Search

The article presents a best practice model that can be utilized by food system actors to assist with (re) building trust in the food system, before, during and after a food incident defined as 'any situation within the food supply chain where there is a risk or potential risk of illness or confirmed illness or injury associated with the consumption of a food or foods' (Commonwealth of Australia. National Food Incident Response Protocol. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2012). Interviews were undertaken with 105 actors working within the media, food industry and food regulatory settings across Australia, New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom(UK). Interview data produced strategy statements, which indicated participant views on how to (re)build consumer trust in the food system. These included: (i) be transparent, (ii) have protocols and procedures in place, (iii) be credible, (iv) be proactive, (v) put consumers first, (vi) collaborate with stakeholders, (vii) be consistent, (viii) educate stakeholders and consumers, (ix) build your reputation and (x) keep your promises. A survey was designed to enable participants to indicate their agreement/disagreement with the ideas, rate their importance and provide further comment. The five strategies considered key to (re)building consumer trust were used to develop a model demonstrating best practice strategies for (re)building consumer trust in the food system before, during and after a food incident. In a world where the food system is increasingly complex, strategies for (re)building and fostering consumer trust are important. This study offers a model to do so which is derived from the views and experiences of actors working across the food industry, food regulation and the media. [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]

Consumer trust in food system actors is foundational for ensuring consumer confidence in food safety. As food labelling is a direct communication between consumers and food system actors, it may influence consumer perceptions of actor trustworthiness. This study explores the judgements formed about the trustworthiness of the food system and its actors through labelling, and the expectations these judgements are based on. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 24 Australian consumers were conducted. Theoretical sampling focussed on shopping location, dietary requirements, rurality, gender, age and educational background. The methodological approach used (adaptive theory) enabled emerging data to be examined through the lens of a set of guiding theoretical concepts, and theory reconsidered in light of emerging data. Food labelling acted as a surrogate for personal interaction with industry and government for participants. Judgements about the trustworthiness of these actors and the broader food system were formed through interaction with food labelling and were based on expectations of both competence and goodwill. Interaction with labelling primarily reduced trust in actors within the food system, undermining trust in the system as a whole. Labelling has a role as an access point to the food system. Access points are points of vulnerability for systems, where trust can be developed, reinforced or broken down. For the participants in this study, in general labelling demonstrates food system actors lack goodwill and violate their fiduciary responsibility. This paper provides crucial insights for industry and policy actors to use this access point to build, rather than undermine, trust in food systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

General consumer knowledge of and engagement with the production of food has declined resulting in increasing consumer uncertainty about, and sensitivity to, food risks. Emphasis is therefore placed on providing information for consumers to reduce information asymmetry regarding food risks, particularly through food labelling. This study examines the role of food labelling in influencing consumer perceptions of food risks. In-depth, 1-h interviews were conducted with 24 Australian consumers. Participants were recruited based on an a priori defined food safety risk scale, and to achieve a diversity of demographic characteristics. The methodological approach used, adaptive theory, was chosen to enable a constant interweaving of theoretical understandings and empirical data throughout the study. Participants discussed perceiving both traditional (food spoilage/microbial contamination) and modern (social issues, pesticide and 'chemical' contamination) risks as present in the food system. Food labelling was a symbol of the food system having managed traditional risks, and a tool for consumers to personally manage perceived modern risks. However, labelling also raised awareness of modern risks not previously considered. The consumer framing of risk presented demonstrates the need for more meaningful consumer engagement in policy decision making to ensure risk communication and management meet public expectations. This research innovatively identifies food labelling as both a symbol of, and a tool for, the management of perceived risks for consumers. Therefore it is imperative that food system actors ensure the authenticity and trustworthiness of all aspects of food labelling, not only those related to food safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]