How to Improve Risk Perception Evaluation in Food Safety: A Psychometric Approach

Food consumers often query or ignore the risk assessments of scientists, the food industry andpublic bodies. This is widely acknowledged. It has been suggested that this ‘expert-lay discrepancy’is a relatively straightforward upshot of the fact that lay people lack the knowledge andtechnical understanding of experts. However, much published research on risk in psychologyand sociology runs counter to this ‘knowledge deficit’ model (Hansen et al., 2003). In many cases,at least, lay risk assessments are not well explained as the product of ignorance, becausethey are in fact complex, situational sensitive expressions of a person's value system.There is obviously a pressing need today to understand expert-lay discrepancies in the assessmentof food risks. We need to know how consumers perceive and assess risks; why they respondto communication and advice relating to those risks in the way they do; what factors affecttheir willingness to trust public institutions responsible for regulating the food industry and issuingguidance on food matters; and what determines their handling of specific food hazards.Psychometric and psychological studies of risk perception offer an invaluable corrective to excessiveand simplistic reliance on the deficit model (Fife et al., 2000; Hansen et al., 2003). Byemphasising the multi-dimensionality of lay risk perception, they have improved the understandingof expert-lay discrepancy. More generally, the demonstration that risks and benefitsare not perceived independently of each other is a crucial finding of psychological research, andwe now know that risk-benefit analyses that treat risk and benefits as independent factors shouldbe handled with caution by those aiming to interpret or influence popular opinion.Our paper is an attempt to analyse consumers’ behaviour when facing a potential risky actionsuch as consuming GM food. The hypothesis tested states that consumers take into account bothcosts (accident) and benefits (rewards) of uncertain outcomes and then minimize risk instead oftrying to totally avoid it.A sample of 338 students, interviewed in year 2000 (188) and in year 2008 (150), enrolled indifferent Italian colleges was directly interviewed on an hypothetical genetically modifiedtomato market. A mixture distributions was used first for inferring on what variables influencethe decision to take part on the "new market" proposed and, second, to estimate the WillingnessTo Pay (WTP) distribution for those willing to buy the GM product proposed.