Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy

Cope, Shannon; Frewer, Lynn J.; Houghton, Julie; Rowe, Gene; Fischer, Arnout R.H.; Jonge, J. de

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.002

Cited by 90 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It provides insight into how regulators can most effectively communicate food safety messages to consumers with the view of reducing food safety related morbidity and mortality. In future research, it is vital to interview consumers about their ideas, because previous research has identified differences in consumer and regulator perceptions (Cope et al, 2010). The optimal approach to consumer risk communication has been shown to vary by country, and therefore it is important to take cultural differences into account when communicating with consumers about food safety (van Dijk et al, 2008).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence shows that proactive behaviour by regulators through providing information about what is being done to identify, prevent and manage food risks and presenting consistent information about preventative programs and enforcement elements is a particularly effective method of communicating with consumers (Cope et al, 2010). Consumers have shown a preference for risk management strategies for food safety that are communicated regularly (Cope et al, 2010 (Van Kleef et al, 2006). However, the provision of information to consumers, whether it be through proactive or reactive methods, must be tailored to consumer need, because of the presence of 'information overload' (Van Kleef et al, 2006) which means that people won't necessarily take information in (Ward, 2010.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety

Wilson

Meyer

Webb³

et al. 2015

British Food Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to report how food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety and how they believe consumers understand their role in relation to food safety. The implications of this on the role of food regulators are considered. MethodologyForty two food regulators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom participated in a semi-structured interview about their response to food incidents and issues of food regulation more generally. Data were analysed thematically. Originality/valueThere is a lack of information about how food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety and how food regulators perceive consumers to understand food regulation. It is this gap that forms the basis of this paper.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety

Wilson

Meyer

Webb³

et al. 2015

British Food Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Market information is distorted after the outbreak of food safety incidents. When information transparency is low, consumers who have a low cognitive level, weak psychological quality, and poor information search ability cannot fully perceive and discriminate the real effect of food safety incidents and have an objective understanding of the food safety incidents, which lead to cognitive psychology and behavioral deviations [20,21,40,41]. Then, this can make consumers confuse major food safety accidents with ordinary food events and make it easy to initiate consumers' general panic to food safety.…”

Section: Diffusion Mechanism Of Food Safety Scarementioning

confidence: 99%

A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency

Chen

Wang

et al. 2017

Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study constructs the network diffusion model of food safety scare behavior under the effect of information transparency and examines the network topology and evolution characteristics of food safety scare behavior in a numerical simulation. The main conclusions of this study are as follows. (1) Under the effect of information transparency, the network degree distribution of food safety scare behavior diffusion demonstrates the decreasing characteristics of diminishing margins. (2) Food safety scare behavior diffusion increases with the information dissemination rate and consumer concern about food safety incidents and shows the characteristics of monotone increasing. And with the increasing of the government food safety supervision information transparency and media food safety supervision information transparency, the whole is declining characteristic of diminishing marginal. In addition, the extinction of food safety scare behavior cannot be achieved gradually given a single regulation of government food safety supervision information transparency and media food safety supervision information transparency. (3) The interaction effects between improving government food safety supervision information transparency or media food safety supervision information transparency and declining consumer concerns about food safety incidents or information transmission rate can engender the suppression of food safety scare behavior diffusion.

show abstract

“…The roles of media, biotechnology, and trust for effective risk communications have been well researched (Cope et al, 2010;McCluskey & Swinnen, 2011;Powell, 2000;Wentholt, Rowe, Konig, Marvin, & Frewer, 2009), and the trepidation of impending food crises encourage risk communication systems to be essentially institutionalized and must be upheld by all actors in the regulatory sector. Even with a detailed plan to yield overall effective crisis responses, some institutionalized risk communications systems falter, as in the case of Maple Leaf Foods processed meats recall in Canada (Charlebois & Horan, 2010).…”

Section: Systemic Risk Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Recalls and Risk Perception: An Exploratory Case of the XL Foods and the Biggest Food Recall in Canadian History

Charlebois

Massow

Pinto

2014

Journal of Food Products Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recall that plagued Canada's XL Foods in 2012, tied to E. coli cases found in ground beef, was the largest food recall in Canadian history. As a result of the outbreak, 18 consumers allegedly became ill and XL Foods launched a voluntary recall of all packaged meats from the plant, and the plant underwent intense sanitation for weeks. This study aims to understand how the incident affected consumer confidence in the safety of ground beef. Unlike other food processors, XL Foods does not own and manage brands. XL Foods are sold under brands owned by food distributors and retailers in Canada and the United States. A survey was conducted months after the recall to assess long-term implications. Results suggest consumers still trust the safety of ground beef. Results of this research will also further foster understanding consequences of recalls for food marketing and its effects on consumer behavior.

show abstract

Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy

Cited by 90 publications

References 54 publications

How food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety

How food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety

A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency

Food Recalls and Risk Perception: An Exploratory Case of the XL Foods and the Biggest Food Recall in Canadian History

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About