ISOPOL XVII- Porto, 7 th May 2010 Lynn J. Frewer Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour University of Wageningen Consumer perceptions, behaviour and microbial

ISOPOL XVII- Porto, 7th May 2010

Lynn J. FrewerFood Safety and Consumer BehaviourUniversity of Wageningen

Consumer perceptions, behaviour and microbial food safety. Implications for Listeria control.


Public perceptions and attitudes to food safety -What are

the key questions?

• How do consumers perceive microbial food risks?

•Severity of risk

•Other psychologically relevant risk characteristics

• Personal applicability of risk

• How does this relate to consumer self-protective behaviours?

• What other factors need to be considered?


The problem of food safety– an interdisciplinary perspective

Farm

Food Processing

consumptionNatural sciences

Retail

Consumer


The problem of food safety– an interdisciplinary perspective

Consumer

Social sciences

Information Processing

Information

Perceived risk

Consumption


Problem alignment

Farm

FoodProcessing

Consumer

ConsumptionNatural sciences Social sciences

Perceived risk

InformationProcessing

Information

Retail


Misalignment between expert and citizen perspectives regarding risk management?


Consumers & Experts: A Perceptual Divide

Consumers not willing to seek information

Adequate Risk management and happy consumers

More acceptance of economic interests

Emphasise state and industry

Negative view - create public anxiety

Inherent in science

Poor quality of information

Continuing problems

Less acceptance of economic interests

Emphasise consumer protection

Positive view

Not acknowledged by all institutions

Krystallis et al, 2007, Health, Risk & Society

Consumers Experts

Risk management

efforts

Risk management

priorities

Responsibility

Media

Uncertainty

Consumer Awareness


Consumer risk perceptions- a summary

The psychology of risk perception drives public risk attitudes

An involuntary risk over which people have no control is more threatening than one people choose to take (untraced GM food ingredients)

Potentially catastrophic risks concern people most (major environmental disaster)

Unnatural (technological) risks are more threatening than natural ones (biotechnology, nanotechnology, convergent technologies)

Microbial risks are perceived to be Voluntary Non-catastrophic Natural

…and less threatening than other food related risks


Risk ratings

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

GM plants

GM micro-organisms

GM animal

Pesticides

Irradiation

Microwave ovens

Food poisoning (outside)

Food poisoning (home)

Fat

Alcohol

society other people personal

Frewer, Shepherd & Sparks (1994)


Control ratings

0 20 40 60 80 100

GM plants

GM micro-organisms

GM animal

Pesticides

Irradiation

Microwave ovens



Fat

Alcohol



Knowledge ratings

0 20 40 60 80 100

GM plants

GM micro-organisms

GM animal

Pesticides

Irradiation

Microwave ovens



Fat

Alcohol


Frewer, Shepherd & Sparks (1994)


Optimistic bias about microbial food risk

People perceive that they are, compared to an average person in the society in which they live at less risk of food poisoning have greater personal control over exposure, at least in the home,

and…. more knowledgeable about the hazard

Risk communication may fail, because people perceive it is directed towards other who are more at risk, less knowledgeable and less in control compared to themselves


Saturated Fats

Sugar

Salmonella

C Botulinum

BSE

Pesticide Residue

Hormone Residue

Genetically Altered Foods

Nitrates

Colouring

Organic Produce

UNFAMILIAR

NOT FRIGHTENING

Assessing perceptions of food risks

Fife-Schaw and Rowe, 2000

FRIGHTENING

FAMILIAR


Risk Management and Communication Issues

What information should be communicated? What are people doing wrong?

Are some people more vulnerable than others? Targeted communication

How to overcome optimistic bias? It won’t happen to me!

How to get people to process information in an in depth way which influences self-protective behaviours?

How should risks be managed? And how should this be communicated?


Explaining individual differences

Psychological factors determining consumer attitudes, decision-making and impact on self-protective behaviors


Rasch analysis

Who is at risk? What psychological factors are they associated

with? How difficult is the self-protective behaviour to

perform?


Participants Behaviours

PARTICIPANT (N=1044)more safe food handling practices

BEHAVIOURrarely reported practices

most frequent practices

safe participants

participants potentially at risk

Rasch scale of food handling practices Fischer et al (in prep)

I use a meat thermometer to determine when my meat is well done

I place frozen foods in the refrigerator when thawing them

I wash fresh vegetables and salads

I make sure my food is heated thoroughly


Clusters of Consumers and self protective behaviour – domestic food

safety

Female medium age cooks ; 0.37; 35%

Less educated older w omen, few est jobs,

habitual cooks, optimistic about ow n cooking, ;

0.78; 7%Not Single, Older, high

external locus of control, Habitual cooks,

Optimistic; 0.56; 21%

Average families ; 0.16; 28%

Highly educated single male, City residence, Long w orking hours,

external locus of control; -0.13; 9%

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

Ra

sc

h S

co

re

Traditional family

Average Family (traditional)

Average Family A

Average Family B

Single Male

Results of hierarchical cluster analysis on

Rasch data

Fischer et al, 2008

Safer

Behaviours

Riskier

Behaviours


Targeting individual information needs

Focus on achievable objectives regarding interventions for different population groups

• Identify which consumer is ”at risk”, and give him/her information that (s)he needs

• Rasch scale provides information to determine which behaviour is within reach for which consumer

• Test against microbiological risks associated with specific food preparation behaviours


Determinants of consumer behaviour

(Fischer & Frewer, submitted)

Social science Natural science


What factors determine whether an individual will act to

protect themselves from microbial risks?

Being female, or older (women and older participants tend to utilise “safer” habitual cooking behaviours)

Having a high INTERNAL locus of control (i.e. the belief that your own actions and behaviours affect your own health status Positively determined by higher levels of education Higher perceived knowledge about risks


Mental models of food –related behaviour.

Results of a hierarchical factor analysis


Item 20

Item 24

Item 19

Item 23

Item 21

Item 22

Item 01

Item 02

Item 03

Item 04

Item 05

Item 06

Item 07

Item 08

Item 09

Item 10

Item 11

Item 12

Item 13

Item 14

Item 15

Item 16

Item 17

Item 18

FoodBehavior

Nutrition

Utensil Hygiene

FoodSafety

Personal Hygiene

FoodHandlingχ2=1116; df=248; RMSEA=0.065

CFI=0.93; GFI=0.90; CAIC=1517 (independence CAIC=11154; saturated CAIC=2314)

Level 1Level 2Level 3

Variation

CalorieContent

A hierarchical view - subjective representation of food safety


Variation

Utensil Hygiene

Personal Hygiene

FoodHandling

Calories

Food Safety

Nutrition

Illness

Bacteria

Health

Taste Freshness

Hierarchical Factors or Associations?

Fischer et al, 2009


People do not “compartmentalise” food safety knowledge

Can we activate what knowledge people do have?


Information interventions

• Internet based study

• Different information conditions• Couple food safety information with emotional images

• “Disgust”

• “Anger”

• Recipe containing a food safety message

Nauta et al, 2009


Results

Including a food safety message in the recipe “activated” other knowledge about self-protective food safety behaviour

People have food safety knowledge Activating this knowledge when cooking may

overcome habitual behaviours Similarly, using “disgust” may also activate this

existing knowledge Given the associanist perspective, does this also

activate other food knowledge?


USA – peanuts contaminated with Salmonella

2,100 processed and packaged foods have been recalled in the wake of a salmonella outbreak ….. More than 660 people became ill, and infection may have contributed to nine deaths

New York times, 25th February 2009


What determines good food risk management from a

consumer perspective?

• Communication priorities– Proactive consumer protection– Transparent risk management– Transparent risk assessment and risk communication

practices, including communication of uncertainties– Trust in expertise of food risk managers– Trust in honesty of food risk managers

Van Kleef et al, 2007, Risk Analysis


Survey: Quantitative Results Proactiv

e

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*)

Transparency

Trust in honesty

Van Kleef et al, 2007, Risk Analysis

(-0.11*)

(0.01)


Survey: Summary of results

Factors of universal importance within the EU• Pro-active consumer protection

• Transparent risk management

• Trust in the expertise of food risk managers (except Greece)

Factors of local importance • Scepticism regarding risk assessment and communication practices

(UK)


Replication of survey outside European Union

Russian Consumers (N=420) Generally, Russian consumers hold similar views to

consumers in EU member states regarding their perceptions of what constitutes effective food risk management practices

Perceived honesty of food chain actors was an important determinant of perceived food risk management quality

Russian consumers perceived personal responsibility for food-related health protection.

EU consumers attributed responsibility to food chain actors and the authorities.

Popova et al, in press. British Food Journal


Case Studies: Overview

Cases Cases (N=206)(N=206) “Crisis” incident Low impact incident

GermanyGermany BSE Nematodes in fish

NorwayNorway E.coli Salmon

UKUK BSE Salmon

GreeceGreece Avian influenza Yogurt/ Honey

Semi-structured interviews

Van Kleef et al, in press, Health Risk and Society


Case studies – conclusions

Preventative risk management measures important Transparency in risk analysis Communication of uncertainty and variability Expertise is essential component of effective risk

management Emphasis on rapid responses to contain food safety

incidents if they occur Communication of actions taken to improve future

consumer protection (institutional learning and preparedness)


Conclusions and generic implications for Listeria control

Overcoming psychological barriers will improve consumer protection Habitual behaviour Perceived Risk Role of affect or emotion Optimistic bias Knowledge activation

People have some level of knowledge- Target resources to those most at risk (but also consider who is

most vulnerable?) Activate existing food safety knowledge rather than assuming people

do not have this knowledge. Ensure Best practice in risk management and communication,

including communication about proactive prevention strategies


Thank you!

Documents

ISOPOL XVII- Porto, 7 th May 2010 Lynn J. Frewer Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour University of Wageningen Consumer perceptions, behaviour and microbial