Final Report Summary - FOOD CONTAMINATION (Contamination of food with biological agents: An integrated risk analysis and risk communication approach)
PROJECT END DATE SHOULD BE 24/10/2012
The purpose of this project is to combine and use the expertise of natural and social science experts to communicate with consumers about the risks of food contamination and the things that they can do to control these risks. The objectives of the project are outlined as follows: (1) to develop an integrated expert model summarizing the major factors determining risks of food contamination, (2) to elicit lay perceptions about these risks, and (3) to create and evaluate communications regarding the risks of food contamination.
Ensuring safe food is a priority for all societies. One measure of its importance is the amount that wealthy countries spend on it. For example, US FDA alone had a 2010 budget of $784.115 million for food programs. Its work is supported by other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the food industry’s own efforts to provide safe products.
Despite these efforts, an estimated 47.8 million people in US annually get foodborne illnesses from major pathogens or unspecified agents, with 127,839 hospitalized and 3,037 dying. The modern food industry is so complex that some problems are inevitable and, when they occur, it takes time to discover their source. Indeed, the origins of some outbreaks are never authoritatively identified. As a result, every day or two, on average, FDA must issue an initial recall notice, conveying the uncertain information in its hands. Consumers must then decide how to respond.
The risks posed by foodborne contaminants would be reduced, if consumers routinely practiced the handling practices recommended by food safety educators. However, despite many educational efforts, research shows that consumers do not usually follow these practices.
As a result, regulatory agencies' episodic instructions, regarding individual outbreaks, have a vital role. They can alert consumers about situations where immediate action is needed, instruct them in what to do, and reassure them when their food is not suspect. Like other communications, in order to be effective, these recall notices must resonate with their audience’s normal ways of thinking.
A very large body of psychological research shows that individuals interpret complex, uncertain situations in terms of their mental model of such situations, namely, the set of seemingly relevant beliefs, accumulated over their lifetimes. Although these inferences can be idiosyncratic, they are often organized by judgmental heuristics, or rules of thumb, providing approximate solutions. A fuller understanding of those heuristics and mental models might improve the effectiveness of communications during foodborne outbreaks. Here, we pursue that goal.
Our first study develops an integrated expert model summarizing the major factors determining foodborne outbreak risks. The factors are those that experts consider, when assessing possible sources of an outbreak and ways to control it. Consumers need to understand some of these factors, if they are to trust and follow communications. Effective communications need to identify the factors critical to a specific outbreak, then address them in a comprehensible manner. This expert model integrates recurrent elements in food safety communications, issued by various sources for various audiences, and in studies of consumer behavior. Its variables and relationships are defined well enough that it could be used to predict contamination risks, were its data needs satisfied. However, those computations are not pursued, or needed for communication purposes, which require primarily clarity and conciseness.
Our next study applies the mental models approach to characterizing consumers’ beliefs regarding food safety, outbreaks, recalls, and foodborne illnesses. It uses open-ended interviews structured around the expert model, summarizing scientific knowledge regarding the factors involved in those processes. Conducted with a diverse set of 30 US consumers, these interviews revealed good knowledge of food-handling practices, but limited knowledge of several processes, potentially undermining the usefulness of that procedural knowledge. For example, consumers underestimated the time between exposure and illness, leading them to misattribute illnesses. They also underestimated the contagiousness of foodborne illnesses, leading them to inadvertently expose others. Although most of the interviewees had some knowledge about food recalls and how to respond to them, they exaggerated the extent of governmental authority (in the US) over recalls, while being uncertain about when a food recall is over.
Based on these results, we developed a 25-min structured survey that can assess the prevalence of these risk beliefs, as well as evaluate communications regarding foodborne risks. A sample of 282 Americans recruited by Mechanical-Turk completed the survey online. The survey results prove the robustness of the interview results showing that the incubation period for foodborne illnesses and risks of person-to-person contagion deserve special attention in consumer communications. There are some topics such as food-handling practices that are so widely known that they need not be repeated in communications but a fuller mental model might also help consumers to turn their food safety knowledge into practice when eating out or preparing food at home.
In the European phase of the project, a mental models study with British consumers was applied at Newcastle University. We used a protocol similar to the one used in the US phase of the project. We first conducted mental model interviews with 12 consumers from the Newcastle area recruited by a professional marketing company. The interviews revealed similar results to those obtained from the US interviews. Therefore, the survey that had been developed in the US study was administered to a nationally representative sample of British consumers (N=509). The results suggested incorrect beliefs about the time between exposure and illness and contagiousness, correct beliefs about food-handling practices, and knowledge gaps about the recall procedures managed by the government agencies and food producers.
The similar results obtained in both countries might be helpful for American and European food safety communicators to address misunderstandings about incubation periods for foodborne illnesses and risks of person-to-person contagion, and also fulfill knowledge gaps about food alert and recall procedures. Communications should concentrate on creating more realistic expectations for what recalls can do and better understanding of when they are over and it is safe to eat foods again – so as to maintain appropriate trust in government agencies and the food supply.
The purpose of this project is to combine and use the expertise of natural and social science experts to communicate with consumers about the risks of food contamination and the things that they can do to control these risks. The objectives of the project are outlined as follows: (1) to develop an integrated expert model summarizing the major factors determining risks of food contamination, (2) to elicit lay perceptions about these risks, and (3) to create and evaluate communications regarding the risks of food contamination.
Ensuring safe food is a priority for all societies. One measure of its importance is the amount that wealthy countries spend on it. For example, US FDA alone had a 2010 budget of $784.115 million for food programs. Its work is supported by other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the food industry’s own efforts to provide safe products.
Despite these efforts, an estimated 47.8 million people in US annually get foodborne illnesses from major pathogens or unspecified agents, with 127,839 hospitalized and 3,037 dying. The modern food industry is so complex that some problems are inevitable and, when they occur, it takes time to discover their source. Indeed, the origins of some outbreaks are never authoritatively identified. As a result, every day or two, on average, FDA must issue an initial recall notice, conveying the uncertain information in its hands. Consumers must then decide how to respond.
The risks posed by foodborne contaminants would be reduced, if consumers routinely practiced the handling practices recommended by food safety educators. However, despite many educational efforts, research shows that consumers do not usually follow these practices.
As a result, regulatory agencies' episodic instructions, regarding individual outbreaks, have a vital role. They can alert consumers about situations where immediate action is needed, instruct them in what to do, and reassure them when their food is not suspect. Like other communications, in order to be effective, these recall notices must resonate with their audience’s normal ways of thinking.
A very large body of psychological research shows that individuals interpret complex, uncertain situations in terms of their mental model of such situations, namely, the set of seemingly relevant beliefs, accumulated over their lifetimes. Although these inferences can be idiosyncratic, they are often organized by judgmental heuristics, or rules of thumb, providing approximate solutions. A fuller understanding of those heuristics and mental models might improve the effectiveness of communications during foodborne outbreaks. Here, we pursue that goal.
Our first study develops an integrated expert model summarizing the major factors determining foodborne outbreak risks. The factors are those that experts consider, when assessing possible sources of an outbreak and ways to control it. Consumers need to understand some of these factors, if they are to trust and follow communications. Effective communications need to identify the factors critical to a specific outbreak, then address them in a comprehensible manner. This expert model integrates recurrent elements in food safety communications, issued by various sources for various audiences, and in studies of consumer behavior. Its variables and relationships are defined well enough that it could be used to predict contamination risks, were its data needs satisfied. However, those computations are not pursued, or needed for communication purposes, which require primarily clarity and conciseness.
Our next study applies the mental models approach to characterizing consumers’ beliefs regarding food safety, outbreaks, recalls, and foodborne illnesses. It uses open-ended interviews structured around the expert model, summarizing scientific knowledge regarding the factors involved in those processes. Conducted with a diverse set of 30 US consumers, these interviews revealed good knowledge of food-handling practices, but limited knowledge of several processes, potentially undermining the usefulness of that procedural knowledge. For example, consumers underestimated the time between exposure and illness, leading them to misattribute illnesses. They also underestimated the contagiousness of foodborne illnesses, leading them to inadvertently expose others. Although most of the interviewees had some knowledge about food recalls and how to respond to them, they exaggerated the extent of governmental authority (in the US) over recalls, while being uncertain about when a food recall is over.
Based on these results, we developed a 25-min structured survey that can assess the prevalence of these risk beliefs, as well as evaluate communications regarding foodborne risks. A sample of 282 Americans recruited by Mechanical-Turk completed the survey online. The survey results prove the robustness of the interview results showing that the incubation period for foodborne illnesses and risks of person-to-person contagion deserve special attention in consumer communications. There are some topics such as food-handling practices that are so widely known that they need not be repeated in communications but a fuller mental model might also help consumers to turn their food safety knowledge into practice when eating out or preparing food at home.
In the European phase of the project, a mental models study with British consumers was applied at Newcastle University. We used a protocol similar to the one used in the US phase of the project. We first conducted mental model interviews with 12 consumers from the Newcastle area recruited by a professional marketing company. The interviews revealed similar results to those obtained from the US interviews. Therefore, the survey that had been developed in the US study was administered to a nationally representative sample of British consumers (N=509). The results suggested incorrect beliefs about the time between exposure and illness and contagiousness, correct beliefs about food-handling practices, and knowledge gaps about the recall procedures managed by the government agencies and food producers.
The similar results obtained in both countries might be helpful for American and European food safety communicators to address misunderstandings about incubation periods for foodborne illnesses and risks of person-to-person contagion, and also fulfill knowledge gaps about food alert and recall procedures. Communications should concentrate on creating more realistic expectations for what recalls can do and better understanding of when they are over and it is safe to eat foods again – so as to maintain appropriate trust in government agencies and the food supply.