Evaluating the use of citizens' juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation.

BACKGROUND: Deliberative engagement techniques and citizens' juries are touted as means of incorporating the public into policy decision-making, managing community expectations and increasing commitment to public health policy. This paper reports a study to examine the feasibility of citizens' juries as a means of collecting data to inform public health policy related to food regulation through evaluation of the conduct of a citizens' jury. METHODS: A citizens' jury was conducted with a representative sample of 17 South Australians to explore their willingness to consider the proposition that food and drink advertising and/or sponsorship should be banned at children's sporting events. RESULTS: The results showed that, in relation to the central proposition and evaluation data from the jury, opinion on the proposition remained comparatively stable. Most jurors indicated that they thought that food and drink sponsorship and/or advertising at children's sporting events would have little or no effect on altering children's diet and eating habits, with the proportion increasing during the jury process. Jurors were given evaluation sheets about the content of the jury and the process of the citizens' jury to complete at the end of the session. The evaluation of the citizens' jury process revealed positive perceptions. The majority of jurors agreed that their knowledge of the issues of food and drink sponsorship in children's sport had increased as a result of participation in the citizens' jury. The majority also viewed the decision-making process as fair and felt that their views were listened to. One important response in the evaluation was that all jurors indicated that, if given the opportunity, they would participate in another citizens' jury. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the citizens' jury increased participant knowledge of the issue and facilitated reflective discussion of the proposition. Citizens' juries are an effective means of gaining insight into public views of policy and the circumstances under which the public will consider food regulation; however a number of issues need to be considered to ensure the successful conduct of a citizens' jury.

'I mean I expect that it's pretty safe': Perceptions of food trust in pregnancy - implications for primary health care practice.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is a time in which food choice is of particular importance. Trust in the food supply and those who regulate it is receiving greater acknowledgement because of the influence of trust on food choice. No prior investigation into pregnant women and food trust has been conducted. AIMS: This paper identifies factors that determine the nature and extent of pregnant women's trust in food; sources of information which influence pregnant women's food choices; and how trust impacts on pregnant women's food choices. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 pregnant women; nine were pregnant with their first child and four were in their second or subsequent pregnancy. RESULTS: Food choices of pregnant women were predominantly influenced by nutrition and perceived quality of food. Risktaking behaviour, such as the consumption of foods considered high risk during pregnancy, was common amongst participants. The sample was characterised by a dependence on expert information, limited reflexivity in relation to food safety, and contradictory practice such as risk-taking behaviours in regard to high risk foods were observed. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to confirm findings in this study. Research into consumption of high-risk foods and the information received from healthcare providers would be useful in creating a clearer understanding of whether provision of information is sufficient in communicating risks and promoting a healthy pregnancy.