Domestic risk linked with home cooking
Table of Contents
References. 10
Domestic risk lined with home cooking
1. Introduction
Eating in the comfort of the home is something that each and every one of us has experienced for some time. While there are a number of benefits associated to cooking food at home. There are certain risks that arise in cooking food at home. These risks are influenced with the public perception in varied ways, be it psychological, social and environmental.
So as to be familiar with the influence of risk communication, it is vital to be aware of risk perception. Generally, decisions or opinions made regarding perceived risks are due to a number of qualitative aspects of the risks like control and population attributes or personal characteristics[1]. There are certain principles that are used on perception of home cooking risks. The risks are conceptualized on two aspects; first if they can be controlled and implications as well as chance of occurring. Second is the level of knowledge.
According to Rowe and Fife-Schaw, a number of domestic risks associated with cooking were conceptualized in regards to control and level of awareness[2]. Basically, gender, ethnicity and geographical aspect are possible source of population perception in perception of a risk. Currently, there established risk perception that are connected to gender; women perceive a number of domestic risks to have a greater threat than men. While older people are more related about risks of food poisoning. Other personal perception have been connected to past experiences among others.
This paper aims to focus on risk perception and communication with special consideration to domestic risk in home cooking as perceived by the public. This is in terms of their psychological, social and environmental aspects. With help of a number of studies and research done by authors and scholars, the paper will show the dangers that arise from these aspects and how they are influenced by public perception.
2. Social and Physiological Factors
2.1. Benefits
Sharp policy conflicts and contrasts in public opinions about domestic cooking have occurred in several countries in varied forums. Previously, consumers and cooks embraced home cooking as a healthy way to manage one’s nutrients. There were other benefits like control of one’s ratio and balanced food type as well as ability to eat clean foods and affordability[3]. That perception has changed greatly over time that stated that nutrients used in home food were on the rise. Cases were on the rise of the number of people who were obese due to unhealthy home cooked foods.
Studies done by the Annals of Internal Medicine show that home recipes have undergone a vast form of change over a period of time. This has led to a rise in the portions used in the cooking process that translate into reduced servings for every recipe and an increase in the calories for every food served. This has led to researchers to come up with a conclusion that in the fight against obesity we could be laying our focus in the wrong end[4]. This is since, the enemy has been with us all the time in the kitchen.
The recipes, according to research, have transformed by a 40 percent rise in calories in comparison to its initial amount, this translates into 77 calories than it was previously. This shows that those that cook at home are of the thought that they are avoiding extra calories found in foods in the restaurants which is false in real sense. The study goes on to say that people are more used to taking portions of food without them being aware about it. A good example is taken from the popular cook book ‘Joy of Cooking’ which has come through a number of editions since 2006 and assessed indigenous food. It is only the chili con carne that was constant over time. The chicken gumbo increased from 14 servings for 228 calories to 10 servings comprising of 576 calories in 2006. Several surveys rated home cooking as one of the domestic risks as a serious health threat[5]. This has led to most people going to restaurants for food which has led to a decline in home cooking appliances.
2.2. Trust
Research shows that the lack of trust has been a major factor in the gap of intellect and analysis of the risk and studies show a direct connection between a lack of trust in the agencies and risk perceptions[6]. Basically, the desire to depend on policies of companies and their staff or social trust has been known to be significant to environmental risk perception and in taking environmental management. For instance, Grobe noted extreme trust in consumers in US Food and Drug Administration which was connected to less anxiety on health effects associated in home cooking. However, government acceptance of home cooking and shutting down of some restaurants did not lead the rise in acceptance of home cooking.
Studies done by Frewer et al. have shown that trust in information sources is a vital aspect in how people react to information about home cooking. It has gone on to state that trust in cooking institutions or cooks has been vital in influencing perception of home cooking[7]. Trust has an influence on perceived risk just like benefit and hence an indirect impact on home cooking. The information sources are connected to varied attributes that contrast the extent that they trusted by the public. Skills in cooking does not lead to trust unless it is backed by other attributes like accountability.
Consumer organizations are trusted sources as they are believed to be knowledgeable and proactive in issuing details that have an issue with the public wellbeing. Additionally, they are connected to a less extent on commercial benefits.
The rise in obese and safety concerns of people in the US informed the public of lack of a proper regulatory body that informed home cooking. This paved the way for fear of safety at home. This led to the NGOs and related bodies that were charged in informing the public on responsible cooking practices. This in the end would restore consumer confidence[8]. Generally, home cooking has displayed a risk and not an opportunity for the public and the governments and concerned bodies have constantly referred to precautionary measures in handling the threat.
3. Environmental Factors
Environmental health is of great concern because of the major environmental changes and rise in established connections between several diseases and environmental contact. Children and unborn babies are known to be at risk to the implication of environmental pollution and due to this, the environmental agencies and the WHO have shown a great consideration that calls for research.
The risks that relate to home cooking like pollution and fire accidents are been noted to be several in residential areas[9]. This has been attributed to life instances and life styles aspects that comprise intoxication with alcohol and drugs, cooking using fire woods and physical attributes associated to obesity.
The effects brought about by environmental toxins, more so for expectant women, were known to breath in contaminated air and eat contaminated food were noticed to have varied problems like cerebral palsy, nervous system, and blindness[10]. The risks affecting human health have been categorized as being chemical, biological, physical and mechanical. These may be natural like drinking water or manmade like pesticides. However, the exposure to chemicals, like breathing chemical gases from cooking gases has the effect of creating dangerous toxins to the unborn children. Air pollution, chemicals and radiations from the cooking appliances are ways that home cooking poses a risk at home.
A number of studies have focused on evidence on connection between prenatal exposure to risks environmental threats and negative effect to children. There is proof that exposure to chemicals in processed foods used in preserving them, have adverse implications on the children. These chemicals have been known to lead to birth defects and altered growth. This has gone on to affect brain development.
Another concern is based on the fires that arise from cooking at home. Studies have shown that cooking at home, be it with fire wood, petroleum or electricity has resulted to physical harms[11]. Firewood in the farm houses has been known to cause fires which spreads fast due to the environment which is made of wood[12]. On other hand, petroleum offers children and less experienced families with the danger of drinking them as they are stored in bottles as well as easy to catch fires. Additionally, gases are quite dangerous as they are the most dangerous since fires caused by them can be caused without knowledge. Simply lighting a matchbox of cigarette would cause a fire. These are just but some of the ways that safety at home is at risk.
The public perception and attitudes to the risk and its decline are central to public health. There is a rise in focus on public health and its promotion agencies to avert the risk of diseases and accidents, more so in highly dense areas. This risk discourse can be divided into varied areas comprising: risk to health due to life style decisions and environmental threats like pollution, toxic chemicals and fires. According to Beck, risk society is seen as arising from late modernity. In such a case, human development have led to increased risks that harm the ecosystem and health. Additionally, today’s society has developed greatly from a society that has been attributed basically by social variation to where the main risks are environmental hazards that lies in traditional variation.
While they are not accepted risks, they are not seen as equal by the public[13]. The reaction of the public to risk has been attributed to the manner they respond to risks in regards to perceptional aspects which are not well handled in risk analysis.
4. Conclusion
Home cooking has been noted to have a number of benefits that range from a balanced nutrients consumption, and calories intake. However, as time goes by, there have been a number of risks that arise from this, as the paper has been able to show, these risks has gone ahead to affect the public perception in varied ways. The public perception has been focused in terms of physiological, social and environmental aspects.
In terms of physiological and social aspects, the paper has regarded trust as being of great importance to the public. There are certain bodies that in the food industry that issue in information that do not acquire the trust of the public. Most organizations that provide information do not acquire the same level of trust as consumer agencies. Additionally, benefits has been to affect the home cooking. For instance, the benefits acquired from home cooking would make people to cook food that would satisfy them. Otherwise, adverse effects in such foods would make the public to shift their allegiance about home cooking in regards to home cooking and the risks arising from it. There was also focus on environmental aspects, such aspects range from pollution, which arise from breathing toxic gases, and eating contaminated food substances in the processed foods as they have chemical substances. Public perception in terms of risks arising from environmental risks like health risks arising from using fire wood, petroleum and gas.
The paper has been able to support the varied factors with studies done by scholars. They have been able to offer strong evidence to public perception provided by home cooking as well as the factors. This offers a good base to manage cooking at home in regards to the risks that arise from it and offers grounds to how the government and relevant bodies ought to handle and manage policies that relate to this factors.
References
Breakwell, G. Risk communication: factors affecting impact. British Medical Bulletin, 2000; 56 (1): 110-120.
Godwin, S. L., Coppings, R., Kosa, K. M., & Cates, S. C. Consumer response to food contamination and recalls: findings from a national survey. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 2012; 43(1): 19-26.
Grewal, A. and S. Jood. Effect of processing treatments on nutritional and anti-nutritional contents of green gram. J. Food Biochem, 2006; 30: 535-546.
Kennedy, J et al. Segmentation of US consumers based on food safety attitudes 2008 [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: https://www.msu.edu/~lapinsk3/Maria_Lapinski/Publications_files/9.%20Segmentation_of.pdf
Kosa, K., Cates, S., Karns, S., Godwin, S., & Chambers, D. Consumer home refrigeration practices: results of a web-based survey. Journal Of Food Protection, 2007; 70(7): 1640-1649.
Preston, W and McGuirk. Food Safety Risks and Consumer Behavior, 2007 [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26995/1/21010079.pdf
Safefood.Consumer food safety knowledge, Microbiology, & Refrigeration Temperatures in Domestic Kitchens, 2005 [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/Consumer-Food-Safety-Knowledge,-Microbiology-Ref
Shah, H.U., U.L. Khan, S. Alam, A.A. Shad, Z. Iqbal and S. Parveen. Effect of home cooking on the retention of various nutrients in commonly consumed pulses in Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 2011;27(2): 279-284.
Sonesson, U. et al. Industrial Processing versus Home Cooking: An Environmental Comparison between Three Ways to Prepare a Meal. Ambio, 2005; 34(4-5): 414-421.
[1] Kosa, K., Cates, S., Karns, S., Godwin, S., & Chambers, D. Consumer home refrigeration practices: results of a web-based survey. Journal Of Food Protection, 2007; 70(7): 1640-1649.
[2] Breakwell, G. Risk communication: factors affecting impact. British Medical Bulletin, 2000; 56 (1): 110-120.
[3] Godwin, S. L., Coppings, R., Kosa, K. M., & Cates, S. C. Consumer response to food contamination and recalls: findings from a national survey. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 2012; 43(1): 19-26.
[4] Grewal, A. and S. Jood. Effect of processing treatments on nutritional and anti-nutritional contents of green gram. J. Food Biochem, 2006; 30: 535-546.
[5] Safefood.Consumer food safety knowledge, Microbiology, & Refrigeration Temperatures in Domestic Kitchens, 2005 [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-reports/Consumer-Food-Safety-Knowledge,-Microbiology-Ref
[6] Shah, H.U., U.L. Khan, S. Alam, A.A. Shad, Z. Iqbal and S. Parveen. Effect of home cooking on the retention of various nutrients in commonly consumed pulses in Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 2011; 27(2): 279-284.
[7] Kennedy, J et al. Segmentation of US consumers based on food safety attitudes, 2000 [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: https://www.msu.edu/~lapinsk3/Maria_Lapinski/Publications_files/9.%20Segmentation_of.pdf
[8] Preston, W and McGuirk. Food Safety Risks and Consumer Behavior, 2007 [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26995/1/21010079.pdf
[9] Sonesson, U. et al. Industrial Processing versus Home Cooking: An Environmental Comparison between Three Ways to Prepare a Meal. Ambio, 2005; 34(4-5): 414-421.
[10] Godwin, S. L., Coppings, R., Kosa, K. M., & Cates, S. C. Consumer response to food contamination and recalls: findings from a national survey. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 2012; 43(1): 19-26.
[11] Kosa, K. M., Cates, S. C., Godwin, S. L., & Speller-Henderson, L. Most Americans are not prepared to ensure food safety during power outages and other emergencies. Food Protection Trends, 2011; 31(7), 428–436.
[12] Kennedy, J et al (2008).Segmentation of US consumers based on food safety attitudes [cited 2013 November 13]. Available from: https://www.msu.edu/~lapinsk3/Maria_Lapinski/Publications_files/9.%20Segmentation_of.pdf
[13] Sonesson, U. et al. Industrial Processing versus Home Cooking: An Environmental Comparison between Three Ways to Prepare a Meal. Ambio, 2005; 34(4-5): 414-421.
