Transcript risk management practice

Consumers in 2020 and the Implications for
Consumer Research
Dr Lynn Frewer
Head, Consumer Science Group
How is the European population
changing?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
People are getting older (implications for health care)
Problems with energy balance (eating disorders, obesity, increased
cancer rates, type two diabetes)
Emerging technologies in food production (functional foods,
“nutriceuticals”
Social trends (anti-globalization, demand for tracebility of food and
ingredients, different lifestyle patterns and family structures)
Increase concerns about food safety?
Public fears about emerging technologies (e. g. human genetics and
emerging genetic underclass)
Increased demands for transparency in risk management practice
and public involvement in policy development
Socially excluded groups and food poverty
–current trends
OECD (2000) has noted
• 800 million in developing world undernourished
• 34 million in industrialised countries. and economies in transition
suffer chronic food shortages
• At risk groups:
-Victims of conflict
-Migrant workers and families
-Marginal populations in urban areas
-People in “at risk” social groups (Ethnic minorities,
illiterate households, low income households, particularly
within vulnerable livelihood systems
-Low income families with large family size
-Rural poverty
Issue of social exclusion in European populations
Current trends – will these continue?
•
Most people in Europe are “time rich, money poor” –
increased demand for convenience?
•
Global warming – Climate zones shift northwards. What does
this imply re: application of technology to agricultural practices?
•
Politicisation of water supplies?
•
Dominance of distribution systems by multinationals
Example of emerging consumer responses Consumer attitudes towards functional foods
ASSUMPTION - people will be more accepting of novel
foods if there is a concrete and tangible consumer
benefit
•
•
•
Consumers do not necessarily respond in an homogenous
way.
people’s value systems (such as environmental concern
associated with processes, or attitudes towards globalisation
or the application of human genetics ) define how people
relate to the social world and the decisions that they make
Factors such as health status or appropriate social context
also vary
Public perceptions and attitudes:
What are the key questions?
Frewer et al, Risk Analysis, 1998
•
•
•
•
What is driving consumer perceptions of risk and benefit?
Who trusts whom to inform and regulate? How does this relate
to consumer confidence in the food chain and associated
science base?
Are there cross-cultural and intra-individual differences in
perceptions and information needs, as well as perceived
nutritional requirements?
How might the wider public be involved in the debate about
risk management and technological development?
Individual differences in acceptance of
functional foods
•
Cross-cultural (e.g. Finns more positive than Danes or British)
•
Older Americans more positive
•
Women more positive than men
•
People more accepting of enrichment with a substance
already present in the food, rather than the addition of a
compound novel to the product.
Risk Perception
The psychometric paradigm
•
•
•
The psychology of risk perception drives public risk attitudes
e.g. an involuntary risk over which people have no control is
more threatening than one people choose to take
Potentially catastrophic risks concern people most
Unnatural (technological) risks are more threatening than
natural ones
Understanding Consumer Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Perceptions of benefit may offset perceptions of risk
Ethical concerns
“Unnatural” risks more threatening than “natural” risks
Perceptions of need
Who benefits (industry or consumers), and in which countries?
Control and choice
Technical risk estimates alone should not form the basis of communication
efforts
Also consider:
-Ethical issues / balanced information
-Regulatory transparency
Barriers to healthy eating
•
•
•
enormous literature on what constitutes a healthy diet
extensive literature on why this is not being adopted by
consumers, who on the whole continue to eat unhealthily
this may compromise the successful marketing of some
functional food products, where consumers are required to
make long term dietary changes to improve their health
Barriers to dietary change
•
•
•
•
85% of individuals believe that they consume a healthy diet
ASSUMPTION An individual is “at risk” from a particular illness,
and will automatically make food choice decisions to offset the
risk NOT FOUNDED IN REALITY
sensory properties (cf fruits and vegetables)
people are reluctant to make dietary changes that may result
in long-term prevention of ill-health, or even improve their
current health status, particularly when time periods of greater
than 20 years in the future
Risk Perception, Diet and Cancer
EGOCENTRIC
SYSTEMS
Past Experiences
Family, Friends
Culture, Values
Norms
Perception
of source
Amount
Conflict
Complex
Personal relevance
Processing (ELM)
Trust in Information
Abilities
INFORMATION
CHARACTERISTICS
Fatalism
Loss of control
Independence
Hedonistic responses
Self-determination
Control of
food supply
•transport
•budget
•access
PERCEIVED
CONTROL
Optimistic bias
Optimistic bias occurs when people perceive that they are at less
risk from a particular hazard than other people
-
-
personal experience of an adverse event
comparison with targets with whom people have
personal contact
compare self with specific individuals as opposed
to “non-individuated” others
stereotype salience.
Ego-centric and fatalistic belief systems
People who believe that their health is outside of their control, or
under the control of “powerful others” ( “Health Locus of
Control”), are unlikely to engage in preventative measures
Emerging issues associated with
applications of human genome
•
•
•
•
Privacy - to what extent should human genetic data bases be
anonymised
personal economic consequences (will people who are identified as
being “at risk” from particular diseases be uninsurable,
unemployable and unable to raise the finance to buy property
individuals who lack a genetic predisposition to develop a disease
may use this genetic information to reinforce “optimistic biases”
about their risks through environmental exposure or food choices.
people who do have a genetic predisposition may develop a fatalistic
response - they are genetically predetermined to experience the
illness
Public Participation Methods
• ‘Public Participation’ in decision making and policy
formation is seen as increasingly important
• Several methods have been developed to involve
the public, such as public hearings, citizen juries,
consensus conferences, advisory committees, focus
groups
• Problem: Nobody understands the most effective or
appropriate type of consultation method to use
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Nine evaluation Criteria
Representativeness
Of a broad public not just interest groups
Independence
Participants not dependent on sponsors
Early involvement
Early enough to count in decision making
Influence
Exercise must have an impact on policy
Transparency
Open to public scrutiny, with an audit trail
Resource accessibility
Sufficient time, money and access to expertise
Task definition
Define scope of exercise at the outset
Structured Decision-Making
An organised framework - assess alternatives/ formulate decisions
Conclusions
Drivers
Research Response
Development of nutriceuticals
targeted towards individuals
with particular genetic
predispositions
Multidisciplinary research (geneticists
with social scientists) -New theoretical
approaches to information delivery
Increased emphasis on
preventative medicine relative
to treatment – “medical nutrition
therapy”
Problems associated with risk
perception and communication
to vulnerable individuals
Conclusions
Drivers
Declining public confidence in
science and its applications
Research Response
Evaluating public consultation and
policy impact early in technology
development
Predicting what consumers
want to eat
Integrated models of consumer
choice (multidisciplinary
neurophysiology, attitudes, sensory
properties, values)
Problems associated with
population change
age, obesity etc.
Understanding barriers to dietary
change / acceptance of novel
products (multidisciplinary)
Conclusions
Drivers
Understanding hedonistic
responses to food choices
(neuropsychological, social and
cultural factors)
Problems associated with
social inclusion and health
inequalities / input into food
policies
Research Response
Integrating social research (e.g.
ethnographic methodologies and
attitude analysis) with physiological
approaches - novel theoretical
development and integration
Transdisciplinary policy
research (health research,
psychology, economics)
The future of Consumer Research
•
•
•
•
Isolated disciplinary approaches will not provide full
understanding of consumer choice decisions
Transdisciplinary research (from physiology to ethnography)
Multi-institutional (skills must be drawn from many different
institutions in different European member States)
New networks and “virtual” institutions