Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability

For human beings, food is a critical contributor to physical well being, a major source of pleasure, worry and stress, a major occupant of waking time and, across the world, the single greatest category of expenditures. This is a first study of the way food functions in the minds and lives of people from four cultures. Adults and college students from Flemish Belgium, France, U.S.A. and Japan were surveyed with questions dealing with beliefs about the diet-health link, worry about food, the degree of consumption of foods modified to be "healthier" (e.g. reduced in salt or fat), the importance of food as a positive force in life, the tendency to associate foods with nutritional vs. culinary contexts, and satisfaction with the healthiness of one's own diet. In all domains except beliefs about the importance of diet for health, there are substantial country (and usually gender) differences. Generally, the group associating food most with health and least with pleasure is the Americans, and the group most food-pleasure-oriented and least food-health-oriented is the French. In all four countries, females, as opposed to males, show a pattern of attitudes that is more like the American pattern, and less like the French pattern. In either gender, French and Belgians tend to occupy the pleasure extreme, Americans the health extreme, with the Japanese in between. Ironically, the Americans, who do the most to alter their diet in the service of health, are the least likely to classify themselves as healthy eaters. We conclude that there are substantial cross-cultural differences in the extent to which food functions as a stressor vs. a pleasure. These differences may influence health and may partially account for national differences in rates of cardiovascular diseases (the "French paradox"). Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Trust in risk information about food related-hazards may be an important determinant of public reactions to risk information. One of the central questions addressed by the risk communication literature is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information and others are not. Industry and government often lack public trust, whereas other sources (for example, consumer organizations, the quality media, medical doctors) are highly trusted. Problematically, previous surveys and questionnaire studies have utilized questions generated by the investigators themselves to assess public perceptions of trust in different sources. Furthermore, no account of the hazard domain was made. In the first study reported here, semistructured interviewing was used to elicit underpinning constructs determining trust and distrust in different sources providing food-related risk information (n = 35). In the second study, the repertory grid method was used to elicit the terminology that respondents use to distinguish between different potential food-related information sources (n = 35), the data being submitted to generalised Procrustes analysis. The results of the two studies were combined and validated in survey research (n = 888) where factor analysis indicated that knowledge in itself does not lead to trust, but that trusted sources are seen to be characterised by multiple positive attributes. Contrary to previous research, complete freedom does not lead to trust-rather sources which possess moderate accountability are seen to be the most trusted.