Lynn J. Frewer Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour University of Wageningen

1. Consumer perceptions, behaviour and microbial food safety. Implications for Listeria control. Lynn J. FrewerFood Safety and Consumer BehaviourUniversity of Wageningen

2. Public perceptions and attitudes to food safety -What are the key questions? • How do consumers perceive microbial food risks? • Severity of risk • Other psychologically relevant risk characteristics • Personal applicability of risk • How does this relate to consumer self-protective behaviours? • What other factors need to be considered?

3. The problem of food safety– an interdisciplinary perspective Farm Food Processing Retail Consumer consumption Natural sciences

4. The problem of food safety– an interdisciplinary perspective Information Information Processing Perceived risk Consumer Consumption Social sciences

5. Problem alignment Farm Information Information Processing Food Processing Retail Perceived risk Consumer Consumption Natural sciences Social sciences

6. Misalignment between expert and citizen perspectives regarding risk management?

7. Consumers & Experts: A Perceptual Divide Consumers Experts Consumer Awareness Consumers not willing to seek information Poor quality of information Adequate Risk management and happy consumers Risk management efforts Continuing problems Risk management priorities More acceptance of economic interests Less acceptance of economic interests Emphasise consumer protection Emphasise state and industry Responsibility Negative view - create public anxiety Positive view Media Not acknowledged by all institutions Inherent in science Uncertainty Krystallis et al, 2007, Health, Risk & Society

8. Consumer risk perceptions- a summary • The psychology of risk perception drives public risk attitudes • An involuntary risk over which people have no control is more threatening than one people choose to take (untraced GM food ingredients) • Potentially catastrophic risks concern people most (major environmental disaster) • Unnatural (technological) risks are more threatening than natural ones (biotechnology, nanotechnology, convergent technologies) • Microbial risks are perceived to be • Voluntary • Non-catastrophic • Natural • …and less threatening than other food related risks

9. Risk ratings Frewer, Shepherd & Sparks (1994)

10. Control ratings

11. Knowledge ratings Frewer, Shepherd & Sparks (1994)

12. Optimistic bias about microbial food risk • People perceive that they are, compared to an average person in the society in which they live • at less risk of food poisoning • have greater personal control over exposure, at least in the home, and…. • more knowledgeable about the hazard Risk communication may fail, because people perceive it is directed towards other who are more at risk, less knowledgeable and less in control compared to themselves

13. Assessing perceptions of food risks FAMILIAR Salmonella Saturated Fats Sugar C Botulinum NOT FRIGHTENING FRIGHTENING Colouring BSE Organic Produce Pesticide Residue Nitrates Hormone Residue Genetically Altered Foods Fife-Schaw and Rowe, 2000 UNFAMILIAR

14. Risk Management and Communication Issues • What information should be communicated? • What are people doing wrong? • Are some people more vulnerable than others? • Targeted communication • How to overcome optimistic bias? • It won’t happen to me! • How to get people to process information in an in depth way which influences self-protective behaviours? • How should risks be managed? • And how should this be communicated?

15. Explaining individual differences Psychological factors determining consumer attitudes, decision-making and impact on self-protective behaviors

16. Rasch analysis • Who is at risk? • What psychological factors are they associated with? • How difficult is the self-protective behaviour to perform?

17. I use a meat thermometer to determine when my meat is well done I place frozen foods in the refrigerator when thawing them I wash fresh vegetables and salads I make sure my food is heated thoroughly

18. Clusters of Consumers and self protective behaviour – domestic food safety Safer Behaviours Traditional family Average Family (traditional) Results of hierarchical cluster analysis on Rasch data Average Family A Average Family B Riskier Behaviours Fischer et al, 2008 Single Male

19. Targeting individual information needs Focus on achievable objectives regarding interventions for different population groups • Identify which consumer is ”at risk”, and give him/her information that (s)he needs • Rasch scale provides information to determine which behaviour is within reach for which consumer • Test against microbiological risks associated with specific food preparation behaviours

20. Determinants of consumer behaviour Social science Natural science (Fischer & Frewer, submitted)

21. What factors determine whether an individual will act to protect themselves from microbial risks? • Being female, or older (women and older participants tend to utilise “safer” habitual cooking behaviours) • Having a high INTERNAL locus of control (i.e. the belief that your own actions and behaviours affect your own health status • Positively determined by higher levels of education • Higher perceived knowledge about risks

22. Mental models of food –related behaviour. Results of a hierarchical factor analysis

23. Item 23 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Item 24 Calorie Content Item 19 Item 20 Nutrition Item 21 Item 22 Variation Item 01 Item 02 Item 03 Food Behavior Item 04 Item 05 Utensil Hygiene Item 06 Item 07 Item 08 Item 09 Food Safety Personal Hygiene Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Food Handling Item 14 Item 15 χ2=1116; df=248; RMSEA=0.065 CFI=0.93; GFI=0.90; CAIC=1517 (independence CAIC=11154; saturated CAIC=2314) Item 16 Item 17 Item 18 A hierarchical view - subjective representation of food safety

24. Hierarchical Factors or Associations? Fischer et al, 2009

25. People do not “compartmentalise” food safety knowledge • Can we activate what knowledge people do have?

26. Information interventions • Internet based study • Different information conditions • Couple food safety information with emotional images • “Disgust” • “Anger” • Recipe containing a food safety message Nauta et al, 2009

27. Results • Including a food safety message in the recipe “activated” other knowledge about self-protective food safety behaviour • People have food safety knowledge • Activating this knowledge when cooking may overcome habitual behaviours • Similarly, using “disgust” may also activate this existing knowledge • Given the associanist perspective, does this also activate other food knowledge?

28. USA – peanuts contaminated with Salmonella 2,100 processed and packaged foods have been recalled in the wake of a salmonella outbreak ….. More than 660 people became ill, and infection may have contributed to nine deaths New York times, 25th February 2009

29. What determines good food risk management from a consumer perspective? Communication priorities Proactive consumer protection Transparent risk management Transparent risk assessment and risk communication practices, including communication of uncertainties Trust in expertise of food risk managers Trust in honesty of food risk managers Van Kleef et al, 2007, Risk Analysis

30. Survey: Quantitative Results Proactive (0.51*) (0.45*) (0.27*) (1.97*) (0.57*) Transparency (-0.11*) FRM quality Sceptical (-0.22) (-0.34) (-0.30) (-0.16) (-0.71*) Trust in honesty (0.01) Trust in expertise (*p<0.05) (0.57*) (0.99*) (0.30) (0.87*) (0.94*) Van Kleef et al, 2007, Risk Analysis

31. Survey: Summary of results Factors of universal importance within the EU Pro-active consumer protection Transparent risk management Trust in the expertise of food risk managers (except Greece) Factors of local importance Scepticism regarding risk assessment and communication practices (UK)

32. Replication of survey outside European Union Russian Consumers (N=420) Generally, Russian consumers hold similar views to consumers in EU member states regarding their perceptions of what constitutes effective food risk management practices Perceived honesty of food chain actors was an important determinant of perceived food risk management quality Russian consumers perceived personal responsibility for food-related health protection. EU consumers attributed responsibility to food chain actors and the authorities. Popova et al, in press. British Food Journal

33. Case Studies: Overview Semi-structured interviews Van Kleef et al, in press, Health Risk and Society

34. Case studies – conclusions Preventative risk management measures important Transparency in risk analysis Communication of uncertainty and variability Expertise is essential component of effective risk management Emphasis on rapid responses to contain food safety incidents if they occur Communication of actions taken to improve future consumer protection (institutional learning and preparedness)

35. Conclusions and generic implications for Listeria control • Overcoming psychological barriers will improve consumer protection • Habitual behaviour • Perceived Risk • Role of affect or emotion • Optimistic bias • Knowledge activation • People have some level of knowledge- • Target resources to those most at risk (but also consider who is most vulnerable?) • Activate existing food safety knowledge rather than assuming people do not have this knowledge. • Ensure Best practice in risk management and communication, including communication about proactive prevention strategies

36. Thank you!