Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy S. Cope a , L.J. Frewer a, * , J. Houghton b , G. Rowe a,b , A.R.H. Fischer a , J. de Jonge a a Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands b Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney Lane, Norwich, UK article info Article history: Received 24 July 2008 Received in revised form 7 April 2010 Accepted 15 April 2010 Keywords: Food risk analysis Consumer perceptions Risk communication Benefit communication Risk management abstract As a consequence of recent food safety incidents, consumer trust in European food safety management has diminished. A risk governance framework that formally institutes stakeholder (including consumer) consultation and dialogue through a transparent and accountable process has been proposed, with due emphasis on risk communication. This paper delivers actionable policy recommendations based on con- sumer preferences for different approaches to food risk management. These results suggest that risk com- munication should be informed by knowledge of consumer risk perceptions and information needs, including individual differences in consumer preferences and requirements, and differences in these relating to socio-historical context associated with regulation. In addition, information about what is being done to identify, prevent and manage food risks needs to be communicated to consumers, together with consistent messages regarding preventative programs, enforcement systems, and scientific uncer- tainty and variability associated with risk assessments. Cross-cultural differences in consumer perception and information preferences suggest a national or regional strategy for food risk communication may be more effective than one applied at a pan-European level. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction There is evidence to suggest that recent food safety incidents have resulted in a decline of public trust in food safety regulation and management in Europe(e.g. Berg et al., 2005; De Jonge et al., 2007, 2008; Houghton et al., 2008). There has been considerable debate about the potential public health consequences of different food safety incidents, which has, in turn, focused public attention to the regulatory systems which have been established in order to optimise consumer protection. Recent examples of such inci- dents include BSE (Reilly, 1999; Smith et al., 1999), genetically modified foods (Frewer et al., 2004), dioxins (Verbeke, 2001) and acrylamide (Claus et al., 2008). As a consequence a policy need has emerged regarding approaches and activities focused on improving the regulatory and institutional processes associated with food risk analysis. The process of decision-making on risk has been termed risk analysis and is broken down into the following three interrelated and defines steps, namely risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. As in other areas of risk governance, this dominant regulatory model has been applied to the food and animal feed internationally. According to internationally accepted principles and definitions, risk assessment is defined as the process of evalu- ation, including the identification of the attendant uncertainties, of the likelihood and severity of an adverse effect(s)/event(s) occur- ring to humans, food producing animals or the environment. Risk management is defined as the process of weighing policy alterna- tives in the light of the result of a risk assessment(s) and other relevant evaluations. If required, it includes the selection and implementation of appropriate control options (including, where appropriate, monitoring and surveillance activities). Risk commu- nication is defined as the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process (EU, 2002; FAO/WHO, 1995, 1997). These have included improving emerging food risk identification and initiating early preventative and miti- gatory actions (Marvin et al., 2009), improved and more transpar- ent food risk management activities (Böcker and Hanf, 2000; Houghton et al., 2006; Renn and Rohrmann, 2000), and the devel- opment of more effective and inclusive food risk communication practices (Dosman et al., 2001; Fischhoff et al., 1993; Hansen et al., 2003). A novel framework has been proposed which system- atically attempts to improve consumer confidence in existing risk analysis practices (Koenig et al., in press; Wentholt et al., 2009). The integrated framework describes an iterative risk analysis pro- cess comprised of four stages: framing, risk–benefit assessment, evaluation, and risk management. When the food risk issue is framed, interested parties, experts and officials with interests in 0306-9192/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.002 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 317 482205. E-mail address: Lynn.Frewer@wur.nl (L.J. Frewer). Food Policy 35 (2010) 349–357 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol