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.
18 pages., via online journal., Genetically modified (GM) foods have attracted a great deal of controversy. While some consumers and organizations regard GM foods as safe, many other consumers and organizations remain concerned about their potential health risks. The results of three studies suggest that consumers respond differently to persuasive messages regarding GM foods on the basis of their preexisting attitudes. Weak anti-GM consumers tend to comply with a variety of pro-GM messages. In contrast, strong anti-GM consumers exhibit message-opposing behavior. Moreover, they respond just as negatively to a safety message (claiming that GM foods are safe) as to a risk message (claiming that GM foods are unsafe). The mechanism underlying these effects is consumers’ perceived health risk. A benefit message claiming that GM foods are beneficial (e.g., more nutritious than their conventional counterparts) is a better alternative for strong anti-GM consumers. Finally, the results suggest that persuasive messages do not significantly change pro-GM consumers’ evaluations of these foods.
