Search results

A major earthquake and aftershocks have hit the North-East part of Italy in May 2012, and caused 26 deaths and diffuse economic damage in the localised agri-food system (LAFS) of Parmigiano-Reggiano protected designation of origin (PDO), including several dairy warehouses. In the broad mobilization to help the stricken people, the LAFS actors played a primary role, giving rise to the sales of “Parmigiano-Reggiano damaged by the earthquake” (PR-T). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the main determinants of PR-T purchasing using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).

A survey on 200 consumers was performed. Data were collected with face-to-face interviews in stores and markets where the PR-T has been sold, and analyzed by structural equation modelling.

The TPB model predictors accounted for 52 per cent of the variance of intentions to purchase PR-T in the future and 21 per cent of the variance of behaviour. Perceived behavioural control is the main predictor of intention and behaviour, indicating that making easier the access to key resources and increasing people’s capability seems a major aspect to reach the intended goals. Trust in producers and retailers communication, positive image of the PDO label, sense of belonging to the region of origin and socio-demographics, i.e. age and educational levels, are correlated with intention and behaviour. The food scare flare up in the media was not a reason impeding purchasing PR-T.

These findings show the solidarity aspects underlying the collective purchases of PR-T in the aftermath of the 2012 earthquake waves, and the importance of increasing people’s capability and trust to reach the goal of facing dreadful food scares effectively.

The term “junk food” is for the most part currently used in the widest political and media debate, without reference to something tangible. The purpose of this paper is to pinpoint the delicate issues involved in moving towards a trans-national, unified, consensual definition of the term “junk food”, including social, economic, cultural, nutritional and methodological problems.

Departing from the work done by international bodies (WHO, FAO-Codex Alimentarius, OECD, EFSA and European Commission) authors descriptively investigate possible background elements able to frame the surrounding debate about “junk food” (“nutrient profiles”, labelling provisions, institutional aspects, etc.).

Presently there is a lack of a global consensus and of scientific basis to define clearly what constitutes “junk food” either on regional areas or globally. Despite of good metrics able to classify foods according to their nutritional quality, policy making relies yet on the concept that only diets or single nutrients can be focused as “good or bad”.

A “junk food” taxonomy could be helpful to harmonize trade policies in internal markets (i.e. the EU) and at global level; but also to gain a wider social support for “hard” policy measures intending to counteract non-communicable-diseases (NCDs), and more generally, obesity and overweight.

A clear basis for “junk food” definition could be the first step to introduce otherwise controversial and easily opposable public health policies and campaigns, due to private interests of the different stakeholders. Even consumers may perceive food policies (in the sake of “food taxes” or “traffic light labelling”) as unfair, whereas not robust scientific ground has been previously given at the highest possible level.

The value of this descriptive paper consists in addressing the shortcomings of global and regional nutritional policies framework in front of the emerging trend of “globesity”. Conclusions stress the need to find support for broader food policies (labelling, taxes, education, bans, etc.) which currently are on the rise but lack fundamental aspects of scientific and hence social support.