IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v19y2016i7p934-950.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing microbiological risk in the kitchen: piloting consensus conference methodology as a communication strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Licia Ravarotto
  • Stefania Crovato
  • Claudio Mantovani
  • Fabiano D’Este
  • Anna Pinto
  • Giulia Mascarello

Abstract

Foodborne diseases are a major public health problem. Improper storage and food preparation at home can favour microbial contamination of food. Consumers play a crucial role in controlling this risk. To reduce exposure to risk, it is essential to provide information and guidance on contamination management in the home. The aim of this study was to pilot a method of participatory communication addressed to young consumers and designed to reduce the microbiological risks associated with the consumption of meat products. The methodology was based on application of the ‘consensus conference’ model on food safety issues. The consensus conference served not only as a participatory strategy to share knowledge but also as a method for sharing in the development of risk communication content (guidelines) to be disseminated to the reference target. Young people’s perceptions, habits and behaviour in the kitchen were explored in the preparatory stage of the consensus conference by means of a survey and a focus group. Three consensus conferences were held in Italy attended by 60 university students (19 and 22 years old). Application of the consensus conference model as a communication process proved to be an effective opportunity to engage young consumers and experts on the topic of food safety. This discursive participation approach was broadly welcomed by the participants. Specifically, direct interaction with the experts was considered to be an important part of the communication process. The findings of the project were used to select concise communication content based on the perceptions, behaviours and fact-finding needs of the selected target. Publication of this content in the form of guidelines on microbiological risk management at home has enabled the results of the consensus conferences to be extended and the targeted communication material on risk reduction in daily food handling practices to be disseminated.

Suggested Citation

  • Licia Ravarotto & Stefania Crovato & Claudio Mantovani & Fabiano D’Este & Anna Pinto & Giulia Mascarello, 2016. "Reducing microbiological risk in the kitchen: piloting consensus conference methodology as a communication strategy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 934-950, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:7:p:934-950
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1017828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2015.1017828
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2015.1017828?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henrik Merkelsen, 2011. "Risk communication and citizen engagement: what to expect from dialogue," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 631-645, May.
    2. Susan Miles & Lynn J. Frewer, 2003. "Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 267-283, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Asquini, Martina, 2023. "The impact of perceived COVID-19 risks, food waste generation and food purchase control on the food security status during the pandemic," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334511, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    2. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Peter Modin & Sven Hansson, 2011. "Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 313-324, June.
    4. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    5. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    6. Knight, John G. & Mather, Damien W. & Holdsworth, David K., 2005. "Impact of genetic modification on country image of imported food products in European markets: Perceptions of channel members," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 385-398, August.
    7. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    8. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    9. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    10. Marco Semadeni & Ralf Hansmann & Thomas Flüeler, 2004. "Public Attitudes in Relation to Risk and Novelty of Future Energy Options," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(5), pages 755-777, September.
    11. Andrew R. Binder & Elliott D. Hillback & Dominique Brossard, 2016. "Conflict or Caveats? Effects of Media Portrayals of Scientific Uncertainty on Audience Perceptions of New Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 831-846, April.
    12. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    13. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.
    14. Barnett, Julie & Timotijevic, Lada & Shepherd, Richard & Senior, Victoria, 2007. "Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 240-250, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:7:p:934-950. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.