Search

This study aims to report and critically analyze the responses of governance actors to a set of consumers' concerns relating to food labeling, and by doing so describe how these actors construct both consumer perspectives and the food policy environment in which they work. Fifteen food‐labeling governance actors in Australia and New Zealand were asked to view an online presentation of the findings from a previous study exploring consumer perspectives on food labeling and trust before completing a one‐hour, in‐depth, semi‐structured interview. Colebatch's social constructionist perspective on policy was adopted in the analysis. Participants used their own constructions of Australian food policy, the role of labeling and consumer trust as a means to minimize the consumer concerns. Inadequate critical engagement with the moral dimension of consumer concerns is a core driver of the inertia demonstrated in the Australian government's approach to addressing consumer concerns regarding food matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This paper explores how food regulators respond to food incidents and the barriers and enablers associated with doing so. Methods: Twenty‐six semi‐structured interviews lasting between 30 and 60 minutes were undertaken with Australian food regulators. Regulators worked across food policy development, implementation, enforcement and standards setting. These interviews ascertained food regulators' views on food safety and responses to real and hypothetical food incidents. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Food regulators reported that working together with other food regulators is an important part of effective food regulation and response to food incidents. Strategies for working together included clarifying expectations and developing formal documents such as a memorandum of understanding. However, challenges in working together were reported, including different risk thresholds, different political agendas and a lack of clarity on regulators' roles. Conclusions: A focus on partnerships and good communication between food regulators is likely to facilitate effective management of food incidents, and maximise the chances that food incidents do not lead to increased consumer morbidity and mortality as a result of a poor response to a food incident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]