A. Krystallis (1) , L. Frewer (2) , G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3)

1. 15th Society of Risk Analysis Europe (SRA-E) Annual Meeting 11-13 September 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia A Perceptual Divide? Consumer and Expert Attitudes to Food Risk Management (FRM) in Europe A. Krystallis (1), L. Frewer (2), G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3) 1: Agricultural University of Athens, Marketing and Consumer Behavior Group, Greece 2: University of Wageningen, Department of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour,the Netherlands 3: Institute of Food Research, UK

2. 1. Introduction • Food Risk Analysis process comprises 3 interrelated components (FAO/WHO, 1995): • Risk Assessment, • Risk Management, and • Risk Communication • What is included in these 3 components varies according to perspective of different food chain actors, including consumers • Important to understand nature of multiple perspectives: • effective Risk Analysis depends on mutual understanding of the parties involved

3. 2. ‘Expert-lay discrepancy’ phenomenon • Public concern regarding safety of food, together with social distrust in institutions charged with consumer protection • Public concerns often described as excessive or irrational by experts • ‘Expert-lay discrepancy’ phenomenon: difference in opinions between experts and consumers about severity and consequences of food risks (Hansen et al, 2003; Jensen et al, 2005) • Expert-lay differences ascribed to: • experts being more concerned with quantitative issues of frequency and severity of consequences of hazard exposure • lay people being more concerned with broader qualitative aspects of risk

4. Considerable empirical support for expert-lay differences in perceptions about hazards: • in general (e.g. Sandman, 1987; Slovic, 1987); • chemical hazard exposure (Kraus et al, 1992; Slovic et al, 1995); • nuclear energy (Sjoberg et al, 2000); • medical treatments such as blood transfusion (Lee et al, 2003); • biotechnology (Savadori et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004); • zoonotic food-borne risks (Jensen et al, 2005); etc • Much of this research criticised: • either for flawed research methodology (e.g. Rowe and Wright, 2001; Wright et al, 2002) • or for misrepresentation of the processes that bring hazardous activities into the realm of public discourse (Tesh, 1999)

5. 3. Expert-lay differences in Food Risk Management • Investigation of expert-lay differences in FRM less common • Consumer negativity towards FRM is assumed consequence of expert-lay differences in perceptions of how hazards are/should be managed • Possibly there are expert-lay differences in what constitutes good and bad FRM • Increasing EU trend to include consumers actively in FRM • important to understand how experts and consumers react to each others’ views regarding what is good and bad FRM

6. 4. Aim of the research • Present research asks lay people and food risk experts to consider one another’s views on FRM • Interviews with consumers and experts to: • a) examine how they react when confronted with each others’ conceptualisations of what is good FRM practice • so analyse how well theyare able to understand each other • b) identify key FRM quality-related issues where experts and consumers express different levels of agreement • thus revealing elements of expert-lay discrepancy in FRM • c) identify points of departure for future dialogue between consumers and experts to improve mutual understanding about FRM quality

7. 5. Methodology • Telephone follow-up interviews in DK, GE, GR, UK with consumer and expert participants in a series of focus groups: • Consumers presented with series of expert statements on FRM and asked to express their agreement/disagreement and reasoning • Experts undertake a similar exercise with consumer statements • Statements derived from previous focus groups to investigate consumer and expert perceptions of good FRM practice: • Initial f. gr. /country with consumers (Houghton et al, 2006), • to develop discussion guide for 4 f. gr. /country (van Kleef et al,2006): • consumers • food risk assessors (food industry); • food risk managers (regulatory bodies, consumer organisations); • food safety scientists (universities, research institutes)

8. Analysis of f. gr. identified 15 key themes integral to FRM perceptions by consumers and experts (van Kleef et al, 2006) • 2 key FRM-themes emerged only in consumers’ f. gr. • 2 key FRM-themes emerged only in experts’ f. gr. • 11 key FRM themes mutually comparable • 11 statements generated for the follow-up interviews • translated into native languages and back-translated in English • Analysis reports 7 out of 11 key FRM-themes reflecting contradicting views put forward in follow-up interviews • experts and consumers disagree or express different agreement level • selection of themes closely follows 2d objective of the research

10. Follow-up interviews conducted in February-March 2005 • Consumer and expert participants from earlier f. gr: • contacted by letter prior to interview • advised of the format of the interview • given a copy of the 13 statements • subsequently telephone contacts to arrange interview time • Interviews conducted by members of research teams in each country • 32 consumers and 39 expert participants in the f. gr. agreed to take part in follow-up interviews • Participants indicate agreement or disagreement with each of the statements and give reasons accordingly • ‘don’t know’ answers also permitted

13. 6. Results

16. 7. Discussion • Evidence that both consumers and experts agree on what constitutes good practice in FRM • but the reasons for that agreement are often different • see following Figures, middle column and columns to left and right respectively

17. Areas of (mostly) agreement between expert and lay:

18. Areas of (mostly) disagreement between expert and lay:

19. Interpretation differences in perceptions over FRM quality • but opinions within different groups are not mutually exclusive • Not appropriate to talk about expert-lay discrepancy’ in FRM • because of the potential overlap between opinions and attitudes, and • because differences arise in motivation regarding engagement in FRM

20. Implications for improving FRM practices: • experts perceive that consumers approve their activities • unlikely they will be motivated to change current practices • consumers much less approving of what is being done regarding FRM • may exert pressure for future change in these practices • anticipated that experts will be resistant to change • and will continue to blame external factors for problems in the context of consumer perceptions of FRM effectiveness • such as lack of consumer information, or mishandling of risk communication by the media

21. 8. Conclusions • Results indicate that both consumers and experts: • agree that certain themes must be included in any debate about effective FRM practice; • but differ: • in their views of how actions are operationalised by food risk managers • and in their attributions of the motives of key actors • Recognition by experts of best FRM practice must embrace the notion that experts differ from consumers in terms of interpretation of some key themes of FRM effectiveness • Disjunction of perceptions of what constitutes optimal FRM practices will reduce consumer confidence, unless FRM practitioners take due account of consumer perceptions

22. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The research reported is funded by the European Commission and based on results from the fourth work package (WP4) of the Integrated Project “SAFE FOODS”, Promoting food safety through a new integrated risk analysis approach for foods.