Search

Background: Consumer trust in food systems is essential for consumers, food industry, policy makers and regulators. Yet no comprehensive tool for measuring consumer trust in food systems exists. Similarly, the impact that trust in the food system has on health-related food behaviours is yet to be empirically examined. The aim of this research was to develop a comprehensive instrument to measure trust in the food system (the Dimensions of Trust in Food Systems Scale (DOTIFS scale) and use it to explore whether trust in the food system impacts consumers' health-related behaviours., Methods: The DOTIFS scale was developed using sociological theories of trust and pre-existing instruments measuring aspects of trust. It was pilot tested and content validity was assessed with 85 participants. A mixed-methods exploration of the health-related behaviours of 18 conveniently sampled Australian consumers with differing trust scores determined by the DOTIFS scale was then conducted. During March-July 2019 shopping- and home-observations were used to assess participants' food safety practices and exposure to public health fortification programs, while the CSIRO Healthy Diet Score determined their adherence to national dietary guidelines., Results: The DOTIFS scale was found to have high comprehension, ease of use and content validity. Statistical analysis showed scale scores significantly trended as predicted by participants' stated level of trust. Differences were found in the way individuals with more or less trust in the food system comply with national dietary guidelines, are exposed to public health fortification programs, and adhere to recommended food safety practices., Conclusions: The DOTIFS scale is a comprehensive, sociologically- and empirically- informed assessment of consumer trust in food systems that can be self-administered online to large populations and used to measure changes in consumer trust over time. The differences in health-related behaviours between individuals with varying levels of trust warrant further investigation., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Trust in public health officials and the information they provide is essential for the public uptake of preventative strategies to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. This paper discusses how a model for developing and maintaining trust in public health officials during food safety incidents and scandals might be applied to pandemic management. The model identifies ten strategies to be considered, including: transparency; development of protocols and procedures; credibility; proactivity; putting the public first; collaborating with stakeholders; consistency; education of stakeholders and the public; building your reputation; and keeping your promises. While pandemic management differs insofar as the responsibility lies with the public rather than identifiable regulatory bodies, and governments must weigh competing risks in creating policy, we conclude that many of the strategies identified in our trust model can be successfully applied to the maintenance of trust in public health officials prior to, during, and after pandemics., (Copyright © 2020 Henderson, Ward, Tonkin, Meyer, Pillen, McCullum, Toson, Webb, Coveney and Wilson.)

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., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Food regulatory bodies play an important role in public health, and in reducing the costs of food borne illness that are absorbed by both industry and government. Regulation in the food industry involves a relationship between regulators and members of the industry, and it is imperative that these relationships are built on trust. Research has shown in a variety of contexts that businesses find the most success when there are high levels of trust between them and their key stakeholders. An evidence-based understanding of the barriers to communication and trust is imperative if we are to put forward recommendations for facilitating the (re)building of trusting and communicative relationships., Methods: We present data from 72 interviews with regulators and industry representatives regarding their trust in and communication with one another. Interviews were conducted in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia in 2013., Results: Data identify a variety of factors that shape the dynamic and complex relationships between regulators and industry, as well as barriers to communication and trust between the two parties. Novel in our approach is our emphasis on identifying solutions to these barriers from the voices of industry and regulators., Conclusions: We provide recommendations (e.g., development of industry advisory boards) to facilitate the (re)building of trusting and communicative relationships between the two parties.

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The importance of consumer trust in the food supply has previously been identified, and dimensions of consumer trust in food-who they trust and the type of trust that they exhibit-has been explored. However, there is a lack of research about the mechanisms through which consumer trust in the food supply is developed, maintained, broken and repaired. This study seeks to address this gap by exploring if, and how, consumer trust in the food supply is considered by the media, food industry and governments when responding to food scares. The aim of the research is to develop models of trust building that can be implemented following food scares., Methods: Semi-structured interviews will be undertaken with media, public relations officials and policy makers in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Participants will be recruited through purposive sampling and will be asked to discuss a hypothetical case study outlining a food incident, and any experiences of specific food scares. Models of trust development, maintenance and repair will be developed from interview data. Comment on these models will be sought from experts in food-related organizations through a Delphi study, where participants will be asked to consider the usefulness of the models. Participants' comments will be used to revise the models until consensus is reached on the suitability and usability of the models., Discussion: This study will contribute to the literature about systems-based trust, and explore trust as a social and regulatory process. The protocol and results will be of interest and use to the food industry, food regulators, consumer advocate groups, media seeking to report food-related issues and policy makers concerned with public health and consumer health and well-being. This research represents an important contribution to the translation of the theoretical conceptualizations of trust into practical use in the context of food.

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]

Purpose -- Distrust of conventional food supply systems impacts consumer food choice. This in turn has implications for consumer nutrition outcomes and acceptance of expert advice regarding food and health. The research exploring consumer trust is found across a broad range of research streams, and is not cohesive in topic or approach. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise the disparate literature exploring the interaction between food labelling and consumer trust to determine what is known, and gaps in knowledge regarding food labelling and consumer trust. Design/methodology/approach -- A systematic search of trust and food labelling literature was conducted, with study results synthesised and integrated. Studies were then critically analysed for the conceptualisation of the consumer, the label, and their interaction with a framework developed using social theories of trust. Findings -- In total, 27 studies were identified. It was found that not only is the current literature predominantly atheoretical, but the conceptualisation of labelling has been limited. Research limitations/implications -- Further empirical research is needed to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the role food labelling plays in influencing consumer trust in food systems. Originality/value -- This research develops a conceptualisation of the dual roles food labelling may play in influencing consumer trust in food systems. It distinguishes between trust in food labelling itself, and the trust consumers develop in the food supply system through food labelling. The novel theoretical model and synthesis provide a foundation upon which future research may be conducted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]