A. Krystallis (1) , L. Frewer (2) , G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3)

Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)

A Perceptual Divide? Consumer and Expert Attitudes to Food Risk Management (FRM) in Europe

A. Krystallis (1), L. Frewer (2), G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3)

1: Agricultural University of Athens, Marketing and Consumer Behavior Group, Greece

2: University of Wageningen, Department of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, the

Netherlands 3: Institute of Food Research,

UK

15th Society of Risk Analysis Europe (SRA-E) Annual Meeting 11-13 September 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia


1. Introduction Food Risk Analysis process comprises 3 interrelated

components (FAO/WHO, 1995): Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Communication

What is included in these 3 components varies according to perspective of different food chain actors, including consumers

Important to understand nature of multiple perspectives: effective Risk Analysis depends on mutual understanding of the

parties involved


2. ‘Expert-lay discrepancy’ phenomenon

Public concern regarding safety of food, together with social distrust in institutions charged with consumer protection Public concerns often described as excessive or irrational by experts

‘Expert-lay discrepancy’ phenomenon: difference in opinions between experts and consumers about severity and consequences of food risks (Hansen et al, 2003; Jensen et al, 2005)

Expert-lay differences ascribed to: experts being more concerned with quantitative issues of frequency

and severity of consequences of hazard exposure lay people being more concerned with broader qualitative aspects of

risk


Considerable empirical support for expert-lay differences in perceptions about hazards: in general (e.g. Sandman, 1987; Slovic, 1987); chemical hazard exposure (Kraus et al, 1992; Slovic et al, 1995); nuclear energy (Sjoberg et al, 2000); medical treatments such as blood transfusion (Lee et al, 2003); biotechnology (Savadori et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004); zoonotic food-borne risks (Jensen et al, 2005); etc

Much of this research criticised: either for flawed research methodology (e.g. Rowe and Wright, 2001;

Wright et al, 2002) or for misrepresentation of the processes that bring hazardous

activities into the realm of public discourse (Tesh, 1999)


3. Expert-lay differences in Food Risk Management

Investigation of expert-lay differences in FRM less common

Consumer negativity towards FRM is assumed consequence of expert-lay differences in perceptions of how hazards are/should be managed

Possibly there are expert-lay differences in what constitutes good and bad FRM

Increasing EU trend to include consumers actively in FRM important to understand how experts and consumers react to each

others’ views regarding what is good and bad FRM


4. Aim of the research Present research asks lay people and food risk experts to

consider one another’s views on FRM Interviews with consumers and experts to:

a) examine how they react when confronted with each others’ conceptualisations of what is good FRM practice so analyse how well they are able to understand each other

b) identify key FRM quality-related issues where experts and consumers express different levels of agreement thus revealing elements of expert-lay discrepancy in FRM

c) identify points of departure for future dialogue between consumers and experts to improve mutual understanding about FRM quality


5. Methodology Telephone follow-up interviews in DK, GE, GR, UK with

consumer and expert participants in a series of focus groups: Consumers presented with series of expert statements on FRM and

asked to express their agreement/disagreement and reasoning Experts undertake a similar exercise with consumer statements

Statements derived from previous focus groups to investigate consumer and expert perceptions of good FRM practice: Initial f. gr. /country with consumers (Houghton et al, 2006), to develop discussion guide for 4 f. gr. /country (van Kleef et al, 2006):

consumers food risk assessors (food industry); food risk managers (regulatory bodies, consumer organisations); food safety scientists (universities, research institutes)


Analysis of f. gr. identified 15 key themes integral to FRM perceptions by consumers and experts (van Kleef et al, 2006) 2 key FRM-themes emerged only in consumers’ f. gr. 2 key FRM-themes emerged only in experts’ f. gr.

11 key FRM themes mutually comparable 11 statements generated for the follow-up interviews

translated into native languages and back-translated in English

Analysis reports 7 out of 11 key FRM-themes reflecting contradicting views put forward in follow-up interviews experts and consumers disagree or express different agreement level selection of themes closely follows 2d objective of the research


Key FRM themes Experts’ statements

shown to consumers: Consumers’ statements

shown to experts:

1. Consumer awareness of food hazards

QC: Consumers are not sufficiently aware of food hazards

QE: Consumers are not sufficiently aware of food hazards

2. Consumer satisfaction from FRM efforts

QC: The responsible authorities make satisfactory efforts to manage food hazards in this country

QE: Existing food safety activities directed to protecting consumers from food risks are acceptable to consumers

3. Priorities in FRM QC: Consumer health protection is prioritized in food risk management

QE: Food risk managers give priority to economic interests over and above consumer protection

4. Responsibilities for food safety

QC: Consumers should take more responsibility for protecting themselves from food risks

QE: It is the state’s responsibility to protect consumers from food hazards

5. Role of the media QC: The media must be blamed for making consumers unnecessarily concerned about food hazards

QE: The media must be blamed for making consumers unnecessarily concerned about food hazards

6. Scientific uncertainty QC: Any uncertainty associated with risk assessment about food hazards is acknowledged by institutions which are responsible for managing food safety

QE: Science does not always know all the answers regarding food safety problems

7. Degree of similarity in opinions

QC: Food risk managers think about food safety issues in the same way as consumers

QE: Food risk managers think about food safety issues in the same way as consumers


Follow-up interviews conducted in February-March 2005

Consumer and expert participants from earlier f. gr: contacted by letter prior to interview

advised of the format of the interview given a copy of the 13 statements

subsequently telephone contacts to arrange interview time Interviews conducted by members of research teams in each country

32 consumers and 39 expert participants in the f. gr. agreed to take part in follow-up interviews

Participants indicate agreement or disagreement with each of the statements and give reasons accordingly ‘don’t know’ answers also permitted


Consumer groups’ socio-demographic profile (selected information), N=32

Denmark(n=7)

Germany (n=9)

Greece (n=9)

UK (n=7)

Age: mean (years)Range

42.6(25-64)

49.3(33-66)

43.6 (24-67)

43.7(37-63)

Gender:Male 5 2 4 3

Number of persons in household:1 or 2

34 or more

223

621

324

412

Children (younger than 12 years old) in household:012

412

630

621

430

Living situation:City

Town or rural areas52

72

63

25

Highest level of education:Secondary education or lower

Post-secondary education of all types34

45

36

43

Working status:in paid work

students / in educationunemployed

retireddoing housework

62010

51020

50022

50110


Expert groups

Denmark (n=8)

Germany (n=7)

Greece (n=14)

UK (n=10)

No. Employment No. Employment No. Employment No. Employment

Food risk assessors

5 - Research institute (2), - Consumer/ patient representative association (2), - - Food industry (1)

5 - Food industry (2), - Regulatory body (2), - Consumer association (1)

4 - Food industry (4)

4 - Regulatory body (2), - Certification body (1), - HACCP consulting company(1)

Food safety scientists

4 - University (4)

2 - University (2)

4 - University (3), - Research institute (1)

5 - Research institute (4), - Food industry (1)

Food risk managers

3 - Regulatory body (2), - Research institute (1)

No separate focus group

6 -Ministry (3)- Inspection organisation (2), - Consumer association (1)

1 - Regulatory body (1)


6. Results


Consumers' and experts' agreement with key FRM themes, %

81,274,3

15,6

43,740,6

68,7

31,2

71,8

7,6

84,6

64,1

20,5

79,4 79,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

consumers' agreement experts' agreement


Evidence that both consumers and experts agree on what constitutes good practice in FRM

but the reasons for that agreement are often different see following Figures, middle column and columns to left

and right respectively

7. Discussion


Areas of (mostly) agreement between expert and lay:


Areas of (mostly) disagreement between expert and lay:


Interpretation differences in perceptions over FRM quality but opinions within different groups are not mutually

exclusive

Not appropriate to talk about expert-lay discrepancy’ in FRM because of the potential overlap between opinions and

attitudes, and because differences arise in motivation regarding

engagement in FRM


Implications for improving FRM practices: experts perceive that consumers approve their activities

unlikely they will be motivated to change current practices

consumers much less approving of what is being done regarding FRM may exert pressure for future change in these practices

anticipated that experts will be resistant to change and will continue to blame external factors for problems in

the context of consumer perceptions of FRM effectiveness such as lack of consumer information, or mishandling of risk

communication by the media


8. Conclusions Results indicate that both consumers and experts:

agree that certain themes must be included in any debate about effective FRM practice;

but differ: in their views of how actions are operationalised by food risk managers and in their attributions of the motives of key actors

Recognition by experts of best FRM practice must embrace the notion that experts differ from consumers in terms of interpretation of some key themes of FRM effectiveness

Disjunction of perceptions of what constitutes optimal FRM practices will reduce consumer confidence, unless FRM practitioners take due account of consumer perceptions


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The research reported is funded by the European Commission and based on results from the fourth work package (WP4) of the Integrated Project “SAFE FOODS”, Promoting food safety through a new integrated risk analysis approach for foods.

A. Krystallis (1) , L. Frewer (2) , G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3)

Documents

Transcript of A. Krystallis (1) , L. Frewer (2) , G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3)