Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of...

2011 vol. 35 no. 4 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 319© 2011 The Authors. ANZJPH © 2011 Public Health Association of Australia

Trust has become an increasingly

important component of life in late

modernity.1-3 Trust is important to

health creation, wellbeing and happiness4,5

and is fundamental to the generation of social

capital6-8 and positive social relationships

that can lead to better health. Trust is central

to relationships within health care, for the

provision and acceptance of expert advice,5

the development of the self-efficacy needed

for the management of chronic illness;9 and

consumers’ reliance on mechanisms that are

designed to prioritise health and safety.

This study explores trust in the food system.

Trust for this study was initially defined as

“the mutual confidence that no party will

exploit another’s vulnerability”10 (p.1133).

However, since this definition implies that

trust is merely a product or process of inter-

personal relationships between individuals,

we also qualify the definition by reference

to the idea that to trust others is to “accept

the risks associated with the type and depth

of the interdependence inherent in a given

relationship.”11 By a ‘relationship’, we do

not limit trust to being an inter-personal or

inter-subjective outcome. Rather, we view

relationships as ‘systems of communication’

between individuals and social systems, and

therefore trust is the process and outcome of

relationships between individuals-individuals,

individuals-social systems, and social

systems-social systems.12

In relation to food and health, trust is

crucial if consumers are to recognise and

accept the benefits of new food technologies,

follow expert advice about healthier eating

habits, and feel assured that food regulation

is protecting their best interests. Trust directly

affects dietary patterns and food intake,

and ipso facto nutritional status. Although

the precise nutritional outcomes of altered

food choice as a consequence of trust are

unknown, dietary modelling shows that

essential nutrients can be marginalised by the

elimination from the diet of food considered

unsafe.13 Also, unorthodox and possibly

dangerous eating habits – for example,

avoidance of core food groups – can arise

when consumers distrust standard regulatory

controls.14 Second, trust plays an important

role in consumer recognition of expert-

endorsed dietary recommendations.15 Efforts

to improve public understanding about diet

rely on consumer trust in both the credibility

of the message and the probity of the

Abstract

Objective: Trust is a crucial component of

food safety and governance. This research

surveyed a random selection of the

population to examine its level of trust in a

variety of ‘actors’ and organisations in the

food chain.

Methods: A computer-assisted telephone

interviewing (CATI) survey addressing

trust in the food system was administrated

during October to December 2009 to

a random sample of 1,109 participants

across all states (response rate 41.2%).

Results: Farmers enjoyed high levels of

trust, whereas politicians were considered

less trustworthy. Supermarkets were

afforded more trust than media and news

outlets. Logistic regression analysis

determined that two socio-demographic

variables – age and education level – were

significantly associated with trust in food

actors, with young people finding the

media the least trustworthy.

Conclusions: Our respondents invested

the most trust in farmers, possibly

indicating an awareness and appreciation

of primary food production among

the Australian public. The finding that

young people’s trust in the media is low

challenges media use in social marketing

campaigns aimed to improve health and

nutrition in younger age groups.

Implications: Health education, including

nutrition education, needs to consider the

channels of communication most suited to

age and social grouping.

Key words: Food safety; trust; government;

survey; public health; Australia

Aust NZ J Public Health. 2011; 35:319-24

doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00725.x

Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food

chain: results from a national survey of consumers

Submitted: September 2010 Revision requested: January 2011 Accepted: March 2011Correspondence to: Prof. John Coveney, Public Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide SA; e-mail: [email protected]

Julie HendersonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, South Australia

John CoveneySchool of Medicine, Flinders University, South Australia

Paul R. WardDiscipline of Public Health, Flinders University, South Australia

Anne W. TaylorDiscipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia

Article Food and Drink

320 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2011 vol. 35 no. 4© 2011 The Authors. ANZJPH © 2011 Public Health Association of Australia

organisation. Public trust, and thus credibility of dietary messages,

is jeopardised when the ‘messenger’ is regarded as fallible16,17 or

when commercial concerns in private-public food campaigns are

believed to have overtaken public interests.18,19 Finally, trust is

integral to public attitudes to food regulation and the structure and

operation of regulatory regimes.20

In Australia there has been concern that public mistrust of

government regulation of some issues (e.g. genetically modified

food legislation) may overflow and negate efforts to influence and

improve dietary habits through mechanisms such as food labelling.21

Moreover, the success of the planned introduction of pre-approved

health claims on food in Australia is predicated on consumer trust

in both the efficacy of the claim and the regulatory mechanism

overseeing claim substantiation.22 Damage to public trust of either

could undermine the work of the national food regulator, Food

Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), resulting in a

potential waste of effort and resources. Trust is, therefore, crucial

to perceptions of good governance and the effective investment of

resources.

Trust in the safety of food and of food regulation has been

found to be related to major food scares in European countries,23-26

resulting in diminishing trust in many of the institutions involved

in regulating and providing information about food safety. The

Trust-in-Food survey conducted in seven European countries

demonstrated, for example, that while retailers were trusted to

maintain the safety of food products, other food ‘actors’, including

farmers, food authorities, the food manufacturing industry and the

media, were distrusted by food consumers.25 While the passage of

time23 and institution of measures to increase the transparency of

food governance27,28 have increased levels of trust in the food supply

in general, trust in farmers and politicians remains low.26 Trust in

the media is also low, but is tempered by the expectation that the

media will identify emerging food risk. There is a taken-for-granted

expectation that the media will exaggerate these risks.29

While Australia has not experienced food scares of the same

magnitude as some countries, there is some evidence of diminishing

trust in the food supply.30 Unlike Europe, however, the food fears

most often documented are those surrounding the use of pesticides,

food additives and preservatives.30 What is not known is the degree

of trust in food actors and institutions within Australia. This study

replicates aspects of the European Trust-in-Food survey, which

sought to explore social and relational aspects of trust across all

aspects of the food chain,25 with the addition of questions from the

Social Quality Survey,31 which addresses personal and systemic

trust. These questions were added to determine the extent to which

lack of trust in the food system and food actors reflects generalised

systemic distrust.

Social context plays an important role in consumer trust in food

recommendations, food institutions and food regulations. Research

suggests that people of a higher socio-economic status (SES)

are more likely to share with food experts a ‘technical-rational’

understanding of food; that is, one based on and deduced from an

empirical basis of objective knowledge.32 This is related to level

of education. Frewer et al. found that people with higher levels of

education displayed significantly more trust in government as a

source of information about food hazards, and less trust in the food

industry and tabloid newspapers, compared with people with fewer

years of education.33 Similarly, Kornelis et al. found that higher

levels of education were associated with use of government and

scientific information sources rather than social networks.34 On the

other hand, groups of a lower SES draw on different understandings

of food and health, particularly related to the use of informal

sources of information, personal experience and functional-concrete

outcomes.34-36

Age also influences food choice, consumer acceptance of expert

knowledge of food and trust in the food supply. Lupton, using

qualitative research, found age differences in public perceptions

of food risk,37 while Holmberg et al. identified little interest in, or

reflection on, the safety of the food supply among younger Australian

participants.38 Similarly, a national Australian survey of food fears

found that participants aged 18-24 were significantly less likely to cite

concerns with pesticides and food additives and with food hygiene

issues than older participants.30 Age also affects which sources are

trusted to provide food information, with parents and teachers viewed

as the most reliable sources by people in their teens.39

Gender has also been found to be related to trust in the food supply.

Poppe and Kaerjnes, in survey research across seven European

countries, consistently found that women were significantly less

likely to consider specific food items as ‘very safe’ to eat when

compared with men,25 while Williams et al. found that Australian

women expressed significantly less concern with quarantine and

environmental issues and significantly more concern with fast food

than their male counterparts.30 Gender differences are also evident

in the level of trust placed in sources of information about food

hazards. Frewer et al. found that women had greater trust in members

of parliament and the food industry and less trust in both tabloid

and broadsheet newspapers than men.33 The presence of dependent

children is also a factor, with people with dependent children having

a greater interest in, and greater use of, food safety information.34

This paper addresses trust in food institutional actors and the

impact of five demographic factors: age, gender, highest education

level obtained, Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage

(IRSD) score and the presence of children under 18 in the household

on trust in these actors. These data will be discussed in relation

to strategies to improve the provision of food safety and health

information to targeted audiences. Ethics approval for the study

was gained from the Social and Behavioural Ethics Committee of

Flinders University.

MethodParticipants for this study were randomly selected from the

Australian Electronic White Pages (EWP). A simple, random

sample was employed. Within each contacted household a random

person (the person, aged 18 years or over, who was last to have

a birthday) was selected. There was no replacement for non-

contactable persons. On average, interviews took 14.5 minutes.

All households in Australia with a telephone connected and the

Henderson et al. Article


telephone number listed in the Australian EWP were eligible for

selection in the sample. An approach letter, on Flinders University

of South Australia letterhead, was sent to all selected households

detailing the purpose of the study and notifying the household that

it would receive a telephone call. Along with the letter there was

an information sheet containing information about the purpose and

benefits of the research, the format of the survey and how more

information could be obtained.

Before the main survey, a pilot study of 52 randomly selected

households was conducted to test question formats and question

sequence, and to assess survey procedures. The questionnaire

was amended on the basis of the information obtained. Data

collection was undertaken by the contracted agency from October

to December 2009. Professional interviewers conducted the

interviews. Interviews were conducted using computer-assisted

telephone interview (CATI) methodology. This system allows

immediate entry of data from the interviewer’s questionnaire screen

to the computer database. A minimum of 10 call-backs were made

to telephone numbers selected to interview household members.

Different times of the day or evening were scheduled for each call-

back. If the person could not be interviewed immediately they were

re-scheduled for interview at a time suitable to them. Replacement

interviews for persons who could not be contacted or interviewed

were not permitted. Ten per cent of each interviewer’s work was

randomly selected for validation by the supervisor.

The overall sample response rate was 41.2%, which is in keeping

with other projects administering surveys via CATI methods.40

Initially a sample of 4,100 was drawn. Sample loss of 1,408 occurred

due to non-connected numbers (1,060), non-residential numbers

(135) and fax/modem connections (74), leaving 2,692 viable phone

numbers. Dillman et al.40 note that the growing use of mobile

phones has contributed to decreasing responses rates for surveys

administered via telephone. The use of landline phone numbers was

a limitation of this study and potentially biased the sample towards

older homeowners who were more likely to maintain a landline.

Weighting was used to correct for areas of disproportion within

the sample with respect to the population of interest. The weights

reflect unequal sample inclusion probabilities and compensate for

differential non-response. The data were weighted by age and sex

to reflect the structure of the Australian population 18 years and

over. The population for Australia was obtained from the Australian

Bureau of Statistics 2007 Estimated Residential Population.

The survey addressed issues of: knowledge of and trust in the

food regulation system; food choice; food scares; general level of

personal and systemic trust; and demographic questions. Trust in

the food system was determined through two series of questions:

the first asking participants about how much they trust food actors

and second about level of trust in the truth telling capacity of these

institutions during a food scare. This paper draws on four questions

addressing trust in supermarket chains, farmers, politicians and

press, television and radio (www.flinders.edu.au/medicine/sites/

public-health/research/current-projects/food_trust_project.cfm).

Data were collected on a scale ranging from “complete trust” to

“complete distrust” with a response for “don’t know”. “Complete

trust” and “have some trust” were recoded as 1 while, “have some

distrust”, “completely distrust” were recoded as 0. The “don’t

know” responses were treated as missing data. This was done as

the five-point scale left us with small sample sizes for statistical

analysis, so we needed to recode and created categories relating to

“trust” and “distrust”.

Demographic questions asked included age, sex, household

size, postcode, martial status, work status, country of birth, highest

education level obtained, housing status and annual household

income. The independent variables used in this study were age,

gender, highest education level obtained, Index of Relative

Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) score and the presence of

children under 18 in the household. Age was divided into four

categories (18-24 years; 25-44 years; 45-64 years; and 65 and over).

The data on postcode was used to generate an IRSD score. The IRSD

uses 17 variables associated with socioeconomic disadvantage such

as low income and lack of post-schooling education to summarise

the economic and social resources of households within a given

area. A low score indicates relatively greater disadvantage in

general. These data were divided into quintiles on the basis of the

range of scores within a state or territory.41 This variable was used

as an indicator of socio-economic status. Data were analysed using

univariate, bivariate and multivariate techniques via SPSS version

17.0 for Windows. The research was carried out according to the

Ethical Guidelines for Social and Behavioural Research B (January

2008) produced by the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics

Committee of the Flinders University of South Australia.

ResultsTable 1 outlines the key demographic characteristics of the

participants. Participants ranged from 19 to 81 years of age (mean

45±17 years), with women in a slight majority (50.7%). The

participants were drawn from across the country, with the majority

residing in major cities (56.5%) or inner regional areas (26.4%).

The preponderance of participants were in the workforce (64.1%),

with 18% identifying as being retired.

Trust in food institutionsTable 2 contains frequencies for the level of trust in the media,

supermarkets, farmers and politicians. As demonstrated, level of

trust in farmers is highest (93.1%) compared with media (51.7%

trust), supermarkets (66%) and politicians (44.2%). The extent of

trust in farmers is also reflected in the proportion of participants

who have ‘complete trust’ in farmers (32.0%), compared with 2.6%

for supermarkets, 1.2% for media and 0.6% for politicians.

Impact of demographic characteristics on trust in food actors

Chi squares were undertaken to identify the demographic

characteristics having an affect on trust in the food actors (see

Table 2). Age (p<0.001) and highest level of education (p<0.5) were

associated with trust in media. Trust in supermarkets was associated

with age (p<0.001) and the presence of children under 18 years

within the home (p<0.01), while trust in farmers was associated

Food and Drink Consumer trust along the food chain


Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participants.

n=1,109

Gender

Male 49.3%

Female 50.7%

Age

18-24 years old 15.9%

25-44 years old 36.0%

45-64 years old 31.5%

65 and older 16.6%

Highest level of education attained

No schooling to secondary schooling 44.2%

Trade, certificate, diploma 31.1%

Degree or higher 24.7%

Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage scores

Lowest quintile 18.1%

Low quintile 24.0%

Middle quintile 19.7%

High quintile 19.2%

Highest quintile 19.1%

Children under 18 in household

No children under 18 53.3%

Children under 18 46.7%

Table 2: Prevalence of trust in food actors.

Trust in media Trust in supermarkets Trust in farmers Trust in politicians

n % n % n % n %

Total 569 51.7 726 66.0 1,016 93.1 484 44.2

Gender

Male 277 50.9 354 65.1 505 93.0 234 43.3

Female 292 52.4 372 66.9 511 93.2 250 45.0

Age (years)

18-24 65 36.9a 136 77.3a 169 97.1b 75 42.6

25-44 228 57.3 283 71.3 375 94.2 174 44.2

45-64 173 49.9 197 57.1 309 90.9 147 42.5

65 and over 103 57.2 109 60.2 163 90.6 88 48.9

Highest education

None to secondary school 253 52.4b 330 68.3 451 94.4 219 45.3

Trade, certificate, diploma 191 55.5 225 65.2 317 93.0 160 46.5

Degree or higher 125 45.6 171 62.9 248 90.8 105 38.9

IRSD

Lowest quintile 117 59.1 135 68.5 185 94.9 101 51.0

Low quintile 131 49.8 175 66.3 250 95.4 114 43.2

Middle quintile 108 49.8 140 64.8 193 90.6 96 45.3

High quintile 103 48.6 133 63.3 195 92.4 81 38.4

Highest quintile 109 51.9 142 67.3 193 92.3 92 43.6

Children under 18

No children under 18 243 49.5 304 61.8 448 92.2 229 46.5

Children under 18 221 50.9 307 70.7c 403 93.3 174 40.5

Notes:a. Significant at p<0.001. b. Significant at p<0.05. c. Significant at p<0.01.

with age only (p<0.5). No variable was found to be associated with

trust in politicians.

In addition, binary logistic regression was undertaken using the

five variables: age; gender; highest level of education attained; the

presence of children under 18 in the household; and IRSD score

(see Table 3). Of these variables only two, age and highest education

level, were found to affect trust in food actors. Greater distrust in

the media was associated with people aged 18-24 with a degree or

higher qualification. Participants aged 25-44 had an odds ratio of

2.39, those aged 45-64 had an odds ratio of 1.75 and those 65 and

over had an odds ratio of 1.65 in comparison with people aged 18-

24 years of age. Conversely, people aged 18-24 were significantly

more trusting of both supermarkets and farmers than those aged

over 45 (0.42 and 0.27 for people aged 45-64 and 0.48 and 0.29 for

those aged 65 and over, respectively).

DiscussionParticipants in this study displayed moderate levels of trust in the

media and supermarkets, and little trust in politicians, reflecting

results attained in other contexts.25,26,42 Contrary to findings in

European studies, however, participants displayed considerable trust

in farmers. Lack of trust in farmers in the European context has

been associated with globalisation and a growing distance between

farmer and consumer,43 but also with negative media coverage of



farming practices in the wake of major food scares such as mad

cow disease.44 Higher levels of trust in farmers in Australia may be

the result of lower levels of food importation alongside of limited

exposure to food scares.37

When the impact of demographic factors on level of trust in

food actors is explored through multivariate analysis, only age and

highest level of education attained were found to be associated with

trust. There are significant differences between participants aged

18-24 and older participants in relation to trust in three of the four

food actors. Younger participants are less trusting of the media and

more trusting of supermarkets and farmers than older participants.

Similar results have been obtained in other research, which found

that younger people are less concerned with food hazards31,37 and

with the safety of the food supply generally.38 A lack of concern is

often associated with poor food choice and risk-taking behaviours,

leading Holmberg et al. to conclude that younger people may lack

reflexivity in relation to food choice, which is often made with

references to cost, time and appearance rather than health or safety

concerns.38,45,46

People aged 18-24 and those with a degree or higher qualification

also demonstrated less trust in the media. Existing research suggests

that people with higher levels of education are less trusting of tabloid

media33 and more able to draw on a wider range of information

sources.32,34 While this study did not seek information about the

sources of information used, trust, or lack thereof, may arise from

information sources that are viewed as less or more accurate.

These findings may have implications for the targeting of public

health messages, especially using particular media sources for social

marketing. For example, the distrust with which some media are

held by young people could lead to problems of credibility of the

message simply by virtue of the medium by which the message is

carried. Younger people’s low credibility of some media sources

might, therefore, lessen the effect of programs and campaigns aimed

at them. While this possibility is speculative, it is worth considering

for further research. Tailored health education requires consideration

of the conduits most suited to the age and social group,47 which

should include assessment of the most suitable – and therefore most

credible – information sources.

Despite this finding, there are a number of limitations to the study.

Most significantly, the study only explored trust in four food actors,

precluding actors such as consumer groups, the food manufacturing

industry and food regulatory bodies. This can be justified, in part,

by lack of consumer knowledge of these organisations and their

role in the food system, but it prevents a more complete picture

of trust in the food system.48 In addition, the study focuses upon

generalised trust as well as trust in the information provided by

these food actors to the detriment of the exploration of trust in the

other roles performed by these agencies.

Finally, there were a number of issues related to the sampling

frame and final sample that are worthy of mention. First, the EWP

used as our sampling frame only listed households with a telephone

and, therefore, there was a sampling bias, since we did not include

any households without a telephone which may have had differing

ideas about trust than our actual sample. Second, while a response

rate of 41.2% is acceptable for CATI surveys,40 it suggests a need

for caution in generalising these results to the wider population,

primarily due to non-response bias. Indeed, response rates are

declining in surveys based on all forms of interviewing,49,50 possibly

as a result of people becoming either more active in protecting their

privacy or less engaged or interested in research.51 Third, while the

data in the final dataset were weighted to reflect the demographic

structure of the Australian population, the demographics of non-

respondents were and cannot be analysed due to the use of a random

sample based on landline telephone numbers and, therefore, caution

needs to be taken when interpreting the findings. This may be an

issue since it is possible that the non-responders were less trusting

than the responders. Notwithstanding these potential limitations,

the strength of this study includes the random sampling, the large

sample size and the weighted data.

ConclusionThe findings of the CATI survery suggest that respondents

hold considerable trust in farmers and moderate levels of trust in

supermarkets, media and politicians. Significant differences in levels

of trust were found to be related to both age and education level,

with people 18-24 years old displaying more trust in supermarkets

and farmers and less trust in the media than other respondents. The

level of trust placed in these actors may need to be considered when

developing targeted public health campaigns.

Table 3: Odds ratios for trust in food actors.

Trust in media Trust in supermarkets Trust in farmers Trust in politicians

Age

18-24 y.o. 1.00 1.00 1.00

25-44 y.o 2.39a (1.60-3.56)

45-64 y.o. 1.75 (1.16-2.64) 0.42 (0.26-0.65) 0.27 (0.10-0.73)

65 and over 1.65 (1.01-2.71) 0.48 (0.29-0.80) 0.29 (0.10-0.85)

Highest education

None to secondary school 1.51 (1.07-2.13)

Trade, certificate, diploma 1.71 (1.20-2.43)

Degree or higher 1.00

Note:a. All data significant at p<0.05.

Food and Drink Consumer trust along the food chain


References1. Hardin R. Trust. Oxford (UK): Blackwell; 2006.2. Luhmann N. Trust and Power. New York (NY): Wiley; 1989.3. Barber B. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers

University Press; 1983.4. Ward P, Meyer S. The place of ‘trust’ within the Theory of Social Quality: A

sociological exegesis. Development & Society. 2009;38(2):339-63.5. Ward P. Trust, reflexivity and dependence. European Journal of Social Quality.

2006;6(2):1-7. 6. Bourdieu P: Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London

(UK): Routledge; 1984.7. Putnam R: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

New York (NY): Simon & Schuster; 2000.8. Hardin R. Social capital and trust. In: Hardin R, editor. Trust. Oxford (UK):

Blackwell; 2006.9. Lee Y, Lin J: The effects of trust in physician on self-efficacy, adherence and

diabetes outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:1060–8.10. Sabel C. Studied trust – building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy.

Human Relations. 1993;46(9):1133-70.11. Shepard B, Sherman D. The Grammars of Trust and General Implications.

Academy of Management Review. 1998;23(3):422-38.12. Luhmann N. Social Systems. Stanford(CA): Stanford University Press; 1995.13. Cade J, Calvert C, Barrett J. How could the BSE crisis affect nutrient intake?

Comparison of beef and non-beef eating meat eaters from the UK Women’s Cohort Study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52:151-2.

14. Lea E, Worsley A. Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite. 2001;36(2):127-36.

15. Coombes R. Public distrusts government health campaigns, experts say. BMJ. 2005;331:70.

16. Coulson NS. Source of food safety information: whom do adolescents trust? Appetite. 2002;38(3):199-200.

17. Masood E. UK panel formed to rebuild trust in government science advice. Nature. 1999;397:458.

18. Food Commission. Cause or Compromise? A Survey into marketing partnerships between food companies and Health Charities or Medical Associations. London (UK): The Food Commission; 2002.

19. Havinga T. Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law and Policy. 2006;28(4):515-33.

20. Braithwaite J, Makkai T. Trust and Compliance. Canberra (AUST): Australian National University, Research School of Social Sciences; 1993.

21. Trust food labels. Adelaide Advertiser. 2003:51.22. Lawrence M, Germov J. Future food. In: Germov J, Williams L, editors. The

Social Appetite. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2004.23. Berg L. Trust in food in the age of mad cow disease: A comparative study of

consumers’ evaluation of food safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway. Appetite. 2004;42:21-32.

24. Berg L, Kjaernes U, Ganska E, Minia V, Voltchkova L, Halkier B, et al. Trust in food safety on Russia, Denmark and Norway. European Societies. 2005;7(1):103-29.

25. Poppe C, Kjærnes U. Trust in Food in Europe. Oslo (NOR): National Institute for Consumer Research; 2003.

26. Kjaernes U, Harvey M, Ward A. Trust in Food: A Comparative and Institutional Analysis. Hampshire (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; 2007

27. Wales C, Harvey M, Warde A: Recuperating from BSE: The shifting UK institutional basis for trust in food. Appetite. 2006;47(2):187-95.

28. Halkier B, Holm L. Shifting responsibilities for food safety in Europe: An introduction. Appetite. 2006;47(2):127-33.

29. Kystallis A, Frewer L, Rowe G, Houghton J, Kehagia O, Perrea T. A perceptual divide? Consumer and expert attitudes to food risk management in Europe. Health Risks and Society. 2007;9(4):407-24.

30. Williams P, Stirling E, Keynes N. Food fears: a national survey on the attitudes of Australian adults about the safety and quality of food Asia Pacific. J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(1):32-9.

31. Meyer SB, Luong CN, Ward PR, Tsourtos G. Operationalising the Theory of Social Quality: analysis of the reliability of an instrument to measure social quality. Development and Society. 2010;39:327-56.

32. Tulloch J, Lupton D. Consuming risk, consuming science: The case of GM foods. Journal of Consumer Culture. 2002;2(3):363-83.

33. Frewer L, Howard C, Hedderly D, Shepherd R. Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated with food-related hazards. Risk Anal. 1998;18(1):95-102.

34. Kornelis K, de Jonge J, Frewer L, Dagevos H. Consumer selection of food-safety information sources, Risk Anal. 2007;27(2):327-35.

35. Calnan M: Maintaining health and preventing illness: A comparison for the perceptions of women from different social class. Health Promot. 1986;1:167-77.

36. Charles N, Kerr M. Women Food and Families. Manchester (UK): Manchester University Press; 1988.

37. Lupton D. Lay discourses and beliefs related to food risks: an Australian perspective. Sociol Health Illn. 2005;27(4):448-67.

38. Holmberg L, Coveney J, Henderson J, Meyer S. What should primary health care practitioners know about factors influencing young people’s food choice? Australasian Medical Journal. 2010;1(4):156-63.

39. Coulson N. Source of food safety information: whom do adolescents trust? Appetite. 2002;38(3):199-200.

40. Dilman D, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J, et al. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the internet. Soc Sci Med. 2009;38(1):1-18.

41. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Information Paper: An Introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), 2006. Canberra (AUST): ABS; 2008.

42. Rosati S, Saba A: The perception of risks associated with food-related hazards and the perceived reliability of sources of information. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2004;39:491-500.

43. Pellizzoni L. Trust, responsibility and environmental policy. European Societies. 2005;7(4):567-94.

44. Washer P. Representations of mad cow disease. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:457-66.45. Green J, Draper A, Dowler E. Short cuts to safety: risk and “rules of thumb”

in accounts of food choice. Health Risk and Society. 2003;5(1):33-52. 46. Chambers S, Lobb A, Butler L, Traill WB: The Influence of age and gender

on food choice: a focus group exploration. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2008;32:356-65.

47. Eyles H, Ni Mhurchu C. Does tailoring matter? Asystematic review of the long-term effects of tailored nutrition education for adults. Nutr Rev. 2009;69(8):464-80.

48. Henderson J, Coveney J, Ward P. Who regulates food? Australians’ perceptions of responsibility for food safety. Aust J Prim Health. 2010;16(4):334-51.

49. Curtin R, Presser S, et al. Changes in telephone survey non-response over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q. 2005;69(1):87-8.

50. Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q. 2006;70(5):646-75.

51. Ward P, Thompson J, et al. Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research: epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. Journal of Sociology. 2010;46:63-82.


Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of...

Documents

Transcript of Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of...