16 pages., via online journal., raceability system has received wide attention in solving food safety issues, via which food information could be tracked back to producer/farmers. Consumers need to obtain this information from producers or social networks, trust in the information, and consequently assess perceived risks, especially when food scandals are exposed to the media. In this study, we introduce the social embeddedness theory to understand how consumers' social activities affect their risk perceptions on traceable food. Specifically, we investigate how risk perceptions are predicted by the interpersonal relationships, organizational level and social-level relationships. Results show that the interpersonal relationships were associated with lower levels of risk perceptions, while organizational and social relationships impacted consumer's risk perceptions at middle and higher levels, respectively. Results also show that the “ripple effect” extended to effect of risk events with negative information, however, did not exist for the group exposed to positive information. Potential food safety implications have been proposed to identify for effective risk mitigation under media coverages.
7 pages., Via online journal., Are consumers interested in aspects of pig production and do they take these into account in their buyingdecisions when such information is available? Samples of consumers in Germany and Poland selected the two–for them–most important out of a list of ten production characteristics, relating to animal welfare, health and safety, and environmental issues. In a subsequent choice experiment, the relative weight these characteristics had in consumers' choices was estimated. Relative importance of production characteristics varied between consumer segments, with the production interested segment being bigger in Germany than in Poland. With of one animal welfare related criterion in Germany, those production characteristics that consumers perceive as most important relate to health and safety aspects rather than to animal welfare and environmental impact.
9 pages., via online journal., European consumers are faced with a myriad of food related risk and benefit information and it is regularly left up to the consumer to interpret these, often conflicting, pieces of information as a coherent message. This conflict is especially apparent in times of food crises and can have major public health implications. Scientific results and risk assessments cannot always be easily communicated into simple guidelines and advice that non-scientists like the public or the media can easily understand especially when there is conflicting, uncertain or complex information about a particular food or aspects thereof. The need for improved strategies and tools for communication about food risks and benefits is therefore paramount. The FoodRisC project ("Food Risk Communication - Perceptions and communication of food risks/benefits across Europe: development of effective communication strategies") aims to address this issue. The FoodRisC project will examine consumer perceptions and investigate how people acquire and use information in food domains in order to develop targeted strategies for food communication across Europe.
3 pages., via online journal, This study is motivated by the importance of communication with societal stakeholders when food is involved. This case adopts an internal view of Monsanto's challenge of engaging with consumers and the broader public when discussing biotechnologies and specifically, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Multiple interviews were conducted at Monsanto's world headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, to understand the challenges within the organization in terms of their public persona and why and how they want to change it.
18 pages., via online journal, As food products marketed as “gluten-free” become increasingly popular, many consumers start to exclude sources of gluten (e.g., wheat, barley, and rye) from their diets for both medical and non-medical purposes. The grain industry is facing a growing challenge to (re)boost consumers’ confidence in the healthiness and safety of its commodities. Using 561 participants recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers’ panel, this study implemented a 2 (pretzels vs. potato chips) * 2 (positive- vs. negative- frame) * 2 (wheat image vs. no wheat image) experiment to examine the effects of gluten-free labels on consumers’ perceived healthiness and safety of wheat, perceived benefits of labeled products, and their evaluation of the shown labels. Results showed that consumers evaluate the gluten-free labels most positively when they appear on products that could have contained gluten. For products that are naturally gluten-free, adding a gluten-free label only decreased consumers’ confidence in such labels. The presence of gluten-free labels increased consumers’ perceived benefits of the labeled products when they do not contain any misleading information (e.g., image of a wheat head). However, some gluten-free labels could have negative impacts on consumers’ perceptions of the healthiness and safety of wheat. Overall, food producers and marketers might have undervalued consumers’ literacy and overestimated their susceptibility to marketing strategies. We discussed the implications for food marketers, regulators, and communicators.
7 pages., via online journal., Pesticide use and pesticide residues in foods have been the subject of controversial public discussions and media coverage in Germany. Against this background, a better understanding of public risk perceptions is needed to promote efficient public health communication. To this end, this study captures the German public's perception of pesticide residues in foods. A representative sample of the population aged 14 years and older (n = 1,004) was surveyed via computer-assisted telephone interviewing on their attitudes and knowledge with regard to pesticide residues. Based on questions regarding their typical consumer behavior, respondents were classified into conventional and organic consumers to identify differences as well as similarities between these two consumer types. As assessed with an open-ended question, both organic and conventional consumers viewed pesticides, chemicals, and toxins as the greatest threats to food quality and safety. Evaluating the risks and benefits of pesticide use, more than two-thirds of organic consumers (70%) rated the risks as greater than the benefits, compared with just over one-half of conventional consumers (53%). Concern about the detection of pesticide residues in the food chain and bodily fluids was significantly higher among organic compared with conventional consumers. Only a minority of respondents was aware that legal limits for pesticide residues (referred to as maximum residue levels) exist, with 69% of organic and 61% of conventional consumers believing that the presence of pesticide residues in foods is generally not permitted. A lack of awareness of maximum residue levels was associated with heightened levels of concern about pesticide residues. Finally, general exposure to media reporting on pesticide residues was associated with more frequent knowledge of legal limits for pesticide residues, whereas actively seeking information on pesticide residues was not. The possible mechanisms underlying these findings are discussed.
