Article information: Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Transcription

1 British Food Journal Emerald Article: Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer Article information: To cite this document: Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp Permanent link to this document: Downloaded on: References: This document contains references to 37 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 18 other documents To copy this document: This document has been downloaded 3780 times since * Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: * Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY 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. Please visit for more information. About Emerald 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.

2 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at BFJ 110, Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability Wendy van Rijswijk University of Dundee, Dundee, UK and University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK, and Lynn J. Frewer Wageningen University, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Wageningen, The Netherlands Abstract Purpose The research presented here aims to gain understanding of consumers perceptions of the concepts of food quality and safety, two concepts that play an important role in how consumers perceive food, and that are used in decision making. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n ¼ 163 consumers) were held in four European countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain). Consumers own definitions of the two concepts of food quality and safety were examined, together with the perceived interrelationship between quality and safety, and whether these concepts were linked to improved food chain traceability. Findings The results indicate that most consumers see food quality and food safety as interlinked concepts, which becomes evident in their partly overlapping definitions of the two concepts. Consumers believe both food safety and quality are important to food in general, but pay relatively more attention to food quality when purchasing a product. Traceability was linked not only to food safety, but also to food quality in the mind of the consumer. Research limitations/implications Future research on consumer perceptions of food quality and safety will need to take account of the observation that these concepts are strongly related in consumers minds, and therefore cannot be easily separated in explaining consumer choices. Originality/value Instead of investigating consumer perceptions of food quality and safety in relation to specific products, consumer perceptions of food quality and food safety in general, and how these were related to each other, were studied. Further understanding was gained of how consumers might use these concepts in judgements about food, which, in turn may influence their purchase decisions. Keywords Consumers, Perception, Food products, Quality, Food safety, Europe Paper type Research paper British Food Journal Vol. 110 No. 10, 2008 pp q Emerald Group Publishing Limited X DOI / The research described in this paper is part of the Tracing the origin of food (TRACE) project, which is funded by the European Commission through the Sixth Framework Programme (contract CT ). The following persons contributed to the research described in this paper: C. Bauer and B. Schaer, EcoZept Freising, Germany; P. de Carlos, J. Briz and I. de Felipe, Polytechnic University Madrid, Spain; D. Menozzi, G. Faioli and C. Mora, University of Parma, Italy; C. Amblard, R. Halawany and G. Giraud, ENITAC, France; P. Chrysochou, G. Chryssochoidis and O. Kehagia, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece. The information contained in this paper reflects the authors views; the European Commission is not liable for any use of the information contained therein.

3 Introduction Quality and safety are two important elements in consumer food perceptions and decision making associated with food choice (Grunert, 2005; Röhr et al., 2005). Consumers are believed to generally prefer products of high quality. However, the underlying cognitive determinants of quality and safety are not sufficiently understood within the area of consumer behaviour. Furthermore, the relationship between the two concepts has not been the subject of extensive empirical investigation. Previous research has frequently treated the concepts of quality and safety as separate entities, and, as a consequence, addresses only one or the other of the two concepts in the development of research questions. In addition, food quality and safety are usually studied in relation to specific products or product categories rather than in more general terms. The current investigation aims to examine the role of consumers perceptions of food quality and safety in their decision making in general, and at the same time to examine their possible interrelationship. Moreover, we will examine the relationship between quality, safety and traceability, because traceability potentially has an impact on consumers perceptions of both food safety as well as food quality (European General Food Law; EC directive 178/2002). Perceptions of food quality and safety 1035 Food quality and food safety It is important to understand consumers own perceptions and representations of quality and safety. This is because consumers will base their purchasing decisions on these beliefs. Nevertheless, quality and safety are concepts that cannot be easily defined, because they are classified as credence attributes (i.e. product attributes that cannot be verified by the consumer). Consumers are likely to derive quality or safety perceptions from other product cues, either intrinsic (e.g., appearance of the product) or extrinsic cues (e.g., a quality label) (Nelson, 1970). Hence, further examination is needed of what, in general, consumers associate with food quality and safety, i.e. what they mean when they claim that a product is of good quality or is safe to consume? In addition, the interrelationship between consumer conceptualisation of food quality and food safety warrants further investigation. If consumers perceive quality and safety as independent attributes, different decisions may be made depending on whether consumers focus on quality or safety issues in their food choices. However, if the two concepts are inter-related, and are implied by one another, food choices may always involve decisions about both quality and safety. It is arguable that perceptions of quality and safety are only two important determinants of food choice. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all the potential determinants of food choice, because food choice is a complex issue in which many factors play a role, including those which can be described as biological, psychological and cultural (see, for example, Frewer and Van Trijp, 2007; Rozin, 2007; Shepherd and Raats, 2007). In fact, perceptions of food quality and safety are likely to be influenced by such psychological and cultural factors rather than physiological product experiences alone. Cultural variations in perceptions Both qualitative and quantitative research has addressed issues associated with cultural determinants of food choice (Shepherd and Raats, 2007). It is evident that when analysing factors that influence food choice it is important to take consumers cultural

4 BFJ 110, backgrounds into account (Askegaard, 1995; Hoogland et al., 2005; Nayga, 1999; Overby et al., 2004). It is believed that people from different cultural backgrounds have different perceptions and experiences related to food (e.g., Rozin et al., 1999; Lennernäs et al., 1997). As a consequence, some consumers are more oriented towards food quality, whereas for others food safety represents their primary concern. The importance of cultural variation in food choice is recognised within the European context (Askegaard and Madsen, 1998; Fieldhouse, 1995). The distinction that is often made in Europe is between the more northern or central countries (e.g. UK, Scandinavia and Germany) and the more southern, or Mediterranean countries (e.g., France, Spain, Italy and Greece). Southern cultures are thought to be more involved with food quality and the pleasures that can be derived from eating (Pettinger et al., 2004). In comparison, northern cultures put more emphasis on food safety and ethical concerns (e.g., about animal welfare) play a more important role (Pettinger et al., 2004). The empirical evidence for this strict distinction is somewhat scarce. Traceability To date, little is known about consumer perceptions of, and demands regarding, food traceability. The limited number of studies that have been conducted thus far have primarily focused on consumers perceptions of traceability associated with one particular product or product category (Dickinson and Bailey, 2002; Hobbs et al., 2005; Verbeke, 2005), and not beliefs about traceability in general. The research conducted thus far suggests that people have little notion about what traceability is (Giraud and Amblard, 2003), and are not very interested in the technical aspects of traceability (Gellynck and Verbeke, 2001). It is therefore unlikely that information provision about the technical aspects of traceability will boost consumer confidence. Traceability is usually associated with food risk and safety issues (Giraud and Amblard, 2003), but can potentially be used to ascertain both food safety and food quality. For example, traceability may be a powerful tool to help to establish the authenticity of food, and to check that claims made by producers about food are true. Previous research (Hobbs et al., 2005; Verbeke and Ward, 2006) has shown that consumers might be especially interested in traceability when it is linked to these types of quality assurances. Current study In summary, the current study examined how people from different European cultural backgrounds define and value food safety and food quality, and whether they link these concepts to the implementation of improved traceability. It was expected that in the southern European countries, food quality would be the focus of consumer concern, whereas consumers in northern countries would be primarily concerned with food safety. In southern European countries, traceability would be linked to food quality, whereas in northern European countries traceability would be linked to food safety. Method Participants A total of 163 interviews were held in Germany (n ¼ 40), France (n ¼ 43), Italy (n ¼ 40), and Spain (n ¼ 40). Respondents were recruited by means of announcements, newspaper advertisements and contact lists. All respondents participated on a

5 voluntary basis. They received compensation (valued between 15 and 30 euros) for their participation, with the exception of Italian participants. Based on their previous experience of conducting interviews with the general public the Italian research team knew it was not necessary to offer respondents monetary compensation for their time because the interviews were relatively short (around 30 minutes) and took place in the homes of the respondents, thus no travel time or expenses were involved. Respondents were quota sampled on the basis of their demographic characteristics; gender (58 per cent women), age (31 per cent under 30, 37 per cent between 30 and 50, 32 per cent over 50), and educational level (51 per cent secondary education, 47 per cent tertiary education); people with lower levels of education were not specifically targeted in the quota, however 2 per cent of the final sample reported a lower level of education (primary education). Perceptions of food quality and safety 1037 Procedure Before commencing the semi-structured interview, respondents first completed a laddering study focused on the topic of traceability (van Rijswijk et al., 2007). Interviews were carried out by native speakers in the respective countries, who were either researchers on the project or interviewers trained by them. A central training session was held before the interviews were conducted. All interviews followed the same interview structure, however interviewers were allowed to probe for further explanations from the respondents and the order in which the questions were asked was not fixed (hence the semi-structured nature of the interviews). Amongst other topics (not reported here), questions were posed about consumers perceptions of food quality and safety, their interrelations and importance for food choice. The respondents were asked the following questions: What is your definition of food quality? ; What is your definition of food safety? ; What is the relation between these? ; Is one more important to you in general? ; How does food quality influence your choice of food products? ; How does food safety influence your choice of food products? ; and In your view, are food quality and food safety related to traceability?. A definition of traceability was given at the beginning of the interview, namely: Traceability is the ability to trace and track food, and food ingredients through the supply chain; thus all stages of production, processing and distribution. The answers were coded using Atlas.ti. Reponses were categorised by means of primary coding with Atlas and subsequent superordinate coding of the derived codes. Subsequently, the number of times a particular response (i.e. summary code) was obtained was counted (also per country), and these frequencies will be used in the analysis. Respondents were able to respond quite freely to the questions presented. As a consequence, multiple codes were sometimes assigned to the answers provided by single respondents. All tables summarising the results represent the percentages of the responses (and not respondents) in a particular response category. Results Consumers definition of quality and safety There was considerable overlap between the consumers definitions of quality and safety (see Table I). Quality was more frequently defined in terms of taste, good product, natural/organic and freshness, whereas safety is primarily defined in

6 BFJ 110, Table I. Consumers definitions of quality and safety Defined in terms of Total Germany France Italy Spain Quality (n ¼ 399) (n ¼ 124) (n ¼ 117) (n ¼ 78) (n ¼ 83) Taste Good product Natural/organic Freshness Not risky/safety Proper production method Liking, pleasure to eat Appearance Healthy Control/guarantee Brand Price Origin Other Safety (n ¼ 277) (n ¼ 76) (n ¼ 99) (n ¼ 43) (n ¼ 59) Risky/harmful Control/guarantee Healthy (no health risk) Proper handling Proper chain management Best before date Confidence attribute Natural/organic Label/logo Good condition Quality Origin Other Note: Some examples of the next frequently mentioned items classified under other for safety were freshness and don t know (Germany and France) and for quality good chain management and best before date (Italy and Spain) terms of absence of risk or harmfulness, whilst being positively associated with health. In addition, quality was defined by some consumers in terms of safety (e.g. not risky), while safety was less likely to be defined in terms on quality. (See also the following section on the relationship quality and safety ). Consumers definitions of food quality were shown to be more elaborate (or perhaps better defined) than definitions that were provided regarding food safety. Indeed, a number of people were not able to provide a definition of safety when prompted. Differences in responses between the participants from the different countries included in the study were examined. German respondents defined quality primarily in terms of freshness, taste, natural/organic, and as a good product associated with a proper production method. French respondents linked quality with both taste and appearance. Italian respondents indicated that a good product, taste and liking are important definitions of quality. Spanish respondents defined quality as resulting in good products, with taste and without risk (i.e. safe).

7 With respect to safety, Germans and Italian respondent were most concerned about risk and healthiness, whereas the Spanish respondents in particular emphasised controls and guarantees as being important determinants of safety. These associations were also expressed by French respondents, in addition to proper handling and chain management. The relationship between quality and safety The relation between quality and safety was assessed by directly probing the respondents about the perceived interrelationship. For most consumers quality and safety are clearly related (see Table II). About 12 percent of respondents indicated that they perceived quality and safety to be basically equitable. Two thirds of the respondents perceived there to be a (strong) relation between quality and safety (i.e. they are related, or one implies the other). Two-thirds of respondents in this latter category indicated that product quality implies safety (33.1 per cent overall): Quality and safety are two very close connected concepts. A product of a high quality is automatically safe (Germany). Safety is a consequence of quality, a product with certain quality attributes is safer (Italy). For the other third of respondents (19.3 per cent overall), this relationship was reversed; in other words, respondents indicated that a safe product implies high quality. However, for other respondents the relationship between quality and safety was not observed. Therefore, they indicate that quality does not imply safety, or that safety does not imply quality per se. A good quality product is safe, but a safe product is not always a product with good quality (France). In summary, two-thirds of the respondents perceived a (strong) relation between the concepts of food quality and food safety. However, in general, people are more likely to infer safety from quality than the converse. This means that when people perceive a product as being of good quality they assume that the product is also safe. Perceptions of food quality and safety 1039 The importance of quality and safety Respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of quality and safety to them in general, as well as in relation to their food decision-making in a purchasing Total Germany France Italy Spain (n ¼ 166) (n ¼ 35) (n ¼ 61) (n ¼ 30) (n ¼ 40) Basically the same Related (not specified) Quality implies safety Quality does not imply safety Safety implies quality Safety does not imply quality Not related/clearly different Table II. Proportions of the perceived link between quality and safety

8 BFJ 110, situation (i.e. choosing a product in a store). The results indicate that there were an approximately equal number of people who thought that quality was more important than safety, safety more important than quality, or both were equally important (see Table III). Safety it s more important, it s necessary (Italy).... both of them have the same level of importance (Spain). A relatively larger group of Italian consumers felt that safety was most important. However, the pattern of relative equal importance of quality and safety was not replicated when we examined the importance of quality and safety as determinants of product choice. When choosing products, most respondents claimed that they paid attention to both food quality and safety (see Table IV). However, many consumers indicated that they were primarily interested in quality when choosing products. French consumers in particular indicated that they do not base their food choice on safety information. Consumers indicated that they prefer to use quality indicators in their food choice decisions because they feel they have no way of assessing the safety level of a product, or, alternatively, because they have confidence that the safety of their food is guaranteed for every product available: Safety does not influence shopping decisions because it cannot be seen/controlled by the consumer (Germany). Safety does not directly influence food choices, because (the consumer) supposes that every product is safe (Germany). Food crises don t influence (consumer) food choice because (the consumer) trusts the national and international organisms that control (food safety) (France). Table III. Relative importance of quality and safety in general Total Germany France Italy Spain (n ¼ 113) (n ¼ 26) (n ¼ 40) (n ¼ 22) (n ¼ 25) Quality more important Safety more important Both important Total Germany France Italy Spain (n ¼ 192) (n ¼ 43) (n ¼ 61) (n ¼ 48) (n ¼ 40) Table IV. Relative importance of quality and safety in product choice Choice based on both Choice based on quality Choice based on safety Choice not on quality Choice not on safety Choice based on neither Other

9 The link between traceability and quality/safety Respondents were questioned about whether they perceived a direct link between traceability food quality and/or food safety (see Table V). The majority of respondents indicated that both quality and safety are related to traceability. Nevertheless, the relationship with safety was perceived to be stronger than that with quality. In fact, people were more likely to express that traceability was not related to quality: Regarding traceability, both topics are related but...somehow, (traceability) is more aimed at food safety (Spain). Traceability is connected to safety, but traceability provides no guarantee for (food) quality (Germany). There is a relationship between safety and traceability: good traceability increases controls, so there is safety. There is no relation between traceability and the quality of the product (France). In sum the results indicate that European consumers have partly overlapping definitions of quality and safety, and find quality and safety interrelated attributes that are important with regard to food. Final purchasing choices are more likely to be based on quality perceptions. Finally, both quality and safety are perceived to be related to traceability, with a stronger relationship with safety. Perceptions of food quality and safety 1041 Discussion Quality and safety Consumers own definition of food quality and safety includes various elements potentially related to intrinsic and extrinsic product cues such as appearance, taste, origin and brand. Consumers derive quality and safety judgements from these product cues, but also utilise more abstract terms in their own definitions, such as something you like, or something that is harmful or unhealthy to describe food quality and safety. Consumers generally seemed to have more detailed and confident definitions for food quality compared to food safety. Nonetheless, there was considerable overlap between consumer definitions of quality and safety. For example, some consumers included food quality in their definition of food safety attributes, and vice versa, which supports the idea that these two concepts are interrelated in consumers views. When explicitly asked to articulate how they perceived the relationship between quality and safety, consumers indicated that the two concepts were closely related, or even (for some respondents) directly equitable. For many people, safety represented one aspect Total Germany France Italy Spain (n ¼ 167) (n ¼ 40) (n ¼ 48) (n ¼ 41) (n ¼ 38) Both related Safety related more Quality not related Quality related more Safety not related Neither related Table V. Perception of the link between traceability and quality and safety

10 BFJ 110, of quality, and therefore finding a product that was of high quality also implies that it was safe. Hence, when consumers indicate that quality is an important aspect in their perception of food they implicitly indicate the importance of safety. However, the reverse relationship does not necessarily hold: safety seems to be a basic ingredient for quality without necessarily implying it (see also Grunert, 2005; Verbeke, 2005). Nevertheless, consumers in this study indicated that they based their food choice in the shopping environment on their quality perceptions to a greater extent, because to them quality implies safety, and they assume that for all products sold a basic level of safety is guaranteed, and because they feel they cannot personally assess the safety of food products. When consumers cannot determine the safety of a product themselves, they have to rely on their trust in producers and other chain actors (De Jonge et al., 2004; Verbeke, 2005). This is also illustrated by some consumers definition of food safety as something taken on trust, in line with its status as a credence value (see below for a further discussion of the potential role of trust). The current study cannot show the extent to which consumers perceptions of quality and safety coincide with those of experts and food industry. Research has revealed differences between expert and lay perceptions of what constitutes optimal food safety (see for example, Houghton et al., 2008; Krystallis et al., in press), as well as differences between industry and consumers regarding what constitutes optimal food quality (Grunert, 2007). Nevertheless, in the case of both food safety and food quality it is important to focus on consumer perceptions of what constitutes safety and/or quality, as these will determine consumer acceptance of specific products. Cross-cultural variation in consumer responses On the basis of the existing literature, it was predicted that consumers in different countries might have different concerns about quality and safety aspects of food, and perceive the utility of traceability accordingly. For example, as already discussed, consumers in Mediterranean countries are generally thought to be generally more concerned about the quality of food, whereas consumers in northern European countries are generally assumed to be risk adverse, hence more concerned with food safety. This assumption was not confirmed by the results of the present study, as consumers from all the countries included in the research were concerned about both food quality and safety. In fact, the strongest concern about safety was obtained in the analysis of the interview transcripts from Italian consumers. This is in accordance with earlier results (Bernués et al., 2003), which indicated that Italian respondents are relatively more concerned about the control and security of their food. This emphasis on food safety and control in Italy is likely to be related to little trust in the state s dealings with food safety issues (Kjærnes, 2006) exemplified by strong responses to recent food safety scares such as avian flu (e.g., Fear psychosis hits Italy, poultry consumption plummets, ElAmin, 2006; USDA, 2006). Hence, the cross-cultural differences regarding perceptions of food safety might potentially be explained by the extent to which consumers trust national regulatory bodies to prioritise consumer protection. Previous research has focused on consumer trust and its influence on consumer perceptions of food safety and food risk management (De Jonge et al., 2007; Frewer et al., 1996; Frewer and Miles, 2001, Kjærnes, 2006). Consumer trust in different actors and institutions responsible for

11 guaranteeing and controlling food safety is considered to be important for consumer evaluation of the efficacy of food risk management practices. It has been long recognised that individuals who trust an institution or group seem to find risk estimates provided by this institution more credible, and its hazard policies more acceptable (e.g. Johnson and Slovic, 1995). Cross-cultural differences in consumer trust have also been observed, at least in a European context (Kjærnes, 2006; Van Kleef et al., 2007). To our knowledge, less is known about the relationship between consumer trust in different food chain actors and perceptions of food quality, and this topic merits further empirical research. Taken together the cross cultural results indicate that it might not be as useful, as has been assumed in the past, to distinguish between quality-oriented southern and safety-oriented northern European countries (see also Grunert et al., 2001). When examining cross-countries differences relating to food quality and safety we should thus keep in mind that when people refer to food quality they will also be concerned about food safety and vice versa. Perceptions of food quality and safety 1043 Traceability The results indicate that the majority of consumers included in the study perceive both safety and quality as being related to traceability. In line with previous research (Giraud and Halawany, 2006), we found that although consumers relate traceability somewhat more strongly to safety (and food recalls in response to safety problems), food chain traceability is also related to food quality perceptions (see also Verbeke and Ward, 2006). This can be partially explained by the observation that consumer perceptions of quality and safety are not mutually exclusive. Communication to consumers about the potential benefits of traceability might usefully incorporate both food quality and food safety advantages. An important question still remains to be answered specifically, whether traceability information related to quality and safety can indeed increase consumer trust in food products and indeed different food chain actors. Further investigation is needed to establish in what form this should be communicated if consumers are not to be overwhelmed with different types of information relevant to food choices. Conclusions Since consumers definitions of quality and safety overlap, a strict separation between consumer judgments about, and perceptions of, food quality and food safety cannot be made. Hence interpretation of research examining consumers perceptions of food quality and/or safety needs to take into account their interrelationship. In addition, the results did not confirm the existence of clear cross-cultural distinctions consumer preferences for quality or safety as a food choice priority. Further implications of the results are that communication about food safety and quality issues means developing messages that focus on the attributes that consumers associate with quality and safety rather than speaking about these terms in the abstract. For example, discussion about the about the freshness or healthiness of the product may be more relevant to consumers than discussion about quality or safety. Given that quality is linked to safety in the mind of the consumer, consumers demand for a better quality product is likely to mean that they also want safer product. Finally, it is necessary to reduce consumer uncertainty about safety and quality issues

12 BFJ 110,10 associated with products by providing relevant information in an understandable form (for example indication through trusted quality labels such as PDO/PGI) References Askegaard, S. (1995), European food cultures: an exploratory analysis of food related preferences and behaviour in European regions, MAPP working paper, No. 26, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus. Askegaard, S. and Madsen, T.K. (1998), The local and the global: exploring traits of homogeneity and heterogeneity in European food cultures, International Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp Bernués, A., Olaizola, A. and Corcoran, K. (2003), Labelling information demanded by European consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat, Meat Science, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., van Trijp, H., Renes, R.J., de Wit, W. and Timmers, J. (2004), Monitoring consumer confidence in food safety: an exploratory study, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 Nos 10/11, pp De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R.J. and Frewer, L.J. (2007), Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: Its two dimensional structure and determinants, Risk Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp Dickinson, D.L. and Bailey, D. (2002), Meat traceability: are US consumers willing to pay for it?, Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economy, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp ElAmin, A. (2006), Fear psychosis hits Italy, poultry consumption plummets, Food Production Daily, 16 February, available at: asp?n ¼ bird-flu-poultry-italy(accessed 23 November 2007). Fieldhouse, P. (1995), Food and Nutrition Customs and Culture, Chapman and Hall, London. Frewer, L.J. and Miles, S. (2001), Public trust and regulatory transparency, in Frewer, L.J., Schifferstein, R. and Risvik, E. (Eds), Food Choice in Europe, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp Frewer, L.J. and Van Trijp, H. (Eds) (2007), Understanding Consumers of Food Products, Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1996), What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs, Risk Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp Gellynck, X. and Verbeke, W. (2001), Consumer perception of traceability in the meat chain, Agrarwirtschaft, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp Giraud, G. and Amblard, C. (2003), What does traceability mean for beef meat consumer?, Food Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp Giraud, G. and Halawany, R. (2006), Consumers perception of food traceability in Europe, paper presented at the 98th EAAE Seminar, Chania, 29 June-2 July. Grunert, K. (2007), How consumers perceive food quality, in Frewer, L.J. and van Trijp, H. (Eds), Understanding Consumers of Food Products, Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge, pp Grunert, K.G. (2005), Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp

13 Grunert, K.G., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L. and Bech, A.C. (2001), Food-related lifestyle: a segmentation approach to European food consumers, in Frewer, L.J., Risvik, E. and Schifferstein, H. (Eds), Food, People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers Food Choices, Springer, Berlin, pp Hobbs, J.E., Bailey, B.V., Dickinson, D.L. and Haghiri, M. (2005), Traceability in the Canadian red meat sector: do consumers care?, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp Hoogland, C.T., de Boer, J. and Boersema, J.J. (2005), Transparency of the meat chain in light of food culture and history, Appetite, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp Houghton, J.R., Van Kleef, E., Frewer, L.J., Chryssochoidis, G., Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, T., Lassen, J., Pfenning, U. and Rowe, G. (2008), The quality of food risk management in Europe: perspectives and priorities, Journal of Food Policy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp Johnson, B.B. and Slovic, P. (1995), Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust, Risk Analysis, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp Kjærnes, U. (2006), Trust and distrust: cognitive decisions or social relations?, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp Krystallis, T., Frewer, L.J., Rowe, G. and Houghton, J. (in press), Cross-country comparisons in consumers and experts perception of food risk management: Denmark, Germany, Greece and the UK, Health, Risk and Society. Lennernäs, M., Fjellstrom, C., Becker, W., Giachetti, I., Schmitt, A., Remaut de Winter, A.M. and Kearney, M. (1997), Influences on food choice perceived to be important by nationally representative samples of adults in the European Union, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 51, Suppl. 2, pp. S8-S15. Nayga, R.M. (1999), Toward an understanding of consumers perceptions of food labels, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp Nelson, P. (1970), Information and consumer behaviour, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78, July/August, pp Overby, J.W., Gardial, S.F. and Woodruff, R.B. (2004), French versus American consumers attachment of value to a product in a common consumption context: a cross-national comparison, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp Pettinger, C., Holdsworth, M. and Gerber, M. (2004), Psycho-social influences on food choice in Southern France and Central England, Appetite, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp Rozin, P. (2007), Food choice: an introduction, in Frewer, L.J. and van Trijp, H. (Eds), Understanding Consumers of Food Products, Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge, pp Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A. and Wrzesniewski, A. (1999), Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible implications for the diet-health debate, Appetite, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp Röhr, A., Lüddecke, A., Drusch, S., Müller, M.J. and Alvensleben, R.V. (2005), Food quality and safety consumer perception and public health concern, Food Control, Vol. 16, pp Shepherd, R. and Raats, M.M. (2007), The Psychology of Food Choice, CABI Publishing, Wallingford. USDA (2006), GAIN report, June, available at: pdf (accessed 16 November 2007). Perceptions of food quality and safety 1045

14 BFJ 110, Van Kleef, E., Houghton, J.R., Rowe, G., Van Dijk, H., Van der Lans, I.A. and Frewer, L.J. (2007), Consumer evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe, Risk Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp Verbeke, W. (2005), Agriculture and the food industry in the information age, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp Verbeke, W. and Ward, R.W. (2006), Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp van Rijswijk, W., Frewer, L.J., Menozzi, D. and Faioli, G. (2007), Consumer perceptions of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits, paper submitted for publication. Corresponding author Lynn J. Frewer can be contacted at: lynn.frewer@wur.nl To purchase reprints of this article please reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: