Public perceptions of the dioxin incident in Irish pork

In early December 2008, a global recall of Irish pork was initiated as a result of a subset of the national pork output being contaminated with dioxin. In this study, members of a panel from an Internet‐based longitudinal monitor of public opinion on food and health issues were used to assess public perceptions about the dioxin incident in late December. Although most respondents did not regard food as posing a risk to health, a larger proportion of respondents reported that that there was a ‘very high’ health risk from pork (8.6%) compared to any other food of animal origin. However, when asked to rank the risk posed to human health from a broad range of food and non‐food hazards, PCBs/dioxins were considered to pose less of a risk than high fat food, chemical pollution, or tanning. The majority of respondents (70.5%) considered that the authorities managed the incident in an ‘adequate’ or ‘very efficient’ manner. Respondents who considered that the authorities’ management of the incident was ‘incompetent’ rated the risk associated with eating Irish pork to be higher than those who considered that the authorities’ management was ‘very efficient’. Both the European Food Safety Authority and the Irish food safety authorities pronounced that there was no risk to human health from the level of dioxin in the pork. These communications, coupled with the rapid handling of the incident in an open and transparent way, reassured consumers and maintained their confidence in the food supply.

[1]  P. Kendall,et al.  Food safety guidance for older adults. , 2006, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[2]  W. Verbeke Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis , 2001 .

[3]  Arnold Schecter,et al.  Dioxins: an overview. , 2006, Environmental research.

[4]  L. Smillie,et al.  A model for developing risk communication strategy , 2010 .

[5]  M. DeVito,et al.  Comparisons of estimated human body burdens of dioxinlike chemicals and TCDD body burdens in experimentally exposed animals. , 1995, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  Dioxins and their effects on human health , 2005 .

[7]  C. Dethlefsen,et al.  Morbidity and mortality of elderly patients with zoonotic Salmonella and Campylobacter: a population-based study. , 2008, The Journal of infection.

[8]  R Shepherd,et al.  Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk , 2005 .

[10]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust , 2007, Appetite.

[11]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE, CONTROL AND RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A RANGE OF FOOD‐RELATED HAZARDS TARGETED AT THE INDIVIDUAL, OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETY , 1994 .

[12]  M. DeVito,et al.  Toxicology of Dioxins and Related Chemicals , 1994 .

[13]  L. Sjöberg,et al.  Factors in risk perception. , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Susan Miles,et al.  The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  P Slovic,et al.  Informing and educating the public about risk. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  George Gaskell,et al.  AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION , 2000 .

[18]  R. Löfstedt Risk communication guidelines for Europe: a modest proposition , 2010 .

[19]  J. Olsen,et al.  The European Commission , 2020, The European Union.

[20]  H. Schifferstein,et al.  A comprehensive approach to image research: An illustration for fresh meat products in the Netherlands. , 1998 .

[21]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Biotechnology and Food Production , 1994 .

[22]  G. Moe Enteral feeding and infection in the immunocompromised patient. , 1991, Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

[23]  M. Siegrist Belief in gene technology : The influence of environmental attitudes and gender , 1998 .

[24]  J. Lassen,et al.  Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. , 2004, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[25]  A. Wåhlberg,et al.  Risk perception and the media , 2000 .

[26]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  MEDIA COVERAGE OF HAZARD EVENTS : ANALYZING THE ASSUMPTIONS , 1995 .

[27]  Mattias Viklund Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  L. Sjöberg Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology , 2004, EMBO reports.

[29]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Mad cows, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically-modified food , 2002, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.

[30]  S. Bonny Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe , 2003 .

[31]  safefood Consumer Focused Review of the Pork Supply Chain , 2011 .