Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023 - 119

TABLE 4. Perceptions of risk, control, responsibility, and hygiene consciousness regarding
foodborne illness according to those who reported having had and not having had
foodborne illness during the last 5 years, with significant differences determined
using the Mann-Whitney U test
Those who reported experiencing foodborne
illness in the last 5 years
Perception
n
1-3
Perceived risk of food
poisoning (1 = very
high risk to 10 = very
low risk)
Perceived control of
food safety (1 = no
control to 10 = total
control)
Perceived
responsibility for
food safety
(1 = no responsibility
to 10 = complete
responsibility)
Perceived level
of hygiene
consciousness
(1 = not at all
conscious to
10 = very conscious)
57
33
39
5.6
3.4
7
38
8
66
7.6
2.5
9
8-10
Responses (%)
Mean SD Median n
1-3
8-10
U = 692,
z = −3.015
P = 0.003
r = 0.31
55
29
53
6.1
3.3
8
38
5
71
8.0
2.1
8
U = 696,
z = −2.771
P = 0.006
r = 0.29
56
29
48
6.2
3.5
7
38
8
71
7.8
2.5
9
U = 781.5,
z = −2.211
P = 0.027
r = 0.23
56
30
52
6.2
3.5
8
38
5
71
8.0
2.4
9
U = 743.5,
z = −2.520
P = 0.012
r = 0.26
Those who did not report experiencing
foodborne illness in the last 5 years
Responses (%)
Mean SD Median
Significant
differences
DISCUSSION
Perceived risk of foodborne illness
This study identified that respondents perceived that
the home kitchen is the location least likely of resulting in
foodborne illness and that the risk of foodborne illness to
them was low. Likewise, the perceived personal risk from
foodborne illness in the home was perceived to be low among
consumers in the United Kingdom (67, 70).
Risk perceptions relate to the likelihood, susceptibility,
and severity of the risk (10). Respondents perceived
themselves to have a low risk of acquiring a foodborne
illness. Underestimating the potential risk to self is known
as optimistic bias (87). This underestimation of personal
risk can result in the perception of invulnerability, where
the risk is expected to occur among others as opposed
to themselves (76). Indeed, as part of this study, risk
perceptions were significantly lower for self than for
others. Such discoveries concur with previous research
suggesting that consumers perceive personal invulnerability
and indicate perceptions of optimistic bias in relation to
food safety risks (21, 41, 70). Recent research regarding a
food safety campaign by the Partnership for Food Safety
Education reported that U.S. consumers perceived that they
were less likely than others to contract a foodborne illness;
however, they did perceive that the severity of illness would
be similar to that experienced by others (6).
Frewer et al. (40) suggest that misconceptions among
consumers regarding risk may prevent implementation of
effective food safety practices, the implication of which
can have severe consequences for food safety in the domestic
setting. It is also suggested that perceived invulnerability
may undermine food safety information attempts
as consumers perceived other people to be at greater risk
(33). To inform the development of future food safety
education in Lebanon, there is a need to consider and
specifically target food safety-related misconceptions such
as optimistic bias and perceived invulnerability. To enable
this, there is a need for in-depth qualitative research with
consumers from Lebanon to identify specific factors that
influence risk perceptions.
March/April Food Protection Trends 119
Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023
