Food hazard characteristics and risk reduction behaviour

British Food JournalFood hazard characteristics and risk reduction behaviour: The view of consumers on theisland of IrelandMary McCarthy Mary Brennan Christopher Ritson Martine de Boer

Article information:To cite this document:Mary McCarthy Mary Brennan Christopher Ritson Martine de Boer, (2006),"Food hazard characteristics andrisk reduction behaviour", British Food Journal, Vol. 108 Iss 10 pp. 875 - 891Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700610702127

Downloaded on: 23 March 2015, At: 05:57 (PT)References: this document contains references to 26 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1349 times since 2006*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

Food hazard characteristics andrisk reduction behaviour

The view of consumers on the island of Ireland

Mary McCarthyDepartment of Food Business and Development, National University of Ireland,

Cork, Ireland

Mary Brennan and Christopher RitsonSchool of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development,

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle, UK, and

Martine de BoerDepartment of Food Business and Development, National University of Ireland,

Cork, Ireland

Abstract

Purpose – This article aims to explore the risk characteristics associated with food hazards on theisland of Ireland and to assess how the public deal with perceived risks.

Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative investigation involving 12 focus groups wasconducted on the island of Ireland. Content analysis was undertaken, with the assistance of thequalitative software tool QSR N6.

Findings – Four hazard categories (lifestyle, (bio)technological, microbiological and farm orientatedproduction) were identified and the risk characteristics and risk relieving strategies associated withthese hazards were explored. The risk perceptions of respondents were consistent with those definedby the psychometric paradigm. The risk characteristics of knowledge, control, dread, harm to health,freedom of choice, ease to identify were all mentioned, but their importance differed greatly dependingon the hazards. For example, in the case of lifestyle hazards, personalisation of the risk, and thusdread, occurred when the individual had a health scare, while with microbiological hazards,knowledge and familiarity resulted in increased confidence in ability to cope with the hazard in thehome. The media was noted as having an influential role in individual risk assessment. Finally,changing lifestyles were seen as contributing to increasing the level of exposure to food risks amongthe population. Further investigation into the sources and consequences of these changing lifestyles isrequired to guide future food policy.

Research limitations/implications – The number of focus group conducted and the qualitativenature of the research limits the degree to which generalised conclusions can be drawn.

Originality/value – These results provide a deeper qualitative understanding of risk perceptionissues.

Keywords Food safety, Risk management, Hazards, Ireland

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThere is substantial evidence that the word “risk” means something different to thepublic than it does to scientists (Slovic et al., 1980; Fischhoff, 1989). Most scientistsdefine risk in narrow quantitative terms. They consider the type of risk, the probabilityof the risk occurring, and the number of people who may be affected. The public in

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Food hazardcharacteristics

875

British Food JournalVol. 108 No. 10, 2006

pp. 875-891q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070700610702127

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

contrast is less aware of probabilities and the size of the risk, and is much moreconcerned with broader qualitative attributes such as for example, whether the risk iscontrollable by the individual, whether the risk is necessary and unavoidable, whetherthe risk is familiar or exotic, whether the risk is natural or technological in origin, andso forth (Sandman, 1987).

Public risk perceptions were first explored from a psychological perspective bySlovic and colleagues (Slovic et al., 1980, 1981; Fischhoff et al., 1982) through theirdevelopment of the psychometric paradigm. This paradigm proposes that everyhazard has its own unique pattern of psychologically determined characteristics thatwere related to perceptions of risk (Miles et al., 1999). According to Slovic (1993), socialand psychological qualities of hazards referred to as “risk characteristics” form thebasis of consumer concerns. These characteristics include the degree to which anactivity’s risk is voluntary, controllable, known to science, known to those exposed,familiar, dreaded, certain to be fatal, catastrophic and immediately manifested (Slovicet al., 1981).

A substantial body of research has built up exploring this paradigm in the contextof food risk perceptions, in particular the risk characteristics that appear to determinehow the public react to and perceive a variety of food risks (Sandman, 1987; Sparks andShepherd, 1994; Frewer et al., 1994; Fife-Shaw and Rowe, 1996; Yeung and Morris,2001; McCarthy and Henson, 2004; Redmond and Griffith, 2004). Sandman (1987)attempted to explain public risk perception and assessment in his hazard outragemodel (Table I). Sandman argued that people tolerate varying degrees of riskdepending on the situation. If a risk is immediate, or involves an element of fear ormajor catastrophe, it creates much greater outrage and is much less acceptable than ifthe risk is delayed, indirect or commonplace (Miller Jones, 1992). This model attemptsto explain why the public gets upset about small risks (scientific assessment – forexample: Bovine Sponginform Encophalophy (BSE)) but hardly worries about risksthat are judged by scientists as much more serious (for example: microbiological foodrisks). The public generally pays too little attention to the hazard side of risks andexperts usually ignore the outrage side (Sandman, 1987).

Sandman specifically argued that microbes in food represent a high hazard thatelicits low outrage. The result is that the public tend to perceive the risks associatedwith microbial food hazards as being familiar and controllable. Fife-Shaw and Rowe(1996) further demonstrated that dimensions associated with severity and awareness

High hazard-low outrageTobacco useAlcohol abuseDriving a car

High hazard-high outrageDrunk drivingNuclear weapons warCriminals with guns

Low hazard-low outrageLighteningAflatoxinAir travel

Low hazard-high outragePesticides in foodsFood irradiationAnimal drugs in milk

Source: Sandman (1987)

Table I.The hazard/outragemodel

BFJ108,10

876

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

were good predictors of risk perceptions, not only associated with hazards acrossdomains, but also within the specific category of food related hazards (Gordon, 2003).

Slovic et al. (1981) highlighted three antecedent factors that they felt influencedindividual risks perception. These factors were “dread”, “unknown” and “number ofpeople exposed to the risk”. Research has related “dread” to a variety of variables, suchas concern; threat of disastrous consequences; degree of dread; risk becoming moreserious; harm to vulnerable groups, likely effect in future generations; potential tocause serious harm to health and likely delayed effects and causes of worry (Sparksand Shepherd, 1994; Fife-Shaw and Rowe, 1996; Gordon, 2003; McCarthy and Henson,2004). In general, the dread factor appears to be directed by the severity of theperceived consequences rather than by the probability of the occurrence.Controllability has been identified as a very important determinant of the perceivedrisks associated with a hazard with perceptions of dread being modified by the public’sperception of control, information and choice with respect to the risk involved (Freweret al., 1994; Redmond and Griffith, 2004). Frewer et al. (1994) found that in the case offood poisoning in the home, respondents felt that they had a high control over the risk,associating the risk with a perceived low personal risk and a high degree of personalknowledge (Sparks and Shepherd, 1994; Fife-Shaw and Rowe, 1996; Miles et al., 1999;Parry et al., 2004).

The “unknown” factor has been associated with the characteristics that the risk isunobservable; unknown to those exposed; effect delayed; new or unknown to science(Slovic, 1987). In addition other risk characteristics have been identified as contributingto the “unknown” factor such as level of scientific and personal knowledge; familiarity;characteristics of individuals or organisations responsible for the hazard; the perceivedadequacy of government regulations to protect people’s health and the reputation oforganisations responsible for protecting people from harm (Sparks and Shepherd,1994; HMSO, 1995; Fife-Shaw and Rowe, 1996; McCarthy and Henson, 2004). The thirdfactor identified by Slovic and colleagues was labelled initially as the “number ofpeople exposed to the risk” (Slovic, 1987). It is now referred to as “extent” for reasons ofconvenience (Yeung and Morris, 2001). Research has indicated that risks that areassociated with large-scale consequences tend to attract more media attention and as aresult tend to be perceived as more risky and likely to occur (HMSO, 1995).

A variety of classifications have been used to aid in the process of reporting anddescribing hazards. While broad classifications have been identified such as lifestyle(diet and nutrition), (bio)technological, microbiological and production, the exacthazards associated with each classification differs based on the research. For exampleSparks and Shepherd (1994) include Listeria, Salmonella and bacterial contaminationas hazards associated with microbiological contamination while a similar classificationby Simpson (1994) also included BSE. Fife-Shaw and Rowe (1996) commented on thedifficulties associated with precisely categorising different food hazards and suggestthat the most appropriate means of classification in studies of this kind is to considerpast literature and the data generated by the study. Miles et al. (2004) found that Britishconsumers were most worried about the use of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, andgenetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production. Interestingly, in an Irishcontext, past research suggests that microbiological hazards, in contrast with findingsfrom the UK, are the source of greatest concern (O’Keeffe, 2000; McCarthy and Henson,2004). McCarthy and Henson (2004), through applying the psychometric paradigm,

Food hazardcharacteristics

877

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

noted that the Irish perceived greater dread from microbial hazards (Salmonella andE-coli) and BSE than there was for lifestyle or technological hazards (Figure 1). Theseresults indicate that in fact the risk assessments of the Irish public may be consideredto be more in line with scientific assessments than is the case with the British public.This raises interesting questions about the determinants of food risk perception on theisland of Ireland that requires a detailed examination of the beliefs about riskcharacteristics among the Irish population.

This paper reports the findings of a qualitative study that specifically addressesthese questions by exploring: the influences that affect which risk characteristicsdominate the formation of individual food risk perceptions associated with a variety offood risk hazards on the island of Ireland; and the risk reducing behaviours that theIrish public engage in order to minimise their likely exposure to the variety of food riskhazards under investigation. By gaining a more detailed understanding of how foodrisk perceptions are formed, the role and influence of key risk characteristics in riskperception formation and the type of risk reducing behaviours that the Irish public areengaging in to minimise their likely exposure, more effective and salient riskcommunication strategies, messages and advice can be developed which explicitlyaddress the issues which the Irish public associate with the variety of food risk hazardsunder investigation. This study forms part of a larger two-year project, funded bySafefood, which is investigating novel food risk communication strategies.

MethodologyA total of 12 focus group interviews were conducted, eight in the Republic of Irelandand four in Northern Ireland. The groups were moderated by members of the researchteam. In total, 96 people (an average of 8 per group) participated in the study. The focusgroups were conducted with compositions varying on a number of demographicvariables; gender, age, socio-economic background (professional vs semi-skill orunskilled), and living environment (urban vs rural) (Table II). Respondents wererecruited using a face-to-face questionnaire. The objective was to obtain as broad arepresentation of the Irish population as possible so as to ensure that the views of allwere considered. As a consequence the recruitment questionnaire concentrated on the

Figure 1.Consumer perceptions ofmeat hazards

BFJ108,10

878

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

demographic variables mentioned above. Ideally the desire was to have a matrix ofgroups where each variable was combined. However this would have translated into 32focus groups and financial resources presented a constraint. Thus some considerationwas given to the proportions of the various groups within the Irish population. Inparticular as approximately 11 per cent of the population (or 18 per cent of thepopulation over the age of 15) are aged 65 þ two focus group were conducted for thisgroup, one male and one female, one urban and one rural. For the remaining ten focusgroups the first consideration was age, then profession and gender. Four focus groupswere completed on the 18-24 age group as the views of young males and females maydiffer due to the tendency for males not to complete home economic education. The sixremaining focus groups were split between the two remaining age group and each caseone mixed gender group was necessary. A research agency was employed to recruit theparticipants. At the recruitment stage people were informed that the discussion topicwas food safety. No other information was given to the respondents. A pilot focusgroup was held in Cork, as a result of which some adjustments were made to theinterview schedule. Focus group respondents were paid e30 in the Republic of Irelandand £20 in Northern Ireland (note: e30 is of similar value to £20 Sterling).

A semi-structure interview format was applied where the sequencing of the questionsallowed the respondents to consider in more detail the meaning of their specific foodsafety concerns and how they deal with these. This approach applied some order to thediscussion flow. However, the interviewer had the flexibility to adjust this order as aresult of the participants’ responses. In the first stage of the discussion participants wereasked to indicate their concerns, why they had these concerns and how they addressthese concerns. Following this, and to further probe participants’ concern levels, thescenario of changing purchasing patterns and consumption patterns due to concernabout food was presented. Through this process a deeper discussion on the reasons forthe concerns was engendered. In the third and final stage of the interview three foodproducts were presented and again participants were asked what concerns they hadregarding these products. The three foods were selected to ensure that the majority ofpotential perceived concerns were encompassed. Thus a meat (chicken breast), a fruit(apple) and a processed food (potato crisps) were used. This approach resulted in greaterdiscussion on why certain perceived food hazards were of concern to them and how theydealt with these. Though this iterative process participants were better able to verbalise

Group Gender Age Social Class Living environment Living area

1 M 18-24 Professional (PR) Urban Derry2 F 18-24 Professional Urban Dublin3 M 18-24 Semi skilled/unskilled (SUS) Urban Belfast4 F 18-24 Semi skilled/unskilled Urban Galway5 M and F 25-44 Professional Urban Cork6 M 25-44 Semi skilled/unskilled Rural Co. Galway7 F 25-44 Semi skilled/unskilled Rural Co. Derry8 M 45-64 Professional Urban Belfast9 F 45-64 Professional Rural Co. Cavan10 M and F 45-64 Semi skilled/unskilled Rural Co. Dublin11 M 65 þ Not specified Urban Dublin12 F 65 þ Not specified Rural Co. Cork

Table II.Demographic profile of

the focus groups

Food hazardcharacteristics

879

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

their concerns and the origins of these. The scenario and products samples allowed themto contextualise their concerns and responses.

The moderator endeavoured to make respondents comfortable during thediscussion and therefore attempted to respond to any questions that were raisedduring the interview, while not directing their responses. This was in line with Denzinand Lincoln’s argument that this interaction will be perceived as making:

The interview more honest, morally sound, and reliable because it treats the respondent as anequal (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, p. 68).

The specific terms used in the interview were also considered and the informationgathered in the pilot focus group provided a good basis for ensuring that the commonlyused terms, rather than scientific terms, were used when discussing concerns. All focusgroups were conducted in meeting rooms of hotels and lasted for between 11

4 to 2 hours.In all cases an assistant moderator attended, the role of this person was to take

notes, seek clarification where necessary and give an oral summary of the views of thegroup at the end of the discussion. This summary allowed the participants to addfurther to the discussion if they believed an important issue was excluded. At thecoding stage of this research the main objective was to categories and classifying therespondents views into meaningful groups and assess the interconnection between thevarious categories. Thus all group discussions were recorded and transcribed. Aqualitative software tool (QSR N6) was used to code the data and help draw out theimportant themes and help ensure that the text was coded in a coherent andconstructive manner. The research team met to discuss the coding of the raw data afterwhich the coding process was completed. To minimise the potential subjectivity of thecoder the themes that emerged from the coding process were then reviewed by theteam members. The key themes that were identified were based on the flow of thediscussion and acted as the basis for interpretation of the findings.

The first stage in the classification process was the grouping of hazards. Thisclassification was developed based on past literature and the analysis of focus groupdiscussions. Frewer (1999) refers to microbiological hazards as including pathogenslinked to food poisoning; thus in this study all reference to bacteria, pathogens andfood poisoning were included in this classification. In the case of technology, one of theproblems noted by Sparks and Shepherd (1994) is that the level of specificity of ahazard as discussed by the public can differ and in fact in some case the consequencesof a technology is the source of the problem and in other cases the technology itselfrepresents the problem. Thus cognisant of this distinction, these technology-typehazards were classed based on the manner in which they were discussed. Thegroupings were therefore based on what “might be in the product” as a result offarming activities (farm-orientated hazards) and what might be in the product due tomanufacturing production activities. Clearly genetically modified organism can beused as part of the farming activity but the discussion indicated that farm-orientatedhazards were seen as the more visible types of activities involved in production. Thefinal classification “lifestyle hazards” was very distinct and included discussion on therisk associated with the combination of foods eaten. Table III summarises theclassification of hazards used in this study.

In the case of the discussion that follows, all connections made were mentioned in atleast four focus groups and discussed by more than one participant in that focus group,

BFJ108,10

880

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

unless otherwise stated. Figures 2-5 highlight the main themes and connections madeduring the discussion and consider the influences on the identified risk characteristicsas well as how these risks are coped with, i.e. risk reduction behaviours.

FindingsIn this section the meaning of the risk characteristics associated with a number ofidentified food hazards are examined. How the public cope with these hazards throughtheir use of risk relievers is then examined. Finally the reasons why previous studieshave noted that the Irish public’s risk assessment for microbiological hazards is higherthan technological hazards are considered.

(Bio)technological hazardsA number of concerns that have been categorised as (bio)technological hazards werementioned. The (bio)technological hazards included were genetically-modified foods(GMs), additives, irradiation and processed foods. Three key influences were identifiedas contributing to the concerns expressed (see Figure 2). There was a lack of perceivedknowledge and perceived understanding about the (bio)technological applications usedin the production of food, in particular with respect to the use of additives andpreservatives:

Figure 2.(Bio)technological hazards

– the relevant riskcharacteristics and risk

relievers

(Bio) technological Farm orientated production hazards Lifestyle Microbiological

GM foodProcessed foodAdditivesIrradiation

BSEFoot and mouthPesticidesAntibioticsInsecticidesGrowth hormones

Children dietsObesityConvenience food

Food poisoningSalmonellaE-ColiTampering Table III.

Foodhazards-classifications

Food hazardcharacteristics

881

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

They put anything in the food to make it last. You just don’t know what they are putting in. Ialways have that worry and you just don’t know what is in that (female, 45-64, Rural, SUS).

Another key influence related specifically to a product’s shelf life and the extent towhich additives are being used to extend the self life of fresh products. Word of mouthwas also evident as a key influence in determining respondents’ level of concern; in factit was not who said what but what was said that caused the concern, and thus negativeinformation was being recalled without much consideration of the source andcredibility of that information. One of the underlying determinants of concern for thesehazards was the lack of perceived control associated with this type of hazard whichthen caused dread “. . . I mean additives are fatal” (female, 65 þ , Rural). Some wereconcerned about the health consequences associated with these hazards and believedthem “responsible for a lot of illnesses” (male, 25-44, PR). Additives and preservativesin food were seen as one of the potential causes of long-term illnesses, in particular

Figure 3.Farm orientatedproduction hazards – therelevant riskcharacteristics and riskrelievers

Figure 4.Lifestyle concerns – therelevant riskcharacteristics and riskrelieving/coping strategies

BFJ108,10

882

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

cancer. This dread with regard to processed foods extended to flavourings and also tosome natural ingredients “the flavouring sachet that goes into it [branded convenienceproduct], that is carcinogenic” (female, 25-44, PR).

Perceived understanding was low understanding was not only low for GM. Someparticipants also felt that they are not well informed about additives “I don’t knowmuch about it [food additives] but a few of my friends know a bit about these things,like certain processed stuff is not good for you” (male, 25-44, SUS). Surprisingly,however, while perceived understanding was low this did not necessarily translate intofear “no, I am not really [concerned about GMs], I don’t know much about it, so you gojust by what you read and some people say it is bad for you and other people say it isgood for you because you are taking out the goodness out of something else andgetting the perfect food” (male, 25-44, SUS). In fact one participant went so far as to sayshe was not concerned because she did not understand “I feel that [food additives] is allabove my head, I don’t understand all that. I know they probably shouldn’t be there, Idon’t understand it to have concerns about it” (female, 25-44, SUS). The perceivedthreat to future generations was also clear “Stuff like genetically modified it won’t beuntil the next generation that we will know [the health consequences]” (female, 18-24,PR). The unnatural aspect of some (bio) technological hazards was of concern to some“. . .it [GMs] is messing with nature” (male, 18-24, SUS).

Avoiding GMs was achieved through the use of purchase location, intrinsic productcharacteristics and label information. In particular the butcher was considered a sourcethat was truthful and assumptions regarding the contents of the product were made onthat basis. The appearance of the product (looking fresh) was important, furthermorelocation and information helped “. . . if it comes from the butcher and you automaticallythink that it doesn’t have anything modified with it. Usually with packaging the have anote on it – no GM” (female, 18-24, PR). The protection of the next generation was alsoapparent in purchase behaviour “and since the day my own lad was born, organic andGMO free, I am very conscious about what I buy for him, maybe not so much formyself but definitely for him.” (female, 18-24, SUS). However some believed it wasinevitable that they would consume these products due to choice constraints “I think

Figure 5.Microbiological hazards –

the relevant riskcharacteristics and risk

relievers

Food hazardcharacteristics

883

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

that we will be going down that line, I will eat it [GMO foods] when it comes because ofa lack of choice or it will cost me too much not to” (Male, 18-24, SUS).

Farm orientated production hazardsFarm orientated production hazards were frequently mentioned by all groups. Themain farm orientated production hazards mentioned were: BSE, and food and mouth“. . . the beef industry was hit badly by mad cow disease and the foot and mouthoutbreak . . . ” (male, 25-44, PR), antibiotics: “I am very concerned about antibiotics andthe use of them . . . , we are now immune, they don’t work because they give you somuch antibiotics in food” (male, 65 þ ), insecticides, growth hormones: “. . . red meatand meat is pumped with hormones . . . ” (female, 45-64, PR) and pesticides. The viewsand assessments associated with farm orientated production hazards differedconsiderably from those linked to microbiological hazards. This was particularlyapparent with the discussion surrounding BSE where concern was expressed aboutwhat undiscovered food hazards are out there “. . . but what about mad cow disease,that is probably only the tip of the iceberg, there is already the human form of it CJD. . . ” (female, 25-44, PR). The concern expressed about BSE was also linked to theadverse consequences “I was concerned about mad cow disease because people died”(male, 18-24, PR). Figure 3 presents some of the key linkages identified between thehazards and behaviours.

One of the main farm orientated production hazards discussed was pesticides. Notsurprisingly this hazard was primarily linked to the production of fruit and vegetables.Other chemicals such as insecticides and preservative sprays were usedinterchangeably with pesticides in the discussion. The underlying reason for the useof these chemicals was not clear in the minds of the participants “. . . the farmerspraying stuff on vegetables . . . they are force fed and they are bringing them on beforethey are ready” (female, 45-64, SUS) and there was no recognition of any benefitsassociated with the use of such “stuff” “pesticides, additives. You don’t understand, butyou know nothing is good about it” (female, 18-24, PR).

Perceived knowledge was extremely low and many acknowledged that they knewlittle or nothing about the components of the chemicals used in the production of food“when you see them just spraying everything you just wonder what is in it” (male,18-24, SUS). Some respondents were not confident in scientific knowledge “they say ohX isn’t bad for you and then the next day they say oh X is bad for you” (female, 18-24,SUS). Fear of the unknown consequences “You don’t know what the futureconsequences of that are . . . Your food is your life, what you put into it is what you aregoing to be” (female, 18-24, SUS) and threat to future generations were also expressed“I wonder about all the foods that we are eating . . . if it is an animal, being force fed orgiven antibiotics . . . , that could be doing us damage, that could do our childrendamage, that we are not aware of” (female, 45-64, SUS).

Some were fearful of chemicals due to direct experience “there is a fella living besideus and he grows vegetables and when he has sprayed them you can’t drive past andyou have to have all your windows closed. Your eyes start watering and there is asmell off of the chemicals, it is horrible” (female, 18-24, SUS). Others were concerned asthey attributed new illnesses to the consumption of foods containing chemical residues“even chemicals you are pumping stuff into your body . . . [in the past] there wasn’t halfas much illness and diseases . . . I reckon chemical and pesticides are all contributing to

BFJ108,10

884

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

it” (female, 18-24, SUS). A number of participants identified potential healthconsequences associated with foods that have been treated with chemicals.

Some feel they lack freedom to choose as they do not have information to make ajudgment about the potential risk “it is very easy you go into a shop to buy an appleand you eat it, but, where has it been and what has it been sprayed with?” (male, 65 þ ).There was also clear suspicion of the growing trend of uniformly sized and shapedfruit and vegetable. Uniformity is not believed to be the result of natural productionprocesses “if you grow your own apples all apples are not all the same size or shapeand now they are producing apples and they use some sort of treatment that createsthem to look the same size and the same colour” (male, 65 þ ). Interestingly, a numberof participants indicated that they select unwashed and irregularly shaped products tocope with the concerns associated with this perceived unnaturalness “. . . personally Iwould buy a dirty carrot rather than perfectly clean carrot” (female, 18-24, PR).

To cope with the worry and concern a small number of risk relieving strategies wereused. Washing and peeling the products was a frequently used risk reliever as manybelieved that the most likely area of contamination was on the skin “I think that thespray kind of taints the skin as well, with no peeling you still get residue” (female,65 þ ). One respondent went so far as to use washing liquid to remove any residualchemicals “you must use fairy liquid to get whatever sprays or anything off the fruit”(female, 18-24, SUS). Despite taking these precautions a number of participantsexpressed concern about the perceived lack of control they have over exposure to thesechemical “they do say a lot of those chemicals come though the skins of some of thesevegetables as well” (female, 45-64, PR). Another risk relieving strategy was theavoidance of certain product “. . . my aunt, she is buying for her kid, she will not buybeef at all for her kids, she would buy lamb” (female, 25-44, PR).

Lifestyle hazardsAcross the groups, a variety of lifestyle concerns were raised by the participants. In themajority of cases the concerns raised were related to “other people”. It appears thatparents feel that they are losing control and children are gaining greater control overthe child’s diets. This is further exacerbated in two parent working families whoexperienced serious time pressures “. . . now both parents are working, they come homefrom work, they pick their child up from the childminder, they are exhausted, theywant to feed the child quickly . . . ” and as a consequence “. . . there is not set meals assuch, people can have a meal at any time and they often have something before thedinner. The dinner is getting on the gas, getting ready, and if they (children) come inthey eat crisps and drinks and he takes something else off the shelf . . . ” (male, 45-64,SUS). As a result of this loss of control the diets of young people were perceived to bedeteriorating.

The impact of food advertising on children was also noted and it would appear thatpester power was eroding parental control over dietary choices for their children “thatfruit juice Sunny Delight, a very successful campaign. The kids say they want it.Whether there are antibiotics, polystyrene, you can’t say that to a 5 or 6 year old”(female, 45-64, SUS). Single person households were also noted for their unwillingnessto prepare meals “my uncle and my boyfriend they live on their own . . . all they eat istakeaway dinners and microwave dinners” (female, 18-24, PR). The cost of fresh foodwas seen as reducing choice “. . . it is cheaper to buy a mars bar than to buy a banana”

Food hazardcharacteristics

885

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

(female, 25-44, PR). Interestingly, personal health problems and scares increased dread“I have to cook for myself, I am on my own. I have to watch cholesterol. I had a bypass. . . ” (male, 65 þ ), those experiencing dread were also concerned with fat content offood “. . . I look at the fat content of it. Everything I buy in the supermarket I do thatand choose the one with the lower fat content” (male, 45-64, PR). Figure 4 presents someof the key linkages identified between the lifestyle hazards and behaviours.

The ways for coping with these lifestyle concerns appear not to fit with thestrategies used to deal with the other hazards covered in this paper. Instead what hasbeen identified is a range of risk relieving/coping strategies that the public use to easethe impact of these lifestyle pressures. Many of these coping strategies are in fact at theroot of the problem such as eating convenience foods, microwave dinners ortakeaways, having no set meal times “I think we have grown away from set meals aswell. When I grew up you had your breakfast, dinner and tea and you may have a cupof tea and a slice of jam and bread. Now this is probably why kids are putting onweight, my kids are getting heavier” (male, 45-64, SUS), not eating breakfast andallowing kids to cook for themselves “a lot of the problem is that the parents are notthere. There is nobody there and they are getting out pizzas and this and that and justmaking it themselves and then when the parents come home then the parents haveanother feed and they are having the feed as well . . . ” (female, 45-64, PR).

A number of participants identified strategies that they used to improve their diets.These were specially linked to those people who had suffered personal health scares orwho were very concerned about fat content. In the case of participants with healthproblems, it was highlighted that the best way of coping with this was to cook forthemselves to ensure the food was acceptable for their health condition. Thoseconcerned with fat content used product labels to help them select what they wanted tobuy from the supermarket, though highlighted that this was not possible when eatingout “yes I look at the fat content in the supermarket but when I eat out I do think of thefat content but there is nothing you can do about it” (male, 45-64, PR).

Microbiological hazardsThere was a reasonable level of perceived understanding about the sources andconsequences of food poisoning among those interviewed. However there appeared bea level of disassociation from themselves. Many indicated that they knew of someonewho had experienced food poisoning but only a few acknowledged having personalexperience. However, most of those who had experienced food poisoning attributed itto a source outside of the home “I got food poisoning from chicken, I ate chicken beforein a restaurant and got awful sick, awful” (female, 18-24, SUS). Food poisoning waslinked to certain products such as chicken and eggs and activities (holidays) “we heardabout people getting it and getting very ill and getting it at home or coming back fromholidays” (female, 65 þ ). Figure 5 provides details of the influences, characteristicsand risk reduction strategies used by the participants.

The main microbiological hazard mentioned was Salmonella and respondents wereclearly very familiar and knowledgeable about this hazard. It was linked by themajority of respondents to chicken “you have to wash it because the Salmonella is inthe chicken” (female, 18-24, SUS). Furthermore, there was an acknowledgement of theconsequences associated with contracting Salmonella. The reason for this knowledgewas due to a number of high profile incidents in the UK and Ireland over the past two

BFJ108,10

886

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

decades “you get Salmonella from eggs, I only know that because of the crisis . . .Edwina Curry, Salmonella and eggs is all that springs to mind” (male, 18-24, SUS). Itwas also clear that many believed that contaminated (with bacteria) raw foods wereeasy to identify “you can smell when chicken is off because there is a really bad smellto it” (female, 18-24, SUS) and “well if chicken is not in the fridge but is covered and isnot purple and you cannot see a rainbow in it, I always smell before I do any thing withit” (female, 18-24, PR).

However, most feel that the risk is controllable through the use of a number of riskrelieving strategies. These strategies included: cooking practices “cook it well. If youundercooked eggs that would be one of the main things that would give you foodpoisoning” (male, 25-44, SUS); storage, “it wasn’t kept cold properly, it was kept in aheated area, chicken should be kept cold” (female, 25-44, SUS); purchasing outlet andthe intrinsic characteristics of the product “with chicken fillets . . . I prefer to go into abutchers and see them all in a tray and say yes I will have those two please . . . Iactually like to see what I am getting” (female, 18-24, PR); and the extrinsic attributessuch as packaging and use-by-date. In conclusion it would appear that control and theuse of in-home risk reduction strategies is key when considering levels of concernassociated with food poisoning in the home “Salmonella is a thing that you can controlat home because if it is some chemical you don’t know” (female, 18-24, PR).

Why the high risk assessment scores in former studies?As mentioned earlier, the level of concern about food poisoning is location and productspecific, “it depends on what you are eating and where you are eating it” (female, 18-24,PR). The location dimension presented an insight and possible explanation for the highrisk assessment in Ireland associated with microbiological hazards in former consumerstudies (McCarthy and Henson, 2004; O’Keeffe, 2000) “any time I have experienced foodpoisoning was as a result of eating out of home” (male, 18-24, SUS). The worry wasvery much linked to control “you don’t know who is cooking your food, if he has anysort of standard” (male, 18-24, PR) and word of mouth information “you hear the horrorstories of people that work in fast food outlets” (female, 18-24, PR). The informationthat has been received via media sources was resulting in a number of individuals notmaking complaints in the restaurant when they were served below standard food “ifthere is something wrong with my meal . . . . I would never send it back, because Iwould think they would make it worse. I think the chef would be offended at somethingbeing returned and you would know what they would do with it . . . I have seen the[television] programme and what they do” (female, 18-24, SUS). It is clear that this lackof control leads to a lack of trust that in turn increases concern. This may be the reasonthat Irish consumers tend to rate the risks associated with microbiological hazards ashigher than (bio) technological hazards. However, while the public’s ratings are similarto the scientific community the reasons for this assessment have little to do withpersonal behaviour but rather the behaviour of meal preparers in the food servicesector. In response to this concern, some were more confident in and trusting ofrestaurants where you could see the chef preparing the meal.

Implications and conclusionsThe risk perceptions of respondents in this study correspond very well with thosedefined by the psychometric paradigm and subsequent research conducted primarily

Food hazardcharacteristics

887

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

on food risk perceptions. The most prominent risk characteristics identified werepersonal knowledge, control, dread, harm to health, threat to future generations,freedom of choice and ease of identification. The importance of these characteristicsthough differed greatly depending on the hazard concerned. In the case of lifestylehazards, personalisation of the risk occurred when the individual suffered a healthscare. The concept of control was discussed in a very different manner for lifestylehazards in comparison to the others. It was associated primarily with the timepressures of modern life, in particular for working parents. In the context of workingparents, the findings suggest that children are gaining much more control over theirown diets as they are being allowed to cook for themselves and make many more foodchoice decisions both in and outside of the home than was the case in previousgenerations. This transfer of control from parents to children is thought to be resultingin an increase in consumption of high fat, high sugar foods amongst children. This wasseen as a real and important threat to the current and future health of children. Thesefindings suggest that the provision of additional practical support, from agovernmental level through the various food and health agencies, for parents thathelps them deal with the dilemma of their own personal time pressures and their desireto ensure their children are eating healthy could have the potential to greatly improvechildren’s diets. An example of such a support mechanism which could help parentsensure their children eat a nutritious and healthy breakfast would be the widerprovision of breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools. Such a mechanismcould in effect buy the parent’s significantly more time in the mornings to cope with allthe various demands on their time while also ensuring that their children are being wellfed and starting the day in the best possible manner.

In the case of both farm-oriented production and (bio)technological hazards,perceived dread and the lack of perceived knowledge were particular evident in thediscussions. Many of the respondents felt that both scientists and the public are notvery knowledgeable about the “true” risks associated with these hazards. Someworried about the threat to future generations, the unnatural nature of the technology(GM food) and the potential loss of freedom of choice as these technologies becomemore prevalent. Interestingly, for the (bio)technological hazards, their perceived lack ofknowledge did not appear to translate into heightened levels of fear about thetechnology. Instead, there appeared to be a sense of resigned ambivalence that suchtechnologies will be developed anyway.

With microbiological hazards, knowledge and familiarity resulted in an increasedconfidence in ones’ own ability to cope with the hazard within the home and thus thelevel of concern associated with this type of hazard was low when considering at-homeconsumption. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies (Frewer et al.,1994; Griffith et al., 1998; Miles et al., 1999; Redmond and Griffith, 2004) and reaffirmsthe difficulties facing national and international food safety agencies in addressing therising incidences of microbial food poisoning associated with preparation andconsumption of food within the home. The findings strongly correlate with previousresearch (Frewer et al., 1994) confirming that the public are much more concernedabout microbial risks outside the home. The loss of control over the preparation,storage and cooking practices in the “out of home” consumption situation heightenedthe publics concern about the likelihood of contracting food poisoning.

BFJ108,10

888

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

It is clear from the findings that the public engage in a set of coping strategies tominimise the potential loss that they might suffer as a result of these hazards. In thehome, washing, cleaning, peeling, storing and cooking practices were all used tominimise the potential negative consequences. When purchasing, the location, staff,product appearance, label information and country of origin were all used as alerts topotential hazards and as a means of minimising consequences. A practice identified tocope with the risk of microbiological contamination was the washing of chickens inorder “to rid them of Salmonella”. This practice raises interesting questions as such apractice has been found not to decrease but to increase the risk of microbialcontamination in chicken. How many common domestic food safety practices used inhomes throughout the island of Ireland and beyond are in fact putting the public’shealth at risk? In order to answer this important policy questions there is a clear needinvestigate the range of domestic food safety behaviours that are being engaged in, tocompare how these practices correspond to best practice guidelines and advice and inconjunction with food safety experts determine the level of risks that people areexposing themselves to by engaging in less than ideal practices within the home. Arethe public unaware of what they should be doing in the kitchen or are they, despiteknowledge and understanding of what they should be doing, just willing to engage inother practices and if so why? Identifying this distinction is vital from a food safetycommunication perspective. If the public are found to be knowledgeable about whatthey should be doing but are willing to engage in practices which do not correspondwith these practices, then future food safety risk communication campaigns need to befocused on addressing the reasons why the public are deviating from the practices theyknow and understand to be the most safe and appropriate to use when preparing foodin their own kitchens.

The media had a considerable influence on some risk perceptions. This is linked todread but also, in some cases, provides improved knowledge and familiarity with thehazard. An interesting aspect of this was related to lifestyle hazards where manyviewed TV advertisements as influencing children’s demand for certain foods, inparticular those considered to be unhealthy and high in fat and sugar. This wasconsidered negative because children now have greater control over their diets andthey may have a preference for products that would not contribute to maintaining abalanced diet. The media influence may also explain, in part, the level of knowledgeand familiarity with regard to microbial hazards. McCarthy et al. (2005) concluded that,due to the greater coverage of a microbial hazard (salmonella) in the Irish mediabetween 1997 and 2002 compared with other food hazard, the Irish public is likely to bewell aware and confident in their knowledge about Salmonella.

The findings of previous Irish studies (McCarthy and Henson, 2004; O’Keeffe, 2000),with regard to the risk assessment of the Irish public for microbial hazards, areconfirmed, but for risk assessment based on consumption outside rather than at home.In most cases, respondents appear to be confident in their at-home practices, and as aresult may in fact be potentially exposing themselves to some risk. This finding is inkeeping with Frewer et al. (1995) who suggest that risk perception may be reduced byincreasing perception of control. This increased perception in control may be linked toa large number of media reports on outside the home food poisoning compared to thoselinked to at home food poisoning. McCarthy et al. (2005) found that of the 241 messagesreviewed addressing salmonella, only 36 mentioned the home as the source of the food

Food hazardcharacteristics

889

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

risk. In relation to food service outlets, this study suggests the need for many tointroduce policies that increase the perceived control of their patrons. This could beachieved, for example, through the use of a glass partition between the cooking areaand the eating area in a restaurant and providing patrons with more information on theorigin of the food used.

References

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1998), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage, London.

Fife-Shaw, C. and Rowe, G. (1996), “Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometricstudy”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 487-500.

Fischhoff, B. (1989), “Eliciting knowledge for analytical representation”, IEEE Transactions onSystems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 13, pp. 448-61.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1982), “Lay foibles and expert fables in judgmentsabout risk”, American Statistician, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 240-55.

Frewer, L.J. (1999), “Risk perception and risk communication about food safety issues”, NutritionBulletin, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 31.

Frewer, L., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1995), “Consumer perceptions of food risks”, FoodScience and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 212-6.

Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1994), “The interrelationship between perceivedknowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food related hazards targeted at theindividual, other people and society”, Journal of Food Safety, Vol. 14, pp. 19-40.

Gordon, J. (2003), “Risk communication and foodborne illness: message sponsorship andattempts to stimulate perceptions of risk”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1287-96.

Griffith, C., Worsfold, D. and Mitchell, R. (1998), “Food preparation, risk communication and theconsumer”, Food Control, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 225-32.

HMSO (1995), “A guide to risk assessment and risk management for environmental protection”,pp. 77-8, Department of the Environment, HMSO.

McCarthy, M. and Henson, S. (2004), “Irish consumer perceptions of meat hazards and use ofextrinsic information cues”, Acta Agriculturae Scandanavian – Food Economics, Vol. 1No. 2, pp. 11-106.

McCarthy, M., Brennan, M., Ritson, C., Kelly, A., De Boer, M. and Thompson, N. (2005), “Novelstrategies for food risk communication (project number 02-RESR)”, final report submittedto Safefood, The Food Safety Promotion Board, Ireland.

Miles, S., Braxton, D.S. and Frewer, L.J. (1999), “Public perceptions about microbiological hazardsin food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 101 No. 10, pp. 744-62.

Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., Ritson, C. and Frewer, L.J. (2004), “Public worryabout specific food safety issues”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Miller Jones, J. (1992), “Risk benefit”, in Miller Jones, J. (Ed.), Food Safety, Eagan Press, St Paul,MN.

O’Keffee, L.A. (2000), “Consumer perceptions of food hazards and attitudes towardsinformation”, MSc thesis, The National University of Ireland, Cork.

Parry, S.M., Miles, S., Tridente, A. and Palmer, S.R. (2004), “Differences in perception of riskbetween people who have and have not experienced salmonella food poisoning”, RiskAnalysis, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 289-99.

Redmond, E.C. and Griffith, C.J. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of food safety risk, control andresponsibility”, Appetite, Vol. 43, pp. 309-13.

BFJ108,10

890

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

Sandman, P.M. (1987), “Risk communication: facing public outrage”, Environment ProtectionAssessment Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 21-2.

Simpson, A.C.D. (1994), “Integrating public and scientific judgements into a tool kit for managingfood- related risks, stage II. Development of the software”, report for the UK MinistryAgriculture Fisheries and Food, ERAU Research Report, No 23, East Anglia, Norwich.

Slovic, P. (1987), “Perception of risk”, Science, Vol. 236, pp. 280-5.

Slovic, P. (1993), “Perceived risk, trust and democracy”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, pp. 675-82.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980), “Facts and fears: understanding perceivedrisk”, American Statistican, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 240-55.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1981), “Perceived risk: psychological factors andsocial implications”, Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Vol. 376, pp. 17-34.

Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1994), “Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated withfood production and food consumption: an empirical study”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 5,pp. 799-806.

Yeung, R. and Morris, J. (2001), “Food safety risk: consumer perception and purchase behaviour”,British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 170-86.

About the authorsMary McCarthy is a Lecturer in Food Marketing in the Department of Food Business andDevelopment, National University of Ireland, Cork. Her research interests are in the area ofconsumer behaviour towards food. She has a specific interest in consumer risk perceptiontowards food, the use of food quality attributes in the assessment of food and consumer foodlifestyles. Mary McCarthy is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Mary Brennan is a Lecturer in Food Marketing in the School of Agriculture, Food and RuralDevelopment, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Her research interestsinclude the communication of food risk and uncertainty to the public, public understanding ofscience and technology, and qualitative research methodologies.

Christopher Ritson is Professor of Agricultural Marketing, School of Agriculture, Food andRural Development, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Martine de Boer was a Researcher in the Department of Food Business and Development,National University of Ireland, Cork. Her research interests lie in food consumption behaviourand food risk communication.

Food hazardcharacteristics

891

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Christine Niens, Micha Strack, Rainer Marggraf. 2014. Parental risk perception of mycotoxins and riskreduction behaviour. British Food Journal 116:6, 1014-1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Magdalena Niewczas. 2014. Consumers' reactions to food scares. International Journal of Consumer Studies38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-3, 251-257. [CrossRef]

3. Sunhee Seo, Og Yeon Kim, Soonmi Shim. 2014. Using the theory of planned behavior to determine factorsinfluencing processed foods consumption behavior. Nutrition Research and Practice 8, 327. [CrossRef]

4. Ali Al-Sakkaf. 2013. Campylobacteriosis in New Zealand: A new twist to the tale? Part two (the consumerand the regulator). Food Control 33, 562-566. [CrossRef]

5. A. Al-Sakkaf. 2013. Domestic food preparation practices: a review of the reasons for poor home hygienepractices. Health Promotion International . [CrossRef]

6. Shannon Cope, Lynn J. Frewer, Ortwin Renn, Marion Dreyer. 2010. Potential methods and approachesto assess social impacts associated with food safety issues. Food Control 21, 1629-1637. [CrossRef]

7. Luís Miguel Cunha, Ana Pinto de Moura, Zulmira Lopes, Maria do Céu Santos, Isidro Silva. 2010. Publicperceptions of food‐related hazards: an application to Portuguese consumers. British Food Journal 112:5,522-543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Luís Miguel Cunha, Ana Pinto de Moura, Zulmira Lopes, Maria do Céu Santos, Isidro Silva. 2010. Publicperceptions of food-related hazards: an application to Portuguese consumers. British Food Journal 112,522-543. [CrossRef]

9. Mary McCarthy, Mary Brennan. 2009. Food risk communication: Some of the problems and issues facedby communicators on the Island of Ireland (IOI). Food Policy 34, 549-556. [CrossRef]

10. Tobias Stern, Rainer Haas, Oliver Meixner. 2009. Consumer acceptance of wood‐based food additives.British Food Journal 111:2, 179-195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Mary McCarthy, Mary Brennan, Martine De Boer, Christopher Ritson. 2008. Media risk communication– what was said by whom and how was it interpreted. Journal of Risk Research 11, 375-394. [CrossRef]

12. Heleen van Dijk, Julie Houghton, Ellen van Kleef, Ivo van der Lans, Gene Rowe, Lynn Frewer. 2008.Consumer responses to communication about food risk management. Appetite 50, 340-352. [CrossRef]

13. Mary Brennan, Mary McCarthy, Christopher Ritson. 2007. Why do consumers deviate from bestmicrobiological food safety advice? An examination of ‘high-risk’ consumers on the island of Ireland.Appetite 49, 405-418. [CrossRef]

14. Hélène Hermansson, Sven Ove Hansson. 2007. A Three-Party Model Tool for Ethical Risk Analysis.Risk Management 9, 129-144. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsiti

Uta

ra M

alay

sia

At 0

5:57

23

Mar

ch 2

015

(PT

)