Skip to content
Research Article Open access CC BY 4.0

Food and Nutrition Hazards Related to Public Health, Food Technology and Ecology: Perceptions of Experts and Non-experts in the United Kingdom

Hurjus Bahra, Anne Mullen

European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety · pp. 166–178 · Published 17 Apr 2015

10.9734/EJNFS/2015/11161

Abstract

Aim: This study investigated perceptions of risk to self, risk to society, risk denial, control, responsibility, trust and knowledge of food and nutrition-related hazards among expert and non-expert groups with an aim of better understanding barriers to effective communication between experts and the public. Design: Participants completed a questionnaire housed on an online platform. Methodology: Experts were recruited from nutritionists in the food industry in the UK. Non-experts were recruited from a voluntary public panel with access to the online platform. Questions documented demographic variables and scores for the risk that food and nutrition-related hazards pose to self and society. Participants scored perceptions of expert and personal control of hazards, personal responsibility for averting the hazards, trust in experts for managing the hazards and personal knowledge of the hazards. The hazards were categorised for analysis into public nutrition, food technology and food ecology to reflect degrees of citizen participation in risk management. Results: Experts scored perception of risk to self and risk to society from food technology hazards significantly lower than non-experts. Both groups had greatest risk denial, scores of personal control, personal responsibility and personal knowledge, and lowest scores for expert control, for public nutrition hazards. Trust in experts was higher among experts than it was among non-experts. Gender, personal responsibility and knowledge, but not trust in experts, were significant predictors of risk perception. Conclusions: There were similarities in perception of risk of public nutrition and food ecology hazards between experts and non-experts, but differences in the perception of risk and trust in experts relating to food technology. Both groups perceived higher personal control of and personal responsibility for, and lower expert control for, public nutrition hazards.

Public health nutrition food technology food ecology risk perception expert non-expert.

References (26)

  1. 1 A Ladder Of Citizen Participation [DOI]
  2. 2 Perception of Risk [DOI]
  3. 3 Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield [DOI]
  4. 4 Factors in Risk Perception [DOI]
  5. 5 Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs [DOI]
  6. 6 Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks [DOI]
  7. 7 The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort studies [DOI]
  8. 8 Misplaced Confidences [DOI]
  9. 9 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture [DOI]
  10. 10 Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology [DOI]
  11. 11 Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards [DOI]
  12. 12 Food and drink waste from households in the UK [DOI]
  13. 13 Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust [DOI]
  14. 14 Finding horse meat in beef products--a global problem [DOI]
  15. 15 Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to food security [DOI]
  16. 16 Why Public Participation in Risk Regulation? The Case of Authorizing GMO Products in the European Union [DOI]
  17. 17 National Diet and Nutrition Survey: fat and fatty acid intake from the first year of the rolling programme and comparison with previous surveys [DOI]
  18. 18 The past, present and future of crop genetic modification [DOI]
  19. 19 An investigation of the ways in which public health nutrition policy and practices can address climate change [DOI]
  20. 20 Science, governance, and public participation: An analysis of decision making on genetic modification in Aotearoa/New Zealand [DOI]
  21. 21 Risk perception and risk communication about food safety issues [DOI]
  22. 22 Risk Ranking: Investigating Expert and Public Differences in Evaluating Food Safety Hazards [DOI]
  23. 23 Incidence of Online Health Information Search: A Useful Proxy for Public Health Risk Perception [DOI]
  24. 24 Use of data from the H ealth S urvey for E ngland in obesity policy making and monitoring [DOI]
  25. 25 Fishery reform: many stocks secure [DOI]
  26. 26 Session 5: Nutrition communication The challenge of effective food risk communication [DOI]

Cited by 2

2 citations reported by external sources — individual citing-article records aren't available to list yet.

Related research

Article metrics

Real usage data collected on this platform.

52

Page views

0

PDF downloads

44

Outbound clicks

2

Citations

Views over time

Views by country

Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".

Traffic sources

Referring site, by host.

Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.