4.5 Article

Public risk perception of food additives and food scares. The case in Suzhou, China

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 90-98

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.06.091

Keywords

Food additives; Risk perception; Food scares; Purchase intention; Structural equation modeling (SEM)

Funding

  1. key projects of the Social Sciences for bids from the Colleges of Jiangsu Province, China [2011ZDAXM018]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China [BK2012126]
  3. Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education of China [11YJC630172]
  4. Research on Chinese Food Safety Risk Management
  5. Central University Basic Research Funds [JUSRP51325A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the factors affecting public risk perception of food additive safety and possible resulting food scares using a survey conducted in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China. The model was proposed based on literature relating to the role of risk perception and information perception of public purchase intention under food scares. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for data analysis. The results showed that attitude towards behavior, subjective norm and information perception exerted moderate to high effect on food scares, and the effects were also mediated by risk perceptions of additive safety. Significant covariance was observed between attitudes toward behavior, subjective norm and information perception. Establishing an effective mechanism of food safety risk communication, releasing information of government supervision on food safety in a timely manner, curbing misleading media reports on public food safety risk, and enhancing public knowledge of the food additives are key to the development and implementation of food safety risk management policies by the Chinese government. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available