Swaroop V. Kher, Lynn J. Frewer, Janneke De Jonge, Meike Wentholt, Olivia Howell Davies, Niels B. Lucas Luijckx and Hilde J. Cnossen
The research presented in this paper aims at understanding the views of European food risk management experts on food traceability implementation, implementation of the general…
Abstract
Purpose
The research presented in this paper aims at understanding the views of European food risk management experts on food traceability implementation, implementation of the general food law, and the advantages the system can offer for effective risk mitigation.
Design/methodology/approach
Delphi methodology was applied to understand experts ' views on the efficiency of existing traceability systems in Europe following the implementation of the General Food Law. An internet survey was administered in two rounds, in order to elicit expert views on changes needed to current traceability practices, if traceability systems are to contribute to improved food safety.
Findings
Traceability was considered to be an effective safety- and quality-monitoring system with potential to improve safety within food chains, as well as increasing consumer confidence in food safety and consumer protection. However, the results underlined the need for further improvements, particularly regarding the definition of food chain traceability, enforcement of regulations, and harmonisation of practice.
Research limitations/implications
Expert opinion regarding food traceability and its implementation was confined to Europe and the impact of European legislation. Further research at a global level is needed, given the need to trace food and food ingredients across the regional boundaries imposed by European legislation, the increased globalisation of food chains, and the need for pan-global harmonisation of food traceability legislation.
Originality/value
The results provide important insights into the advantages and shortcomings of the present European traceability approach enshrined in the European General Food Law.
Details
Keywords
Janneke de Jonge, Lynn Frewer, Hans van Trijp, Reint Jan Renes, Willem de Wit and Joke Timmers
In response to the potential for negative economic and societal effects resulting from a low level of consumer confidence in food safety, it is important to know how confidence is…
Abstract
In response to the potential for negative economic and societal effects resulting from a low level of consumer confidence in food safety, it is important to know how confidence is potentially influenced by external events. The aim of this article is to describe the development of a monitor that enables changes in consumer confidence in food safety and consumer food choice behaviour to be assessed in conjunction with changes in institutional activities and food safety incidents. Results of the first assessment of longitudinal data on consumer perceptions of food safety will be presented to provide the basis for the development of such a monitor. A better understanding of the interrelationships between antecedents and behavioural consequences of changes in consumer confidence in food safety over time will improve understanding of the effectiveness of public policy, and allow the development of best practice in risk communication and risk management.
Details
Keywords
Ksenia Popova, Lynne J. Frewer, Janneke De Jonge, Arnout Fischer and Ellen Van Kleef
Consumer perceptions regarding what constitutes best food risk management (FRM) practice may vary as a consequence of cross‐cultural differences in consumer perceptions, cultural…
Abstract
Purpose
Consumer perceptions regarding what constitutes best food risk management (FRM) practice may vary as a consequence of cross‐cultural differences in consumer perceptions, cultural contexts, and historical differences in governance practices and occurrence of food safety incidents. The purpose of this paper is to compare the views of Russian consumers with those of consumers in European Union member states.
Design/methodology/approach
A survey previously conducted in five EU member states was replicated using a Russian consumer sample (n=460, SEM analysis). Psychological factors underpinning consumer evaluations of food risk management quality (FRMQ) were identified. A qualitative study (consumer focus group, n=9) allowed for in‐depth interpretation of the quantitative results.
Findings
Russian consumers hold similar views to consumers in EU member states regarding their perceptions of what constitutes effective FRM practices. However, the perceived honesty of food chain actors was an important determinant of perceived FRMQ only for Russian consumers, who also perceived that they were primarily responsible for their own food‐related health protection. EU consumers attributed more responsibility to food chain actors and the authorities.
Research limitations/implications
The analysis compared Russian consumers with consumers in five different EU member states. The results cannot be extended to compare Russian consumers with the entire EU.
Practical implications
An international risk communication policy is likely to be impractical, and should be developed at a national or regional level. Given that Russian consumers take personal responsibility for their own health protection, information needs to be provided to enable them to do so.
Originality/value
To the authors knowledge, this is the first comparative analysis of the determinants of perceptions of effective FRM held by Russian consumers with consumers from within the EU regulatory area.
Details
Keywords
Ellen Goddard, Violet Muringai and Albert Boaitey
The purpose of this study is to assess the differences in individual purchasing and voting decisions for livestock products, produced with lower levels of antibiotic use or higher…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to assess the differences in individual purchasing and voting decisions for livestock products, produced with lower levels of antibiotic use or higher levels of environmental sustainability, by consumers with different degrees of agreement with moral foundation statements.
Design/methodology/approach
Data are collected from two national online surveys that were conducted in Canada in 2016 and 2017, including socio-demographic, attitude, belief and stated choice questions. Data are analysed using hierarchical cluster analysis and ordered probit regressions.
Findings
Respondents who strongly agree with the individualizing moral foundation statements are more likely to buy more environmentally sustainable milk/yogurt and pork from pigs that are raised with reduced antibiotic use, as compared to respondents who have weaker agreement with the statements. Respondents with stronger agreement with the moral foundation statements are also more likely to vote in favour of stricter livestock environmental standards and disease protocols.
Research limitations/implications
Monitoring people’s moral concerns might help in predicting consumers’ responses to new or different production practices.
Originality/value
Although moral foundations have been linked to other purchase decisions, in this study, the focus is on specific aspects of environmental sustainability and antibiotic use in livestock production. Both of these challenging issues are controversial and facing either regulatory changes (antibiotic use in livestock) or significant livestock production changes (responding to concerns that livestock production is less sustainable than plant production) in most developed countries. Understanding the linkages between fundamental beliefs and probable consumer behaviour will assist in predicting negative or positive outcomes to the regulatory or industry-based changes to livestock production. Differences between an individual’s desire to be able to identify products with certain attributes for purchase vs an individual’s desire to have government regulate industries to higher standards, in both contexts, will also be linked to the individual’s level of moral foundation beliefs.