UK consumers are suffering from a food scare overload and are simply ignoring advice, scientists have claimed.
The saturation of messages from a range of sources, as seen in the recent Sudan 1 food scare, is leading to a situation where some consumers simply ignore them, said researchers.
According to scientists at Reading University food messages need be better targeted along gender and age lines if they are to be more effective.
They said a study has shown there is a distinct difference between male and female and older and younger consumers when it comes to risk perception.
The study, which not only looked at the UK, but also four other European countries, also revealed considerable differences in attitudes to food scares between the various countries, Diane McCrea said, during a presentation to the Chartered Institute of Marketing’s Food, Drink and Agriculture group.
McCrea and colleague Professor Bruce Traill were presenting the initial results of a European wide programme called Food Risk Communication and Consumers Trust in the Supply Chain.
The study, of which Reading University was a part, covered Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, France, but according to McCrea, the UK has the highest levels of trust when it came to getting information out on food scares.
She said: “While there was a large group of people who distrusted information from all sources, particularly independent groups, there was a big group of trusters, people who trusted all sources at varying levels and the UK had the biggest group like this across all five countries surveyed.”
She said there is increasing evidence to suggest the UK was suffering from “food scare overload”, and as a result, messages during a food scare were not hitting home. “The more consumers see food safety messages, the less they trust them. One comment in the FT during the Sudan 1 crisis said ‘has food lost the power to scare?’”
The study showed during a food scare, such as the recent Sudan 1 incident, UK consumers are the least likely in Europe to change their purchasing behaviour.
“Interestingly, when asked last summer, 11.5 per cent of UK consumers said prepared meals were not at all risky, which was much higher than other countries. It would be interesting to see what it’s like now,” said McCrea
When it came to GM food, she said only 16 per cent of people in the UK considered it risky: “The figures were considerably lower than Italy, France and Germany, which was quite interesting.”
On sources of information, in the UK, the most trusted source during a scare is doctors and health authorities. “University scientists came in third and organic shops were also high in the list,” said McCrea. “Processors were way down the bottom of the list.”
She said there are significant differences across all the countries involved which would make having an EU-wide co-ordinated message during a scare very difficult.
“Risk perception was significantly different for gender and age, the perceived risk for women was much higher than men. When it came to age, younger groups, 18 to 30-year-olds were not worried, but older people were.”
She said when it came to prepared meals, younger people are more confident than their elders who are more sceptical of the products.
In the UK, the groups most trusted to tell the truth are consumer organisations, food experts, food authorities, farmers, media and the supermarkets. However, McCrea said the processing industry and politicians are way down the list.
“The survey also revealed that in a food scare, people said they would now make more of an effort to find out information and modify their behaviour, but only if it was a food that is relevant or important to them, otherwise, not necessarily.
“The attitude or lessons learnt from food scares, they said, was not to panic, and many said things like ‘these things pass with time’ or ‘they get sorted out’,” she added.
“Consumers respond along age and gender lines more specifically, so I would say messages need to be targeted accordingly,” McCrea said.
To avoid causing information fatigue among consumers, she said the solution is to get the messages out quickly, respond to the problem quickly and then move on.
She said the industry has been lucky on this occasion, with regard to Sudan 1. “Premier was not a brand consumers were aware of. The retailers and brands have been lucky this time because it was so widespread, but if a food recall hits just one retailer or brand, things could be very different.”
No comments yet