British Food Journal

Emerald Article: Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their
relation to traceability
Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer

Article information:
To cite this document: Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their
relation to traceability", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp. 1034 - 1046
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810906642
Downloaded on: 20-01-2013
References: This document contains references to 37 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 18 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 3780 times since 2008. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability",
British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp. 1034 - 1046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810906642

Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability",
British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp. 1034 - 1046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810906642

Wendy van Rijswijk, Lynn J. Frewer, (2008),"Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability",
British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 10 pp. 1034 - 1046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810906642

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

BFJ
110,10 Consumer perceptions of food
quality and safety and their
relation to traceability
1034
Wendy van Rijswijk
University of Dundee, Dundee, UK and University of St Andrews,
St Andrews, UK, and
Lynn J. Frewer
Wageningen University, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour,
Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract
Purpose – The research presented here aims to gain understanding of consumers’ perceptions of the
concepts of food quality and safety, two concepts that play an important role in how consumers
perceive food, and that are used in decision making.
Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n ¼ 163 consumers)
were held in four European countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain). Consumers’ own definitions
of the two concepts of food quality and safety were examined, together with the perceived
interrelationship between quality and safety, and whether these concepts were linked to improved food
chain traceability.
Findings – The results indicate that most consumers see food quality and food safety as interlinked
concepts, which becomes evident in their partly overlapping definitions of the two concepts.
Consumers believe both food safety and quality are important to food in general, but pay relatively
more attention to food quality when purchasing a product. Traceability was linked not only to food
safety, but also to food quality in the mind of the consumer.
Research limitations/implications – Future research on consumer perceptions of food quality
and safety will need to take account of the observation that these concepts are strongly related in
consumers’ minds, and therefore cannot be easily separated in explaining consumer choices.
Originality/value – Instead of investigating consumer perceptions of food quality and safety in
relation to specific products, consumer perceptions of food quality and food safety in general, and how
these were related to each other, were studied. Further understanding was gained of how consumers
might use these concepts in judgements about food, which, in turn may influence their purchase
decisions.
Keywords Consumers, Perception, Food products, Quality, Food safety, Europe
Paper type Research paper

British Food Journal
Vol. 110 No. 10, 2008
pp. 1034-1046
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/00070700810906642
The research described in this paper is part of the Tracing the origin of food (TRACE) project,
which is funded by the European Commission through the Sixth Framework Programme
(contract CT-2005-006942). The following persons contributed to the research described in this
paper: C. Bauer and B. Schaer, EcoZept Freising, Germany; P. de Carlos, J. Briz and I. de Felipe,
Polytechnic University Madrid, Spain; D. Menozzi, G. Faioli and C. Mora, University of Parma,
Italy; C. Amblard, R. Halawany and G. Giraud, ENITAC, France; P. Chrysochou, G.
Chryssochoidis and O. Kehagia, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece. The information
contained in this paper reflects the authors’ views; the European Commission is not liable for any
use of the information contained therein.
Introduction Perceptions of
Quality and safety are two important elements in consumer food perceptions and food quality and
decision making associated with food choice (Grunert, 2005; Röhr et al., 2005).
Consumers are believed to generally prefer products of high quality. However, the safety
underlying cognitive determinants of “quality” and “safety” are not sufficiently
understood within the area of consumer behaviour. Furthermore, the relationship
between the two concepts has not been the subject of extensive empirical investigation. 1035
Previous research has frequently treated the concepts of quality and safety as separate
entities, and, as a consequence, addresses only one or the other of the two concepts in
the development of research questions. In addition, food quality and safety are usually
studied in relation to specific products or product categories rather than in more
general terms. The current investigation aims to examine the role of consumers’
perceptions of food quality and safety in their decision making in general, and at the
same time to examine their possible interrelationship. Moreover, we will examine the
relationship between quality, safety and traceability, because traceability potentially
has an impact on consumers’ perceptions of both food safety as well as food quality
(European General Food Law; EC directive 178/2002).

Food quality and food safety

It is important to understand consumers’ own perceptions and representations of
quality and safety. This is because consumers will base their purchasing decisions on
these beliefs. Nevertheless, quality and safety are concepts that cannot be easily
defined, because they are classified as credence attributes (i.e. product attributes that
cannot be verified by the consumer). Consumers are likely to derive quality or safety
perceptions from other product cues, either intrinsic (e.g., appearance of the product) or
extrinsic cues (e.g., a quality label) (Nelson, 1970). Hence, further examination is needed
of what, in general, consumers associate with food quality and safety, i.e. what they
mean when they claim that a product is of good quality or is safe to consume?
In addition, the interrelationship between consumer conceptualisation of food
quality and food safety warrants further investigation. If consumers perceive quality
and safety as independent attributes, different decisions may be made depending on
whether consumers focus on quality or safety issues in their food choices. However, if
the two concepts are inter-related, and are implied by one another, food choices may
always involve decisions about both quality and safety.
It is arguable that perceptions of quality and safety are only two important
determinants of food choice. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all
the potential determinants of food choice, because food choice is a complex issue in
which many factors play a role, including those which can be described as biological,
psychological and cultural (see, for example, Frewer and Van Trijp, 2007; Rozin, 2007;
Shepherd and Raats, 2007). In fact, perceptions of food quality and safety are likely to
be influenced by such psychological and cultural factors rather than physiological
product experiences alone.

Cultural variations in perceptions

Both qualitative and quantitative research has addressed issues associated with
cultural determinants of food choice (Shepherd and Raats, 2007). It is evident that when
analysing factors that influence food choice it is important to take consumers’ cultural
BFJ backgrounds into account (Askegaard, 1995; Hoogland et al., 2005; Nayga, 1999;
110,10 Overby et al., 2004). It is believed that people from different cultural backgrounds have
different perceptions and experiences related to food (e.g., Rozin et al., 1999; Lennernäs
et al., 1997). As a consequence, some consumers are more oriented towards food
quality, whereas for others food safety represents their primary concern.
The importance of cultural variation in food choice is recognised within the
1036 European context (Askegaard and Madsen, 1998; Fieldhouse, 1995). The distinction
that is often made in Europe is between the more northern or central countries (e.g. UK,
Scandinavia and Germany) and the more southern, or Mediterranean countries (e.g.,
France, Spain, Italy and Greece). Southern cultures are thought to be more involved
with food quality and the pleasures that can be derived from eating (Pettinger et al.,
2004). In comparison, northern cultures put more emphasis on food safety and ethical
concerns (e.g., about animal welfare) play a more important role (Pettinger et al., 2004).
The empirical evidence for this strict distinction is somewhat scarce.

Traceability
To date, little is known about consumer perceptions of, and demands regarding, food
traceability. The limited number of studies that have been conducted thus far have
primarily focused on consumers’ perceptions of traceability associated with one
particular product or product category (Dickinson and Bailey, 2002; Hobbs et al.,
2005; Verbeke, 2005), and not beliefs about traceability in general. The research
conducted thus far suggests that people have little notion about what traceability is
(Giraud and Amblard, 2003), and are not very interested in the technical aspects of
traceability (Gellynck and Verbeke, 2001). It is therefore unlikely that information
provision about the technical aspects of traceability will boost consumer confidence.
Traceability is usually associated with food risk and safety issues (Giraud and
Amblard, 2003), but can potentially be used to ascertain both food safety and food
quality. For example, traceability may be a powerful tool to help to establish the
authenticity of food, and to check that claims made by producers about food are true.
Previous research (Hobbs et al., 2005; Verbeke and Ward, 2006) has shown that
consumers might be especially interested in traceability when it is linked to these
types of quality assurances.

Current study
In summary, the current study examined how people from different European cultural
backgrounds define and value food safety and food quality, and whether they link
these concepts to the implementation of improved traceability. It was expected that in
the southern European countries, food quality would be the focus of consumer concern,
whereas consumers in northern countries would be primarily concerned with food
safety. In southern European countries, traceability would be linked to food quality,
whereas in northern European countries traceability would be linked to food safety.

Method
Participants
A total of 163 interviews were held in Germany (n ¼ 40), France (n ¼ 43), Italy
(n ¼ 40), and Spain (n ¼ 40). Respondents were recruited by means of announcements,
newspaper advertisements and contact lists. All respondents participated on a
voluntary basis. They received compensation (valued between 15 and 30 euros) for Perceptions of
their participation, with the exception of Italian participants. Based on their previous food quality and
experience of conducting interviews with the general public the Italian research team
knew it was not necessary to offer respondents monetary compensation for their time safety
because the interviews were relatively short (around 30 minutes) and took place in the
homes of the respondents, thus no travel time or expenses were involved.
Respondents were quota sampled on the basis of their demographic characteristics; 1037
gender (58 per cent women), age (31 per cent under 30, 37 per cent between 30 and 50,
32 per cent over 50), and educational level (51 per cent secondary education, 47 per cent
tertiary education); people with lower levels of education were not specifically targeted
in the quota, however 2 per cent of the final sample reported a lower level of education
(primary education).

Procedure
Before commencing the semi-structured interview, respondents first completed a
laddering study focused on the topic of traceability (van Rijswijk et al., 2007).
Interviews were carried out by native speakers in the respective countries, who were
either researchers on the project or interviewers trained by them. A central training
session was held before the interviews were conducted.
All interviews followed the same interview structure, however interviewers were
allowed to probe for further explanations from the respondents and the order in
which the questions were asked was not fixed (hence the semi-structured nature of
the interviews). Amongst other topics (not reported here), questions were posed about
consumers’ perceptions of food quality and safety, their interrelations and importance
for food choice. The respondents were asked the following questions: “What is your
definition of food quality?”; “What is your definition of food safety?”; “What is the
relation between these?”; “Is one more important to you in general?”; “How does food
quality influence your choice of food products?”; “How does food safety influence
your choice of food products?”; and “In your view, are food quality and food safety
related to traceability?”. A definition of traceability was given at the beginning of the
interview, namely: “Traceability is the ability to trace and track food, and food
ingredients through the supply chain; thus all stages of production, processing and
distribution.”
The answers were coded using Atlas.ti. Reponses were categorised by means of
primary coding with Atlas and subsequent superordinate coding of the derived codes.
Subsequently, the number of times a particular response (i.e. summary code) was
obtained was counted (also per country), and these frequencies will be used in the
analysis. Respondents were able to respond quite freely to the questions presented. As
a consequence, multiple codes were sometimes assigned to the answers provided by
single respondents. All tables summarising the results represent the percentages of the
responses (and not respondents) in a particular response category.

Results
Consumers’ definition of quality and safety
There was considerable overlap between the consumers’ definitions of quality and
safety (see Table I). Quality was more frequently defined in terms of “taste”, “good
product”, “natural/organic” and “freshness”, whereas safety is primarily defined in
BFJ
Defined in terms of Total Germany France Italy Spain
110,10
Quality (n ¼ 399) (n ¼ 124) (n ¼ 117) (n ¼ 78) (n ¼ 83)
Taste 15.5 14.5 19.7 12.8 13.3
Good product 14.5 12.9 9.4 19.2 19.3
Natural/organic 8.8 13.7 9.4 2.6 6.0
1038 Freshness 8.3 17.7 5.1 6.4 0
Not risky/safety 7.3 5.6 5.1 7.7 12.0
Proper production method 7.3 11.3 6.0 7.7 2.4
Liking, pleasure to eat 6.0 2.4 7.7 9.0 6.0
Appearance 6.0 4.0 12.8 0 4.8
Healthy 4.5 4.0 3.4 6.4 4.8
Control/guarantee 4.0 0.1 2.6 6.4 8.4
Brand 3.0 0.1 2.6 5.1 4.8
Price 2.5 0.1 2.6 0 7.2
Origin 2.5 2.4 4.3 1.3 1.2
Other 9.8 8.1 8.5 15.4 9.6
Safety (n ¼ 277) (n ¼ 76) (n ¼ 99) (n ¼ 43) (n ¼ 59)
Risky/harmful 14.4 19.7 9.1 16.3 15.3
Control/guarantee 12.3 5.3 12.1 2.3 28.8
Healthy (no health risk) 11.2 10.5 8.1 18.6 11.9
Proper handling 8.3 9.2 11.1 4.7 5.1
Proper chain management 7.2 6.6 11.1 4.7 3.4
Best before date 6.5 6.6 8.1 4.7 5.1
Confidence attribute 5.8 5.3 5.1 7.0 6.8
Natural/organic 5.5 7.9 4.0 9.3 1.7
Label/logo 5.4 0 7.1 9.3 6.8
Good condition 3.2 3.9 1.0 2.3 6.8
Quality 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.3 3.4
Origin 2.5 1.3 1.0 9.3 1.7
Other 14.8 21.0 19.1 4.3 3.4
Table I. Note: Some examples of the next frequently mentioned items classified under other for safety were
Consumers’ definitions of “freshness” and “don’t know” (Germany and France) and for quality “good chain management” and
quality and safety “best before date” (Italy and Spain)

terms of “absence of risk” or “harmfulness”, whilst being positively associated with

“health”. In addition, quality was defined by some consumers in terms of safety (e.g.
not risky), while safety was less likely to be defined in terms on quality. (See also the
following section on the “relationship quality and safety”).
Consumers’ definitions of food quality were shown to be more elaborate (or perhaps
better defined) than definitions that were provided regarding food safety. Indeed, a
number of people were not able to provide a definition of safety when prompted.
Differences in responses between the participants from the different countries
included in the study were examined. German respondents defined quality primarily in
terms of “freshness”, “taste”, “natural/organic”, and as a “good product” associated
with a “proper production method”. French respondents linked quality with both
“taste” and “appearance”. Italian respondents indicated that a “good product”, “taste”
and “liking” are important definitions of quality. Spanish respondents defined quality
as resulting in “good products”, with “taste” and “without risk” (i.e. safe).
 With respect to safety, Germans and Italian respondent were most concerned about Perceptions of
“risk” and “healthiness”, whereas the Spanish respondents in particular emphasised food quality and
“controls” and “guarantees” as being important determinants of safety. These
associations were also expressed by French respondents, in addition to “proper safety
handling and chain management”.

The relationship between quality and safety 1039

The relation between quality and safety was assessed by directly probing the
respondents about the perceived interrelationship. For most consumers quality and
safety are clearly related (see Table II).
About 12 percent of respondents indicated that they perceived quality and safety to
be basically equitable. Two thirds of the respondents perceived there to be a (strong)
relation between quality and safety (i.e. they are related, or one implies the other).
Two-thirds of respondents in this latter category indicated that product quality implies
safety (33.1 per cent overall):
Quality and safety are two very close connected concepts. A product of a high quality is
automatically safe (Germany).
Safety is a consequence of quality, a product with certain quality attributes is safer (Italy).
For the other third of respondents (19.3 per cent overall), this relationship was reversed;
in other words, respondents indicated that a safe product implies high quality.
However, for other respondents the relationship between quality and safety was not
observed. Therefore, they indicate that quality does not imply safety, or that safety
does not imply quality per se.
A good quality product is safe, but a safe product is not always a product with good quality
(France).
In summary, two-thirds of the respondents perceived a (strong) relation between the
concepts of food quality and food safety. However, in general, people are more likely to
infer safety from quality than the converse. This means that when people perceive a
product as being of good quality they assume that the product is also safe.

The importance of quality and safety

Respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of quality and safety to
them in general, as well as in relation to their food decision-making in a purchasing

Total Germany France Italy Spain

(n ¼ 166) (n ¼ 35) (n ¼ 61) (n ¼ 30) (n ¼ 40)

Basically the same 12.1 5.7 8.2 20.0 17.5

Related (not specified) 16.3 22.9 13.1 3.3 25.0
Quality implies safety 33.1 31.4 32.8 43.3 27.5
Quality does not imply safety 6.0 0 8.2 16.7 0 Table II.
Safety implies quality 19.3 25.7 14.8 16.7 22.5 Proportions of the
Safety does not imply quality 7.2 2.9 18.0 0 0 perceived link between
Not related/clearly different 6.0 11.5 5.0 0 7.5 quality and safety
BFJ situation (i.e. choosing a product in a store). The results indicate that there were an
110,10 approximately equal number of people who thought that quality was more important
than safety, safety more important than quality, or both were equally important (see
Table III).
Safety it’s more important, it’s necessary (Italy).
1040 . . . both of them have the same level of importance (Spain).
A relatively larger group of Italian consumers felt that safety was most important.
However, the pattern of relative equal importance of quality and safety was not
replicated when we examined the importance of quality and safety as determinants of
product choice. When choosing products, most respondents claimed that they paid
attention to both food quality and safety (see Table IV). However, many consumers
indicated that they were primarily interested in quality when choosing products.
French consumers in particular indicated that they do not base their food choice on
safety information. Consumers indicated that they prefer to use quality indicators in
their food choice decisions because they feel they have no way of assessing the safety
level of a product, or, alternatively, because they have confidence that the safety of
their food is guaranteed for every product available:
Safety does not influence shopping decisions because it cannot be seen/controlled by the
consumer (Germany).

Safety does not directly influence food choices, because (the consumer) supposes that every
product is safe (Germany).

Food crises don’t influence (consumer) food choice because (the consumer) trusts the national
and international organisms that control (food safety) (France).

Total Germany France Italy Spain

(n ¼ 113) (n ¼ 26) (n ¼ 40) (n ¼ 22) (n ¼ 25)
Table III.
Relative importance of Quality more important 38.1 38.5 45.0 22.7 40.0
quality and safety in Safety more important 37.2 19.2 45.0 50.0 32.0
general Both important 24.8 42.3 10.0 27.3 28.0

Total Germany France Italy Spain

(n ¼ 192) (n ¼ 43) (n ¼ 61) (n ¼ 48) (n ¼ 40)

Choice based on both 47.4 48.8 31.1 60.4 55.0

Choice based on quality 25.5 27.9 26.2 20.8 27.5
Choice based on safety 10.4 2.3 11.5 18.8 7.5
Table IV. Choice not on quality 3.1 2.3 8.2 0 0
Relative importance of Choice not on safety 9.9 14.0 21.3 0 0
quality and safety in Choice based on neither 1.0 2.3 1.6 0 0
product choice Other 2.6 2.3 0 0 10.0
The link between traceability and quality/safety Perceptions of
Respondents were questioned about whether they perceived a direct link between food quality and
traceability food quality and/or food safety (see Table V).
The majority of respondents indicated that both quality and safety are related to safety
traceability. Nevertheless, the relationship with safety was perceived to be stronger
than that with quality. In fact, people were more likely to express that traceability was
not related to quality: 1041
Regarding traceability, both topics are related but . . . somehow, (traceability) is more aimed
at food safety (Spain).
Traceability is connected to safety, but traceability provides no guarantee for (food) quality
(Germany).
There is a relationship between safety and traceability: good traceability increases controls,
so there is safety. There is no relation between traceability and the quality of the product
(France).
In sum the results indicate that European consumers have partly overlapping
definitions of quality and safety, and find quality and safety interrelated attributes that
are important with regard to food. Final purchasing choices are more likely to be based
on quality perceptions. Finally, both quality and safety are perceived to be related to
traceability, with a stronger relationship with safety.

Discussion
Quality and safety
Consumers’ own definition of food quality and safety includes various elements
potentially related to intrinsic and extrinsic product cues such as appearance, taste,
origin and brand. Consumers derive quality and safety judgements from these product
cues, but also utilise more abstract terms in their own definitions, such as “something
you like”, or something “that is harmful” or “unhealthy” to describe food quality and
safety. Consumers generally seemed to have more detailed and confident definitions for
food quality compared to food safety. Nonetheless, there was considerable overlap
between consumer definitions of quality and safety. For example, some consumers
included food quality in their definition of food safety attributes, and vice versa, which
supports the idea that these two concepts are interrelated in consumers’ views. When
explicitly asked to articulate how they perceived the relationship between quality and
safety, consumers indicated that the two concepts were closely related, or even (for
some respondents) directly equitable. For many people, safety represented one aspect

Total Germany France Italy Spain

(n ¼ 167) (n ¼ 40) (n ¼ 48) (n ¼ 41) (n ¼ 38)

Both related 68.9 60.0 64.6 83.0 68.4

Safety related more 14.4 15.0 10.4 14.6 18.4
Quality not related 6.0 7.5 8.3 2.4 5.3 Table V.
Quality related more 3.0 5.0 4.2 0 2.6 Perception of the link
Safety not related 3.0 5.0 6.3 0 0 between traceability and
Neither related 4.8 7.5 6.3 0 5.3 quality and safety
BFJ of quality, and therefore finding a product that was of high quality also implies that it
110,10 was safe. Hence, when consumers indicate that quality is an important aspect in their
perception of food they implicitly indicate the importance of safety. However, the
reverse relationship does not necessarily hold: safety seems to be a basic ingredient for
quality without necessarily implying it (see also Grunert, 2005; Verbeke, 2005).
Nevertheless, consumers in this study indicated that they based their food choice in the
1042 shopping environment on their quality perceptions to a greater extent, because to them
quality implies safety, and they assume that for all products sold a basic level of safety
is guaranteed, and because they feel they cannot personally assess the safety of food
products. When consumers cannot determine the safety of a product themselves, they
have to rely on their trust in producers and other chain actors (De Jonge et al., 2004;
Verbeke, 2005). This is also illustrated by some consumers’ definition of food safety as
something “taken on trust”, in line with its status as a credence value (see below for a
further discussion of the potential role of trust).
The current study cannot show the extent to which consumers’ perceptions of
quality and safety coincide with those of experts and food industry. Research has
revealed differences between expert and lay perceptions of what constitutes optimal
food safety (see for example, Houghton et al., 2008; Krystallis et al., in press), as well as
differences between industry and consumers regarding what constitutes optimal food
quality (Grunert, 2007). Nevertheless, in the case of both food safety and food quality it
is important to focus on consumer perceptions of what constitutes safety and/or
quality, as these will determine consumer acceptance of specific products.

Cross-cultural variation in consumer responses

On the basis of the existing literature, it was predicted that consumers in different
countries might have different concerns about quality and safety aspects of food, and
perceive the utility of traceability accordingly. For example, as already discussed,
consumers in Mediterranean countries are generally thought to be generally more
concerned about the quality of food, whereas consumers in northern European
countries are generally assumed to be risk adverse, hence more concerned with food
safety. This assumption was not confirmed by the results of the present study, as
consumers from all the countries included in the research were concerned about both
food quality and safety.
In fact, the strongest concern about safety was obtained in the analysis of the
interview transcripts from Italian consumers. This is in accordance with earlier results
(Bernués et al., 2003), which indicated that Italian respondents are relatively more
concerned about the control and security of their food. This emphasis on food safety
and control in Italy is likely to be related to little trust in the state’s dealings with food
safety issues (Kjærnes, 2006) exemplified by strong responses to recent food safety
scares such as avian flu (e.g., “Fear ‘psychosis’ hits Italy, poultry consumption
plummets”, ElAmin, 2006; USDA, 2006).
Hence, the cross-cultural differences regarding perceptions of food safety might
potentially be explained by the extent to which consumers trust national regulatory
bodies to prioritise consumer protection. Previous research has focused on consumer
trust and its influence on consumer perceptions of food safety and food risk
management (De Jonge et al., 2007; Frewer et al., 1996; Frewer and Miles, 2001,
Kjærnes, 2006). Consumer trust in different actors and institutions responsible for
guaranteeing and controlling food safety is considered to be important for consumer Perceptions of
evaluation of the efficacy of food risk management practices. It has been long food quality and
recognised that individuals who trust an institution or group seem to find risk
estimates provided by this institution more credible, and its hazard policies more safety
acceptable (e.g. Johnson and Slovic, 1995). Cross-cultural differences in consumer trust
have also been observed, at least in a European context (Kjærnes, 2006; Van Kleef et al.,
2007). To our knowledge, less is known about the relationship between consumer trust 1043
in different food chain actors and perceptions of food quality, and this topic merits
further empirical research.
Taken together the cross cultural results indicate that it might not be as useful, as
has been assumed in the past, to distinguish between quality-oriented southern and
safety-oriented northern European countries (see also Grunert et al., 2001). When
examining cross-countries differences relating to food quality and safety we should
thus keep in mind that when people refer to food quality they will also be concerned
about food safety and vice versa.

Traceability
The results indicate that the majority of consumers included in the study perceive both
safety and quality as being related to traceability. In line with previous research
(Giraud and Halawany, 2006), we found that although consumers relate traceability
somewhat more strongly to safety (and food recalls in response to safety problems),
food chain traceability is also related to food quality perceptions (see also Verbeke and
Ward, 2006). This can be partially explained by the observation that consumer
perceptions of quality and safety are not mutually exclusive. Communication to
consumers about the potential benefits of traceability might usefully incorporate both
food quality and food safety advantages.
An important question still remains to be answered – specifically, whether
traceability information related to quality and safety can indeed increase consumer
trust in food products and indeed different food chain actors. Further investigation is
needed to establish in what form this should be communicated if consumers are not to
be overwhelmed with different types of information relevant to food choices.

Conclusions
Since consumers’ definitions of quality and safety overlap, a strict separation between
consumer judgments about, and perceptions of, food quality and food safety cannot be
made. Hence interpretation of research examining consumers’ perceptions of food
quality and/or safety needs to take into account their interrelationship. In addition, the
results did not confirm the existence of clear cross-cultural distinctions consumer
preferences for quality or safety as a food choice priority.
Further implications of the results are that communication about food safety and
quality issues means developing messages that focus on the attributes that consumers
associate with quality and safety rather than speaking about these terms in the
abstract. For example, discussion about the about the freshness or healthiness of the
product may be more relevant to consumers than discussion about quality or safety.
Given that quality is linked to safety in the mind of the consumer, consumers demand
for a better quality product is likely to mean that they also want safer product. Finally,
it is necessary to reduce consumer uncertainty about safety and quality issues
BFJ associated with products by providing relevant information in an understandable form
110,10 (for example indication through trusted quality labels such as PDO/PGI).

References
Askegaard, S. (1995), “European food cultures: an exploratory analysis of food related
1044 preferences and behaviour in European regions”, MAPP working paper, No. 26, Aarhus
School of Business, Aarhus.
Askegaard, S. and Madsen, T.K. (1998), “The local and the global: exploring traits of
homogeneity and heterogeneity in European food cultures”, International Business Review,
Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 549-68.
Bernués, A., Olaizola, A. and Corcoran, K. (2003), “Labelling information demanded by European
consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat”, Meat
Science, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 1095-106.
De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., van Trijp, H., Renes, R.J., de Wit, W. and Timmers, J. (2004), “Monitoring
consumer confidence in food safety: an exploratory study”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106
Nos 10/11, pp. 837-49.
De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R.J. and Frewer, L.J. (2007), “Understanding consumer
confidence in the safety of food: Its two dimensional structure and determinants”, Risk
Analysis, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 729-39.
Dickinson, D.L. and Bailey, D. (2002), “Meat traceability: are US consumers willing to pay for it?”,
Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economy, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 348-64.
ElAmin, A. (2006), “Fear ‘psychosis’ hits Italy, poultry consumption plummets”, Food Production
Daily, 16 February, available at: www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.
asp?n ¼ 65866-bird-flu-poultry-italy(accessed 23 November 2007).
Fieldhouse, P. (1995), Food and Nutrition Customs and Culture, Chapman and Hall, London.
Frewer, L.J. and Miles, S. (2001), “Public trust and regulatory transparency”, in Frewer, L.J.,
Schifferstein, R. and Risvik, E. (Eds), Food Choice in Europe, Springer Verlag, Berlin,
pp. 401-11.
Frewer, L.J. and Van Trijp, H. (Eds) (2007), Understanding Consumers of Food Products,
Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1996), “What determines trust in
information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs”, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 473-86.
Gellynck, X. and Verbeke, W. (2001), “Consumer perception of traceability in the meat chain”,
Agrarwirtschaft, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 368-74.
Giraud, G. and Amblard, C. (2003), “What does traceability mean for beef meat consumer?”, Food
Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 40-64.
Giraud, G. and Halawany, R. (2006), “Consumers’ perception of food traceability in Europe”,
paper presented at the 98th EAAE Seminar, Chania, 29 June-2 July.
Grunert, K. (2007), “How consumers perceive food quality”, in Frewer, L.J. and van Trijp, H.
(Eds), Understanding Consumers of Food Products, Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press,
Cambridge, pp. 181-99.
Grunert, K.G. (2005), “Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand”, European
Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 369-91.
Grunert, K.G., Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L. and Bech, A.C. (2001), “Food-related lifestyle: a Perceptions of
segmentation approach to European food consumers”, in Frewer, L.J., Risvik, E. and
Schifferstein, H. (Eds), Food, People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’
food quality and
Food Choices, Springer, Berlin, pp. 211-32. safety
Hobbs, J.E., Bailey, B.V., Dickinson, D.L. and Haghiri, M. (2005), “Traceability in the Canadian
red meat sector: do consumers care?”, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 47-65. 1045
Hoogland, C.T., de Boer, J. and Boersema, J.J. (2005), “Transparency of the meat chain in light of
food culture and history”, Appetite, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Houghton, J.R., Van Kleef, E., Frewer, L.J., Chryssochoidis, G., Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, T.,
Lassen, J., Pfenning, U. and Rowe, G. (2008), “The quality of food risk management in
Europe: perspectives and priorities”, Journal of Food Policy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Johnson, B.B. and Slovic, P. (1995), “Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial
studies of its effects on risk perception and trust”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 485-94.
Kjærnes, U. (2006), “Trust and distrust: cognitive decisions or social relations?”, Journal of Risk
Research, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 911-32.
Krystallis, T., Frewer, L.J., Rowe, G. and Houghton, J. (in press), “Cross-country comparisons in
consumers’ and experts’ perception of food risk management: Denmark, Germany, Greece
and the UK”, Health, Risk and Society.
Lennernäs, M., Fjellstrom, C., Becker, W., Giachetti, I., Schmitt, A., Remaut de Winter, A.M. and
Kearney, M. (1997), “Influences on food choice perceived to be important by nationally
representative samples of adults in the European Union”, European Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Vol. 51, Suppl. 2, pp. S8-S15.
Nayga, R.M. (1999), “Toward an understanding of consumers’ perceptions of food labels”,
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 29-45.
Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behaviour”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78,
July/August, pp. 51-7.
Overby, J.W., Gardial, S.F. and Woodruff, R.B. (2004), “French versus American consumers’
attachment of value to a product in a common consumption context: a cross-national
comparison”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 437-60.
Pettinger, C., Holdsworth, M. and Gerber, M. (2004), “Psycho-social influences on food choice in
Southern France and Central England”, Appetite, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 307-16.
Rozin, P. (2007), “Food choice: an introduction”, in Frewer, L.J. and van Trijp, H. (Eds),
Understanding Consumers of Food Products, Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press,
Cambridge, pp. 3-29.
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A. and Wrzesniewski, A. (1999), “Attitudes to food and
the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible
implications for the diet-health debate”, Appetite, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 163-80.
Röhr, A., Lüddecke, A., Drusch, S., Müller, M.J. and Alvensleben, R.V. (2005), “Food quality and
safety – consumer perception and public health concern”, Food Control, Vol. 16, pp. 649-55.
Shepherd, R. and Raats, M.M. (2007), The Psychology of Food Choice, CABI Publishing,
Wallingford.
USDA (2006), “GAIN report”, June, available at: www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200604/146187337.
pdf (accessed 16 November 2007).
BFJ Van Kleef, E., Houghton, J.R., Rowe, G., Van Dijk, H., Van der Lans, I.A. and Frewer, L.J. (2007),
“Consumer evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 27
110,10 No. 6, pp. 1565-80.
Verbeke, W. (2005), “Agriculture and the food industry in the information age”, European Review
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 347-68.
Verbeke, W. and Ward, R.W. (2006), “Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality,
1046 traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 453-67.
van Rijswijk, W., Frewer, L.J., Menozzi, D. and Faioli, G. (2007), “Consumer perceptions of
traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits”, paper submitted for
publication.

Corresponding author
Lynn J. Frewer can be contacted at: lynn.frewer@wur.nl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints