Analyzing Consumers' Reactions to News Coverage of the 2011 Escherichia coli O104:H4 Outbreak, Using the Extended Parallel Processing Model

Abstract

This article describes and analyzes Flemish consumers' real-life reactions after reading online newspaper articles related to the enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O104:H4 outbreak associated with fresh produce in May and June 2011 in Germany. Using the Extended Parallel Processing Model (EPPM) as the theoretical framework, the present study explored the impact of Flemish (Belgian) online news coverage on consumers' perception of the risk induced by the EHEC outbreak and their behavioral intentions as consumers of fresh produce. After the consumers read a newspaper article related to the outbreak, EPPM concepts were measured, namely, perceived severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and affective response, combined with behavioral intentions to eat less fresh produce, to rinse fresh produce better, and to alert loved ones concerning the risk. The consumers' reactions were measured by inserting a link to an online survey below every online newspaper article on the EHEC outbreak that appeared in two substantial Flemish newspapers. The reactions of 6,312 respondents were collected within 9 days for 17 different online newspaper articles. Looking at the perceived values of the EPPM concepts, the perceived severity and the perceived susceptibility of the risk were, as expected, high. However, the consumers thought they could prevent the risk from happening, which stresses the importance of increasing consumers' knowledge of emerging food safety risks. Furthermore, analyses showed the moderating role of government trust and its influence on the way consumers perceived the risk, how worried they were, and their behavioral intentions.

Agricultural and Management Practices and Bacterial Contamination in Greenhouse versus Open Field Lettuce Production

“…An example is the 2011 EHEC outbreak in Germany/France that was epidemiologically linked to sprouted seeds [ 43 ]. This outbreak raised media attention and concerns among EU consumers [ 44 ]. Still, in interviews performed on the farms during the present study (one year after the 2011 EHEC crisis), limited awareness or knowledge was apparent for human enteric pathogens, such as EHEC, Salmonella spp., or Campylobacter spp., as potential hazards associated with lettuce, although the January 2011 discussion forum with European stakeholders in the fresh produce supply chain (taking place before the event of the EHEC 2011 crisis) mentioned bacteria as the first threat, followed by viruses and pesticides [ 32 ].…”

The Social Amplification of Risk Framework: A Normative Perspective on Trust?

“…The trust that we have in a piece of information and its messenger influences, whether we pay attention to it, how believable the information is and what conclusions we draw from it (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996; Frewer, Scholderer, & Bredahl, 2003; Siegrist et al., 2000). For example, if there exist contradictory information on ways that people can protect themselves from a foodborne outbreak (e.g., avoid cucumbers vs. avoid sprouts), consumers tend to utilize their level of trust in the messengers to decide what to do (e.g., advice of the more trusted source will be focused on, remembered and followed; De Vocht, Cauberghe, Sas, & Uyttendaele, 2013; Jungermann, Pfister, & Fischer, 1996). This link between people's trust in an information source and their attitudes and decision making can be found in most areas of risk research.…”

Insights into global food system risks and opportunities and their implications for the FSA

“…While trust takes time to develop, it can be rapidly lost through food safety and authenticity scares, inaction or poor communication and engagement with consumers. Additionally, when a food safety or authenticity issue occurs, consumers often lose trust, not just in a brand, product or retailer, but more, broadly, in the entire food system (De Vocht et al 2013). Restoring trust can also be more costly than managing the risks (Food Foundation 2016).…”