Workshop on Anisakis and other fish parasitic infestation European Commission - AGR 41195 – Zadar , 30 june 2010 (

1. Workshop on Anisakis and other fish parasitic infestation European Commission - AGR 41195 – Zadar, 30 june 2010 (Croatia) QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ON PARASITICAL RISK – Perception by French consumers and  parasitical risk management by professional actors Dr. GervaiseDebucquet Associate Professor, Audencia-School of Management, Nantes, France

2. Food risk perception: a complex question

3. 1. The context of contemporary food ● Increased gap between lay representations and foodstuff production - Food habits (the “ready to eat”) - Food technologies ● Further concern about health - Preventive role of food (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc.) ● Increased sensitivity to risks - Nutritional - Sanitary

4. 2. Different conceptions of risk Scientific approach: probability assessment Severity (for health) XProbability (by regions and by fish species) Risk perception: several dimensions Psychological Sociological Cultural

5. 3. “Outrage factors” (Slovic, 1987) Voluntary Imposed Subjected risk Known Freezing at homeCanned food at homeCheese with raw milkMushroom Industrial freezingIndustrial canned foodAdditives, colourings Tobacco, car Radiography, hospital- acquired infections Ionisation GMO, BSE Exotic food Unknown Mobil phone Waves in environment Unfamiliar risk

6. And also…. Natural cause / human cause (Douglas and Wildavsky , 1982)

7. 4. Eater-related factors • Sociological factors • - Women more anxious than men • - Anxiety increasing with age • Cultural factors • - Natural: tasty, healthy, fresh • - “Chemical”: more frightening than “biological”

8. Eurobarometer - June 2005 – n= 1014 - France«  What does it come in your mind when thinking to food risk? »

9. 4. Eater-related factors ● Anthropological factors - Magical thought : ■ “I am what I eat” - Animal food substance: ■ Highestprohibition and aversions ■ The logic of blood

10. The status of fish • What Aristotle thought • - Imperfect animal, without blood • - The sea world: the opposite of Eden • - Favourable to metaphors • The Judeo-Christian representation • - A “sub-meat” • - Food for a “meal without meat” • The contemporary representation • - A brake on consumption among “landsmen” • - Dietetic views: a light and healthy protein • - The sea: one of the last wild areas • - Seafoods: the belief in naturalness

11. “We eat some fish [not fishes]…. …..that is a matter and not an animal” (Geistdoerfer, 1998)

12. Parasitical risk in the “fresh fish” industry

13. Partners AUDENCIA - LESMA (Laboratory of research on foodstuffs markets) IFREMER – STAM (Department of seafood Sciences and techniques) Research program AISQAL-INRA 2007-2010 Supported by Région Pays de Loire - France

14. Anisakidosis: a low risk • ● Prevalence: • - About 60 cases during the last 20 years in France • - 1992-2005: Number of Anisakidosis divided by 4 • - Thanks to preventive measures • Freezing (24 h / - 20°C) • Cooking ( Fully / 70°C) • But control more difficult in the “fresh” sector

15. Context of research • ● Increase of raw mix consumption (Sushi, Marinade, ceviche, etc.) • 15 % of adults • More often among young people: 20% • More often when highly educated: 26 % • (Enquête France-INCA2- 2006/2007) • ● Increase of returns in supermarkets: • -Presence of larva in fillets • - Presence of larva in guts • ●No information for consumers about: • -Risk • - Preventive measures when cooking at home

16. An historic case: Germany (1987) ● Further to the broadcasting of a report (July 1987): - Fall of sales 50 to 80 % depending on regions in one day! ● High impact of media ● Boomerang effect of “scientific” information about statistics of anisakidiose disease How can we improve management and communication about parasitical risk to prevent a crisis ?

17. Qualitative research: objectives Task 2 : French consumers (25) Perception of parasitical risk Food habits Cooking practices Task 3 : Recommendations Risk management in “fresh” sector Communication to prevent crisis • Task 1 : French • professional actors (18) • Perception of parasitical risk • Management of parasitical risk • “Reception” of the preventive measures and control techniques

18. Risk management by professional actors

19. Obstacles • ● Economic obstacles • Fillets candling and flank cutting required: • - Time and labour - Loss of 15-25 % of product (Price) • ● Technical obstacles • - Thick fillets • - Small fish • - Level and form of contamination varyingaccording to species • Cultural practices • - Risk perception • - Fish processing habits

20. The self regulation of risk: arbitrations • Opacity / Openness • Co-responsibility between wholesale fish merchant - manufacturer-distributor • “Short-term” relation: high risk • “Long-term” relation: low risk / “winner-winner” relation • Security / Supply • Keeping the place of wild fish • "Noble"  fish non gutted • Offering a "presentable"  fish Reduction of risk • Security / Freshness • Weight of equation freshness = quality • Parasitic risk: far in risk hierarchy • Support of the "natural"  • Centralization / Decentralization • Normalization of preventive measures • Versus • Professional skills in coastal’ regions

21. Normalization of risk control: difficulties • ● Lack of techniques and knowledge about parasitical risk • Professional “resistance” • a feeling of loss of professional know-how and skills • ● A possible compromise for riskprevention? • Knowledge production about parasiticrisk • = • Scientificknowledge • + • Practicalknowledge

22. Parasitic risk perception by French consumers

23. Consumers and parasitical risk • Totally unknown by consumers (including eaters of raw fish) • Which provokes huge disgust • Which causes some dissonance

24. 3 sources of dissonance 1 The beliefs associated with parasites = those of (red) meat “Never, I would have thought of parasiteswhen eating fish. And moreover, I told myself that even though there are parasites, they can not be the same as the ones in meat. They must be less dangerous”. “Meat, when it goes bad, you can see it with blood... Fish, it’s more insidious: it is less visible. Fish remains white”.

25. 3 sources de dissonance 2 The parasite = spontaneously associated with an unfresh fish “If ever I found parasites in my fish, I would tell myself that it’s unfresh fish andthat my fishmonger took me for a ride! “We must buy fish….as fresh as possible, it remains after all the best security !”

26. 3 The parasite = an issue of farmed fish ! “I would have thought that there are more problems with farmed fish. With all that we give them, bone meal, industrial feed, and moreover with all this concentration of fish…. And diseases. At least, wild fish chooses what it eats. I remain even more reassured by the “wild” !

27. What messages? ٧ ٧ 1. 2. “Rely on our experienced fishmongers who will supply you a safe fish” “The fish must be medium-cooked If you consume raw fish, think of freezing it 48 hours” 3. 4. “To supply you a safe fish, all our fillets are prepared without flanks” “To limit parasitic risk, all our fillets are prepared without flanks” ٧ 5. 6. “If you consume raw fish, we advise farmed fish” “For a consumption of raw fish, choose the label ‘Fish for sushis’ ”

28. Conclusion • DO NOT CONSIDERconsumers’ perceptions as irrational • ●SHARE information outside of a crisisperiod • ● WATCH for signals of potentialanxiety • ●REMEMBERthat confidence is never definitively acquired • - Anxiety = a trait of omnivores • - The positive image of fishis very recent

29. Thank you for your attention