Perceived responsibility of different types of food-related incidents

Food scares typically concern chemical or microbial contamination, although the largest threat to health is the poor nutritional quality of the diet. This work studied how consumers perceive the responsibility for different types of food-related incident with either mild or serious consequences. The data were gathered from the adult Finnish population using an internet panel (n = 1676). The three incidents in the survey were developing heart disease (nutritional risk), food poisoning (microbial risk) and ingesting a high dose of dioxins from fish (chemical risk). The consequences were regarded as mild if they were temporary and serious if permanent. Responsibility for each incident was rated for an individual, food industry, retailers and the authorities. With nutritional risks the primary responsibility was seen as with the individual; industry was rated as slightly more responsible than retailers or authorities. Responsibility for microbial risks was evenly attributed among individuals, industry and retailers. Responsibility for chemical risks was rated higher for industry and the authorities than for individuals and retailers. The seriousness of the consequence differed in impact with type of risk. The heavy responsibility of individuals perceived for nutritional risks may undermine the role of industry, retailers and authorities in promoting wholesome choices. Although microbial and even chemical risks can be reduced by consumers' own actions, these are not regarded as predominantly their responsibility.