Consumers' knowledge of food fraud and its impact on their purchasing behaviour of organic fresh produce

Abstract

“Food fraud” is a globally accepted concept used to refer to the purposeful consumer deception in the sale, advertising or labelling of food or food ingredients to achieve an economic benefit (Curll, 2015). Within the food industry it refers to intentionally adulterating, substituting, diluting, mixing, or adding substances or ingredients to food to give a false perception of its authenticity, value, safety, or quality to obtain illicit financial gain, often to the detriment of consumers (Spink and Moyer, 2011). One of the most adulterated food categories is organics, and the rise in the sale of organic produce in South Africa is markable. Since the legislation that governs organic produce is still under development, it leaves consumers vulnerable to be defrauded financially, and exposes them to health risks. The aim of this study was to make an academic contribution to the body of knowledge related to consumer science. The focus of this research project was to explore and describe consumers’ knowledge of food fraud to identify how this impacts their purchasing behaviour of organic fresh produce. A structured, self-administrated electronic questionnaire was used to collect quantifiable data from respondents recruited by beans of convenience sampling across Gauteng, South Africa. The data analysis made used of descriptive and inferential statistics to test for possible statistically significant differences between demographic groups. Factor analysis was then used to better understand respondents’ subjective and objective knowledge about food fraud. Correlation analysis was used to identify possible underlying relationships between the respondent’s food fraud knowledge and risk aversion/confidence when buying organic fresh produce.

Results indicated a statistically significant difference between respondents’ subjective consumer knowledge (with an average score of 61.25%) and their objective consumer knowledge (with an average score of 46.65%). Should these results be reviewed in lieu of the hypothetical cognitive bias described as “the Dunning-Kruger Effect”, it might be deducted that the organic consumer is likely to be vulnerable to the various elements associated with “Food Fraud”. From this, key recommendations could be inferred for how an increased focus on ethical practices from suppliers, retailers, and brand owners would greatly benefit the end-consumer. The development and wide-spread adoption of a reliable accreditation system across the food sector value chain is suggested as mitigation for the psychological and physical risks consumers face due to an inherent knowledge deficit on the topic of “food fraud”.