1)
30
Concerns about food items (2)
31
Concerns about food items (3)
32
Consumers in Europe
Eurobarometer 49, 1998
33
Safe foods, Spain
Eurobarometer 49
34
Safe foods, Greece
Eurobarometer 49
35
Safe foods, France
Eurobarometer 49
36
Safe foods, The Netherlands
Eurobarometer 49
37
Safe foods, UK
Eurobarometer 49
38
Safe foods, Sweden
Eurobarometer 49
39
Safe foods Ranking top 5
Eurobarometer 49
40
Concerns of consumers ranking food issues
  • How do consumers rank an number of specific food
    issues?
  • - microbial spoilage - gmos
  • - wrong food choice - additives
  • - contaminants - food irradiation

41
Ranking food issues
  • Consumers attitudes to food standards. UK
    reports, wave 2, 3 and 4 (2001-2003)
  • http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/c
    onsumeratt_uk
  • http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/c
    as2002uk.pdf
  • http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/c
    as2003.pdf
  • Poll in France ,1999 (Sylvie Bonny)
  • http//www.edpsciences.org/articles/animres/pdf/2
    000/03/z0307.pdf
  • Survey Kiel, Germany, 2002 (Röhr et al.)
  • Scientists view (Wodicka)
  • http//www.consumersunion.org/food/riskcomny598.h
    tm

42
Ranking food issues
France 1999
43
UK 2001
44
UK 2002
45
Time trends concerns in UK
Figures consumers
46
Concerns UK 2003
http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ca
s2003.pdf
47
UK 2000-2003
http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ca
s2003.pdf
48
Comparing food safety concerns Finland
http//www.eaae.org/84thsem/doc/sessie20VIII-20n
r20120-kola.pdf
49
Comparing food and other risks High to low,
Germany 2002
  • 1. Salmonella in eggs
  • 2. Mycotoxins
  • 3. Smoking
  • 4. BSE
  • 5. Pesticides
  • 6. Spoiled foodstuffs
  • 7. Hormones in calves
  • 8. Too much/unbalanced
  • food
  • 9. Gentech foods
  • 10. Cholesterol
  • 11. Preservatives

Röhr A et al. Ernährungs-Umschau 200350426-430
50
UK National Consumer Council, 2002,
http//www.ncc.org.uk/pubs/pdf/riskfindings.pdf
51
http//www.ciaa.be/ciaa_summit/pages/hetherington.
pdf
52
http//www.ciaa.be/ciaa_summit/pages/hetherington.
pdf
53
Willingness to pay (WTP)
  • WTP for food safety how is it measured, what are
    the results?
  • Cases
  • Extra-safe milk The Netherlands
  • http//www.ifma.nl/files/papersandposters/Word/Pap
    ers/Novoselova.doc
  • Organic foods Denmark
  • http//www.akf.dk/organicfoods/conference/willingn
    ess.pdf
  • Varieties of eggs Denmark
  • http//www.sjfi.dk/Publikationer/Andet/kenneth.pdf
  • Beef Finland
  • http//agecon.tamu.edu/iama/2000Congress/Forum20-
    20Final20PAPERS/Area20II/Latvala_Terhi.PDF

54
WTP contnd
  • Beef Ireland
  • http//www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/foodprocess
    ing/4986/eopr-4986.pdf
  • Pork UK and US
  • Dickinson, David L. and DeeVon Bailey (2002) A
    Comparison Between U.S. and European Consumer
    Attitudes and Willingness to Pay for
    Traceability,Transparency, and Assurance for Port
    Products. In Paradoxes in Food Chains and
    NetworksProceedings of the 5th International
    Conference on Chain andNetwork Management in
    Agribusiness and the Food Industry. Wageningen
    Academic Publishers 229-37 (pdf-file)

55
WTP Measurement Methods
  • Contingent Valuation Method
  • interviews, hypothetical scenario
  • Experimental Auction Method
  • simulation of real market
  • Conjoint Analysis Method
  • evaluation of product profiles, including price
  • Hedonic Price Method
  • estimation from market price, consumption/expendi
    ture data and objective characteristics

http//www.arches.uga.edu/tulturi/research/wtp.le
e_hatcher.pdf
56
WTP Continguent Valuation
57
WTP Experimental Auction
58
WTP Conjoint Analysis
59
WTP Hedonic Price
60
Risk perception models
  • Cultural Theory (Douglas, Wildavsky, Dake)
  • to explain why different people perceive the
    same hazard differently perceived risks as
    function of values and beliefs
  • Psychometric Model (Fischhoff, Slovic et al.)
  • to explain why different hazards are perceived
    differently perceived risk as function of risk
    attributes

61
Cultural Theory
  • Value clusters that
  • differ in degree of
  • group cohesiveness
  • (finding identity in a
  • social group)
  • grid (accepting a
  • formal system of
  • hierarchy and
  • procedural rules)

http//www.belleonline.com/oct_02.pdf
(Page 9)
62
Cultural Theory world views
http//www.ukresilience.info/risk/communicatingris
k.pdf
(Page 16)
63
Cultural Theory world views
64
Psychometric Model perception factors
  • Like seesaws can either make fear go up, or down
  • Usually several factors involved, importance
    varies over time
  • Universal across cultures, ages, genders

George Gray David Ropeik, Harvard Centre for
Risk Analysis http//www.jifsan.umd.edu/presentati
ons/acrylamide2002/WG5_Communicating_about_Risk_fi
les/frame.htm
65
Perception factors more versus less afraid
  • Trust
  • Choice
  • Natural v. human-made
  • Catastrophic or chronic
  • Dread
  • Hard v. easy to understand
  • Uncertainty
  • Familiar v. new
  • Awareness
  • Personification
  • Future generations
  • Personal v. statistical
  • Risk v. benefit

66
Dimension of perceived risks
  • Paul Slovic
  • perceived risks have 2 dimensions.
  • dread risk lack of control, dread,
    catastrophic potential, fatal consequences and
    inequitable distribution of risks and benefits.
  • unknown risk unobservable, unkwown, new,
    delayed in manifestation of harm.
  • http//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/CHRR/Roundtable/slov
    ic_wp.pdf

67
Dread risk and unknown risk
Factor 1 dread risk Factor 2 unknown risk
68
http//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/CHRR/Roundtable/slovi
c_wp.pdf
69
Assessing perceptions of food risks
FAMILIAR
Known by scientist Easy to tell if contained in
food Responsibility of others to protect from
harm Risks are unnatural Common
Salmonella
Saturated Fats
C. botulinum
Sugar
Likely to cause harm Worrying Have no
benefits Risks are serious Harmful in small
quantities
NOT DREADED
DREADED
BSE
Colouring
Pesticide Residue
Organic Produce
Nitrates
Hormone Residue
Genetically Altered
Fife-Schaw and Rowe (2000) after Slovic, 1993
UNFAMILIAR
http//www.oru.se/org/avd/samverkan/sydkraft/frewe
r.ppt
(ppt-file)
70
Ranking food issues scientists view
  • 1. Excessive fat/excess calorie intake
  • 2. Microbiological contamination
  • 3. Natural toxicants in foods
  • 4. Pesticide residues and other chemical
    contaminants
  • 5. Food additives

71
Risks scientists and consumers
  • a split between risk evaluation by experts
  • and risk perception by the lay public
  • Claude Fischler. Food selection and risk
    perception.
  • http//www.danoneinstitute.org/danone_institutes_i
    nitiatives/pdf/09_fischler.pdf
  • Sylvie Bonny. Consumer concerns about
    industrialized agriculture and food safety
    importance, origin and possible solutions.
  • http//www.edpsciences.org/articles/animres/pdf/20
    00/03/z0307.pdf
  • Lennart Sjöberg. Risk perception by the public
    and by experts a dilemma in
  • risk management. Hum Ecol Rev 199961-9.
  • http//www.humanecologyreview.org/Human20Ecology/
    HER_6,2,1999.pdf

72
(No Transcript)
73
Scientists risk assessment
  • Risk the probability an event will cause harm
  • Experts evaluate risks using probabilistic tools,
    for example epidemiological data (mortality and
    morbidity rates)
  • Probability of an event
  • Seriousness of its consequences
  • Combined e.g. annual mortality rate

74
Risk assesment food hazards
  • Factors considered
  • Adverse reactions in the body
  • Amount eaten
  • Length of exposure
  • Severeness of harm or illness
  • Effect of age, previous illness, or genetics on
    sensitivity

75
http//www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sab-ccs /mar1998_apph_hpb_r
isk_e.pdf
76
Risk perception of consumers
  • Risk also involves outrage factors
  • controllability, feeling of mastery
  • voluntary or involuntary nature of event
  • knowledge of and familiarity with risk
  • fairness is everyone exposed
  • diffusion over time/space
  • risk related advantages

77
Laypeoples risk perception
  • Most important is factor Dread risk
  • The higher a hazards score on this,
  • - the higher its perceived risk
  • - the more people want its risks reduced
  • - the more they want strict regulation
  • Dread factors good indicators of overall
    response, but only weak predictor of how an
    individual will react

78
Experts risk perception
  • Not closely related to any of these factors
  • Riskiness synonymous with expected annual
    mortality

79
Public vs. scientifc assessment
  • Public
  • intuitive
  • yes/no
  • safety
  • is it or isnt it?
  • discrete events
  • personal consequences
  • it matters how we die
  • Expert
  • scientific
  • probabilistic
  • acceptable risk
  • changing knowledge
  • comparative risk
  • population averages
  • a death is a death

Powell and Leiss, 1997 http//www.foodsafetynetwor
k.ca/risk/AABP-paper/AABP-paper.htm
80
Perceptions on evaluation of risk
  • Experts
  • Rely on risk assessment
  • Objective
  • Analytic
  • Wise
  • Rational
  • Based on real risk
  • Public
  • Rely on perceptions of risk
  • Subjective
  • Hypothetical
  • Emotional
  • Foolish
  • Irrational

http//www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publi
cations/riscomm/riscomm_ch3e.shtml
81
Two ways of evaluating food risks
Two approaches to evaluating the acceptability of
food safety risks
  • Science-Based
  • Balances risk against benefits and costs
  • Value- Based
  • Balances risk against dread and outrage

Marion Nestle. Safe Food, 2003
82
Comparison of approaches
  • Science-Based
  • Counts and calculates
  • Cases
  • Severity of illnesses
  • Hospitalizations
  • Deaths
  • Costs of risk
  • Benefits of risk
  • Costs of reducing risk
  • Balance of risk to benefits
  • Value-Based
  • Assesses whether risk is
  • Voluntary or imposed
  • Visible or hidden
  • Understood or uncertain
  • Familiar or foreign
  • Natural or technological
  • Mild or severe
  • Fairly or unfairly distributed
  • Controllable or uncontrollable

83
Laypeople and experts Ranking food risks, Sweden
1997
  • Laypeople
  • 1. Contaminants
  • 2. Pesticides
  • 3. Bacteria
  • 4. Additives
  • 5. Food habits
  • 6. Preparation
  • Experts
  • 1. Food habits
  • 2. Bacteria
  • 3. Preparation
  • 4. Contaminants
  • 5. Pesticides
  • 6. Additives

Vår Föda 1997, 7 4-9
84
Laypeople and experts Ranking food risks, The
Netherlands 1996
  • Consumers
  • 1. Bacteria
  • 2. Food habits
  • 3. Contaminants
  • 4. Gentech food
  • 5. Additives
  • 6. Natural toxins
  • 7. Food irradiation
  • Scientists
  • 1. Bacteria
  • 2. Food habits
  • 3. Contaminants
  • 4. Natural toxins
  • 5. Additives
  • 6. Gentech food
  • 7. Food irradiation

Voeding 1996 3 15-17.
85
Why experts and public disagree Possible
explanations
  • Background gender, education, age
  • Realism
  • Different risk definitions
  • Self-selection
  • Socialization of values
  • Perceived control and familiarity
  • Professional role
  • General political ideology
  • General tendency to dismiss risks
  • Media contents
  • Trust
  • Risk perception factors

Lennart Sjöberg. Risk management. Hum Ecol Rev
199961-9. http//www.humanecologyreview.org/Huma
n20Ecology/HER_6,2,1999.pdf
86
Risk as analysis and as feelings
  • Two systems that process information
  • analytic system, logic and evidence, slow and
    deliberative (in neo-cortex)
  • experiential system, associations and affective
    reactions, fast and automatic (in brain stem)
  • Experts more weight on rule based analytic
    systems (risk as analyis)
  • Lay public more heavily on associative sytems
    (risk as feelings)

http//dccps.nci.nih.gov/BRP/presentations/weber.p
df http//dccps.nci.nih.gov/BRP/presentations/slov
ic.pdf
87
(No Transcript)
88
Risk perception research
  • Sjöberg models fail, explaining only small part
    of perceived risks
  • other predictors trust, risk sensitivity,
    attitude to risk in general, specific fear
  • Zwick Renn (Baden-Wurtenberg Risk Survey 2001)
    psychometric factors strongest predictors, trust
    theory stronger than value theory

http//www.dynam-it.com/riskpercom/pdf/psam4.pdf h
ttp//www.dynam-it.com/riskpercom/pdf/valdor.pdf
(page 91)
http//www.michaelmzwick.de/ab203.pdf
89
Trust and risk perception in European countries
(1)
  • General trust believe in honesty and in social
    harmony, trust in politicians and in corporations
  • Levels general trust Sweden gt UK gt Spain
  • Specific trust nuclear risks, radiation risks,
    other risks
  • Levels of specific trust Sweden gt France ?
    Spain ? UK

http//www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111
/1539-6924.00351/abs/
90
Trust and risk perception in European countries
(2)
  • Trust significant predictor of perceived risk
    within countries
  • Strength of relationship different
  • UK gt Sweden gt France gt Spain
  • Nuclear risks more influenced by trust
  • Knowledge possibly part of explanation
  • self-reported kowledge in France and Spain
    higher than in Sweden and UK

MJ Viklund. Trust and risk perception in Western
Europe a cross-national study. Risk Anal 2003
23 727-737.
(pdf-file)
91
Distrust in information sources
UK 1996
Frewer
92
Trust and distrust
  • With sufficiently high level of distrust, no
    level of risk is accepted and no demonstration of
    safety believed.
  • Traditional information sources (goverment /
    industry) have lost position of trust.
  • New information sources (Greenpeace, ecology
    pressure groups) have occupied position of trust.

93
Role of information source
  • Trusted sources are seen with multiple positive
    attributes knowledgable, truthful, good track
    record, responsible
  • Distrusted sources are associated with negative
    attributes biased, distorted, proven to be wrong
    in the past

F.H. Kemper Perception of Risks The Case of
Food http//www.entransfood.com/meetings/Report2
0First20IDP-Meeting20ENTRANSFOOD.PDF
94
Information source characteristics
UK 1999 Frewer
Social Attenuation
Accountable to others
Likely to withhold information
Dept of Health
MAFF
British Medical Association
Large commercial food manufacturer
Health Education Authority
World Health Organization
Trust
Distrust
Expert in the area
The Consumers Association
Large UK supermarket
Factual information
Distorted information
Good track record
Biased information
Accurate information
Health Which?
Truthful information
Vested interest
In favour of using source
Proven wrong in past
Concerned about public
Greenpeace
Protect self and interests
welfare
Responsibility to provide
Freedom to provide
Social Amplification
Knowledgeable
Trustworthy
Provide sensationalised information
95
Who would withhold information? (in scandal with
salmonella in chicken)
Trust in food in Europe, 2003
Cumulative percentages
http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2004/pr05
04en.cfm
96
Truth-telling actors ranking
Trust in food in Europa, 2003
http//www.trustinfood.org/SEARCH/BASIS/tif0/all/p
ublics/DDD/24.pdf
97
http//www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publi
cations/riscomm/riscomm_ch3e.shtml
98
Dealing with outrage
  • Peter Sandman Risk Hazard Outrage
  • If people are outraged because they do not
    understand the hazard, educate them about the
    hazard.
  • If they are outraged and DO understand the
    hazard, you must address the outrage.
  • Educating the public is not sufficient to deal
    with public outrage.

99
Outrage components
  • 12 Components to be dealt with to lower community
    outrage safe vs. risky
  • 1. voluntary vs. coerced
  • 2. natural vs. industrial
  • 3. familiar vs. not familiar
  • 4. not memorable vs. memorable
  • 5. not dreaded vs. dreaded
  • 6. chronic vs. catastrophic

100
Outrage components (ctnd)
  • 7. knowable vs. unknowable
  • 8. individually controlled vs. controlled by
    others
  • 9. fair vs. unfair
  • 10. morally irrelevant vs. morally relevant
  • 11. trustworthy sources vs. untrustworthy
    sources
  • 12. responsive process vs. unresponsive process
  • Notes from a class by Dr. Peter Sandman
    http//home.sprintmail.com/snowtao/risk.htm
About PowerShow.com