↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens’ jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3900-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. 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). 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#17,837,681
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,509
of 14,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,012
of 419,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#158
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.