Search

Abstract Researchers and food system actors have developed a best practice model to assist with (re)building or maintaining consumer trust in the food system in the event of a food incident. The aim of the present study was to determine how well the model aligns with consumer views of the strategies required to maintain consumer trust during and following a food incident. This qualitative public deliberation study employed experimental, developmental vignettes during 2 full-day sessions in May 2018. Following general discussion of the food incident scenario presented in the vignettes, 15 South Australian adults (in two groups) developed a collated and ranked list of key strategies to be used by food system actors during a food incident to assist in maintaining consumer trust. Participants were then introduced to the existing model, and engaged in discussions about if and how their strategies aligned with those in the existing model. Findings demonstrate broad consistency between the two groups and the model in the strategies identified as key for (re)building and maintaining consumer trust during a food incident. For example, timely transparency was reported by consumers as the key strategy for maintaining consumer trust during and after a food incident. However, participants expressed pessimism regarding actors' ability to implement strategies. Although minimal, differences were noted in strategy descriptions between the groups and the Model. This study suggests that overall the model is highly consistent with consumer views. If actors are to demonstrably apply the Model in the event of a food incident, our data suggest that the identified strategies will successfully assist them in (re)building and/or maintaining consumer trust in the food supply. Highlights • Timely transparency is the key strategy for consumer trust during a food incident. • Consumers and food actors propose similar strategies for maintaining consumer trust. • Consumers express pessimism regarding food actors' ability to implement strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is both empirical and theoretical research supporting the idea that consumers’ interaction with food labelling impacts on their trust in the food system and its actors. This paper explores the process by which consumers’ interpretation of, and interaction with, labelling results in the formation of trust related judgements. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 24 Australian consumers were conducted. Theoretical sampling was used to gather a wide range of consumer perspectives. Real food packages were used as prompts for discussion in interviews, with one interview section requiring participants to examine particular products while thinking aloud. Process and thematic coding were used in transcript analysis. Labelling was seen by participants as a direct and active communication with ‘labellers’. The messages communicated by individual label elements were interpreted more broadly than their regulatory definitions and were integrated during the process of making sense of labelling. This enabled participants to form trust related judgements through interaction with labelling. Finally, product and consumer characteristics varied participants’ judgements about the same or similar label elements and products. Divergence in consumer and regulatory interpretations of labelling creates a situation where labelling may be both fully compliant with all relevant legislation and regulation, and still be perceived as misleading by consumers. This suggests that the rational frameworks that policy seeks to overlay on consumers when considering food labelling regulation may be hindering consumer belief in the trustworthiness of labellers. Policy must recognise the different, yet equally legitimate, ways of interpreting labelling if it is to foster, and not undermine, consumer trust in the food system generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]