ArticleEuropean journal of public health2023
Public perceptions of responsibility for recommended food policies in seven countries.
Article in European journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of Produce Recall Responsibility and Compliance of FSMA Produce Safety Rule Among Small- and Medium-Sized Produce Growers.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFood policy is important to promote healthy and sustainable diets. However, who is responsible for developing and implementing food policy remains contentious. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate how the public attributes responsibility for food policy to governments, individuals and the private sector.
methodsA total of 7559 respondents from seven countries [Australia (n = 1033), Canada (n = 1079), China (n = 1099), India (n = 1086), New Zealand (n = 1090), the UK (n = 1079) and the USA (n = 1093)] completed an online survey assessing perceived responsibility for 11 recommended food policies.
resultsOverall, preferred responsibility for the assessed food policies was primarily attributed to governments (62%), followed by the private sector (49%) and individuals (31%). Respondents from New Zealand expressed the highest support for government responsibility (70%) and those from the USA the lowest (50%). Respondents from the USA and India were most likely to nominate individuals as responsible (both 37%), while those from China were least likely (23%). The private sector had the highest attributed responsibility in New Zealand (55%) and the lowest in China and the USA (both 47%). Support for government responsibility declined with age and was higher among those on higher incomes, with a university degree, and who perceived themselves to consume a healthy diet or be in poor health.
conclusionsAcross seven diverse countries, results indicate the public considers government should take primary responsibility for the assessed food policies, with modest contribution from the private sector and minority support for individual responsibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.