Pure meat – public perceptions of risk reduction strategies in meat production

Sara Marie Korzen; Peter Sandøe; Jesper Lassen

doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.005

Pure meat – public perceptions of risk reduction strategies in meat production

Sara Marie Korzen, Peter Sandøe, Jesper Lassen

16 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Experience has shown that both the assessment and implementation of new technologies in food production are challenged by negative assessments of the technologies by the public. This article seeks to deepen our understanding of the concerns that may underlie negative attitudes to various kinds of risk reduction strategy in meat production, with the aim of distinguishing between forms of risk reduction in terms of their acceptability. The paper reports the result of a focus-group study. Six focus groups with Danish citizens (N: 5–9) were conducted during May 2006. The design of the groups took a bottom-up approach and included elements of meat quality, meat safety and risk reduction strategies. The study shows the dilemma risk reduction presents to members of the public. On the one hand, people want safe meat; on the other, the study showed that with the exception of hygiene practices, people generally have an aversion to risk reduction strategies. Some variation was found, however, in the rejection of the strategies. Thus, more acceptable strategies are characterised by a low degree of technological interference, and by being close to the consumer’s experience in everyday life and/or familiar to the participants’ picture of meat production. It is also important that the strategy does not alter the quality of the end-product (meat) in an unfavourable way. The implications of the results and the inherent dilemma for meat safety policy formation are discussed.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Food Policy
Vol/bind	36
Udgave nummer	2
Sider (fra-til)	158-165
Antal sider	8
ISSN	0306-9192
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.005
Status	Udgivet - apr. 2011

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.005

Pure meat Korzen Sandoe LassenForlagets udgivne version, 183 KB

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCB-51M4Y8X-1-1&_cdi=5950&_user=6447644&_pii=S0306919210001089&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2011&_sk=999639997&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkzS&md5=632dea298ac23ea38c9dbfebf8be99fd&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Citationsformater

@article{c6fc55624bab4031bc5f61e7be2f4a75,

title = "Pure meat – public perceptions of risk reduction strategies in meat production",

abstract = "Experience has shown that both the assessment and implementation of new technologies in food production are challenged by negative assessments of the technologies by the public. This article seeks to deepen our understanding of the concerns that may underlie negative attitudes to various kinds of risk reduction strategy in meat production, with the aim of distinguishing between forms of risk reduction in terms of their acceptability. The paper reports the result of a focus-group study. Six focus groups with Danish citizens (N: 5–9) were conducted during May 2006. The design of the groups took a bottom-up approach and included elements of meat quality, meat safety and risk reduction strategies. The study shows the dilemma risk reduction presents to members of the public. On the one hand, people want safe meat; on the other, the study showed that with the exception of hygiene practices, people generally have an aversion to risk reduction strategies. Some variation was found, however, in the rejection of the strategies. Thus, more acceptable strategies are characterised by a low degree of technological interference, and by being close to the consumer{\textquoteright}s experience in everyday life and/or familiar to the participants{\textquoteright} picture of meat production. It is also important that the strategy does not alter the quality of the end-product (meat) in an unfavourable way. The implications of the results and the inherent dilemma for meat safety policy formation are discussed.",

author = "Korzen, {Sara Marie} and Peter Sand{\o}e and Jesper Lassen",

year = "2011",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.005",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

pages = "158--165",

journal = "Food Policy",

issn = "0306-9192",

publisher = "Pergamon Press",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pure meat – public perceptions of risk reduction strategies in meat production

AU - Korzen, Sara Marie

AU - Sandøe, Peter

AU - Lassen, Jesper

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - Experience has shown that both the assessment and implementation of new technologies in food production are challenged by negative assessments of the technologies by the public. This article seeks to deepen our understanding of the concerns that may underlie negative attitudes to various kinds of risk reduction strategy in meat production, with the aim of distinguishing between forms of risk reduction in terms of their acceptability. The paper reports the result of a focus-group study. Six focus groups with Danish citizens (N: 5–9) were conducted during May 2006. The design of the groups took a bottom-up approach and included elements of meat quality, meat safety and risk reduction strategies. The study shows the dilemma risk reduction presents to members of the public. On the one hand, people want safe meat; on the other, the study showed that with the exception of hygiene practices, people generally have an aversion to risk reduction strategies. Some variation was found, however, in the rejection of the strategies. Thus, more acceptable strategies are characterised by a low degree of technological interference, and by being close to the consumer’s experience in everyday life and/or familiar to the participants’ picture of meat production. It is also important that the strategy does not alter the quality of the end-product (meat) in an unfavourable way. The implications of the results and the inherent dilemma for meat safety policy formation are discussed.

AB - Experience has shown that both the assessment and implementation of new technologies in food production are challenged by negative assessments of the technologies by the public. This article seeks to deepen our understanding of the concerns that may underlie negative attitudes to various kinds of risk reduction strategy in meat production, with the aim of distinguishing between forms of risk reduction in terms of their acceptability. The paper reports the result of a focus-group study. Six focus groups with Danish citizens (N: 5–9) were conducted during May 2006. The design of the groups took a bottom-up approach and included elements of meat quality, meat safety and risk reduction strategies. The study shows the dilemma risk reduction presents to members of the public. On the one hand, people want safe meat; on the other, the study showed that with the exception of hygiene practices, people generally have an aversion to risk reduction strategies. Some variation was found, however, in the rejection of the strategies. Thus, more acceptable strategies are characterised by a low degree of technological interference, and by being close to the consumer’s experience in everyday life and/or familiar to the participants’ picture of meat production. It is also important that the strategy does not alter the quality of the end-product (meat) in an unfavourable way. The implications of the results and the inherent dilemma for meat safety policy formation are discussed.

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.005

DO - 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.005

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0306-9192

VL - 36

SP - 158

EP - 165

JO - Food Policy

JF - Food Policy

IS - 2

ER -