4.6 Article

Risk perception and acceptance of health warning labels on wine

期刊

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104435

关键词

Wine; Warning labels; Risk perception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that health warning labels have a small effect on consumers' risk perception, with cultural worldviews and health beliefs being major determinants of their acceptability. Additional research is needed to evaluate the real-life effectiveness of HWLs and the role of culture in their acceptance.
Wine is an essential part of European culture. Unfortunately, the consumption of alcohol, such as wine, can have negative health effects. Health warning labels (HWLs) are increasingly presented as a measure to warn consumers of the threat alcohol poses to their health. At present, only a few countries in Europe have introduced mandatory HWLs on wine bottles. This may be due to the cultural and economic significance of wine and the European public's refusal to accept HWLs on a product like wine. To investigate this issue, we conducted an online experiment in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and assessed the perception of risk in participants who were presented wine bottles featuring different types of HWLs. We also studied how health beliefs and cultural worldviews influence the perception and acceptance of HWLs. Our study revealed a small effect of HWLs on consumers' risk perception. There was no difference between a simple text-only HWL and a label featuring a deterring picture (image-and-text HWL). The major determinants of HWL acceptability were cultural worldviews and health beliefs. That is, participants who opposed government intervention for collective wellbeing and espoused a belief in the health benefits of wine were less likely to accept HWLs on wine. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of HWLs in real-life situations and the importance of culture to the acceptance of such a public intervention measure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据