The European Journal of Public Health Advance Access originally published online on July 19, 2005
The European Journal of Public Health 2005 15(5):523-527; doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Miscellaneous |
Public understanding of food risks in four European countries: a qualitative study
Judith M. Green1, Alizon K. Draper2, Elizabeth A. Dowler3, Giolo Fele4, Vera Hagenhoff5, Maria Rusanen6 and Timo Rusanen6
1 HSRU, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK
2 School of Integrated Health, University of Westminster, London, UK
3 Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
4 Facoltà di Sociologia, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
5 Institut für Agrarökonomie, Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing der Universität Kiel, Kiel, Germany
6 Department of Applied Biotechnology, University of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland
Correspondence: Judith M. Green, HSRU, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK, tel: +44 20 7927 2024, fax: +44 20 7580 8183; e-mail: Judith.green{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Background: In the wake of the ‘bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis’ there was renewed interest in how those responsible for public health could take account of public views, both to ‘democratize’ policy making and to increase the likelihood of information about health risks resonating with public concerns. This study explored how members of the public in four European countries (Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK) understood food risks in general, and risks arising from BSE in particular. The aims were to identify the sources of knowledge used and trusted by the public and to explore how public views could be accessed for public health information policy. Methods: Thirty-six focus group interviews were held using a common protocol across the four countries, including people from four lifecycle stages. Results: The study demonstrated the utility of using focus groups as a relatively efficient method for accessing public views, and the feasibility of cross-national qualitative research on public views. We found that public views of food risks are neither irrational nor naïve, but that they do need to be interpreted in the context of everyday food purchasing decisions, in which particular food risks are unlikely to have the same salience as they do for experts. Conclusions: Focus groups are a feasible method for accessing public knowledge on public health risks to inform information strategies.
Keywords: BSE, focus groups, food risk, information policy, public knowledge