We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Microplastics in food and drink: Predictors of public risk perceptions and support for plastic-reducing policies based on a climate change framework
Summary
People generally worry about microplastics in their food and drinks, and this study found that emotional reactions (like feeling disgusted or anxious) and talking with others about the issue shape how concerned people feel, more so than hard facts alone. People were also more supportive of reward-based solutions (like incentives for companies to cut plastic use) than punishment-based ones (like fines), especially when they trusted science on the topic. This matters because understanding what drives people's concern can help policymakers design better public health messaging and regulations to actually reduce microplastic exposure in our food supply.
The world is confronted with a Triple Planetary Crisis of climate change , biodiversity loss and pollution. Human behaviours are key drivers of these crises and thus solutions need to focus on understanding the factors influencing people's levels of risk perception and willingness to support system level actions (e.g., effective regulatory measures). The current research adapts a conceptual framework that has proven useful in understanding these issues in the context of climate change (the Climate Change Risk Perception Model, CCRPM; van der Linden , 2015) to one of the most widely discussed areas of environmental pollution , i.e., plastics, and microplastics in food and drink specifically. Drawing on data from a quasi-representative survey in Austria ( N = 741), we found relatively high risk perception concerning microplastics in food/drink, and higher support for “pull” (e.g., incentive) than “push” (e.g., fines) plastic-reducing policies. Higher risk perception was predicted most by socio-cultural and experiential factors (i.e., higher biospheric values, negative affect, indirect exposure through talking to others about the issue). The pattern of predictors for policy support differed between “push” and “pull” measures (e.g., higher perceived scientific consensus and trust in science predicted higher support for “pull” but not “push” measures). Moreover, exploratory path analyses suggested that experiential factors were related to policy support indirectly through risk perception. Our findings suggest that frameworks such as the CCRPM can be usefully adapted to other contexts of environmental and/or health concern. By identifying the psychological drivers of public risk perception of microplastics in food and drink and support for different types of policies, these findings can inform the development of effective measures and communication strategies.