DINING
FOR SAFETY: CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF FOOD SAFETY AND EATING OUT
This research aims to investigates
whether perceptions about food safety are related to how often consumers eat at
restaurant. The research before that are being refer is food safety inspection
at a restaurant by public health officials, research has shown that a
significant percentage of restaurants have inadequate food safety practices
(Allwood, Jenkins, Paulus, Johnson, & Hedberg, 2004; Buchholz, Run, Kool,
Fielding & Mascola, 2002; Mathias et al.,1994; Medus, Smith, Bender,
Besser, & Hedberg, 2006; U.S. Food and Drug Administration Retail Program
Steering Committee,2000; Walczak, 2000). Before do the research, the hypotheses
are built. The main two hypotheses used are whether perceptions about food
safety issues and the sociodemographic characteristics of consumers are related
to frequency of eating at restaurant. All the hypotheses are based on the
previous literature on perceptions of food safety and consumer behavior.
The method that they used to get the
data is using a nationwide telephone survey in the 48 contiguous U.S states and
conducted with 1014 randomly selected U.S adults aged 18 and older between
October 31, 2005 and February 9, 2006. Two calling protocols were used are the
traditional standard of minimum of 12 call attempts to contact sample members
was employed and it were randomly assigned to be called at different times of
the day and days of the week. The result they get will be weighted to reflect the
sociodemographics and geographic regions of the U.S population using the 2000
census data. They preferred the statistical technique to preserve the ordinal
nature of the dependent variable as categorical or nominal data. The
independent and the logits are the same for all the logits was violated.
The dependent variable is frequency
of eating at a restaurant by asking the respondent about how many times a week
they eat at a restaurant. The data will categories like 1=everyday, 2=several
times a day or a week, 3=about once or twice a week, 4=less than once a week,
and 5=never. Then, the data analysis was recoded into three categories such as
frequently, occasionally and rarely.
The independent variables that are
used in the analysis are concern about food safety issues, food safety
performance of restaurant, how often consumers think about food safety, the
belief of having had food poisoning, knowledge about food safety and
sociodemographic variables. The food-borne illness was measured by asking two questions
to the respondent like “Are you concerned about food-borne illnesses in the
foods that you eat?” and “Would you say that you are concerned, somewhat concerned,
or a little concerned?” The respondent also asked about two food safety issues
that are about pesticide and chemical residues on fruits and vegetables and
antibiotics or hormones. The variable trust data gets by asking respondent how
they rate the performance of restaurant in making sure the foods that they eat
are safe. Other than that, they also asked respondent about the important food
safety to them. The data of response will be recorded. The experience of the
respondent about had a case of food poisoning also be asked. Respondent
knowledge about food safety also was being measured and recorded. Other control
variable is sociodemographic that’s whether the respondent was vegetarian,
allergic to foods, children younger than 6 and anyone 65 years or older in the
household. In addition, the age, sex, race, education and income of the
respondent were measured by asking them through the question.
The result that were got from this
research are about 18% of respondents stated that they eat at a restaurant
often, 43% indicated that they dine out occasionally, and 39% said that they
rarely eat out. The respondents who think about food safety hardly at all were
more likely to eat at a restaurant more often than those who think about food
safety everyday. The males were more likely than females to eat at a restaurant
often, and Hispanics were less likely than White respondents to eat at a
restaurant often. But, the respondents who are higher levels of concern about
food-borne illness, additives and preservatives and believed that they had food
poisoning within the past were less likely to eat at a restaurant. Vegetarian’s
people were less eating at a restaurant. People who had incomes $60,000 or
greater were likely eating outside than those with incomes between $20,000 and
$39,999. The respondent with less than a high school education were less likely
to eat at a restaurant occasionally than those with at least a bachelor’s
degree.
From this research, they got those
consumers’ perceptions of food safety influence the frequency of dining at
restaurant are doing but not always in predictable ways. There are differences
between those who are eating at restaurant rarely, occasionally or often. The
concern of food safety issues, thinking about food safety and having
experienced food poisoning were related to frequency of dining. But, concern on
additives and preservatives and having experienced food poisoning had the
opposite effect than predicted. The explanation that got from the respondent
may lie in the wording of the questions. For example in experiencing food
poisoning, the respondent did not confirm that they was ill because food they
eating at a restaurant. The frequency of dining at restaurant general might be
not change, but the pattern of patronage may change as consumers eat elsewhere
(Henson et al., 2006; Reynolds & Balinbin, 2003). Food-borne illness may
cause a short-term decline in eating out, but some patterns may return to
previous levels over a period of time (Bocker & Hanf2000). There are more
research that researcher should do in
findings point on how, when and why consumers associate illness with food
purchased at restaurant and food safety variables need to be included in
consumer preference studies.
REFERENCES:
Allwood,
P.B., Jenkins, T., Paulus, C., Johnson, L., & Hedberg, C.W. (2004). Hand
washing compliance among retail food establishment workers in Minnesota.
Journal of Food Protection, 67, 2825-2828.
Bocker,
A., & Hanf, C.-H. (2000). Confidence lost and-partially-regained: Consumer
responseto food scares. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43,
471-485.
Henson,
S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., et al.
(2006). Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurant: The role of inspection
notices and other information cues. Journal of Food Safety, 26, 275-301.
No comments:
Post a Comment