Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

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

Authors: Elizabeth Withall, Annabelle M. Wilson, Julie Henderson, Emma Tonkin, John Coveney, Samantha B. Meyer, Jacinta Clark, Dean McCullum, Rachel Ankeny, Paul R. Ward

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

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.
Footnotes
1
Poll Everywhere can be accessed via www.​polleverywhere.​com
 
2
The ‘green triangle’ noted likely refers to the green and gold triangular kangaroo logo. This is a certified trademark (CTM) to reflect products that are grown and/or made in Australia. Producers apply to use the CTM logo and its use is governed by a series of rules. The CTM can apply to many products, not just food.
 
3
The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement is an arrangement between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments of Australia and the Government of New Zealand seeking to develop an integrated trans-Tasman economy.
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Meyer SB, Coveney J, Henderson J, Ward PR, Taylor AW. Reconnecting Australian consumers and producers: Identifying problems of distrust. Food Policy. 2012;37(6):634–40.CrossRef
4.
Bosona T, Gebresenbet G. Food traceability as an integral part of logistics management in food and agriculature supply chain. Food Control. 2013;33:32–48.CrossRef
5.
Van Rijswijk W, Frewer LJ, Menozzi D, Faioli G. Consumer perceptions of tracebility: a cross national comparison of associated benefits. Food Qual Prefer. 2008;19:452–64.CrossRef
6.
Menozzi D, Halawany-Darson R, Mora C, Giraud G. Motives towards traceable food choice: a comparison between French and Italian consumers. Food Control. 2015;49:40–8.CrossRef
7.
8.
Henderson J, Ward PR, Coveney J, Meyer S. Trust in the Australian food supply: innocent until proven guilty. Health Risk Soc. 2012;14(3):257.CrossRef
9.
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry [DAFF]. Australian food statistics 2011–2012. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.
10.
Healy M, Brooke-Taylor S, Liehne P. Reform of food regulation in Australia and New Zealand. Food Control. 2003;14:357–65.CrossRef
11.
12.
Winger R. Australia and New Zealand food standards code. Food Control. 2003;14:355.CrossRef
13.
Australian Competition and Comsumers Commission. Country of origin claims and the Australian consumer law: a guide for business. 2014. April 2014.
14.
Abelson J, Forest P, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin P. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(2):238–51.CrossRef
15.
Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30(2):251–90.CrossRef
16.
Delli Carpini M, Lomax Cook F, Jacobs L. Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of empirical literature. Ann Rev Polit Sci. 2004;7:315–44.CrossRef
17.
Degeling C, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Which public and why deliberate? e A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:114–21.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Gregory J, Hartz-Karp J, Watson R. Using deliberative techniques to engage the community in policy development. Aust New Zealand J Health Policy. 2008;5:16.CrossRef
19.
Elwood P, Longley M. My health: whose responsibility? A jury decides. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(9):761–4.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Glasner P, Dunkerley D. The new genetics, public involvement, and citizens’ juries: a welsh case study. Health Risk Soc. 1999;1(3):313–24.CrossRef
21.
Bennett P, Smith SJ. Genetics, insurance and participation: how a citizens’ jury reached its verdict. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(12):2487–98.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dietrich H, Schibeci R. Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2003;12(4):381–401.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pickard S. Citizenship and consumerism in health care: a critique of citizens’ juries. Soc Policy Adm. 1998;32(3):226–44.CrossRef
24.
25.
Tenbensel T. Interpreting public input into priority-setting: the role of mediating institutions. Health Policy. 2002;62(2):173–94.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Arrighi E, Blancafort S, Jovell AJ, Navarro Rubio MD. Quality of cancer care in Spain: recommendations of a patients’ jury. Eur J Cancer Care. 2014;24:387–94.
27.
Jones M, Einsiedel E. Institutional policy learning and public consultation: the Canadian xenotransplantation experience. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(5):655–62.PubMed
28.
Rychetnik L, Carter SM, Abelson J, Thornton H, Barratt A, Entwistle VA, Mackenzie G, Salkeld G, Glasziou P. Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(6):380–6.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Paul C, Nicholls R, Priest P, McGee R. Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: the role of citizens’ deliberation. Health Policy. 2008;85(3):314–20.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Gooberman-Hill R, Horwood J, Calnan M. Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expect. 2008;11(3):272–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
32.
Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008;11(3):282–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A. The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;109:1–9.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Henderson J, House E, Coveney J, Meyer S, Ankeny R, Ward P, Calnan M. Evaluating the use of citizens’ juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):596.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Iredale R, Longley M. From passive subject to active agent: the potential of citizen’s juries for nursing research. Nurse Educ Today. 2007;27(7):788–95.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Holmberg L, Coveney J, Henderson J, Meyer S. What should primary health care practitioners know about factors influencing young people’s food choices? Australas Med J. 2010;1(4):259.
37.
Henderson J, Coveney J, Ward PR, Taylor AW. Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of consumers. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011;35(4):319.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Poppe C, Kjaernes U. Trust in Food in Europe. National Institute for Consumer Research: Oslo; 2003.
39.
Kornelis K, de Jonge J, Frewer L, Dagevos H. Consumer selection of food-safety information sources. Risk Anal. 2007;27(3):327–35.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Neilsen. Australian connected consumer report. 2014.
41.
Timotijevic L, Raats MM. Evaluation of two methods of deliberative participation of older people in food-policy development. Health Policy. 2007;82(3):302–19.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
43.
Bildtgard T. Trust in food in modern and late-modern societies. Soc Sci Inf. 2008;47(1):99–128.CrossRef
44.
Ward PR, Henderson J, Coveney J, Meyer S. How do South Australian consumers negotiate and respond to information in the media about food and nutrition? The importance of risk, trust and uncertainty. J Sociol. 2012;48(1):23–41.CrossRef
45.
Metadata
Title
Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens’ jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?
Authors
Elizabeth Withall
Annabelle M. Wilson
Julie Henderson
Emma Tonkin
John Coveney
Samantha B. Meyer
Jacinta Clark
Dean McCullum
Rachel Ankeny
Paul R. Ward
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3900-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Public Health 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Comparison of pharmaceutical, illicit drug, alcohol, nicotine and caffeine levels in wastewater with sale, seizure and consumption data for 8 European cities

Research article

Did the English strategy reduce inequalities in health? A difference-in-difference analysis comparing England with three other European countries

Research article

Exploring lifestyle and risk in preventing type 2 diabetes-a nested qualitative study of older participants in a lifestyle intervention program (VEND-RISK)

Research article

A comparison of wearable fitness devices

Research article

Mental health outcomes in times of economic recession: a systematic literature review

Research article

Occupational injuries in times of labour market flexibility: the different stories of employment-secure and precarious workers