The health implications of distrust in the food system: findings from the dimensions of trust in food systems scale (DOTIFS scale).

BACKGROUND: Consumer trust in food systems is essential for consumers, food industry, policy makers and regulators. Yet no comprehensive tool for measuring consumer trust in food systems exists. Similarly, the impact that trust in the food system has on health-related food behaviours is yet to be empirically examined. The aim of this research was to develop a comprehensive instrument to measure trust in the food system (the Dimensions of Trust in Food Systems Scale (DOTIFS scale) and use it to explore whether trust in the food system impacts consumers' health-related behaviours. METHODS: The DOTIFS scale was developed using sociological theories of trust and pre-existing instruments measuring aspects of trust. It was pilot tested and content validity was assessed with 85 participants. A mixed-methods exploration of the health-related behaviours of 18 conveniently sampled Australian consumers with differing trust scores determined by the DOTIFS scale was then conducted. During March-July 2019 shopping- and home-observations were used to assess participants' food safety practices and exposure to public health fortification programs, while the CSIRO Healthy Diet Score determined their adherence to national dietary guidelines. RESULTS: The DOTIFS scale was found to have high comprehension, ease of use and content validity. Statistical analysis showed scale scores significantly trended as predicted by participants' stated level of trust. Differences were found in the way individuals with more or less trust in the food system comply with national dietary guidelines, are exposed to public health fortification programs, and adhere to recommended food safety practices. CONCLUSIONS: The DOTIFS scale is a comprehensive, sociologically- and empirically- informed assessment of consumer trust in food systems that can be self-administered online to large populations and used to measure changes in consumer trust over time. The differences in health-related behaviours between individuals with varying levels of trust warrant further investigation.

Cross-country comparison of strategies for building consumer trust in food.

Consumer trust in the modern food system is essential given its complexity. Contexts vary across countries with regard to food incidents, regulation and systems. It is therefore of interest to compare how key actors in different countries might approach (re)building consumer trust in the food system; and particularly relevant to understanding how food systems in different regions might learn from one another. The purpose of this paper is to explore differences between strategies for (re)building trust in food systems, as identified in two separate empirical studies, one conducted in Australia, New Zealand and the UK (Study 1) and another on the Island of Ireland (Study 2). Interviews were conducted with media, food industry and food regulatory actors across the two studies (n = 105 Study 1; n = 50 Study 2). Data were coded into strategy statements, strategies describing actions to (re)build consumer trust. Strategy statements were compared between Studies 1 and 2 and similarities and differences were noted. The strategy statements identified in Study 1 to (re)build consumer trust in the food system were shown to be applicable in Study 2, however, there were notable differences in the contextual factors that shaped the means by which strategies were implemented. As such, the transfer of such approaches across regions is not an appropriate means to addressing breaches in consumer trust. Notwithstanding, our data suggest that there is still capacity to learn between countries when considering strategies for (re)building trust in the food system but caution must be exercised in the transfer of approaches.

In the interest of food safety: a qualitative study investigating communication and trust between food regulators and food industry in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Food regulatory bodies play an important role in public health, and in reducing the costs of food borne illness that are absorbed by both industry and government. Regulation in the food industry involves a relationship between regulators and members of the industry, and it is imperative that these relationships are built on trust. Research has shown in a variety of contexts that businesses find the most success when there are high levels of trust between them and their key stakeholders. An evidence-based understanding of the barriers to communication and trust is imperative if we are to put forward recommendations for facilitating the (re)building of trusting and communicative relationships. METHODS: We present data from 72 interviews with regulators and industry representatives regarding their trust in and communication with one another. Interviews were conducted in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia in 2013. RESULTS: Data identify a variety of factors that shape the dynamic and complex relationships between regulators and industry, as well as barriers to communication and trust between the two parties. Novel in our approach is our emphasis on identifying solutions to these barriers from the voices of industry and regulators. CONCLUSIONS: We provide recommendations (e.g., development of industry advisory boards) to facilitate the (re)building of trusting and communicative relationships between the two parties.

A model for (re)building consumer trust in the food system.

The article presents a best practice model that can be utilized by food system actors to assist with (re)building trust in the food system, before, during and after a food incident defined as 'any situation within the food supply chain where there is a risk or potential risk of illness or confirmed illness or injury associated with the consumption of a food or foods' (Commonwealth of Australia. National Food Incident Response Protocol. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2012). Interviews were undertaken with 105 actors working within the media, food industry and food regulatory settings across Australia, New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Interview data produced strategy statements, which indicated participant views on how to (re)build consumer trust in the food system. These included: (i) be transparent, (ii) have protocols and procedures in place, (iii) be credible, (iv) be proactive, (v) put consumers first, (vi) collaborate with stakeholders, (vii) be consistent, (viii) educate stakeholders and consumers, (ix) build your reputation and (x) keep your promises. A survey was designed to enable participants to indicate their agreement/disagreement with the ideas, rate their importance and provide further comment. The five strategies considered key to (re)building consumer trust were used to develop a model demonstrating best practice strategies for (re)building consumer trust in the food system before, during and after a food incident. In a world where the food system is increasingly complex, strategies for (re)building and fostering consumer trust are important. This study offers a model to do so which is derived from the views and experiences of actors working across the food industry, food regulation and the media.

Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens' jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?

BACKGROUND: Contemporary food systems are vast and complex, creating greater distance between consumers and their food. Consequently, consumers are required to put faith in a system of which they have limited knowledge or control. Country of origin labelling (CoOL) is one mechanism that theoretically enables consumer knowledge of provenance of food products. However, this labelling system has recently come under Australian Government review and recommendations for improvements have been proposed. Consumer engagement in this process has been limited. Therefore this study sought to obtain further consumer opinion on the issue of CoOL and to identify the extent to which Australian consumers agree with Australian Government recommendations for improvements. METHODS: A citizens' jury was conducted with a sample of 14 South Australian consumers to explore their perceptions on whether the CoOL system allows them to make informed food choices, as well as what changes (if any) need to be made to enable informed food choices (recommendations). RESULTS: Overall, jurors' perception of usefulness of CoOL, including its ability to enable consumers to make informed food choices, fluctuated throughout the Citizens' Jury. Initially, the majority of the jurors indicated that the labels allowed informed food choice, however by the end of the session the majority disagreed with this statement. Inconsistencies within jurors' opinions were observed, particularly following delivery of information from expert witnesses and jury deliberation. Jurors provided recommendations for changes to be made to CoOL, which were similar to those provided in the Australian Government inquiry. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers in this study engaged with the topical issue of CoOL and provided their opinions. Overall, consumers do not think that the current CoOL system in Australia enables consumers to make informed choices. Recommendations for changes, including increasing the size of the label and the label's font, and standardising its position, were made.

Media actors' perceptions of their roles in reporting food incidents.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that the media can play a role in shaping consumer perceptions during a public health crisis. In order for public health professionals to communicate well-informed health information to the media, it is important that they understand how media view their role in transmitting public health information to consumers and decide what information to present. This paper reports the perceptions of media actors from three countries about their role in reporting information during a food incident. This information is used to present ideas and suggestions for public health professionals working with media during food incidents. METHODS: Thirty three semi-structured interviews with media actors from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom were conducted and analysed thematically. Media actors were recruited via purposive sampling using a sampling strategy, from a variety of formats including newspaper, television, radio and online. RESULTS: Media actors said that during a food incident, they play two roles. First, they play a role in communicating information to consumers by acting as a conduit for information between the public and the relevant authorities. Second, they play a role as investigators by acting as a public watchdog. CONCLUSION: Media actors are an important source of consumer information during food incidents. Public health professionals can work with media by actively approaching them with information about food incidents; promoting to media that as public health professionals, they are best placed to provide the facts about food incidents; and by providing angles for further investigation and directing media to relevant and correct information to inform such investigations. Public health professionals who adapt how they work with media are more likely to influence media to portray messages that fit what they would like the public to know and that are in line with public health recommendations and enable consumers to engage in safe and health promoting behaviours in response to food incidents.

Understanding how healthcare providers build consumer trust in the Australian food system: A qualitative study.

AIM: This study aimed to identify how dietitians and other healthcare providers work to build trust in food systems in the course of providing dietary education. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 purposefully sampled dietitians (n = 5), general practitioners (n = 5), and complementary and alternative medicine practitioners (n = 5) within metropolitan South Australia. Interview data were then interpreted using an inductive thematic analysis approach, involving the construction of themes representing trust-enhancing roles around which beliefs about professional roles, the 'patient', and food and health were clustered. RESULTS: Healthcare providers communicate beliefs regarding (dis)trust in food systems through: (i) responding to patient queries and concerns following a food incident or scare; (ii) helping patients to identify (un)trustworthy elements of food supply systems; and (iii) encouraging consumption of locally produced and minimally processed food. Importantly, the expression of these roles differed according to participant beliefs about food and health (medico-scientific versus alternative medicine) and their adoption of professional projects that sought to promote medico-scientific ways of thinking about health and diet or manage the failures of Western medicine. CONCLUSION: The development and consolidation of trust-enhancing roles amongst healthcare providers likely requires disciplinary reflection on professional values and the processes by which practitioners apply these values to understanding food systems.

Testing delay in an environment of low COVID-19 prevalence: A qualitative study of testing behaviour amongst symptomatic South Australians.

Introduction: South Australia has to date (October 2021) been highly successful in maintaining an aggressive suppression strategy for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, continued success of this strategy is dependent on ongoing testing by people with symptoms of COVID-19 to identify, trace and quarantine emergent cases as soon as possible. This study sought to explore community members' decisions about having COVID-19 testing in an environment of low prevalence, specifically exploring their decision-making related to symptoms. Materials and methods: This study drew on a qualitative case study design, involving five focus groups, conducted in May 2021, with 29 individuals who had experienced COVID-19-like symptoms since the commencement of testing in South Australia. Participants detailed their last COVID-19-like illness episode and described their decision-making regarding testing. Data collection methods and analysis were theoretically informed by the capability, opportunity, and motivation behaviour (COM-B) model. Findings: Participants' belief that COVID-19 symptoms would be 'unusual', severe, and persistent caused them to either reject or delay testing. Participants generally employed 'watch and wait' and social distancing behaviour rather than timely presentation to testing. Concern about economic loss associated with isolating after testing, and the potential for illness transmission at testing centres further prevented testing for some participants. Conclusions: In a low COVID-19 prevalence environment, individuals rely on pre-existing strategies for interpreting and managing personal illness (such as delaying help seeking if symptoms are mild), which generally conflict with public health management advice about COVID-19. In low prevalence environments therefore public health authorities must give the public a reason to test beyond considerations of personal risk, and clearly communicate the need for ongoing COVID-19 surveillance despite the low prevalence environment.

Developing and Maintaining Public Trust During and Post-COVID-19: Can We Apply a Model Developed for Responding to Food Scares?

Trust in public health officials and the information they provide is essential for the public uptake of preventative strategies to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. This paper discusses how a model for developing and maintaining trust in public health officials during food safety incidents and scandals might be applied to pandemic management. The model identifies ten strategies to be considered, including: transparency; development of protocols and procedures; credibility; proactivity; putting the public first; collaborating with stakeholders; consistency; education of stakeholders and the public; building your reputation; and keeping your promises. While pandemic management differs insofar as the responsibility lies with the public rather than identifiable regulatory bodies, and governments must weigh competing risks in creating policy, we conclude that many of the strategies identified in our trust model can be successfully applied to the maintenance of trust in public health officials prior to, during, and after pandemics.