Surveying citizens on food safety

Abstract

Food Science and TechnologyVolume 36, Issue 4 p. 28-31 FeaturesFree Access Surveying citizens on food safety First published: 01 December 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsat.3604_7.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Barbara Gallani of EFSA considers the relationship between education and citizens’ perceptions, behaviour and engagement with food safety issues. She describes findings from a large-scale survey of citizens on food safety in the EU. Food safety plays into decisions citizens make regarding the food they purchase and eat. The recent 2022 Eurobarometer on food safety1 indicates that close to half of Europeans consider food safety important when purchasing food. This large-scale citizen survey provides data from close to 27,000 citizens across the 27 EU Member States. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) started conducting this kind of survey back in 2005, when it commissioned a Eurobarometer survey on food-related risks jointly with the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE). Large-scale citizen surveys like this one allow EFSA and national authorities across the EU to understand which food safety topics people are most aware of or concerned about. Through these surveys, EFSA is able to gather evidence about society which helps it to increase the value it provides to EU citizens – for example, communicating in a way that is targeted and/or aligned with citizens’ needs. This is essential since it is not effective to cater for the general public as a unique target group. Different groups in society see and react to risks differently and this presents a challenge for risk communication in the area of public health or food safety2, 3. This article presents several findings from the recent Eurobarometer in areas such as food safety awareness, concerns, use of information sources and behaviour in response to a food poisoning incident, among others. Taking education as an example, it also illustrates how differences are at times observed among subgroups. Which food safety topics have most EU citizens heard about and does education play a role? Topics that ranked the highest on citizen awareness included additives used in food or drinks, pesticide residues in food, and antibiotic, hormone or steroid residues in meat – more than six-in-ten Europeans have heard of each of these. However, this varied depending on consumers’ education level. Those who ended education aged 20 or more (hereafter, high education level respondents) were the most likely to say they had heard about each of the different 15 topics covered by the Eurobarometer. For instance, more than two-thirds of these respondents (67%) had heard about environmental pollutants in fish, meat or dairy, compared with just over half (51%) of those who finished education aged 15 or less (hereafter, low education level respondents). What are citizens’ primary food safety concerns? The 2022 Eurobarometer showed that pesticide residues in food, antibiotic, hormone or steroid residues in meat, and additives used in food or drinks were the topics for which the largest share of participants expressed concerns, with one third or more of respondents signalling these. Unlike the results for awareness, there was no marked pattern in relation to the level of education. While not in the top three concerns, microplastics found in food was a topic that saw an increase relative to the previous 2019 Eurobarometer with 29% of Europeans expressing an overall concern, which represents an 8% increase relative to 2019; also, an increase was observed in 25 member states. Interestingly, EFSA's media analysis from the second quarter of 2022 showed that this topic had gained high profile coverage following the publication of studies on the levels of microplastics in food and in our bodies. The Guardian (2019, April 6), for example, reported that when tissue samples were taken from the lungs of 13 patients undergoing surgery, polypropylene and PET were found in 11 cases4. How do citizens’ food safety and healthy diet concerns compare and are there differences based on education? This year's Eurobarometer Survey also briefly delved into the topic of healthy eating. While risk management tasks, such as authorisation of products or health claims, are outside EFSA's remit, EFSA conducts risk assessment and communicates on novel foods and topics related to human nutrition, such as dietary reference values. Recently, consumer research was conducted by EFSA on nutrition and dietary sugars, aimed at providing audience segmentation support to risk communicators at the national food safety authorities in EU Member States5. Further, it was considered timely to cover the topic given some of the research that has emerged recently on how people's diets shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, a recent survey among UK adults showed that, among those surveyed, about half cooked more meals at home, and close to one third indicated that they ate healthier main meals during the pandemic6. Results from the 2022 Euro-barometer showed that close to five in ten Europeans (46%) were equally concerned about food safety and having a healthy diet, around three in ten (31%) were more concerned about having a healthy diet and just two in ten (21%) were more concerned about food risks. Moreover, there was an interesting pattern in relation to the education level of the respondent. High education level respondents were more likely to say they were more concerned about having a healthy diet than about food risks (37%, compared with 27% of those ending education aged 15 or less). There were also differences in what these two groups perceived as healthy eating: respondents who remained longer in full-time education were more likely to select eating/drinking less sugars (47% of high vs 36% of low education level respondents), eating less ultra-processed foods (38%, compared with 25%) or eating organic products (27%, compared with 19%). The reverse held true for eating less fat (53% of low vs 42% of high education level respondents), eating less salt (42%, compared to 35%) and eating more fish (33%, compared with 24%). Which sources do people mostly rely on to learn about food risks? In the context of food safety, the role that information sources play in the communication process varies heavily across substantial parts of the general public7, 8. When it comes to main sources of information about food risks, the 2022 Eurobarometer showed some similarities and some differences between groups of Europeans as a function of education levels. In both cases, the following two were among the top main sources: television (77% of low vs 55% of high education level respondents) and exchanges with family, friends, neighbours or colleagues (50%, compared with 39%). 45% of high education level respondents relied on an internet search engine as a source (the third most popular among this group), only 15% of low education level respondents did so. It is important to consider these differences for the purposes of risk communication: one needs not only to provide relevant and accurate information, but also to provide it in a particular format for a particular audience9. In line with this, EFSA follows an audience-first approach for risk communication. Depending on the specific types of risk, one or more of the following factors is considered by EFSA in segmenting the audience for the purposes of communication: food safety knowledge personal risk perception use of food safety information and information sources trust in information coming from different actors from farm to fork10. The field of food safety and nutrition communication has seen some interesting developments aimed at achieving wider and more engaging digital communications. Examples include supporting the development of more timely and on-demand content through the identification of popular search-engine queries, or exploring the potential of games, apps and social media. Here once again it is valuable to consider consumer subgroups in communication strategies11. The Eurobarometer Survey showed that online social networks and blogs were a main source of information about food risks for around one in five citizens (22%) overall, but that this figure almost doubled for the youngest age group of 15-24 year-olds (43%). What are the reasons given for not engaging with food safety? The 2022 Eurobarometer also provided insights on reasons why people do not engage with food safety information. Taking it for granted that the food sold is safe was the most common reason for not paying attention to information about food safety. However, a different picture emerged when looking for the second most common reason, that is, knowing enough to avoid or mitigate food risks. Around four in ten (41%) of those with a very high awareness level selected this as a reason, compared with two in ten (20%) of those with a very low awareness level. Likewise, differences were observed as a function of education, with high education level respondents more likely to indicate as reasons the fact that they knew enough to avoid or mitigate food risks (36% vs 26% of those with low education level) and that they lacked the time (16% vs 9%). Another recent large-scale survey was carried out by EFSA with citizens across Europe to inform potential topics for communication campaigns; the survey provides insights about topics in which Europeans are most interested12. It showed that additives – one of the top three concerns among Europeans – is also in the top three topics of interest with foodborne diseases (i.e. diseases caused by consumption of food or water contaminated by microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses and parasites) first and welfare of animals second amongst food safety interests of EU citizens. Are consumers willing to change behaviour in response to a food poisoning incident and if so why? The final question examines citizens’ behavioural responses in a food poisoning scenario. Foodborne zoonotic diseases are a significant and widespread global public health threat. In the European Union, over 350,000 human cases are reported each year, but the real number is likely to be higher13. In 2020, most foodborne outbreaks in the EU concerned public catering and restaurants, pubs, street vendors, takeaways and canteens. However, a similar number of outbreaks were reported in domestic settings14. Further, previous research has highlighted that consumers’ improper preparation and/or storage of food has been linked to a large number of cases of foodborne illnesses and behavioural change is thus important to reduce the risk15. What prevents consumers from changing behaviour in response to a food poisoning incident? Data from the 2022 Eurobarometer provides insights on the extent to which citizens would or would not change their behaviour in response to a (fictitious) food poisoning incident involving Salmonella, and why. Around eight in ten Europeans (79%) indicated that they would likely change their food preparation or consumption behaviour following a food poisoning incident. While this figure may slightly overestimate the proportion that would actually change their behaviour due to possible optimism bias and intention-action gap16, this high value is nevertheless noteworthy. What about the remaining two in ten (21% of all respondents, n=5,510) who indicated that they would likely not change their behaviour? Reasons for this were diverse: more than four in ten (45%) indicated that they already prepared food in the way that was recommended. One quarter (25%) indicated that all kinds of foods involve some risk and it is impossible to check and avoid them all. Nearly two in ten believed that they would be able to tell from the look, smell or taste if the food was contaminated (19%), that changing their behaviour would make little or no difference to avoid the risk or that they were healthy so the risk would not pose any serious concerns to them (both 18%). Amongst those who would change their behaviour, almost half (48%) indicated that they would change their food preparation behaviour by increasing surfaces and hand hygiene when eggs are involved, or by cooking eggs thoroughly. Also, more than four in ten indicated that they would change their consumption behaviour by reducing or eliminating the consumption of eggs (43%) or would monitor the news to see if the situation became worse or not (41%). More than one third (36%) would search for additional information about the food poisoning incident. Some differences as a function of education were noted: respondents who stayed longer in full-time education indicated more frequently that they would search for additional information about the food poisoning incident (42% of high vs 26% of low education level respondents), that they would change their food preparation behaviour (53% vs 41%) or that they would monitor the news to see if the situation became worse or not (45% vs 38%). Conversely, the shorter the time respondents remained in full-time education, the more likely they were to indicate that they would consult with family, friends, neighbours or colleagues (26% of low vs 16% of high education level respondents) and that they would consult with general practitioners or specialist doctors (28% vs 22%) to get their advice on what best to do. Conclusions The recent Eurobarometer 2022 on food safety highlighted differences as a function of education when considering awareness of food safety topics, level of concern about healthy diet vis-a-vis food safety and main sources of information or reasons not to engage with food safety. When taken as a whole, these findings have implications for the design of food safety content. When developing content, it is important to adopt a proactive communication strategy that is based on evidence and that, rather than trying to convey the same message to as many individuals as possible, considers the specific topics, channels and formats that are most relevant and interesting for a specific audience group. These efforts should be accompanied by systematic evaluation to assess the impact of messages on food safety perception, knowledge, engagement, behaviours etc., as well as to gain valuable insights into where we should be investing more (or less) time and resources. Barbara Gallani, Head of Communication and Partnership (ENGAGE) Department at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) email barbara.gallani@efsa.europa.eu web efsa.europa.eu References 1 EFSA. 2022. Food safety in the EU. Available from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2805/729388 2EFSA, Maxim, L., Mazzocchi, M., Van den Broucke, S., Zollo, F., Robinson, T. et al. 2021. Technical assistance in the field of risk communication. EFSA Journal 19: e06574. Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6574 3Shaw A, 2003. Public understanding of food risks: expert and lay views. Food Info 2-3. Science Central from IFIS publishing 4Carrington, D. 2022. Microplastics found deep in lungs of living people for first time. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/06/microplastics-found-deep-in-lungs-of-living-people-for-first-time 5EFSA, Maxim, L., Mazzocchi, M., Van den Broucke, S., Zollo, F., Rasche, M. et al. 2022. EU insights study on consumers and dietary sugars. EFSA Journal. Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7213 6Lasko-Skinner, R., Sweetland, J. 2021. Food in a pandemic: from Renew Normal: the people's commission on life after Covid-19. Available from: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fsa-food-in-a-pandemic-march-2021.pdf 7Kornelis, M., De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., Dagevos, H. 2007. Consumer selection of food-safety information sources. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 27: 327- 335. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00885.x 8EFSA, Maxim, L., Mazzocchi, M., Van den Broucke, S., Zollo, F., Robinson, T. et al. 2021. Technical assistance in the field of risk communication. EFSA Journal 19: e06574. Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6574 9Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Yost, J., Ciliska, D., Krishnaratne, S. 2010. Communication about environmental health risks: a systematic review. Environmental Health 9: 1- 15. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21040529/ 10EFSA, Maxim, L., Mazzocchi, M., Van den Broucke, S., Zollo, F., Robinson, T. et al. 2021. Technical assistance in the field of risk communication. EFSA Journal 19: e06574. Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6574 11Schiro, J. L., Shan, L.C., Tatlow-Golden, M., Li, C., Wall, P. 2020. # Healthy: smart digital food safety and nutrition communication strategies—a critical commentary. NPJ Science of Food 4: 1- 11. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-020-00074-z 12 EFSA. 2022. Survey data on new genomic techniques. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/7081944#.Y05hL3ZBzD5 13 EFSA. 2022. Foodborne zoonotic diseases. Available from : https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/foodborne-zoonotic-diseases 14 EFSA. 2021. The European Union one health 2020 zoonoses report. EFSA Journal 19: e06971. Available from: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/6971 15Losasso, C., Cibin, V., Cappa, V., Roccato, A., Vanzo, A., Andrighetto, I. et al. 2012. Food safety and nutrition: improving consumer behaviour. Food Control 26: 252- 258. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713512000473 16Kasza, G., Csenki, E., Szakos, D., Izsó, T. 2022. The evolution of food safety risk communication: Models and trends in the past and the future. Food Control 138: e109025. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713522002183?via%3Dihub Volume36, Issue4December 2022Pages 28-31 ReferencesRelatedInformation