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

S.F. Cope, L.J. Frewer, J.R. Houghton, G. Rowe, A.R.H. Fischer, J. de Jonge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As a consequence of recent food safety incidents, consumer trust in European food safety management has diminished. A risk governance framework that formally institutes stakeholder (including consumer) consultation and dialogue through a transparent and accountable process has been proposed, with due emphasis on risk communication. This paper delivers actionable policy recommendations based on consumer preferences for different approaches to food risk management. These results suggest that risk communication should be informed by knowledge of consumer risk perceptions and information needs, including individual differences in consumer preferences and requirements, and differences in these relating to socio-historical context associated with regulation. In addition, information about what is being done to identify, prevent and manage food risks needs to be communicated to consumers, together with consistent messages regarding preventative programs, enforcement systems, and scientific uncertainty and variability associated with risk assessments. Cross-cultural differences in consumer perception and information preferences suggest a national or regional strategy for food risk communication may be more effective than one applied at a pan-European level
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)349-357
JournalFood Policy
Volume35
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Keywords

  • genetically-modified foods
  • expert attitudes
  • trust
  • safety
  • health
  • uncertainty
  • benefits
  • determinants
  • confidence
  • europe

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: implications for risk analysis policy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this