International case studies of psychosocial ripple effects of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in European countries

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health - Part A: Current Issues

Volumn 72, Issue 17-18, 2009, Pages 1092-1095

  Lemyre, L ^a,b   Boutette, P ^a   Karyakina, N ^a   Markon, M P L ^a   Brazeau, I ^a   Krewski, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEEF; BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL TRIAL; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MULTICENTER STUDY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; ANIMAL; CATTLE; DECISION MAKING; DIET; FOOD PREFERENCE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE;

BOVINAE;

ANIMALS; CATTLE; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; DIET; ENCEPHALOPATHY, BOVINE SPONGIFORM; EUROPE; FOOD PREFERENCES; HUMANS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 69849100506     PISSN: 15287394     EISSN: 10872620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15287390903084611     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Becker, T., Benner E., and Glitsch K. 2000. Consumer perception of fresh meat quality in Germany. Br. Food J. 102:246-266.
2. Berg, L. 2004. Trust in food in the age of mad cow disease: A comparative study of consumers' evaluation of food safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway. Appetite 42:21-32.
3. Burton, M., and Young, T. 1996. The impact of BSE on the demand for beef and other meats in Great Britain. Appl. Econ. 28:687-693.
4. Cade, J., Calvert, C., and Barrett, J. 1998. How could the BSE crisis affect nutrient intake? Comparison of beef and non-beef eating meat eaters from the UK Women's Cohort Study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr.52:151-152.
5. Caskie, P., Davis, J., and Moss, J. E. 1999. The economic impact of BSE: A regional perspective. Appl. Econ. 31:1623-1630.
6. Chatard-Pannetier, A., Rousset, S., Bonin, D., Guillaume, S., and Droit-Volet, S. 2004. Nutritional knowledge and concerns about meat of elderly French people in the aftermath of the crises over BSE and foot-and-mouth. Appetite 42:175-183.
7. Fearne, A., Hornibrook, S., and Dedman, S. 2001. The management of perceived risk in the food supply chain: a comparative study of retailer-led beef quality assurance schemes in Germany and Italy. Int. Food Agribusiness Manage. Rev. 4:19-36.
8. Frewer, L. J., and Salter, B. 2002. Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: The case of BSE. Sci. Public Policy 29:137-145.
9. Glitsch, K. 2000. Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: Cross-national comparison. Br. Food J. 102:177-194.
10. Gray, G. M., and Ropeik, D. P. 2002. Dealing with the dangers of fear: The role of risk communication. Health Affairs 21:106-116.
11. Green, J. M., Draper, A. K., and Dowler, E. A. 2003. Short cuts to safety: Risk and 'rules of thumb' in accounts of food choice. Health Risk Soc. 5:33-52.
12. Green, J. M., Draper, A. K., Dowler, E. A., Fele, G., Hagenhoff, V., Rusanen, M., and Rusanen, T. 2005. Public understanding of food risks in four European countries: A qualitative study. Eur. J. Public Health 15:523-527.
13. Jacob, M., and Hellström, T. 2000. Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crisis. J. Hazard. Mater. 78:303-317.
14. Jasanoff, S. 1997. Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996.Public Understand. Sci. 6:221-232.
15. Latouche, K., Rainelli, P., and Vermersch, D. 1998. Food safety issues and the BSE scare: Some lessons from the French case. Food Policy 23:347-356.
16. Lemyre, L., Gibson, S., Brazeau, I., Markon, M.P.L., Turner, M., Carroll, A., Boutette P., and Krewski. D. 2008. Descriptive report on national public survey on risk perceptions and risk acceptability of prion disease and food safety. University of Ottawa in partnership with PrioNet Canada, NCE, CRTI, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
17. Miles, S., and Frewer, L. J. 2003. Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. J. Risk Res. 6:267-283.
18. Reynolds, D., and Balinbin, W. M. 2003. Mad cow disease: An empirical investigation of restaurant strategies and consumer response. J. Hosp. Tourism Res. 27:358-368.
19. Rosati, S., and Saba, A. 2004. The perception of risks associated with foodrelated hazards and the perceived reliability of sources of information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 39:491-500.
20. Setbon, M., Raude, J., Fischler, C., and Flahault, A. 2005. Risk perception of the "mad cow disease"in France: Determinants and consequences. Risk Anal. 25:813-826.
21. Shaw, A. 2002. "It just goes against the grain." Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understand. Sci. 11:1-19.
22. Shaw, A. 2004. Discourses of risk in lay accounts of microbiological safety and BSE: a qualitative interview study. Health Risk Soc. 6:151-171.
23. Smith A., Young J., and Gibson J. 1999. How now, mad cow? Consumer confidence and source credibility during the 1996 BSE scare. Eur. J. Market. 33:1107-1122
24. Statistics Canada. 2004. Food consumption 2003. The Daily. www.statcan.ca/ Daily/English/040526/d040526e.htm
25. Verbeke, W., and Viaene, J. 1999. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: Empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Qual. Preference 10:437-445.
26. Verbeke, W., Ward, R. W., and Viaene, J. 2000. Probit analysis of fresh meat consumption in Belgium: Exploring BSE and television communication impact. Agribusiness 16:215-234.
27. Weitkunat, R., Pottgieber, C., Meyer, N., Crispin, A., Fischer, R., Schotten, K., Kerr, J., and Überla K. 2003. Perceived risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and dietary behaviour. J. Health Psychol. 8:373-381.