Consumer Attitudes Toward Issues in Food Safety

ABSTRACT The objectives of this study were to evaluate consumer attitudes regarding the safety of the food supply, relate food safety concern levels with groups of specific items, regulatory issues and prioritization of food safety funding areas, and to evaluate attitudes and behaviors toward specific food safety issues. As general level of concern with food safety increased, so did concern with chemical, microbiological and regulatory issues. Concern with microbiological issues was higher than in previous studies. Only about 15% of the consumers thought they had contracted a foodborne illness during the last year; > 40% thought the source was restaurant food and > 25% thought the source was a school or church event. Concerns with cholesterol, salt and sugar were significantly higher than in previous studies. Consumers were very concerned about the inspection of imported foods and restaurant sanitation; however, they did not assign a high priority to funding of regulatory issues such as hiring more inspectors. The majority of consumers surveyed think that genetically modified foods, irradiated foods, food from animals treated with hormones or treated with antibiotics found safe by the Food and Drug Administration, are safe to eat (80, 77, 72 and 74%, respectively); however, about one‐third would not purchase them, and more than 20% have reduced their consumption of some foods because they think they are irradiated, contain genetically modified organisms or are derived from animals treated with hormones or antibiotics. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Half the 400 consumers surveyed considered their food very safe, about a 10% decrease since 2002. As far as “chemical issues,” consumers were most concerned with pesticide residues, hormones in poultry and meat, and preservatives. Concern with “microbiological issues” was substantially higher than in past studies. This may be because of the awareness of recent foodborne illness outbreaks linked to restaurant sanitation and meat being thoroughly cooked. Even though consumers were increasingly concerned about microbiological and regulatory issues, the priority for funding more inspectors for foodservice and manufacturing facilities was not higher. Consumers who were very concerned with food safety generally gave moderately high priority to funding mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and human health studies to understand the risks of hormones in food animals. If the Food and Drug Administration determined that irradiated foods, those containing GMOs and products derived from animals treated with either antibiotics or hormones are safe, more than 70% of consumers believe they are safe to eat; however, 18–28% have reduced their consumption of these foods and more than one‐third would pay more for products guaranteed not to have been so treated. These findings demonstrate that consumer concerns about food safety are a moving target and that concern, attitudes and behaviors are inconsistent. This implies that while general food safety education programs may be effective in establishing an overall knowledge base, often the food industry and regulatory agencies must respond “after the fact” to specific issues, such as Escherichia coli .