70 research outputs found

    How food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety

    Get PDF
    Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report how food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety and how they believe consumers understand their role in relation to food safety. The implications of this on the role of food regulators are considered. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 42 food regulators from Australia, New Zealand and the UK participated in a semi-structured interview about their response to food incidents and issues of food regulation more generally. Data were analysed thematically. Findings – Food regulators have a key role in communicating information to consumers about food safety and food incidents. This is done in two main ways: proactive and reactive communication. The majority of regulators said that consumers do not have a good understanding of what food regulation involves and there were varied views on whether or not this is important. Practical implications – Both reactive and proactive communication with consumers are important, however there are clear benefits in food regulators communicating proactively with consumers, including a greater understanding of the regulators’ role. Regulators should be supported to communicate proactively where possible. Originality/value – There is a lack of information about how food regulators communicate with consumers about food safety and how food regulators perceive consumers to understand food regulation. It is this gap that forms the basis of this paper

    Cross-country comparison of strategies for building consumer trust in food

    Get PDF
    Consumer trust in the modern food system is essential given its complexity. Contexts vary across countries with regard to food incidents, regulation and systems. It is therefore of interest to compare how key actors in different countries might approach (re)building consumer trust in the food system; and particularly relevant to understanding how food systems in different regions might learn from one another. The purpose of this paper is to explore differences between strategies for (re)building trust in food systems, as identified in two separate empirical studies, one conducted in Australia, New Zealand and the UK (Study 1) and another on the Island of Ireland (Study 2). Interviews were conducted with media, food industry and food regulatory actors across the two studies (n = 105 Study 1; n = 50 Study 2). Data were coded into strategy statements, strategies describing actions to (re)build consumer trust. Strategy statements were compared between Studies 1 and 2 and similarities and differences were noted. The strategy statements identified in Study 1 to (re)build consumer trust in the food system were shown to be applicable in Study 2, however, there were notable differences in the contextual factors that shaped the means by which strategies were implemented. As such, the transfer of such approaches across regions is not an appropriate means to addressing breaches in consumer trust. Notwithstanding, our data suggest that there is still capacity to learn between countries when considering strategies for (re)building trust in the food system but caution must be exercised in the transfer of approaches

    Management of food incidents by Australian food regulators

    Get PDF
    This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving. © 2016 Dietitians Association of Australia. All rights reserved.Aim This paper explores how food regulators respond to food incidents and the barriers and enablers associated with doing so. Methods Twenty‐six semi‐structured interviews lasting between 30 and 60 minutes were undertaken with Australian food regulators. Regulators worked across food policy development, implementation, enforcement and standards setting. These interviews ascertained food regulators' views on food safety and responses to real and hypothetical food incidents. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Food regulators reported that working together with other food regulators is an important part of effective food regulation and response to food incidents. Strategies for working together included clarifying expectations and developing formal documents such as a memorandum of understanding. However, challenges in working together were reported, including different risk thresholds, different political agendas and a lack of clarity on regulators' roles. Conclusions A focus on partnerships and good communication between food regulators is likely to facilitate effective management of food incidents, and maximise the chances that food incidents do not lead to increased consumer morbidity and mortality as a result of a poor response to a food incident

    The role of the media in construction and presentation of food risks

    Get PDF
    © 2014 Taylor & Francis. This is the author accepted manuscript (post print) made available in accordance with publisher copyright policy.In this article we examine how and why the media construct food risks, from the perspective of ‘media actors’ (people involved in different types of media) using data from 30 interviews conducted in 2013 with media actors from Australia and the United Kingdom. In modern society, many risks are invisible and are brought to the attention of the public through representations in the mass media. This is particularly relevant for food safety, where the widening gap between producers and consumers in the developed world has increased the need for consumer trust in the food supply. We show the importance of newsworthiness in construction of media stories about food risk using Beck’s ideas on cosmopolitan risk to interpret the data. We note the ways in which the strategies that media actors use to construct stories about food risk amplify the risk posed potentially creating consumer anxiety about the safety of the food system. It is important for food regulators and public health professionals to be aware of this anxiety when presenting information about a food incident so that they can target their message accordingly to decrease anxiety

    A model for (re)building consumer trust in the food system

    Get PDF
    This manuscript version is made available per the publisher's Author self-archiving policy. Copyright © The Authors 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.The article presents a best practice model that can be utilized by food system actors to assist with (re)building trust in the food system, before, during and after a food incident defined as ‘any situation within the food supply chain where there is a risk or potential risk of illness or confirmed illness or injury associated with the consumption of a food or foods’ (Commonwealth of Australia. National Food Incident Response Protocol. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2012). Interviews were undertaken with 105 actors working within the media, food industry and food regulatory settings across Australia, New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Interview data produced strategy statements, which indicated participant views on how to (re)build consumer trust in the food system. These included: (i) be transparent, (ii) have protocols and procedures in place, (iii) be credible, (iv) be proactive, (v) put consumers first, (vi) collaborate with stakeholders, (vii) be consistent, (viii) educate stakeholders and consumers, (ix) build your reputation and (x) keep your promises. A survey was designed to enable participants to indicate their agreement/disagreement with the ideas, rate their importance and provide further comment. The five strategies considered key to (re)building consumer trust were used to develop a model demonstrating best practice strategies for (re)building consumer trust in the food system before, during and after a food incident. In a world where the food system is increasingly complex, strategies for (re)building and fostering consumer trust are important. This study offers a model to do so which is derived from the views and experiences of actors working across the food industry, food regulation and the media

    Consumers respond to a model for (re)building consumer trust in the food system

    Get PDF
    © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This author accepted manuscript is made available following 12 month embargo from date of publication (February 2019) in accordance with the publisher’s archiving policyResearchers and food system actors have developed a best practice model to assist with (re)building or maintaining consumer trust in the food system in the event of a food incident. The aim of the present study was to determine how well the model aligns with consumer views of the strategies required to maintain consumer trust during and following a food incident. This qualitative public deliberation study employed experimental, developmental vignettes during 2 full-day sessions in May 2018. Following general discussion of the food incident scenario presented in the vignettes, 15 South Australian adults (in two groups) developed a collated and ranked list of key strategies to be used by food system actors during a food incident to assist in maintaining consumer trust. Participants were then introduced to the existing model, and engaged in discussions about if and how their strategies aligned with those in the existing model. Findings demonstrate broad consistency between the two groups and the model in the strategies identified as key for (re)building and maintaining consumer trust during a food incident. For example, timely transparency was reported by consumers as the key strategy for maintaining consumer trust during and after a food incident. However, participants expressed pessimism regarding actors’ ability to implement strategies. Although minimal, differences were noted in strategy descriptions between the groups and the Model. This study suggests that overall the model is highly consistent with consumer views. If actors are to demonstrably apply the Model in the event of a food incident, our data suggest that the identified strategies will successfully assist them in (re)building and/or maintaining consumer trust in the food supply

    Varespladib and cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: the VISTA-16 randomized clinical trial

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE: Secretory phospholipase A2(sPLA2) generates bioactive phospholipid products implicated in atherosclerosis. The sPLA2inhibitor varespladib has favorable effects on lipid and inflammatory markers; however, its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of sPLA2inhibition with varespladib on cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial at 362 academic and community hospitals in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, India, and North America of 5145 patients randomized within 96 hours of presentation of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to either varespladib (n = 2572) or placebo (n = 2573) with enrollment between June 1, 2010, and March 7, 2012 (study termination on March 9, 2012). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive varespladib (500 mg) or placebo daily for 16 weeks, in addition to atorvastatin and other established therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy measurewas a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina with evidence of ischemia requiring hospitalization at 16 weeks. Six-month survival status was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a prespecified interim analysis, including 212 primary end point events, the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility and possible harm. The primary end point occurred in 136 patients (6.1%) treated with varespladib compared with 109 patients (5.1%) treated with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95%CI, 0.97-1.61; log-rank P = .08). Varespladib was associated with a greater risk of MI (78 [3.4%] vs 47 [2.2%]; HR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.16-2.39; log-rank P = .005). The composite secondary end point of cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke was observed in 107 patients (4.6%) in the varespladib group and 79 patients (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.82; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with recent ACS, varespladib did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and significantly increased the risk of MI. The sPLA2inhibition with varespladib may be harmful and is not a useful strategy to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes after ACS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01130246. Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

    National Outbreak of Salmonella Serotype Saintpaul Infections: Importance of Texas Restaurant Investigations in Implicating Jalapeño Peppers

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In May 2008, PulseNet detected a multistate outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype Saintpaul infections. Initial investigations identified an epidemiologic association between illness and consumption of raw tomatoes, yet cases continued. In mid-June, we investigated two clusters of outbreak strain infections in Texas among patrons of Restaurant A and two establishments of Restaurant Chain B to determine the outbreak's source. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted independent case-control studies of Restaurant A and B patrons. Patients were matched to well controls by meal date. We conducted restaurant environmental investigations and traced the origin of implicated products. Forty-seven case-patients and 40 controls were enrolled in the Restaurant A study. Thirty case-patients and 31 controls were enrolled in the Restaurant Chain B study. In both studies, illness was independently associated with only one menu item, fresh salsa (Restaurant A: matched odds ratio [mOR], 37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-386; Restaurant B: mOR, 13; 95% CI 1.3-infinity). The only ingredient in common between the two salsas was raw jalapeño peppers. Cultures of jalapeño peppers collected from an importer that supplied Restaurant Chain B and serrano peppers and irrigation water from a Mexican farm that supplied that importer with jalapeño and serrano peppers grew the outbreak strain. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Jalapeño peppers, contaminated before arrival at the restaurants and served in uncooked fresh salsas, were the source of these infections. Our investigations, critical in understanding the broader multistate outbreak, exemplify an effective approach to investigating large foodborne outbreaks. Additional measures are needed to reduce produce contamination

    In the interest of food safety: a qualitative study investigating communication and trust between food regulators and food industry in the UK, Australia and New Zealand

    Get PDF
    Background Food regulatory bodies play an important role in public health, and in reducing the costs of food borne illness that are absorbed by both industry and government. Regulation in the food industry involves a relationship between regulators and members of the industry, and it is imperative that these relationships are built on trust. Research has shown in a variety of contexts that businesses find the most success when there are high levels of trust between them and their key stakeholders. An evidence-based understanding of the barriers to communication and trust is imperative if we are to put forward recommendations for facilitating the (re)building of trusting and communicative relationships. Methods We present data from 72 interviews with regulators and industry representatives regarding their trust in and communication with one another. Interviews were conducted in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia in 2013. Results Data identify a variety of factors that shape the dynamic and complex relationships between regulators and industry, as well as barriers to communication and trust between the two parties. Novel in our approach is our emphasis on identifying solutions to these barriers from the voices of industry and regulators. Conclusions We provide recommendations (e.g., development of industry advisory boards) to facilitate the (re)building of trusting and communicative relationships between the two parties
    • 

    corecore