Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens’ jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?

BMC Public Health

卷:16

John Coveney¹  Jacinta Clark¹  Elizabeth Withall¹  Emma Tonkin¹  Paul R. Ward¹  Annabelle M. Wilson¹  Dean McCullum²  Julie Henderson³  Rachel Ankeny⁴  Samantha B. Meyer⁵ 

[1] Discipline of Public Health, School of Health Sciences, Flinders University;

[2] SA Health, Government of South Australia;

[3] School of Health Sciences, Flinders University;

[4] School of History and Politics, University of Adelaide;

[5] School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo;

关键词: Citizens’ jury;    Country of origin;    Trust;    Food labelling;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-016-3900-5

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Contemporary food systems are vast and complex, creating greater distance between consumers and their food. Consequently, consumers are required to put faith in a system of which they have limited knowledge or control. Country of origin labelling (CoOL) is one mechanism that theoretically enables consumer knowledge of provenance of food products. However, this labelling system has recently come under Australian Government review and recommendations for improvements have been proposed. Consumer engagement in this process has been limited. Therefore this study sought to obtain further consumer opinion on the issue of CoOL and to identify the extent to which Australian consumers agree with Australian Government recommendations for improvements. Methods A citizens’ jury was conducted with a sample of 14 South Australian consumers to explore their perceptions on whether the CoOL system allows them to make informed food choices, as well as what changes (if any) need to be made to enable informed food choices (recommendations). Results Overall, jurors’ perception of usefulness of CoOL, including its ability to enable consumers to make informed food choices, fluctuated throughout the Citizens’ Jury. Initially, the majority of the jurors indicated that the labels allowed informed food choice, however by the end of the session the majority disagreed with this statement. Inconsistencies within jurors’ opinions were observed, particularly following delivery of information from expert witnesses and jury deliberation. Jurors provided recommendations for changes to be made to CoOL, which were similar to those provided in the Australian Government inquiry. Conclusions Consumers in this study engaged with the topical issue of CoOL and provided their opinions. Overall, consumers do not think that the current CoOL system in Australia enables consumers to make informed choices. Recommendations for changes, including increasing the size of the label and the label’s font, and standardising its position, were made.

【 授权许可】

Unknown