No abstract

No abstract

Understanding of the determinants of consumer confidence in the safety of food is important if effective risk management and communication are to be developed. In the research reported here, we attempt to understand the roles of consumer trust in actors in the food chain and regulators, consumer recall of food safety incidents, consumer perceptions regarding the safety of particular product groups, personality characteristics, and sociodemographics, as potential determinants of consumer confidence in the safety of food. Consumer confidence in the safety of food was conceptualized as consisting of two distinct dimensions, namely, "optimism" and "pessimism." On the basis of a representative sample of 657 Dutch consumers, structural equation modeling was applied to simultaneously estimate the effect of the determinants on both "optimism" and "pessimism." The results indicated that, to a considerable extent, both optimism and pessimism about the safety of food arise from consumer trust in regulators and actors in the food chain and the perceived safety of meat and fish rather than other product categories. In addition, support was found for the notion that optimism and pessimism are conceptually distinct, as these dimensions of confidence were partly influenced by different determinants. The results of this study imply that consumer confidence in the safety of food could be enhanced by improving both consumer trust in societal actors, and consumer safety perceptions of particular product groups.

Worldwide, programs to control mastitis are implemented using different strategies to reach farmers. Even though education materials and best practices may be technically optimal, they need to be used to be successful. Thus, effective communication with farmers is essential in order to change their behavior and to improve their farm management. During a Dutch national mastitis control program, a substantial number of farmers seemed to be hard to reach with information on udder health. Consequently, this study was designed to provide insight into the attitude and motivation of such farmers. In the period of October 2007 to July 2008, 24 in-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with farmers whose veterinarians considered to be difficult to approach with advice on udder health management (8 practices, 3 farmers from each practice). The interviews included questions about the farms and the farmers, their attitude and behavior regarding mastitis, and their information sources and social environment. The results show that so-called hard-to-reach farmers were not always badly informed about udder health and did not always experience problems with mastitis. These ostensibly unreachable farmers were not a homogeneous group, but rather could be divided into 4 categories based on their trust in external information sources regarding mastitis and their orientation toward the outside world: proactivists, do-it-yourselfers, waitand-see-ers, and reclusive traditionalists. There are ample opportunities to reach hard-to-reach farmers, provided that the communication strategies are tailored to their specific needs. There is especially much to gain in communication with do-it-yourselfers and wait-and-see-ers, but this demands a more proactive role on the part of veterinarians and extension specialists. Different types of farmers need to be approached in different ways and through different channels with information on udder health. Consequently, this study can contribute to the optimization of future programs designed to control and prevent diseases.

BackgroundIndividuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) are generally less well reached through lifestyle interventions than individuals with higher SES. The aim of this study was to identify opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions in such a way that they are more appealing for individuals with low SES. To this end, the study provides insight into perspectives of groups with different socioeconomic positions regarding their current eating and physical activity behaviour; triggers for lifestyle change; and ways to support lifestyle change.MethodsData were gathered in semi-structured focus group interviews among low SES (four groups) and high SES (five groups) adults. The group size varied between four and nine participants. The main themes discussed were perceptions and experiences of healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsIn general, three key topics were identified, namely: current lifestyle is logical for participants given their personal situation; lifestyle change is prompted by feedback from their body; and support for lifestyle change should include individually tailored advice and could profit from involving others. The perceptions of the low SES participants were generally comparable to the perceptions shared by the high SES participants. Some perceptions were, however, especially shared in the low SES groups. Low SES participants indicated that their current eating behaviour was sometimes affected by cost concerns. They seemed to be especially motivated to change their lifestyle when they experienced health complaints, but were rather hesitant to change their lifestyle for preventive purposes. Regarding support for lifestyle change, low SES participants preferred to receive advice in a group rather than on their own. For physical activities, groups should preferably consist of persons of the same age, gender or physical condition.ConclusionsTo motivate individuals with low SES to change their lifestyle, it may be useful to (visually) raise their awareness of their current weight or health status. Lifestyle interventions targeting individuals with low SES should take possible cost concerns into account and should harness the supportive effect of (peer) groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1036) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.