1,722,662 research outputs found
Americans’ perceptions of and likely responses to the threat of avian influenza in the U.S. food supply
No full textHighly pathogenic avian influenza has affected poultry consumption in all affected countries as well as some countries that have not been affected. If, as some predict, there is an outbreak of avian influenza in poultry in the U.S., there will likely be serious repercussions on the entire food system.To predict what might happen if avian influenza emerged in poultry or wild birds in the U.S. researchers at the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, conducted a national survey of public knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors related to the threat of avian influenza in the food supply.MethodologyA total of 1200 telephone interviews, lasting an average of 22 minutes, were completed between May 3, and June 5, 2006.2 The survey sample was selected through a random digit dial list. The sample selection procedures ensure that every household within the United States has an equal chance to be included in the survey. Each selected number was called a maximum of 15 times with calls distributed across days and times to try to reach a member of the household. The data was weighted using appropriate U.S. census weights for gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education. The cooperation rate was 60%. This paper summarizes the findings of the survey.Rutgers Food Policy Institute (FPI) Research Report RR-1106-01
Food Recalls and the American Public: Improving Communications
No full textThis paper provides guidance for government and industry groups who communicate about food recalls and foodborne illness outbreaks. While the overall safety of the American food supply is good, several recent high profile outbreaks have resulted in increased attention on the food system, and the American public has the sense that food recalls are occurring more frequently. With additional improvements in outbreak surveillance and the technical ability to identify outbreak strains of pathogens, it is likely that there will be more warnings, advisories, and recalls in the future. As a result, providing clear, motivating, and accurate communication about food recalls to the public will be more essential than ever. Wherever possible, the recommendations provided here are based on empirical data, most of it collected by the Rutgers Food Policy Institute (FPI). In addition, the recommendations provided fit within a framework rooted in the psychology of health behaviors and behavior change. Simply telling people about a food recall is often not enough to motivate them to look for and discard recalled products. Instead, getting people to take action requires that they are aware of the recall, believe it applies to them, believe that the consequences are serious enough to warrant action, can identify the affected products, and believe that discarding (or returning) the product is both necessary and sufficient to resolve the problem. The framework used here also recognizes that getting people motivated to take action is only the first responsibility of food recall communications, because once the problem that led to the recall has been properly solved, consumers must also receive the message that the products are safe again to eat. This paper presents ways to improve awareness, increase relevance, convey consequences, accentuate identifying information, compel appropriate actions and reestablish consumer confidence, and each is discussed at length. Each recommendation on its own is a necessary but not sufficient component of successful food recall communications. By providing the guidance in this report, we hope to help communicators maximize the number of people who get their messages about food recalls, as well as increase the likelihood that the public will take appropriate precautionary behaviors and perform them successfully, without losing confidence in the food supply.FPI Publication number RR-0310-02
Avian Influenza in Poultry: American Knowledge, Perceptions, and Responses
No full textComputer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,200 non-institutionalized American adults (aged 18 and over) between May 3, 2006 and June 5, 2006. The results indicated:
• Avian influenza is on the national agenda
- Most Americans (93%) indicate they have heard of avian influenza.
- Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they have discussed avian influenza with someone else.
• Still, most Americans don’t know much about avian influenza
- More than half of Americans say they know ‘little’ or ‘nothing’ about avian influenza.
- On average, Americans correctly answer fewer than 60% of a series of 22 objective knowledge
questions.
• Uncertainty regarding food-related transmission
- The majority of Americans are aware that animal to human transmission of the avian influenza virus
can occur from contact with live infected birds or feces from infected birds.
- About one-third are unsure if transmission is possible from eating infected meat or eggs.
• Conflicting beliefs about preventing infection
- More than two-thirds of Americans believe the virus is present in uncooked meat of infected
chickens.
- Yet, less than half believe that proper cooking chicken kills the avian influenza virus.
- Few Americans believe infected live birds are easily recognizable; yet, many believe infected raw
meat is readily identifiable.
• Americans perceive the general risks posed by avian influenza to be low
- Americans aren’t very worried about illness with avian influenza.
- Americans report their risk of infection with avian influenza in the next year to be relatively low and
other Americans’ risk of infection to be higher, but still moderate.
• Yet, Americans see avian influenza in chicken as more risky
- The majority of Americans report greater perceived risk specifically associated with the consequences of eating chicken infected with avian influenza.
• Most Americans currently view chicken as safe and continue to eat it
- More than nine-in-ten Americans say they currently eat chicken.
- Americans report that chicken products in the U.S. are currently safe to eat.
• The proximity of avian influenza cases affects Americans likelihood of eating chicken
- The nearer avian influenza comes to the U.S., the less likely Americans are to eat chicken.
- Avian influenza does not necessarily have to emerge in the U.S. to affect poultry consumption.
• Many Americans are unlikely to eat chicken if the avian influenza virus is found inside the
U.S.
- Americans say they are relatively unlikely to eat chicken in the U.S. if avian influenza is found in wild
birds in the U.S. or if someone became sick with avian influenza from eating chicken in the U.S.
- Americans report being least likely to eat chicken in the U.S. if avian influenza was found in chickens
on farms in the U.S. and 39% report that they would definitely not eat chicken.
- Americans report reluctance to eat any chicken products if U.S. chickens are infected.
• Even with a strong, specific assurance of safety, many Americans report that they would be
unlikely to eat chicken again if the avian influenza virus is found inside the U.S.
- One-fifth (20%) say they would never eat chicken again.
- Those participants who said they would eat chicken again, report that it would take an average of 144 days for them to start eating it again (SD=337.67; Mdn=42).Suggested Citation:
Condry, S. C., Hallman, W. K., Vata, M., & Cuite, C. L. (2007). Avian influenza in poultry: Americans’
knowledge, perceptions, and responses. (Publication number RR-0507-014). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Food Policy Institute
Consumer responses to food recalls: 2008 national survey report
No full textThis report presents the data from a national telephone survey on American’s awareness and knowledge of food recalls, as well as their attitudes and behavioral responses to food recalls. A random sample of American adults in all 50 states was interviewed in August and September of 2008. The following are among the key findings of the study: Most Americans view food recalls as important and as saving lives. Most report paying attention to recalls and telling others about them. Many believe that recalls are relevant to others and not to themselves. While most Americans believe that the number of food recalls is growing, they have a poor grasp of the actual number of recalls that occurred in the year prior to the survey. Misconceptions about the food recall process and the role of government in it are widespread. Overall, only about six-in-ten Americans report having ever looked for recalled food in their homes; and far fewer (10%) say they have ever found a recalled food product. More than one quarter of Americans say they have discarded a food product after hearing about a food recall. More than one-in-ten Americans report having eaten a food they thought had been recalled. Nearly three quarters of Americans say they would want to receive personalized information about recalls on their receipt at the grocery store, and more than six-in-ten said they would want to receive such information through a letter or an email. Nearly four-in-ten Americans say they would be interested in signing up for email alerts from the government regarding food recalls, a service that is already available but used by only 6%. Consumers appear to highly value information that allows them to judge the potential likelihood and severity of consequences related to a food recall to determine whether it is in their interests to pay attention to the recall or to take actions in response. To be effective, food recalls must generate sufficient attention and motivation among consumers that they take appropriate protective actions. The results of this national survey suggest that for many Americans, this simply has not happened. Most Americans view recalls as important, but not particularly relevant to themselves. As a result, despite considerable awareness of recent recalls, few say they have looked for recalled products, and many appear to maintain an illusion of invulnerability.FPI Publication number RR-0109-01
Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion
No full textThis report presents the results from the second phase of a longitudinal study of Americans’ knowledge and feelings about agricultural biotechnology and how those perceptions and attitudes have changed over time. Two independent national probability samples of 1,200 adults were interviewed by phone in the spring of 2001 and 2003. While this report focuses on the findings from 2003, longitudinal comparisons are presented where appropriate. The report begins with an investigation of Americans’ awareness of the presence of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in the foods they encounter everyday. Next, the report describes Americans’ actual and perceived knowledge of science, biotechnology and food production. It then examines American opinions about GM foods in general, along with their opinions on a variety of existing and potential GM food products with direct or indirect consumer benefits. The report discusses the relationship between opinions of GM food and a variety of factors, including demographics, knowledge of biotechnology, purchasing behaviors and styles of food selection. Finally, it describes Americans’ thoughts on GM food labeling.Suggested Citation:
Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T. 2003. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion. (Publication number RR-1003-004). New Brunswick, New Jersey; Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey
Americans and GM food: Knowledge, opinion and interest in 2004
No full textThis report presents the results from the third in a series of studies examining public perception of genetically modified (GM) food in the United States. All three studies were based on survey results of separate, nationally representative samples of approximately 1,200 Americans taken in 2001, 2003, and 2004. While the survey instrument on which the current report is based maintained many of the same measures of awareness and attitude as its two predecessors, it also included several new queries that assess the ability of respondents to recall specific news stories related to GM food, their interest in the topic, and where they would go to look for new information.
Many questions that were repeated from previous years have changed considerably in the current survey. Some of the classic measures of awareness and opinion now incorporate an "unsure" response as choice supplied by the interviewer. While respondents were allowed to volunteer this response in the past, explicitly providing this option to respondents reduced guessing on knowledge-based questions and encouraged a more accurate representation of opinion than in the past.
The report begins with an investigation of Americans' awareness and knowledge about the topic in general, their ability to recall related news stories, familiarity with laws and regulations as well as other questions designed to get at highly specific knowledge about agricultural biotechnology. Next, it details the effect of the new survey methodology on reported opinions about plant-based and animal-based GM food. Finally, it delves into a number of novel findings about interest in hypothetical television shows about GM food, desire for information on food labels, and reported behavior with regards to information seeking.
Consistent with results from our previous studies and others, these findings suggest that the American public is generally unaware of GM food. Most Americans have heard or read little about it, are not aware of its prevalence in their lives, and are confused as to which type of GM products are available. Respondents struggled with factual questions related to GM food and the science behind it, could not recall news stories related to the topic, and were not very knowledgeable about laws regarding the labeling and testing of GM food.
Americans are also unsure of their opinions about GM food and split in their assessments of the technology when forced to take a position.
Americans say they are interested in the topic of GM food, specifically those topics related to human health. Respondents say they desire more information on food labels and report that they would like to see GM foods labeled as such. The majority of Americans admit they have never looked for information about GM food and most say they will search the Internet should the need arise.(Publication number RR-1104-007). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jerse
Public Response to the Contaminated Spinach Recall of 2006
No full textOn September 14, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory to consumers not to eat bagged fresh spinach because of suspected contamination by E. coli O157:H71. This advisory was based on information provided to the FDA by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concerning a multi-state foodborne illness outbreak possibly associated with the consumption of fresh spinach. The FDA also informed the public that E. coli O157:H7 causes diarrhea, often with bloody stools, and urged those who believed they experienced symptoms of illness after consuming bagged spinach to contact their health care providers.
The following day, the advisory was expanded to include all fresh spinach because the FDA had been informed that bagged spinach was sometimes sold in an un-bagged form at the retail level. Simultaneously, a series of voluntary recalls of fresh spinach began nationwide, as stores and restaurants quickly removed fresh spinach from their shelves and menus. By then, however, some of the contaminated spinach had already been consumed, with most people having already become ill between August 19 and September 5, 2006. As the investigation continued, the focus narrowed to products from Natural Selection Foods, LLC, of San Juan Bautista, California, with "Best if Used by Dates" of August 17, 2006 through October 1, 2006.
On September 20, the FDA issued an updated press release, advising consumers to continue to avoid consuming fresh spinach or products containing fresh spinach. They added however, that it was safe to eat frozen spinach, canned spinach and spinach included in pre-made meals manufactured by food companies. The following day, the FDA issued a statement that they, working closely with the CDC and the State of California, had determined that the spinach implicated in the outbreak had been grown in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara counties in California. The FDA was cautious in stating that produce other than spinach grown in these counties had not been implicated in the outbreak, however, the advisory against eating spinach was still in effect.
Finally, on September 22, the FDA advised the public that they could be confident in consuming spinach grown outside the three counties in California that had been implicated in the outbreak. They added that “industry is working to get spinach from areas not implicated in the current E. coli O157:H7 outbreak back on the market”; suggesting that the incident was over. However, as late as October 6, the FDA continued to remind retailers, food service operators and consumers that they should not sell or consume raw spinach or blends that might contain spinach that were “the subject of the earlier recalls.”
Ultimately, nearly 200 people in 26 states were reported to the CDC as having potentially been infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H79. More than 100 of these cases were hospitalized, and 31 developed a form of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This resulted in the deaths of three people (two elderly women and a two-year old boy) in confirmed cases of infection believed to be associated with the outbreak.
Due to the nature, scope, and significance of this contamination incident, and the potential lessons that might be learned from it, the Food Policy Institute (FPI) at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey undertook an analysis of the information that key actors attempted to deliver as events unfolded, the media coverage of those messages and events, and the information that consumers received, remembered, and acted upon. This report focuses on the third portion of this analysis; that is, what did consumers know, where did they get that
information, and what did they do in response to the advisories issued by the FDA warning them not to eat fresh spinach.Food Policy Institute Research Report # RR-0107-013
Food recalls and food safety perceptions: The September 2006 spinach recall case
No full textThis study analyzes public perceptions on food safety using a national survey conducted soon after the nationwide spinach recall (November 2006). We explore relationships between peoples’ perceived risks of food contamination (spinach in this case) and their trust in the institutions in charge of safeguarding/ensuring safety. Finally, we explore relationships between individual observance of basic good food handling practices and food safety. Trust in institutions through which food passes and regulatory agencies were shown to be critical in determining food safety perceptions. For example, skepticism with which the public views food corporations (processors, transporters or retailers) impacted food safety perceptions negatively. On the other, confidence in the USDA as a regulatory agent was viewed positively and hence contributed toward viewing the four types of spinach as safe for consumption.Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 602, May 2007, North Dakota State Universit
Public Perceptions of Labeling Genetically Modified Foods
No full textThis working paper contains findings from an October 2013 online U.S. national survey on public perceptions of labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods
Public Response to the Salmonella Saintpaul Outbreak of 2008
No full textThe largest foodborne illness outbreak in a decade occurred in the summer of 2008, when 1,442 individuals were identified as having been sickened by Salmonella of the unusual serotype Saintpaul.1,2 As part of a larger national telephone survey on food recalls, researchers at the Rutgers Food Policy Institute assessed Americans’ awareness of and responses to the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak. This included an examination of their knowledge about which foods were believed to have caused the outbreak, their awareness of the status of the outbreak at the time of the interview, and the actions they may have taken to avoid becoming ill as a result of this outbreak. Results from this survey indicate that while communication about foodborne illness does receive significant attention from the American public, often the specifics of the outbreak and recommended actions are misunderstood or disregarded.FPI Publication number RR-1208-01
- …
