Differences in risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in various poultry husbandry systems by various stakeholder groups, may affect the acceptability of those husbandry systems. Therefore, the objective was to gain insight into risk perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians regarding food safety and public health hazards in poultry husbandry systems, and into factors explaining these risk perceptions. We surveyed risk perceptions of Campylobacter contamination of broiler meat, avian influenza introduction in laying hens, and altered dioxin levels in eggs for the most commonly used broiler and laying hen husbandry systems in Dutch citizens (n = 2,259), poultry farmers (n = 100), and poultry veterinarians (n = 41). Citizens perceived the risks of the three hazards in the indoor systems higher and in the outdoor systems lower than did the professionals. Citizens reported higher concerns regarding aspects reflecting underlying psychological factors of risk perception compared to professionals. Professionals indicated a relatively low level of personal control, which might imply risk denial. Of the socio-demographic characteristics, gender and childhood residence were associated with risk perceptions. The influence of other factors of risks perception are discussed. It is suggested that risk perceptions of all stakeholder groups are influenced by affect, stigma, and underlying values. To adapt current or new husbandry systems that can count on societal support, views of key stakeholders and multiple aspects such as animal welfare, public health, food safety, and underlying values should be considered integrally. When trade-offs, such as between animal welfare and public health have to be made, insight into underlying values might help to find consensus among stakeholders.

Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially higher public health risks for certain hazards, which results in a dilemma: whether to choose a system that improves chicken welfare or a system that reduces these public health risks. We studied the views of citizens and poultry farmers on judging the dilemma, relevant moral convictions and moral arguments in a practical context. By means of an online questionnaire, citizens (n = 2259) and poultry farmers (n = 100) judged three practical cases, which illustrate the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin. Furthermore, they scored the importance of moral arguments and to what extend they agreed with moral convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens were more likely than farmers to choose a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health. These different judgments could be explained by differing moral convictions and valuations of moral arguments. Judgments of citizens and farmers were associated with moral arguments and convictions, predominantly with those regarding the value of chickens and naturalness. Citizens agreed stronger with moral convictions regarding the intrinsic value of chickens and regarding naturalness than farmers did, while farmers agreed stronger with conviction regarding fairness. We argue that opinions of citizens and farmers are context-dependent, which may explain the differences between these groups. It implies that opinions of different stakeholder groups should be considered in order to achieve successful innovations in poultry husbandry, which are supported by society.

Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) is a hepatocarcinogenic and genotoxic derivative of aflatoxin B1 excreted into milk after ingestion of feed contaminated by Aspergillus genus fungi. Because of the important role of dairy products, especially cow cheese, in the human diet, there is great concern about the presence of AFM1 in this food category. EC Regulation No. 1881/2006 establishes the importance of the enrichment factor (EF), an essential parameter that must be defined in order to evaluate the maximum level of the toxin in cheese aiming to ensure that cheese has been produced from compliant milk. The Italian Ministry of Health has established two provisional AFM1 EFs (5.5 and 3.0) to be applied to as many cheese categories (hard and soft), defined according to the moisture content on a fat free basis (MFFB) classification. Two experimental productions of Primosale and Fior di Latte cheese, both belonging to the soft cheese category, showed an EF of 4.1 and 2.9 respectively. Data in literature also suggest that the EF attribution based on the current categorization may need reconsideration.