Consumer Confidence in Food Risk Management in EuropeResults from a multi-phase study

E Van Kleef, J Houghton, G Rowe & L FrewerSRA-E, 10-13 September 2006, Ljubljana

Outline

Project background Research questions Study design Qualitative results Quantitative results Implications for food risk management

(FRM)

Background

EU 6th Framework Programme project Promoting Food Safety

through a New Integrated Risk Analysis Approach for Foods – SAFE FOODS

Aims to promote the safety of the European food chain

Reinforces EU policy framework of strengthening consumer confidence in food safety

Background

Work Package 4 Consumer confidence in food risk management

(FRM)

Research questions

How are current FRM practices perceived by various stakeholders? Consumers

Experts

How well do stakeholders understand one another’s views in relation to FRM?

What are the factors driving consumer confidence in FRM?

Study design

Multi-phase research programme, employing mixed methods

Five European countries Denmark

Germany

Greece

Slovenia

UK

Study design Qualitative phase

Focus groups

• Consumers

• Experts (food safety scientists, food risk assessors, food risk managers)

• Perceptions of effectiveness of current FRM practices

Follow-up interviews

• Focus group participants

• Confronted with each other’s views on FRM

• No follow-up interviews in Slovenia

Study design

Quantitative phase

Cross-national survey on consumers’ food risk management evaluations

Internet questionnaire (except Slovenia)

Items in survey informed by results from qualitative work

2533 consumer respondents in five countries

Representative in terms of gender, age and educational level

Qualitative results Focus groups - five key themes common to

consumer & expert participants’ perceptions of FRM Efforts

Responsibility

Priorities

Science

Media

Issues not represented in the same way by both groups

Qualitative results

Efforts made by the authorities to manage food risks

Existence of established systems of control

• “Systems in place”, “prompt action”, “rigorous enforcement”

• Experts more positive in their evaluations

Instigation of preventive measures

Provision of information and education

• Trade off between education & “information overload”

Qualitative results Responsibility

Consumer views related to perceived level of control over exposure to risk

Experts emphasised the importance of everyone in the food chain taking responsibility for their role in the process of FRM

Priorities - is consumer health protection prioritised in FRM? Experts, in general, believe it is Consumers are not so sure

Qualitative results Science – scientific progress and its

implications for FRM Consumer participants – concerns about

“constant race” and “vicious circle” Expert participants – concerns about complexity

and “emerging” or “hidden” risks Media - the impact of media attention of

FRM Positive and negative associations

• What’s being done. What’s gone wrong

Experts blamed media for making consumers unnecessarily worried about food safety

Qualitative results Follow-up interviews

Often agreement with expressed viewsReasons for agreement different – for

example …

Consumers’ lack knowledge about

food safety

Authorities make efforts to manage

food risks

CONSUMER VIEW

Due to quality of information

Continuing problems & areas not covered

EXPERT VIEW

Consumers’ lack willingness to acquire information

FRM adequate and consumers happy

Quantitative study: data analysis

The constructsProactive consumer protectionOpaque and reactive risk managementScepticism in risk assessment and risk

communication practicesTrust in expertise of food risk managersTrust in honesty of food risk managers

Quantitative resultsProactiv

e

Opaque

Sceptical

Trust inhonesty

Trust inexpertise

FRMquality

item1

item2

item3

item4

item7

item8

item13

item14

item17

item18

item28

item29

item33

Measurement model

(2(2400)=7834, p<0.01; RMSEA=0.07).

Quantitative resultsProactiv

e

Opaque

Sceptical

Trust inhonesty

Trust inexpertise

FRMquality

Structural model

(2(2420)=8429, p<0.01; RMSEA=0.07).

Quantitative results

One of the measurement scales

Pro-active consumer protection

There is an established system for controlling food risks

The authorities will respond quickly if a food safety problem appears

The authorities put a lot of effortinto preventing food risks

Food safety laws are stringentlyenforced by the authorities

Quantitative study: data analysis

Cross-national validity of measurement instrumentConfigural and metric invariance across

countries Country differences in regression

coefficientsSeries of nested structural equation models

was tested

Quantitative results: no country differences

(-0.11*)

(*p<0.05)

(0.01)

Proactive

Opaque

Sceptical

Trust inhonesty

Trust inexpertise

FRMquality

Quantitative results: country differences 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*)

Opaque

Trust in honesty

Quantitative results

Factors of universal importance related to food risk management quality evaluations: Pro-active consumer protection Opaque and reactive risk management Trust in the expertise of food risk managers

(except Greece) Factors of local importance related to food

risk management quality evaluations: Scepticism in risk assessment and

communication practices

Implications for FRM

For communication Provide the right consumers with the right

information through the right source For management

Provide proactive communication about various factors inherent in risk management and risk assessment

Incorporate the views and opinions of all stakeholders in the process of risk analysis

Understand consumer concerns

Thank you!