Seafood ChoiCeS

Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11762.html
SUPPORTING CONSUMER SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION DECISIONS
cific benefit or risk metrics. As discussed in Chapter 6, effectively informing
decision-making requires the use of metrics that consumers can evaluate
and use. A consumer-centered information design and evaluation approach
is needed that makes information “easily available, accurate, and timely”
(Hibbard and Peters, 2003). One approach is to present numerical information
graphically (Hibbard et al., 2002). Consumers should be familiar
with rating systems that represent benefits and risks in a small number of
categories (often five), as is done for crash test ratings (TRB, 2002). The
UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has proposed “red-amber-green” multiple
traffic light labeling for foods (FSA, 2005, 2006; http://www.food.gov.
uk/foodlabelling/signposting/signpostlabelresearch/).
Graph comprehension depends on experience and expectations, as well
as on the design of the graph in question (Shah and Hoeffner, 2002). Familiarity
with an analog, as in the multiple traffic light system proposed by the
FSA, can aid comprehension. Consumer testing carried out by Navigator for
FSA (FSA, 2005) suggests that the multiple traffic light system helps consumers
choose more nutritious foods, although the system has been criticized
for its simplicity (Fletcher, 2006). Other common graphical approaches
to presenting benefits or risks include “thermometers,” rank-ordered bar
charts, or a more complex graphic embedded in a matrix of benefit and risk
information, as is done by Consumer Reports.
While some of these approaches have been tested empirically, an agency
developing consumer guidance should test prototypes on representative consumers.
A potential problem in presenting benefit and risk metrics together
is that the consumer may misinterpret the relationship between benefit and
risk. For example, consumers are likely to infer that side-by-side thermometers
or bars are directly comparable, even if they are labeled with different
numerical scales.
Formats such as those presented by the committee in Figures 7-2
through 7-4b can serve as suitable advice for consumers who want general
guidance on seafood consumption. However, other consumers may want
specific information for different seafood products. In Navigator’s testing,
consumers preferred additional text to be informational rather than advisory
(FSA, 2005). For these consumers, there is a large family of graphics
that could be used to present choices across a broad range of seafood products.
The committee developed several examples of graphical presentations
of guidance to illustrate possible approaches. In presenting such graphics,
the committee emphasizes its finding that it is not possible to have a single
metric that captures complex benefit-risk relationships. Any sort of score
system is unlikely to capture the inherent uncertainties in what is known
about the underlying benefit-risk trade-offs. Graphical formats should be
carefully and empirically tested to insure that they effectively communicate
with consumers.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.