Trust in the Australian food supply: Innocent until proven guilty

Abstract

International research demonstrates diminishing trust in the food supply associated with food scares which undermine trust in expert advice. Even though Australia has not experienced major food scares, there is evidence of diminishing trust in the food supply. Interviews were conducted with 47 South Australian food shoppers from high (n=17) and low (n=16) socioeconomic regions of Adelaide and from rural South Australia (n=14) about food governance and trust in the Australian food supply. Participants display a high level of trust in the food supply associated with a perception that Australian food is safe; a lack of exposure to food risks; and trust in personal food safety practices. The media was the only factor which created distrust in the food system.Other participants express confidence in the food supply where confidence is understood as a lack of reflection. Contrary to concepts of reflexive modernization which presume an increasing awareness of risk and placement of trust as a means of reducing uncertainly, participants adopt an 'innocent until proven guilty' approach displaying little knowledge or interest in knowing about food regulation relying instead on routine food safety practices as a means of managing uncertainty.

Differentiating between trust and dependence of patients with coronary heart disease: furthering the sociology of trust

“…In situations of little to no perceived risk (in this case, to trust the food supply system in Australia), participants in our research displayed confidence rather than trust (Henderson et al 2012), which was highlighted by a lack of reflexivity or rationale for their decisions to 'trust'. However, in situations of relatively higher perceived risk, participants make reflexive decisions to place trust or distrust in the food system (Henderson et al 2012) and in medical practitioners (Ward 2006). Reflexive decisionmaking requires self-confrontation (Lash 1994), whereby individuals examine and reform their practices in the light of new information (Giddens 1990).…”

“…While Giddens' analysis of trust sees it as a rational mechanism of reducing uncertainty (Giddens 1994) and one which requires individuals to identify contingencies, especially negative outcomes, we have argued that patients do not identify contingencies unless they have to. They adopt an 'innocent until proven guilty' approach (Henderson et al 2012). They assume the position of confidence (rather than trust) until they are given a reason to distrust.…”

Comparison of Microbiological Food Safety Issues in New Zealand and Australia

“…42 A research survey on trust in the Australian food supply indicated that participants had little knowledge, or interest, in understanding of food regulations even while they expressed high trust in the food system. 47 Therefore, common control measures such as food safety education and good practices (cleaning and disinfection) would help to effectively reduce risks of microbiological foodborne illness in Australia and New Zealand.…”

Public Perceptions of Food-related Risks: A Cross-national Investigation of Individual and Contextual Influences

“…Media coverage elevates the perceived magnitude of risk posed by various foods and diminishes institutional trust (Henderson et al 2012(Henderson et al , 2014. Therefore, we expect increased public awareness of food risks, as well as heightened public concerns, in places with greater media coverage of food risks.…”