Consumer Responses to Integrated Risk-Benefit Information Associated with the Consumption of Food

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 429-439

  van Dijk, Heleen ^a   Fischer, Arnout R H ^a   Frewer, Lynn J ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Consumers; QALY; Risk benefit communication

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER PERCEPTION; CONSUMER RESPONSE; CONSUMERS; FOOD CONSUMPTION; HEALTH EFFECTS; HEALTH IMPACT; INFORMED DECISION; NET EFFECT; QALY; RISK-BENEFIT COMMUNICATION;

FOOD SUPPLY; HEALTH; INTEGRATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

HEALTH RISKS;

DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FISH; FOOD CONSUMPTION; FOOD PREFERENCE; HEALTH IMPACT; HEALTH RISK; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER; FOOD; HUMAN; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; FOOD; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 79952416655     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01505.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ponce RA, Bartell SM, Wong EY, LaFlamme D, Carrington C, Lee RC et al. Use of quality-adjusted life year weights with dose-response models for public health decisions: A case study of the risks and benefits of fish consumption. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(4):529-542.
2. Verbeke W, Sioen I, Pienak Z, Van Camp J, De Henauw S. Consumer perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and risks from fish consumption. Public Health Nutrition, 2005; 8(4):422-429.
3. Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006; 296(15):1885-1899.
4. Burger J, Gochfeld M. A framework and information needs for the management of the risks from consumption of self-caught fish. Environmental Research, 2006; 101(2):275-285.
5. Verbeke W, Vanhonacker F, Frewer LJ, Sioen I, De Henauw S, Van Camp J. Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: Impact on Belgian consumers' perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(4):951-967.
6. Van Dijk H, Fischer ARH, De Jonge J, Rowc G, Frewer LJ. The impact of balanced risk-benefit information and prior attitudes on post-information attitudes. Submitted.
7. EFSA. Risk-Benefit Analysis of Foods: Methods and Approaches, 2006. Available at:, Accessed on November 2007.
8. Renwick AG, Flynn A, Fletcher RJ, Müller DJG, Tuijtelaars S, Verhagen H. Risk-benefit analysis of micronutrients. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2004; 42(12):1903-1922.
9. Wong EY, Ponce RA, Farrow S, Bartell SM, Lee RC, Faustman EM. Comparative risk and policy analysis in environmental health. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(6):1337-1349.
10. Van Kreijl CF, Knaap AGAC, Raaij JMA. Our food, our health. Healthy Diet and Safe Foods in the Netherlands. Bilthoven, NL National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; 2006. Report No.: 270555009.
11. Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Connor WE, Kris-Etherton PM, Lawrence RS, Savitz DA et al. A quantitative risk-benefit analysis of changes in population fish consumption. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2005; 29(4):325.
12. Guevel M-R, Sirot V, Volatier J-L, Leblane J-C. A risk-benefit analysis of French high fish consumption: A QALY approach. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(1):37-48.
13. WHO. The World Health Report 2002-Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life, 2002. Available at:, Accessed June 2010.
14. Byrne D. EFSA: Excellence, Integrity and Openness. Inaugural Meeting of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority, 2002. Available at:, Accessed July 2010.
15. FSA. Report on the Review of Scientific Committees, 2002. Available at:, Accessed October 2007.
16. Millstone E, Van Zwanenberg P. The evolution of food safety policy-making institutions in the UK, EU and Codex Alimentarius. Social Policy & Administration, 2002; 36(6):593-609.
17. Wentholt MTA, Rowe G, König A, Marvin HJP, Frewer IJ. The views of key stakeholders on an evolving food risk governance framework: Results from a Delphi study. Food Policy, 2009; 34(6):539-548.
18. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991; 50(2):179-211.
19. Roininen K, Tuorila H, Zandstra EH, De Graaf C, Vehkalahti K, Stubenitsky K et al. Differences in health and taste attitudes and reported behaviour among Finnish, Dutch and British consumers: A cross-national validation of the Health and Taste Attitude Scales (HTAS). Appetite, 2001; 37(1):33-45.
20. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 1995; 25(3):267-284.
21. Verbeke W, Vackier I. Individual determinants of fish consumption: Application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 2005; 44(1):67-82.
22. Rozin P, Royzman EB. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2001; 5(4):296-320.
23. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001; 52(1):27-58.
24. Moon W, Florkowski WJ, A. Resurreccion AV, Paraskova P, Beauchat RL, Jordanov J et al. Consumer concerns about nutritional attributes in a transition economy. Food Policy, 1998; 23(5):357-369.
25. Nayga RMJ. Impact of sociodemographic factors on perceived importance of nutrition in food shopping. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1997; 31(1):1-9.
26. Becker W, Darnerud PO, Petersson-Grawé K. Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption, 2007. Available at:, Accessed June 2010.
27. Armitage CJ Conner. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2001; 40(4):471-499.
28. Knuth BA, Conelly NA, Sheeshka J, Patterson J. Weighing health benefit and health risk information when consuming sport-caught fish. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(6):1185-1197.