Sunday 5 July 2009

D02002: Involving low income consumers in policy making - developing consultation methods and improving participation levels

Wednesday 20 October 2004

This research project aims to investigate different consultation mechanisms to involve hard to reach groups in food policy.

Study Duration
Contractor
Background
Research Approach
Results and findings
Dissemination information
Contact

Study Duration : October 2002 to August 2004

Contractor : University of Surrey

Background

The aim of this project is to examine the effectiveness of two different consultation and communication mechanisms to involve hard to reach groups in food policy.

Research Approach

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders to explore the effectiveness of involving hard to reach groups in policy through their representative groups.

Two public involvement methods were selected to evaluate direct methods of involving consumers. A three-day citizens� jury and a one-day citizens� workshop were conducted, each bringing together older citizens, to deliberate on the topic of: �Does food retailing need to change in order to achieve optimal health and diet?�

The citizens� workshop is a method where a group of citizens are brought together to learn about, discuss and give their views on an issue. The citizens� jury is a method where a group of 12-16 people are brought together over a period of several days, to be informed about a specific issue, hear evidence from witnesses and cross-examine them.

The evaluation of the two methods assessed the participants� and observers� perceptions of the processes and outcomes of the methods, against a set of evaluation criteria. The criteria were representation; independence; trustworthiness; credibility; clarity and transparency; access to resources; group dynamics; efficacy of the process; fairness; transformation; group identification; task-related outcomes; and satisfaction.

Results and findings

This report describes an evaluation of two methods using indirect involvement of citizens in food policy: a citizens' workshop lasted over a day, and the citizens' jury lasted 2.5 days.

The answer to the question: 'Does food retailing need to change, in order to achieve optimal health and diet?' was unanimous across the groups at the two events: participants agreed that food retailing needed to change to achieve optimal health and diet.

The citizens' workshop recommendations were:

Food retailing needs to change in order to achieve optimal health and diet: labelling must be honest, with more information. The cost for basic food must be lower with more priority for basic foods and less for luxury food; access must be increased; there needs to be better education of citizens on healthy food; and the encouragement of local shops.
Government legislation and enforcement is necessary in order to initiate these changes (e.g. tax incentives, advertising control, planning control, subsidies for small shops).
There needs to be real and continuous dialogue among the Government, producers, retailers and consumers in order to achieve the changes in food retailing (and elsewhere) necessary for optimal health and diet (e.g. about what constitues healthy food, educating the public about a healthy diet).

The citizens' jury conclusions were:

Link health agenda to retail agenda (e.g. quality of production, hygiene, type of products. less junk food, accurate information, better accessibility).
Organise/improve consumer pressure (e.g. meeting of consumers and retailers, consumer council, any appropriate group, good information).
Control and enforce standards.

The evaluation of the study shows that the two events were not rated significantly differently by the participants on most evaluation criteria, except one, that of trustworthiness of stakeholders. This was higher among participants of the citizens' jury among those participating in the citizens' workshop.

Conclusions

The properties of the methods alone, such as information provision, had little impact on either satisfaction with the process or the participants' recommendations.
It is not clear what role extra information played as it did not lead to an improved or different outcome for citizens' jury group.
The study emphasised the importance of group debate for overall satisfaction with the process.
The debate on the question of 'Does food retailing need to chage in order to achieve optimal health and diet' produced a clear consensus, indicating that the topic was sufficiently well defined. However, the participants' frequent referral to personal and local experiences meant that a more local focus on the topic may have been beneficial. It could also be argued that the prospect of local level delivery would have made the participants less sceptical about the final impact of their input.

Dissemination information

Final report is available from the Agency's Information centre.
To obtain a copy, please contact the Enquiry Desk, Information Services, Food Standards Agency (tel: 020 7276 8181/8182 or email: infocentre@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk ).

Contact : For any enquiries concerning this research project, please contact the relevant programme contact or email: science@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

Graphic version of this page

D02002: Involving low income consumers in policy making - developing consultation methods and improving participation levels

Background

Research Approach

Results and findings

Dissemination information

Tell a Friend

Printer friendly

Contact us

Get alerts

Our Sites