| Literature DB >> 29791434 |
H Kendall1, P Naughton2, S Kuznesof1, M Raley1, M Dean3, B Clark1, H Stolz4, R Home4, M Y Chan5, Q Zhong6, P Brereton3, L J Frewer1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Persistent incidents of food fraud in China have resulted in low levels of consumer trust in the authenticity and safety of food that is domestically produced. We examined the relationship between the concerns of Chinese consumers regarding food fraud, and the role that demonstrating authenticity may play in relieving those concerns.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29791434 PMCID: PMC5965827 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Dimensions of authenticity.
| Dimensions of authenticity | Definition | Example | Consumer protection | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics that can be proven to be authentic when compared to external criteria [ | Conforms to official safety or compositional standards and matches the product description provided, preventing consumers from being miss-led, i.e. ISO standards. Verifiable through analytical methods such as stable isotope analysis, DNA analysis, proteomics, lectin chip array and metabolomics [ | Provides the legislative framework for supporting product authenticity and offers consumer protection through legal recourse. | ||
| Constructivist cues are provided by companies to stage the authenticity of their products [ | Verifiable link to a trusted reference point that can be objectively assessed i.e. certifications such as ‘Protected Geographical Indicator (PGI)’, ‘Protected Destination of Origin’ (PDO). | Can be objectively assessed through analytical methods. | ||
| Conveyed through packaging and imagery. | Non-verifiable, authenticity assessed by how the products congruence with consumers pre-existing knowledge of how the product should be. | |||
European food and drink product research foci.
| Product | Incidents | Insights |
|---|---|---|
| Melamine Scandal China (2008) | Provide insights into the importance of; | |
| Gutter oil (2011) [ | Olive oil will support analysis of issues relating to: | |
| Aspirational and novel product profile has resulted in its implication in food fraud. ‘Scotch Whisky has protected geographical indication (GI) status in European law (EC Regulation 110/2008)’ | Scotch whisky provides an opportunity to explore: |
Focus group sample characteristics.
| Focus Group location and theme | Focus Group number | Participant no. | Participant code | Age | Gender | Monthly Income (RMB ¥) | Weekly food spend (RMB ¥) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 7 | n = 42 | - | 22–48 | n = 22 male | 10000–40000 | 1401–3500 | |
| 1 | n = 6 | Beijing G1 male | 22–42 | n = 4 male | 15000–40000 | 1400–3000 | |
| 2 | n = 6 | Beijing G2 male | 24–48 | n = 2 male | 15000–30000 | 1400–3000 | |
| 3 | n = 6 | Beijing G3 male | 35–42 | n = 4 male | 15000–40000 | 1400–3500 | |
| 4 | n = 6 | Chengdu G4 male | 24–37 | n = 2 male | 10000–16000 | 1200–1800 | |
| 5 | n = 6 | Chengdu G5 male | 25–36 | n = 4 male | 11000–20000 | 1200–2500 | |
| 6 | n = 6 | Guangzhou G6 male | 29–36 | n = 4 female | 16000 | 1400–2000 | |
| 7 | n = 6 | Guangzhou G7 male | 29–36 | n = 4 male | 16000–18000 | 1400–2000 |
Focus group discussions: Emergent themes supporting evidence and researcher interpretations of the data.
| Theme | Theme description (derived from qualitative focus group transcripts) | Evidence | Researcher interpretation of the qualitative data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The fraudulent food practices identified by the participants were associated with perceived food safety risks i.e. melamine in milk. | ‘I just cannot trust the food in China’ (Chengdu, G4, male). | Chinese consumers considered fraudulent practice to be present within the Chinese food system. Food fraud was perceived to occur as a result of fraudulent practices by food chain actors (i.e. adulteration, tampering, counterfeiting). Consumers identified fraudulent practices to represent a possible risk to the safety of food. Food safety concerns were included within the majority of examples of food fraud provided by participants. This suggests that consumers may not distinguish between the risks posed by food fraud and food safety incidents arising from non-fraudulent causes. | |
| 2 | Fraudulent practices as perceived by the participants and how these link to their food safety risk perceptions. | ‘I feel nowadays that many people [food producers] have abused the use of hormones and chemicals, that have a bad effect on the body and health’ (Chengdu, G4, male). | Food which had been subjected to fraudulent activity was perceived to carry risks to the safety of food (see Theme 1 above). The potential for negative impacts to health were the most significant risks identified by participants, which were perceptually associated with food fraud. The perceived risk of harm at the level of the family, and to children was linked to consumer concern specifically. | |
| 3 | Consumer trust in the food system and associated actors and stakeholders. Actors and stakeholders were identified by participants to include industry, regulators and enforcement agencies. | ‘[The government] ‘just can’t control this [food fraud] problem’ (Guangzhou, G5, female). | Chinese consumers did not appear to trust food chain actors, and hence the food system. Chinese consumers indicated that they did not trust governance structures, and organisations tasked with protecting consumer interests in relation to food. Lack of trust was perceived to be underpinned by a number of factors including; the scale and complexity of the Chinese food system; the pursuit of profit by food chain actors; and the perceived lack of transparency regarding the food system and how it was governed. | |
| 4 | These are the indicators consumers identified which they used to support judgements about perceived authenticity (including quality and safety) of foods. | ‘We try and buy better raw materials, or a great brand or buy raw materials that has a high price. We can feel comfortable this way’ (Beijing, G3, female). | Consumers reported adopting different “risk relieving” strategies pre- and post- consumption, to help them make judgements regarding the authenticity of food and to mitigate the perceived risks (associated with poor quality and safety) associated with food subjected to fraudulent practices. The use of indexical (PDO, country of origin labels, ISO standards, Hazard Free, Green Food), and iconic authenticity cues (i.e. product packaging, labelling and imagery) represented one component of a broader risk relieving strategy that also included extensive product information search (i.e. use of social media, internet search, personal recommendations), carefully selected food acquisition sources (i.e. online and physical retail outlets) and reliance on a range of “domestically situated” practices (i.e. washing foods to remove residues, growing fruits and vegetables). | |
| 5 | Consumers’ expressed requirements in relation to producer demonstration of authenticity. | ‘We hope those food system and supervision can be strengthened. We ‘consumers’, are actually reactive. We can only look forward to the supervision and food safety incidents can do stricter controls.’ (Chengdu, G4, female). | Greater measures and communicative actions on the part of food chain actors and stakeholders were required by consumers to reduce the perceived risks to consumers of encountering food fraud, and to improve consumer confidence and trust in the domestic food supply chain. Specific activities described by consumers as relevant included the demonstration of authenticity through a range of regulatory and enforcement activities, and enhanced by transparency |
Fig 1Conceptual model.
Socio-demographic profile of the total sample and individual cities.
| Socio-demographic profile | Total Sample | Beijing | Guangzhou | Chengdu | χ2 (df) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 850 | n = 284 | n = 283 | n = 283 | |||
| 0.996 | 0.007 (2) | |||||
| Male | 50 | 50 | 49.8 | 50.2 | ||
| Female | 50 | 50 | 50.2 | 49.8 | ||
| 0.996 | 0.007 (2) | |||||
| 18–35 | 50 | 50 | 50.2 | 49.8 | ||
| 35–55 | 50 | 50 | 49.8 | 50.2 | ||
| 0.000 | 73.746 (12) | |||||
| Primary school | 0.5 | 0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | ||
| Junior high school | 5.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 11.3 | ||
| Senior high school | 23.4 | 18.3 | 22.6 | 29.3 | ||
| Technical school | 6.5 | 5.3 | 11.3 | 2.8 | ||
| 2–3 years college | 26.2 | 28.9 | 28.3 | 21.6 | ||
| University | 36.5 | 41.9 | 35.0 | 32.5 | ||
| Graduate degree or above | 1.9 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 1.8 | ||
| 0.000 | 333.549 (6) | |||||
| RMB 8000–9999 | 15.2 | 0 | 0 | 45.6 | ||
| RMB 10000–14999 | 46 | 47.9 | 48.1 | 42 | ||
| RMB 15000–19999 | 25.6 | 36.3 | 32.2 | 8.1 | ||
| RMB 20000 and above | 13.2 | 15.8 | 19.4 | 4.2 | ||
| 0.000 | ||||||
| Intend to purchase only | 29.2 | 25.0 | 29.3 | 33.2 | 56.817 (6) | |
| Infant formula milk only | 22.1 | 16.5 | 27.2 | 22.6 | ||
| Whisky only | 21.2 | 16.5 | 27.9 | 19.1 | ||
| Any purchase (Includes olive oil purchasers and people who have purchased two or more from baby milk formula, whisky and olive oil). | 27.5 | 41.9 | 15.5 | 25.1 |
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis for the model constructs.
| FHC (M = 4.18; SD = 1.12 | BA (M = 4.47; SD = 0.57) | ST (M = 3.95; | AC (M = 4.33; SD = 0.55) | ATT (M = 4.56; SD = 0.60) | INT (M = 8.73; SD = 1.64 | |
| FHC | 1.00 | |||||
| BA | 0.20 | 1.00 | ||||
| ST | 0.86 | 0.37 | 1.00 | |||
| AC | 0.21 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 1.00 | ||
| ATT | 0.21 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 1.00 | |
| INT | 0.241 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 1.00 |
| FHC (M = 3.91; SD = 0.97) | BA (M = 4.10; SD = 0.51) | ST (M = 3.86; SD = 0.56) | AC (M = 3.94; SD = 0.42) | ATT (M = 4.17; SD = 0.50) | INT (M = 8.22; SD = 1.11) | |
| FHC | 1.00 | |||||
| BA | 0.39 | 1.00 | ||||
| ST | 0.24 | 0.34 | 1.00 | |||
| AC | 0.22 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 1.00 | ||
| ATT | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.06 | 0.37 | 1.00 | |
| INT | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 1.00 |
| FHC (M = 4.44; SD = 0.61) | BA (M = 4.4; SD = 0.51) | ST (M = 3.75; SD = 0.81) | AC (M = 4.01; SD = 0.49) | ATT (M = 4.50; SD = 0.59) | INT (M = 8.15; SD = 1.54) | |
| FHC | 1.00 | |||||
| BA | 0.29 | 1.00 | ||||
| ST | 0.17 | 0.31 | 1.00 | |||
| AC | 0.27 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 1.00 | ||
| ATT | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.17 | 0.38 | 1.00 | |
| INT | 0.21 | 0.39 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.37 | 1.00 |
*p ≤ 0.05
**p≤ 0.01
M = mean and SD = standard deviation. FCH = Food Hazard Concern, BA = Benefit of Authenticity, ST = Structural Trust, AC = Authenticity cues, ATT = Attitude, ITT = Intention.
Structural paths, multi-group analysis and structural invariance.
| Hypotheses | Beijing | Guangzhou | Chengdu | Δ χ2 | Δ d.f. | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FHC—BA | 9.426 | 2 | <0.01 | ||||
| FHC—ATT | 12.522 | 2 | <0.01 | ||||
| BA—ATT | 0.33 | 0.22 | 0.46 | 4.706 | 2 | >0.05 | |
| BA—INT | 7.995 | 2 | <0.05 | ||||
| ST—ATT | -0.10 | -0.26 | -0.07 | 2.784 | 2 | >0.05 | |
| AC—ATT | 6.668 | 2 | <0.05 | ||||
| ATT—INT | 7.022 | 2 | <0.05 | ||||
| FHC–BA—ATT | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.15 | ||||
| FHC–ATT—INT | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.24 | ||||
| BA–ATT—INT | 0.16 | -0.07 | 0.16 | ||||
| ST–ATT- INT | -0.05 | 0.09 | -0.03 | ||||
| AC–ATT—INT | 0.16 | - 0.23 | 0.08 |
Notes
*p≤0.05
**≤ 0.01
***p ≤ 0.001
Bolded parameters are significantly different from each other across groups. FCH = Food Hazard Concern, BA = Benefit of Authenticity, ST = Structural Trust, AC = Authenticity cues, ATT = Attitude, ITT = Intention.
Fig 2Structural paths and multi-group analysis.
Goodness of fit indices for tests of multi-group invariance.
| Model | N | χ2 | d.f. | P | RMSEA | SRMR | CFI | ΔCFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 284 | 736.140 | 447 | <0.001 | 0.048 | 0.493 | 0.950 | |
| Guangzhou | 283 | 706.631 | 447 | <0.001 | 0.045 | 0.674 | 0.921 | |
| Chengdu | 283 | 828.773 | 447 | <0.001 | 0.055 | 0.635 | 0.903 | |
| Model 1 (C.I.) | 850 | 2266.544 | 1341 | <0.001 | 0.928 | |||
| Model 2 (M.I) | 850 | 2408.454 | 1393 | <0.001 | 0.921 | 0.007 | ||
| Model 3 (S.I.) | 850 | 2655.661 | 1429 | <0.001 | 0.905 | 0.023 |
Note: C.I. = Configural invariance, M.I. = Metric Invariance, S.I. Structural invariance.