Food Fraud and Risk Perception: Awareness in Canada and Projected Trust on Risk-Mitigating Agents

Charlebois, Sylvain; Juhasz, Mark; Foti, Lianne; Chamberlain, Sarah

doi:10.1080/08974438.2017.1331149

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from labelling, media sources are often used as a main method of communication about new technologies used by the food industry (Charlebois et al, 2017). This is true of new governing policies and regulations as established by states and governing agencies (Wunderlich and Gatto, 2015).…”

Section: Risk Communication and Biotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotechnology in food

Charlebois

Somogyi

Music

et al. 2019

BFJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to measure Canadian attitudes towards genetic engineering in food, for both plant-based and livestock, assess trust towards food safety and overall regulatory system in Canada. Design/methodology/approach This exploratory study is derived from an inductive, quantitative analysis of primary data obtained from an online survey of adults, aged 18 and over, living in Canada for at least 12 months. An online survey was widely distributed in both French and English. Data were collected from 1,049 respondents. The sample was randomized using regional and demographic benchmarks for an accurate representation of the Canadian population. The completion rate of the survey was 94 per cent. Based on the sampling design, the margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20. Findings Consumers misunderstand the nature of genetic engineering or do not appreciate its prevalence in agrifood or both. In total, 44 per cent of Canadians are confused about health effects of genetically engineered foods and ingredients. In total, 40 per cent believe that there is not significant testing on genetically engineered food to protect consumers. In total, 52 per cent are uncertain on their consumption of genetically engineered food, despite its prominence in the agrifood marketplace. Scientific literacy of respondents on genetic engineering is low. While Canadians are divided on purchasing genetically engineered animal-based products, 55 per cent indicated price is the most important factor when purchasing food. Research limitations/implications More research is required to better appreciate the sociological and economic dimensions of incorporating GM foods into our lives. Most importantly, longitudinal risks ought to be better understood for both plant- and animal-based GM foods and ingredients. Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits and risks of GM crops livestock, so business practices and policies approach market expectations. Significantly, improving consumers’ scientific literacy on GM foods will reduce confusion and allow for more informed purchasing decisions. Indeed, a proactive research agenda on biotechnologies can accommodate well-informed discussions with public agencies, food businesses and consumers. Originality/value This exploratory study is one of the first to compare consumers’ perceptions of genetic engineering related to animal and plant-based species in Canada since the addition of genetically modified salmon to the marketplace.

show abstract

Section: Risk Communication and Biotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotechnology in food

Charlebois

Somogyi

Music

et al. 2019

BFJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These detrimental effects on the consumer’s trust have been equally corroborated by [ 6 ], who proved that both conscious consumers and those who have already encountered food counterfeiting expressed lower trust levels in the authorities or food companies. While the respondents’ gender and income level did not have any significant effect on how risks are perceived, the level of education has been a major determining factor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Historical Evolution and Food Control Achievements of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, Electronic Nose, and Electronic Tongue—Critical Overview

Aouadi

Zaukuu

Vitális

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amid today’s stringent regulations and rising consumer awareness, failing to meet quality standards often results in health and financial compromises. In the lookout for solutions, the food industry has seen a surge in high-performing systems all along the production chain. By virtue of their wide-range designs, speed, and real-time data processing, the electronic tongue (E-tongue), electronic nose (E-nose), and near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy have been at the forefront of quality control technologies. The instruments have been used to fingerprint food properties and to control food production from farm-to-fork. Coupled with advanced chemometric tools, these high-throughput yet cost-effective tools have shifted the focus away from lengthy and laborious conventional methods. This special issue paper focuses on the historical overview of the instruments and their role in food quality measurements based on defined food matrices from the Codex General Standards. The instruments have been used to detect, classify, and predict adulteration of dairy products, sweeteners, beverages, fruits and vegetables, meat, and fish products. Multiple physico-chemical and sensory parameters of these foods have also been predicted with the instruments in combination with chemometrics. Their inherent potential for speedy, affordable, and reliable measurements makes them a perfect choice for food control. The high sensitivity of the instruments can sometimes be generally challenging due to the influence of environmental conditions, but mathematical correction techniques exist to combat these challenges.

show abstract

“…Several studies highlighted food fraud or food safety incidents as a factor which erodes consumer trust in institutions and the food system. Consumers who have experienced food fraud first-hand are likely to believe that food fraud can only be mitigated by themselves rather than by industry or public regulators (Charlebois et al 2017). For example, following the horse meat scandal, consumers' confidence in the food system was damaged in part due to a sense of betrayal (Barnett et al 2016).…”

Section: Food Fraud and Risk Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific literature review on measuring institutional trust in the domain of food regulation, food safety and public health nutrition

Bradbury,

Taylor,

Etienne

et al. 2024

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the request from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to summarise the body of evidence to support EFSA's work to understand and measure institutional trust in the domain of food, ICF conducted a systematic literature review of 57 papers in relation to measuring trust in the food system and food system actors. Literature was reviewed related to three areas: i) the barriers and drivers of trust in the government/regulatory agencies responsible for the food system and related areas; ii) how institutional/organisational trust in the food system and related areas currently being measured; and iii) the different types of trust related to the food system and related areas and how they are defined and measured.All articles were peer reviewed, with the majority using a quantitative survey to measure levels of trust. The review found that understandings and usages of the concept of trust vary, in both academic and non-academic contexts. Across the reviewed literature, three dimensions were central to the concept of trust: relationship, belief, and a future-oriented perspective.Factors in EFSA's scope and remit discussed in the literature included consumer awareness and understanding, communication and communication sources, transparency, as well as values and interests. Factors outside of EFSA's remit included food fraud and risk management, traceability systems and food supply chain.Five measures were selected to represent a range of approaches to measuring trust in institutions, including: Gorton (2021); Macready (2020); Benson's Toolkit (2020); Tonkin (2021); and The OECD TrustLab Experimental Approach. The report concludes with a series of recommendations to consider when developing a measurement of trust in food systems institutions.

show abstract

Food Fraud and Risk Perception: Awareness in Canada and Projected Trust on Risk-Mitigating Agents

Cited by 22 publications

References 45 publications

Biotechnology in food

Biotechnology in food

Historical Evolution and Food Control Achievements of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, Electronic Nose, and Electronic Tongue—Critical Overview

Scientific literature review on measuring institutional trust in the domain of food regulation, food safety and public health nutrition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About