British Food JournalEmerald Article: Food safety risk: Consumer perception and purchase behaviour Ruth M.W. Yeung, Joe Morris Article information: To cite this document: Ruth M.W. Yeung, Joe Morris, (2001),"Food safety risk: Consumer perception and purchase behaviour", British Food Journal, Vol. 103 Iss: 3 pp. 170 - 187 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700110386728 Downloaded on: 29-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 82 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 11 other documents To copy this document: [email protected] This document has been downloaded 9595 times. Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ARID AGRICULTURE For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. 3 Consumer perception and purchase behaviour Cranfield University. pp. In many respects.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www. perception of food safety risk has consequences for both consumer and producer welfare. Gregoriadis. Restoring confidence in food now presents a considerable commercial challenge to the food industry (Jardine. psychological assessments of risk. It is also of considerable political significance. # MCB University Press. 170-186.270 millions in 1988 to 6. Bedfordshire. and alleged risks associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food have reduced consumer confidence in the healthiness of food products.com/ft BFJ 103. 1999). British Food Journal.556 millions in 1989 following the emergence of Salmonella (Mintel. bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). this divergence and its consequences have been evident in the UK BSE crisis with respect to . Yeung and Joe Morris Introduction The retail volume sales of beef and veal dropped significantly from 617. Consumer behaviour. and the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the food supply chain.000 tonnes in 1996 after the public announcement which related BSE disease to CJD in humans. Chicken meat Abstract Food safety has become a major issue of public concern. as bacterial outbreaks. 1997. Thus. 1998). 1999. A similar pattern was found in the retail volume sales of eggs. The relevance of strategies adopted by consumers to reduce risk exposure and the influence on the likelihood of food purchase are also explored. encouraging the UK Government and the food industry to take steps to rebuild consumer confidence. Food choice is often influenced more by the psychological interpretation of product properties than the physical properties of products themselves (Rozin et al. 1997). Such divergence may arise because of inadequacy of risk communication systems and/or a loss of confidence or trust in the food supply chain and its various agents. Vol. whose remit includes aspects of reassuring public faith in food. evident in the recent establishment of the Food Standards Agency for England and Wales (Pring.W.000 tonnes in 1988 to 390. Risk perception. In this context. which fell from 8. the paper draws on a review of research literature to develop a conceptual framework to identify and review the factors influencing consumer perception of food safety related risks and the likely impact on purchasing behaviour. Silsoe. This is especially the case where there is considerable divergence between what might be called objective. Perception of food safety risk is one such psychological interpretation which influences the attitudes and behaviour of consumers with respect to the purchase of food products.. 0007-070X Food safety has become a major issue of public concern in the UK. 1986). UK Keywords Food safety. 3. 103 No. Risk reduction. 2001. technical assessments of risk and subjective.emerald-library. Food safety risk 170 Ruth M. Green. including regulators. Hart. together with the implication for the food industry. 1997. The overriding purpose is to identify appropriate risk management strategies for the food industry. situations with serious but highly unlikely hazards might be rated as having very low ``technical'' risk once the magnitude of the hazard is multiplied by the very low probability. including the review of risk associated with the disposal of carcasses potentially contaminated with BSE (DNV Technica. risk and the possible effect on purchase likelihood. The review is carried out in preparation for a proposed analysis of risk induced purchaser behaviour for fresh meat products. therefore. What action do consumers take to relieve their perceived food risk? . Meikle. by definition the context is one of ``uncertainty'' rather than ``risk''. 1999. 1989. for many situations hazardous to public and environmental health. Strategies adopted by consumers to reduce exposure to perceived risk are also examined. 1999. such as minimising regret or satisfying some minimum requirement. The statistical treatment of risk derives an expected average value for a risky situation based on the sum of the products of possible outcomes and their respective relative probabilities. the identities and relative probabilities of outcomes are not fully known and. . the paper works towards a conceptual model which links the antecedent factors which shape consumer perception of food. 2000). risk is technically defined as ``a combination of the probability. consumer risk perception and purchase behaviour. It attempts to answer the questions: . How do the characteristics of food risk affect consumers' risk perception 171 of food safety? . 1997).expressions of public concerns and management responses by industry and Food safety risk Government (MAFF. How does this perception of risk influence food purchase decisions? . Critics of the technical approach to risk definition are quick to point out that it is inadequate for two main reasons. 1992. HMSO. What are the implications for the food industry? Drawing on a review of research literature. 2000). This is the kind of risk assessment often engaged in environmental and safety management. Goodwin and Wright. this paper explores the link between the characteristics of food safety related risk. Decision rules for uncertain situations. First. Definition of risk In the context of potentially harmful situations. 1995). In this context. or frequency. Thus. together with the implications for risk communication and management strategies for the food industry. are very different from those used in risky situations where outcomes and probabilities are to a large extent reasonably well-defined (Wilkes. using the case of chicken meat for which consumer confidence has at times been shaken by concern over contaminated feed and intensive production and processing methods (Bates. of occurrence of a defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence'' (Royal Society. Listeria monocytogenes. feed conversion enhancers and anti-biotic treatments to increase or protect market yield and/or quality of . Previous studies show that between 30 and 100 per cent of broilers at the point of retail sale have been contaminated on the surface with Campylobacter spp. Campylobacter coli.000 in 1998 (Trickett. 1995). Hazards associated with the consumption of food can be classified into sources of risk. individuals and groups exposed to the hazard tend to focus on the severity of possible consequences more than the probability of occurrence when they assess the significance of exposure to risk or uncertainty. This is especially the case when outcomes are particularly ``uncertain''. These are living micro-organisms which can cause food spoilage and possibly food poisoning for the consumer. The presence of Campylobacter spp. 1995). microbiological.BFJ 103. The first two of these are commonly found in chicken meat. Miles et al. These can be harmful to health directly or indirectly. Sources of food risk The analysis of risk relating to food safety can begin with the identification of food hazards. 1999). namely. (Phillips.3 172 1997). chemical and technological hazards. processes and controls in the agricultural and food industries. Trickett (1997) reports that the majority of chickens and many other farm animals carry Salmonella in their intestines due to the frequently contaminated animal feed and intensive rearing methods.000 cases in 1985 to over 93. and Escherichia coli (FSAC. growth control hormone. Phillips (1995) suggests that Campylobacter coli is the most common cause of diarrhoea in the UK associated with eating food contaminated with living bacteria. 1997. Second. It has been reported that major supermarkets have found that up to one in ten chickens has been infected by Salmonella (Meikle. A hazard is an event or occurrence associated with an activity or process. Chemical usage includes the use of agri-chemicals. including food safety issues.. and the reason why technical assessment of risk has proved an inadequate basis for the management of social risk. which can result in negative consequences and thereby provide a source of risk to a receiving environment or population. The incidences of food poisoning in England and Wales rose from below 14. in chicken possibly poses the greatest health risk in case of undercooking (IFST. Chemical hazards Chemical hazards are associated with the use of chemical additives. 1993). The common food poisoning bacteria are Salmonella. 1999). 1993). Microbiological hazards Microbiological hazards include all hazards caused by bacteria. The vast majority of reported food poisoning cases within the UK are bacterial. Salmonella is commonly found in association with raw meat (FSAC. It is this divergence of perspective that is at the root of the difference between technical and social definitions of risk. including those which might arise from production carried out in conditions of general environmental pollution. such as food irradiation and genetic modification of food. Technological hazards Technological hazards refer to the possible negative consequences of technological advancements in food products. The use of irradiation technology is a case in point. some bacteria are resistant to irradiation and these could limit the shelf life of irradiated food (FSAC. There is. 1999. 1993). Fisheries and Food (MAFF). Pollack. Food with a high protein content like chicken may change in flavour and decrease in vitamin after irradiation (IFST. Collins and Oddy. demands that lack of evidence of negative impacts is not a . Clarke and Moran (1995) cite that technological advancements are usually controversial and it is difficult to predict how consumers will accept them. for example. 1999. Barboza. in some cases due to operations carried out in a generally polluted environment. Older age groups in particular disapprove of the use of irradiation in food preservation (Ahmad. 1995). 1999). Meikle and Brown. There are some potential risks to product quality with the technique. 1998. 1999. But it is not unusual for the public to show their concern about new technologies. Smith and Riethmuller. Although the uses of both pesticide and the antibiotic are regulated in the UK by the Ministry of Agriculture. A survey conducted by the UK Consumers Association in 1990 showed that over one-third of consumers did not favour the irradiation of food (Harris. technology has contributed multiple benefits in terms of food safety and increased food availability. however. 1999). Jacobs. Chemicals may be widely used in the processing Food safety risk and distribution stages of the food supply chain to provide or preserve specific product features. Unwanted chemical residues may arise due to inappropriate use or management. 173 Unintentional elements are likely to be unwanted residues from production processes. 1999. Pretty. In general. 1998. The precautionary principle. 1998). concern about high levels of chemical use and the implications for consumer health has led to the inclusion of chemical related risks in the concept of food safety (Wandel. concern that the use of growth-promoters in broiler chickens may reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics when used to treat human life threatening conditions among a population previously exposed to residual antibiotic dosage through the consumption of chicken meat (McKellar. 1999). Food products may purposely or unintentionally contain chemical elements. Some scientists claim that there is insufficient evidence to estimate the risks to public health and the environment of GM foods (Ford and Murphy. partly reflecting a limited understanding of the purpose and method of food irradiation (Miles and Frewer. 1990). Genetically modified (GM) foods became one of the biggest food safety concerns following the publication of a controversial study proving the possible health problems in rats fed with gene-altered potatoes (Gregoriadis. 1999). for example.crop and livestock products. 1999). Weiss. 1994. 1999. however small. voluntariness of risk. 1993). Research has shown that much of the public's reaction to risk could be attributed to sensitivity not only to the technical but also to the social and psychological qualities of hazards (Slovic. Consumers' reaction to the development of biotechnology in food production and subsequent acceptance of result may be affected by perception of both risks and benefits associated with the new technique and its applications (Frewer et al. (1980) have referred to as ``risk characteristics''. 1987). control over risk. Food risk characteristics and risk perception Extensive studies have been conducted to associate the source of food-related risk with consumer risk perception. common-dread (Slovic. . and possibly society as a whole. 1994). supported by balanced and informed debate. Many consumers are convinced that GM technology will benefit suppliers rather than consumers. chronic-catastrophic. This is the reason why consumer behaviour during periods of food scare is often judged by scientists and industrialists to be due to irrationality or to ignorance of the true facts (Lofstedt and Frewer. ``unknown''. carrying the risk of negative consequences. knowledge about risk. newness.3 174 reason for adopting a technology if there is a reasonable chance that such impacts could arise. that is where there is a technical risk. further raises the sense of uncertainty about GM foods among a less scientifically informed public. with an emphasis on consumer education is a key determinant of consumer confidence in food safety. immediacy of effect. Slovic (1987) further shows that some risk characteristics are correlated with one another across a wide range of hazards. These factors serve to modify. and which form the basis of consumer concerns. hazards with delayed adverse effects tend to be ``unknown'' to the public. however. that consumer risk perception of food safety is determined not so much by the hazard per se as with the social and psychological characteristics of the food hazard. and in many cases amplify. characterized by the diversity of opinions expressed by scientists and other experts.. 1998). 1995). with the latter. The continuing debate. and ``number of people exposed to the risk''. Slovic and his colleagues suggest a set of risk characteristics to explain public perception. It appears. Greater knowledge. Most people have a limited understanding of GM technology because it is relatively new and complex (Miller and Huttner. It is important therefore that the scientific debate is translated for general consumption. the technical-based assessment of risk to produce the social perception of risk.BFJ 103. such as severity of consequences. and that social perception of risk is out of line with the technical assessment of risk. and in so doing account for the difference that emerges between the two definitions of risk. namely ``dread''. Hazards perceived to be voluntary tend to be judged controllable. It is these latter social interpretations of food risk which Slovic et al. He suggests that three antecedent factors or attributes which influence risk perception have been identified in several studies. Similarly. Mintel's senior consultant on consumer goods. Fife-Shaw and Rowe (1996) also include the variables such as harm to vulnerable groups. inequitability.Sandman (1987) grouped these social dimensions of risk under the broad Food safety risk title of ``outrage''. Sparks and Shepherd (1994) relate ``dread'' to a variety of variables. people often perceive higher risk if they think that they are not well informed and their right to free choice is compromised (Walkley. Moreover. threat of disastrous consequences. Frewer et al. involuntary (Slovic. risk increasing. For example. reflecting the degree to which people feel compromised by exposure to uncertain but potentially significant hazards without their consent and without potentially compensating benefit. Miles et al. degree of dread. and risk becoming more serious. Recent research confirms that risk perceptions and attitudes are closely related to Slovic's three risk attributes (Sparks and Shepherd. 1994. such as preparing and eating food at home. 1999). With respect to food. compared with situations in which they have perceived control. 1999. In addition. not easily reduced. likely delayed effects and causes of worry. seriousness for future generations. 1987). Dread Slovic used the factor of ``dread'' to capture such variables as uncontrollable. global catastrophic potential. research shows that recent experience of the BSE crisis has been translated into a general distrust of GM technology. they are likely to demand greater protection from food risks if they have limited perceived control (HMSO. the benefits of which are perceived to accrue mainly to 175 meat producers and processors rather than to consumers. For instance. a hazardous event. fatal consequences. Wandel (1994) found that people perceive food related health risk as more dreadful if it is involuntary than if it is voluntary. such as concern. such as eating in restaurants. Starr (1985) reports that people accept risks from voluntary activities that may be 1. James McCoy. Perceptions of ``dread'' are modified by perception of control. 1993). information and choice. Building on this. 1995). Subsequently. These are discussed in turn. likely effect on future generations. Sandman has used this concept to help organisations formulate communication strategies which attempt to minimize the potential damage of outrage among customers and other stakeholders when an organization has misread public concern (Sandman. which is close in time or space. people associate greater risk with circumstances and practices which they perceive are controlled by others. high risk to future generations. Miles. 1999). Raats and Shepherd. (1995) cite that ``increasing perceptions of personal control may reduce perception of personal risks''. makes the risk easier to visualise and heightens the sense of risk.. argues that this will continue to beset the efforts of . potential to cause serious harm to health. 1996. consumers may feel outrage that they are exposed to potential health risks by consuming unlabelled GM products.000 times as great as they would tolerate from involuntary hazards that provide the same level of benefits. fearful. and risk unknown to science. and in the absence of return events or reminders. Raats and Shepherd (1996) also reported that chemical hazards such as pesticide and antibiotic residues which are perceived to be harmful and poisonous scored high on the ``dread'' factor. however improbable. the perceived adequacy of government regulations to protect people's health. the severity of the consequences in many people's minds was sufficient to curtail beef consumption. the more people want to see risk reduced. are attributed a moderate dread score due to their involuntary nature (Frewer et al. The dread factor reflects the observation that risk perception is shaped more by the severity of the consequences than by the probability of occurrence. and accuracy of own assessment are strongly correlated with the ``unknown'' factor.. especially regarding the probability of occurrence. With time. Generally. people very often attribute high risks to food products if they have less knowledge of chemical or technological processes. . 1995). Miles (1999) argues that ``uncertainty'' regarding probability and identity of hazard is judged to be serious where people believe that risks are unknown to scientists or risk regulators. Sparks and Shepherd (1994) further show that variables of risks known to those exposed. 1987). Indeed. Research has shown that microbiological contamination such as Salmonella and Listeria are rated high on the ``dread'' factor due to their severe consequences (Sparks and Shepherd. 1999).BFJ 103. 1994). Potentially fatal events. In spite of repeated reassurances by Government that the probability of humans contracting new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) was extremely small. People tend to perceive that risks that are familiar to them are less than those that are unfamiliar (HMSO. and the reputation of organizations responsible for protecting people from harm. Unknown Slovic (1987) relates the ``unknown'' factor to the variables of not observable. memories fade and in some cases complacency may increase the real rather than the perceived risk. 1998). Technological hazards. Conversely. effect delayed. unknown to those exposed. familiarity with a product. and the more they want to see strict regulation to achieve the desired reduction in risk (Slovic. such as GMOs in food.. the higher is its perceived risk. Fife-Shaw and Rowe (1996) add other variables. Regulation and legislation help protect against this tendency. new risk. risk known to science. The beef sector collapsed immediately after evidence of a possible link between the BSE prion and CJD in humans (Latouche et al. the higher a hazard's score on the ``dread'' factor. or where they hide the risk information from the public. process or practice can breed complacency about the degree of risk. such as the characteristics of individuals or organizations responsible for the hazard. Sparks and Shepherd (1994) further support that ``dread'' is significant to public risk perception.3 176 developing GM foods (Gregoriadis. 1995). tend to focus the mind because the consequences are so severe. 1994. Society is not willing to accept risks that affect a great number of people. 1994). They tend to expect low rather than high benefits of new technology (Frewer et al. not least because a greater proportion of the population will feel outraged by the exposure and seek redress. however. Frewer and Shepherd (1999) report that media reports tend to emphasize the catastrophic potential of technology especially where risks are undefinable or unmeasurable. the greater the willingness to take risk (Wandel.It is apparent that tolerance of risk is positively correlated with perceived Food safety risk benefit. Technological hazards often scored the highest on the ``unknown'' factor due to the perceived high level of uncertainty. 177 1998). However. Raats and Shepherd. Sparks and Shepherd. Large-scale consequences very often attract more attention in the media than individual smaller consequences (HMSO. For example. the higher is the perceived risk. The potential spread of a hazard is correlated with the factors of dread and unknown. Many studies have. the greater the extent. The rejection of GM food technology compares interestingly with the rapid uptake of mobile phones. coli outbreak linked to contaminated meat products (The Guardian. less willing to accept risk where such benefits are unproven or uncertain (Frewer at al. (1995) point out that people very often link benefit and risk to specific applications of technology.. 1995). Risk perception and purchase likelihood The preceding discussion focused on the definition of risk and risk perception in the context of potentially hazardous and harmful consequences to consumers. (1988) argue that massive media coverage is more likely to heighten the perception of risk and demand for action to alleviate perceived risk. 1996). Similar findings have been obtained in several studies (e. Consequently.g. where users perceive benefits which appear to compensate for possible health risks. Microbiological and technological hazards are likely to score particularly high on this factor because they have the potential to affect many people. Extent Slovic (1987) labels the third factor as ``the number of people exposed to the risk''. Frewer et al. attempted to measure risk perception . a call for food hygiene training for butchers and improved hygiene in abattoirs was raised immediately after 21 pensioners in Lanarkshire died in an E. 1994). where consumers perceive that health risks are insufficiently compensated for by potential benefits to them as consumers.. For instance. 1999). Chemical hazards tend to be rated relatively high on the ``unknown'' factor because people view these as unnatural and unfamiliar. Kasperson et al. the bigger the benefit. there is no consensus on the definition of this factor. and are therefore. The aforementioned research has shown that microbiological hazards tend to be scored low on the ``unknown'' factor due to high overall perceived knowledge. referred to here as ``extent'' for convenience. This appears to be the case with GM technology. 1974. 1999. social. Kaplan et al. 1967. time. some kind of consequent loss would be perceived if a particular goal is unlikely to be achieved. financial. For example. 1971. performance. The concept of risk perception as a multi-dimensional phenomenon with the overall risk subdivided into various losses has been explored by a number of researchers. 1967b. but exclude time loss. Bauer (1967) was among the first to propose that it is not the objectivity of risk that motivates consumer behaviour.g. Yavas. Cox (1967a) further defined perceived risk as a function of subjective uncertainty perceived by the consumer and the consequence of not satisfying the goals of the purchase decision. the two-component model of risk perception has been adopted by researchers. Mitchell. Roselius. 1995. Damage to health is one such consequent loss. more to do with a product under-performing than being unsafe. The concept comprises a set of interrelated multidimensional components. performance goals and psychosocial goals. Mitchell (1998a) identified five components of risk perception. even if consumers could calculate correctly the risk involved. there seems to be some reasonable evidence that subsequent consumer behaviour is shaped by this risk perception. namely: hazards which are dangerous to health. time. Mitra et al. These included so-called functional goals. 1999). (1999) included six components ± physical. 1967b. 1998b). He argues that this multi-dimensional analysis significantly improves the understanding of risk perception (Mitchell. Cunningham. performance.. and psychosocial. but subjective impressions of it. Cox. money and time wasted for replacing the product. Mitchell and Greatorex.3 178 in a broader marketing context (e. Tse. and separate ego loss into psychological and social factors. (1974) add performance loss to this framework. Roselius (1971) identified three types of potential loss in his framework for perceived risk. Bauer. Generally.BFJ 103. comprising the probability of a loss occurring and the magnitude or seriousness of the loss once it has occurred. once a risk has been perceived in a purchase situation. In the context of service marketing. Taylor. namely: physical. physical and social types of loss in the study of consumer risk perception in the UK wine market. set against the cost incurred to attain the goal. Agrawal. functional. and psychological ± as does Tse (1999) in his study of consumer perception of product safety in electronic goods. He argued that. 1988. and loss of ego or self-esteem when the product fails. Such research focuses on outcomes that are more disappointing than they are threatening to consumer welfare. Mitra et al. In a study of predominantly non-safety consumer risk perception in grocery retailing. Mitchell and Greatorex (1988) concentrate on non-safety financial. financial. in some cases either multiplied . The consumer may be unhappy but is not necessarily exposed to a hazard. In turn. 1999) where the risky or uncertain outcome in a purchase decision is that a product does not perform according to expectations. 1992. Risk components have been measured in scalar quantities of low through to high in order to reflect perceptions (for example. 1967. as shown in Table I. they often develop strategies to reduce risk that enable them to act with relative confidence and ease in situations when the outcomes and consequences cannot be anticipated (Bauer. Eom (1994) confirms that consumers refrained from produce perceived to contain pesticide in order to reduce health risks. 1968. Correspondingly.(Cunningham. 1967a) or added (Lanzetta and Driscoll. the purchase of offending product. providing evidence of a negative relationship between risk perception and purchase likelihood. paying for medical treatment or loss of income due to sickness Time. associated with microbiological. chemical or technological factors The taste and/or nutritional value of food product is adversely affected by the food hazard The cost of replacing the spoiled food. In a similar context. Regarding food safety. the goal is to acquire food products which 179 have the desired consumption attributes. permanently or temporarily. associated with decline in food safety. 1967a). Huang (1993) reports. are safe to eat. that consumers show a tendency to avoid food products which are in their view potentially contaminated. namely to: (1) stop. Both studies highlight the importance of the subjective nature of risk perceptions in purchase behaviour. Cox. effort in repurchasing and time lost due to illness Poor food choice leading to social embarrassment if the food product is contaminated Worries or concerns experienced by consumers that consumers are exposed to safety risk Performance loss Financial loss Time loss Social loss Psychological loss Table I. Roselius (1971) observed that consumers tend to adopt one of four broad actions to reduce perceived risk in a purchase. the uncertainty of achieving food safety goals may lead to some possible consequent losses for consumers. The measurement of perceived risk in this marketing context can provide a useful framework for assessing the link between food safety and risk perception with respect to potentially hazardous and harmful consequences to consumers. 1973) to Food safety risk derive an estimate of total perceived risk. Components of perceived risk associated with food safety . in an empirical study of residue-free produce. Recent research shows that risk perception and purchase behaviour are causally linked: the former is an important explanatory variable of the latter. Risk reduction and purchase behaviour Where consumers perceive risk. and are free of contamination and therefore free of worry to the consumer. Bettman. Perceived risk component Physical loss Implication Negative health impacts on consumers. such as adopting a meat free diet. convenience. store image. This suggests the way in which consumers commonly seek risk relief. but exclude government and private testing (see Table II). such as switching from beef to poultry. major brand image. government testing. It appears. beyond those identified above. 1998a). or to one for which there is greater tolerance. expensive model. the greater is the likely action to reduce the risk. high food hygiene standards in store.BFJ 103. and the way in which food suppliers might facilitate this in terms of quality assurance and information. He identified 11 risk relievers: brand loyalty. 1999). that major food multiples very often use price reduction or special offers to support sales and maintain purchases during periods of poor consumer confidence in a product. should the product not perform according to expectations. likely to impact on consumer attitudes towards risk and the range and selection of risk relievers. product information.3 180 (2) reduce the purchase of the offending product and thereby reduce the exposure to perceived risk. Continuing surveillance of risk perception is therefore necessary to accommodate changes in consumers' needs. convenience goods. (3) shift from one product to another similar type of product with less perceived risk. This is especially the case with respect to growing concerns about food safety when consumers seek good quality food at affordable prices. Changes over time in technology and society are. For their part. such as eating less meat. Roselius (1971) developed the notion of risk relieving devices and actions which consumers choose according to preference and to the type of risk involved where consumers have to absorb the unresolved risk. free sample. 1990). The greater the perception of risk in terms of either probability or consequences. and reliable and helpful information when food scares occur (Pugh. endorsement. Consumers may be willing to trade off risk against a discounted price. however. and shopping for goods and services. trial and special offers to the previous list. however. Mitchell and Greatorex (1990) proposed 14 risk relievers relevant for various food items. Erevelles (1993) shows that consumers generally perceived a higher price to be associated with higher financial risk. money-back guarantee. They add consumer guides. and word of mouth. private testing. cheaper choice. Risk aversion is likely to be heightened in the case of food safety-related risk because the severity of the consequences to the consumer are much greater than purchasing risk associated with product under-performance. It is likely. Most purchasers appear to be risk averters. more often motivated to avoid mistakes than to maximize utility in purchasing (Mitchell. therefore. that consumers will reduce purchases of an offending product once a possible food hazard is perceived. shopping around. but this may not be . or (4) continue to purchase and absorb the unresolved risk. motives and perceived risks (Mitchell. indicating that the perceived risk associated with a particular product is tolerable and no greater than alternatives. Airlines. In this respect. can become a discriminatory factor and one for which some purchasers may be willing or able to pay. product traceability has been a key issue in . It is unlikely.Risk reducing method Brand loyaltya Brand imagea Quality assurance b Implication Same brand bought because of satisfaction in the past Well-known or reputable brand Labelling or traceability to reassure consumers of the product quality and source Food product tested and/or approved by an government laboratory or related institution Food product tested and approved by a private testing company High quality associated with high priced product a Food safety risk Government testinga Private testinga Expensive product Price reduction Store imagea Shopping a b a 181 Money back guarantee Money back for spoiled food Special offer for a particular product during food scare Reputation of the store Shop around to compare product features on several brands in several stores Labels include product information such as ingredients. Risk reducing strategies associated with food safety Labellingb Consumer guide/leaflet)b Free samplea Word of mouth Endorsements a a a Notes: Adapted from Roselius (1971). should not be the case. whether for food or travel. for example. Given the perceived consequences of unsafe food. Information is another important risk reliever. which. some consumers are willing to pay marginally higher prices for quality assurance and hence reduced risk in food. do not explicitly use flight safety as a distinguishing characteristic. cooking instructions and so forth Guidelines or information about food hygiene and food safety Food products used on a trial basis before buying Friends or family recommendations Endorsement or testimonials from a celebrity Table II. Of course. especially during periods of safety concern. during periods of heightened concern. it is doubtful whether discount pricing is an appropriate strategy either from the buyer's or from the seller's viewpoint in the absence of other risk reducing actions. to be a sustainable basis for product discrimination. b Adapted from Mitchell and Greatorex (1990) the case where the characteristic associated with higher price is that of safety assurance. this assumes that food safety is a variable that distinguishes products.. Taylor (1974) showed that consumers wish to acquire more information if there are uncertain outcomes of purchase decisions. safety. But. Some are willing to pay extra for the perceived reduced risks associated with the consumption of organic food (Latouche et al. 1998). however. Indeed. under general circumstances. nutrition values. uncertain characteristics of food safety risks. consumer risk perception tends to give greater weight to the perceived potential severity of unhealthy food than the probability of exposure. In this context. The sources of risk tend to be associated with different scores on these antecedent factors. whereas technology and chemical hazards score relatively highest in terms of the ``unknown'' factor. the literature support the contention that. Conceptual model of consumer food purchase relating to food safety The preceding review of research literature can be used to construct a conceptual model for consumer food purchase decision making. For example. This is one area where more research is justified. as it is influenced by food safety (Figure 1). they draw on a range of risk reducing strategies such as purchasing branded or quality assured products or seeking advice or endorsements from trusted sources. Communications. to a lesser extent. It is also apparent that consumers modify their purchasing decisions in order to relieve perceived risk: by reducing. Furthermore. It does appear that consumers are able to distinguish these sources of risk. 182 Figure 1.3 the wake of the BSE crisis. which describe risk as a very small technical probability. although they may not fully understand them. ``unknown'' and ``extent''. namely ``dread''. In particular. Where consumers face unresolved risk. chemical and technological factors. The major sources of food safety risk relate to microbiological. given the nature of food safety risk. there is a negative correlation between perception of risk and purchase likelihood. tend to fall on deaf or hostile ears. and consistent with the theory of risk. the perception of food safety risk is influenced by a combination of perceptions of the degree of exposure to a hazard and the consequences of this exposure. that is the ability to identify and determine the credentials of the farm and the carcass from which a particular cut of meat came (Whitworth and Simpson.BFJ 103. Empirical evidence during food scares and. Conceptual model of consumer food purchase relating to food safety . shifting or postponing the purchase of the offending product where this is possible. other things being equal. These different sources of risk appear to be associated with different risk characteristics or antecedents. risk perceptions are heightened by the ``unknown''. 1997). microbiological risk scores relatively high in terms of dread. which strongly influence risk perception. and Oddy. Nutrition & Food Science. M. pp. Harvard University Press. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. (1967a). Bettman.). (1967). D. 1899-1999 ± changing issues in food safety regulation and nutrition''. (1999). mutually beneficial relationships between suppliers and consumers. (Ed. pricing (including discount and discriminatory pricing). ``The centenary of the British Food Journal. New York. Bates. is set in this context. or remedial confidence rebuilding in the aftermath of a food safety event.F. in Cox. D. therefore. E. that those engaged in the food supply chain. (1999). ``Consumer behaviour as risk taking''. J. Collins. Cox. New York. and distribution systems and logistics (including quality assurance and traceability). have a clear understanding of how and why 183 consumers perceive food safety risk.F. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior.). Boston. in Cox. (1973). Vol. Responses by the food industry could include segregating markets according to risk perceptions or behaviour. The industry could draw benefit from exploring how consumer perception of food safety risk varies in response to alternative marketing strategies such as product design (relating to microbiological. 13 No 2. R. ``Food irradiation ± facts and fiction''. The current research study. emergency response during food safety ``scares''. Vol. NY. Furthermore. Boston.A.Implications for food industry risk management strategy Food safety risk Consumer risk perception and the impact on purchasing behaviour are seen to be very relevant to food safety issues.R. Consumer risk management strategies clearly respond to and influence the risk management strategies adopted by the food industry. They also need to know how best to address these concerns by explicitly integrating risk management strategy within the marketing mix. J. from farm to retail outlet. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. 95 No. 6. it is important that risk analysis and management adopt a whole supply chain perspective. MA. D. New York Times. D. Clarke. ``Warning labels: the role of expertise and perceived risk in pharmaceutical purchase behaviour''. pp. of which this literature review is part. NY. Health Marketing Quarterly. ``US rejects EU pork and poultry''. and Moran. 3. Harvard University Press. 12 November. MA. Of course. (Ed. 10-11. D. 10. Ahmad. J. 5 June. (1995). British Food Journal. Nutrition & Food Science. References Agrawal. (1995). ``An investigation into the current market for fruit in the UK and the measures taken to promote an increase in consumer consumption''. Bauer. It is important. 100 No. promotions and communications (including methods to inform or persuade about risk). ``Biotech companies take on critics of gene-altered food''. Vol. pp.F. given that the overall marketing purpose is to build enduring. A. The Guardian. Vol. (1999). chemical and technological features). ``Risk handling in consumer behaviour ± an intensive study of two cases''. risk management strategies need to match circumstances and purposes: whether ongoing maintenance of confidence in food safety. ``Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test''. 99-108. S. 95 No. . 184-90. 436-550. Barboza. (1995). L. Y. 487-500.F. ``The price-warranty contract and product attitudes''.M. Cunningham. Howard. in Cox. ``Understanding public attitudes to technology''. L. ``Blair should listen to the screamers''. pp. ``Consumer perceptions of food risks''. C. Food Safety Advisory Centre. 1 No. and Shepherd. pp. Hart.F. Environmental Management and Health. pp. in National Consumer Council (Ed. Boston. 27 No. and Murphy. pp. L. S. Huang. and Rowe. Harvard University Press. Det Norske Veritas Ltd.F. pp. Overview of Risks from BSE via Environmental Pathways for the Environment Agency. Cunningham. Your Food. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. 9. (Eds). (1990). 9 No.. R. G. ``Consumer perceptions of modern food biotechnology''. 4. (1995). Fife-Shaw. Howard. 221-35.M. ``Can agency pull off the confidence trick?''. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. and Wright.. British Food Journal. Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. December.. pp. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Report for the Environment Agency. (Ed. Vol. (1967b). Vol. Journal of Risk Research. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. (1999). L. HMSO (1995). MN. (1993). in Roller. Frewer. attitudes. St Paul. C. The Grocer. Risk Analysis. (1997). 76 No. D. September. Vol. pp. ``Science at the supermarket''. ``Perceived risk and brand loyalty''. London. (1998). 27. A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection. Food Science and Technology. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. 4415. MA. 96 No. (1996). (The) Guardian (1999). S. IFST (1998). ``Countdown to the food crisis''. (1967a). Bristol. Frewer. Green. ``Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: psychometric study''. (Ed. Erevelles. ``The major dimensions of perceived risk''. and Sparks. 4. D. 171-81. Harvard University Press. G. 77-8. 9 No. Goodwin.) (1967b). Wiley. FSAC (1993).L. C. ``Foodborne Campylobacteriosis ± and how to safeguard against it''. R..). Ford. 3. New Statesman. ``GM foods overtake BSE as top safety concern. 760-72. S. 16 No. . 183-4. Vol. S. Blackie Academic & Professional. P. Vol. 3. London. P. Institute of Food Science & Technology. London. position paper. 15 February. Vol. ``The use of irradiation for food quality and safety''. (Ed. pp. (1994). Department of the Environment. N. R. 2. position statement.3 184 Cox. 4 September. The Guardian. DNV Technica (1997). MA. says survey''. L. Shepherd. Harris.BFJ 103. 377-88. 4. L.). (1999). Institute of Food Science & Technology. 127 No. in Cox. and willingness-to-pay for residue-free produce''. Eom. ``Managing environmental risks from genetically modified organisms: the role of safety training''. Food Safety ± Questions and Answers. ``Pesticide residue risk and food safety valuation: a random utility approach''. R. (1994). (1998). Journal of Business Research. ``Simultaneous-equation model for estimating consumer risk perceptions. and Shepherd. ``Biotechnology and food production: knowledge and perceived risk''.J. (1997). G. (1993). Boston. 220 No. Harvard University Press. MA. Frewer.J. 27. 212-16. Genetic Modification in the Food Industry. Vol. 27-8. Boston. p. Vol. p. Vol. D. Frewer. HMSO. (1998). Gregoriadis. IFST (1995). 7313. E. Vol. and Shepherd. C. S. and Harlander. Whose Choice?.S. 59. pp. Madison. 2nd ed. D.). HMSO. and Greatorex. H. ``Effective risk communication about food-related hazards: a review of the literature''. ``Public perceptions about microbiological hazards in food''. biotech: public outcry over genetically modified foods has the US agricultural industry backpedaling''. Vol. D.B. ``A preliminary investigation into pre. Vol. Mitchell. ``Having chicken for Sunday lunch?''. 8 February. Lofstedt. Vol. (1999). Miles. The Guardian. (1994).and post-purchase risk''. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The Guardian. 100 No. Journal of Applied Psychology. 18 February. 479-86. Kaplan. (1999). (1968).. (1988). 23 No. S. R. and Vermersch. and Boustani. ``Effects of uncertainty and importance on information search in decision making''. Mitchell. European Journal of Marketing.M.. Vol. ``GM scare strains retailers ± genetically modified foods''. M. pp. J. and Raticks. L. Brown. K. 163-95. S. (1998). ``A role for consumer risk perceptions in grocery retailing''.-W. European Journal of Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. Oxford. 3. V. J. 5 October. Kasperson. (Eds) (1998). Vol. and Capella. British Food Journal. and Jacoby. Proceedings of 23rd MEG Conference. ``Consumer risk perception in the UK wine market''. 9. 14 No. Vol. June. J. MAFF (2000). August. McKellar. L. 7. ``Defining and measuring perceived risk''. V. Miles. R. S. Mintel (1997). 380-4.-W. Mintel. (2000).. P. Slovic. and Driscoll. 2. Marketing. G. Miles. pp. Jardine. 3. J. information search and behavioral intentions in search.S. S. Szybillo.. (1999). pp. Ministry of Agriculture. 4. The Los Angeles Times. ``Food produced with new biotechnology: can labeling be anticonsumer?''.X. D. 1/2. pp. ``The food industry''. (1995). CA. The Journal of Services Marketing. M. Latouche. 330-34. 59 No. ``Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models''. pp. (1999). pp. 4. A.C.. (1990). Food Policy. K. Goble. J. ``Up to one in five chickens or turkeys contaminated''. Q. O. Mitchell. Kasperson. pp. and Frewer.-W.E. ``An examination of perceived risk. 33 No. (1974). L. 22 No. Meikle. R.-W. 4.-W. (1999).M. Fisheries and Food. Mitchell. (1999). 171-83. Rainelli.. British Food Journal. 940-55. Food safety risk 185 . 2. M.J. 29 January. and Greatorex. V. The Academy of Marketing Annual Conference. 5-15. pp. H. P. Vol. pp. Mitra. Earthscan Publications Ltd. L. 5. Renn. J. V. 56-71.E. Nutrition & Food Science. p. 10 No. and Frewer.. and Huttner. Reiss. ``Food safety''. (1999). Vol. J. and Frewer. Meikle. 208-28. 7 September. Emel. 10. 8. The Institute of Agricultural Management: National Farm Management Conference. (1999). 347-56.. (1998a). 287-91. European Journal of Marketing.. Braxton. pp. November. Meikle. ``Protest may mow down trend to alter crops. Mitchell. 177-87. ``Alarms rang 50 years ago''. Vol. (1998b). Vol. ``Components of perceived risk in product purchase: a cross-validation''. J. (1999). Vol. (1999).T. 99 No. P. 744-62.-W. ``Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case''. L.Jacobs. experience and credence services''. Miller. The Earthscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society. MAAF project number FS1844. V. ``Perceived risk and risk reducing strategies across product classification''. pp. pp. P. The BSE Inquiry Report: The Inquiry into BSE and Variant CJD in the United Kingdom (The Phillips Report). Mitchell. 13 No. 1. The Guardian. London. S. ``Antibiotics and resistance in farm animals''. pp. and Brown. 101 No. 28 No. Vol. Risk Analysis. ``The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework''. London. V. Lanzetta. (1988). Los Angeles. P. Vol.. ``Gene-altered food study fuels a fire''. ``Cutting through the red tape in Europe''. 3-7. Starr. Fairfax. Vol. (1994). M. Vol. Risk Analysis. (1997). The Washington Post. DC. ``FSA steps into a nanny state?''. 911-25. The Living Land ± Agriculture. (1993). P. 17 No. Perception and Management. Risk Analysis. 97-102. T. 1. 2. Fischhoff. Plenum. W. D. A. pp. New York. (1987). Gofton. Yavas. (1986). Vol. Tse. EPA Journal. assessment and acceptability''. (1987). and Albers. 13. pp. 21-2. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategy for Effective Risk Communication. NY. McGraw-Hill.3 186 Phillips. pp. Sparks. Nutrition & Food Science. (1985). Slovic. R. M. 220 No. P. Pring. ``Facts and fears: understanding perceived risks''. (1989). 13 No. ``Perceived risk. 1. P. pp. 30-32. (1999). ``Public perceptions of the potential hazard associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study''. Vol. 724-41. Vol. Pollack. 9/10. 1.B. 95 No. 9-18. 5. Wandel. Vol. American Industrial Hygiene Association. ``Factors affecting consumer perceptions of product safety''. S. 133-46. (1980). Wilkes. pp. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe IS Safe Enough?. New York Times. Vol. The Grocer. Vol. (1999). ``Risk communication: facing public outrage''. pp. Trickett. Pretty. ``Developing a subject-derived terminology to describe perceptions of chemicals in foods''. The Food Consumer. The Grocer. Weiss. 236.. 2nd ed. R. Earthscan Publications Ltd. M. ``Food safety and the retail industry''. pp. (1971).. (1990). 7322. (1996). Risk: Analysis. and Fallon. in Schwing. 35-40. Vol. Roselius. P. Frozen Food Age. 5. Risk Analysis. 18 No. (1974).M. Journal of International Marketing and Marketing Research. 6. pp. ``Psychological factors influencing food choice''.. 38. Slovic. VA. New York. Royal Society (1992). 219 No. Science. (1993). pp. ``A disputed study suggests possible harm from genetically altered food''. (1994). (Eds). P. ``Consumer concerns about food safety in Australia and Japan''. Rozin. 181-216. C. pp. (1998). 15 October. 280-5. G. M. Sandman. Vol. NY. pp. (1999). 675-82. A. and Simpson. 34-6. Pelchat. R. 26 No. 33 No. and Shepherd. 16 No. 35 No. pp. R. ``Perception of risk''. ``Aggro culture ± integration of farming and food retailing''. . ``Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods''.E. M. C. J. Basingstoke. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. pp. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ``The role of risk in consumer behaviour''. J. J. A. 15 October. P. and Lichtenstein. 56-61. ``Out-of-country travel patterns in an Arabian Gulf country''. J.L. Washington. 799-805. Sandman P. Chichester and New York. Smith. Raats. S. British Food Journal. Slovic. 6. pp. R. P.C. Vol. European Journal of Marketing. 54-60. B. 7. A. 6..M. trust and democracy''. Vol. International Journal of Social Economics.BFJ 103. 85-106. London. (1992). pp. Walkley. Risk Analysis. Vol. Whitworth. Vol. (1997). London. Journal of Marketing. ``Understanding consumer concern about food-related health risks''. 14 No. pp. Food Hygiene for Food Handlers. Jr (Eds). and Riethmuller. Journal of Marketing. ``Incidence of Campylobacter and possible modes of transmission''. Operations Research: Analysis and Applications. London. ``Risk management. The Royal Society. Macmillan Press Ltd. 96 No. Vol. (1999). in Ritson. Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe. pp. (1999). U. and Shepherd. Pugh. Vol. (1995). C. L. (1997). Taylor. New York. 7312. and McKenzie. NY.