Consumers' lay theories on food safety: Insights from a Q-methodology study

Abstract

Consumer perceptions regarding food safety influence their purchasing behavior and consequently public health. Individual perspectives on food safety are diverse and subjective, however, suggesting that a universal behavioral change intervention may not be effective. This study examines fundamental lay theories related to food safety with consumers in Germany. Employing Q-methodology, the study identified and profiled distinct consumer groups based on similarities and differences in the specific lay theories held by group members. Sixty consumers in Germany evaluated a pre-assembled Q-set of 40 statements reflecting a wide range of individual opinions and beliefs regarding food safety, resulting in a quasi-normal distribution. Factor analysis revealed four primary lay theories including defining characteristics: (1) Institutional Trustors: “German regulatory organizations are performing exceptionally well in the realm of food safety”, (2) Label Skeptics: “Labels function as marketing instruments rather than food safety indicators”, (3) EU Pragmatists: “Products manufactured in Europe are considered safe”, and (4) Media Cynics: “Media reports regarding food (un)safety often lack accuracy”. Institutional Trustors emphasize regulatory transparency while dismissing corporate influence; Label Skeptics express distrust towards certifications but support policy reforms; EU Pragmatists appreciate supranational standards while steering clear of alarmism; and Media Cynics exhibit heightened risk perceptions influenced by media while simultaneously and paradoxically trusting inspections despite a broader systemic distrust. The findings strengthen the social amplification of risk and affective heuristic frameworks in the context of institutional and media-induced food system trust erosion. Label standardization, EU-focused transparency campaigns, and media literacy programs are recommended to address specific segments.

Topics & Concepts