The National Institute for Consumer Research

PO Box 173, N-1325 Lysaker, Norway

Phone: + 47 67 98 78; Fax: + 47 67 53 19 48

Mail: lisbet.berg@sifo.no, unni.kjarnes@sifo.no

In this paper we investigate empirically the level of distrust directed towards the food systems in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway, and also what protective measures against food insecurity the consumers prefer.

The level of knowledge related to food and consumption has increased considerably during the last decades of this millennium. Available knowledge about food, from production procedures to nutrition and future health consequences is enormous, and today only specialists in specific and limited areas can keep their knowledge up do date. But as consumers we witness that the specialists do not agree on quite severe topics like global warming or gene technology. As Giddens points out, the only thing we can be sure of today, is that we cannot be certain (Giddens 1994, 59). Fischler also claims that the sophisticated and large scale food production and distribution systems of today results in consumers who literally know less and less about what they are eating (Fischler 1988). In our everyday meals we need to rely on, not only the person who prepare the food, but also those unknown and unseen persons involved in the whole complex and opaque production, distribution and controlling processes, from the farmer, hunter or fisherman, through the factories and distribution channels to the dinner table. Like a paradox, rapid scientific development and increased available knowledge has resulted in greater uncertainty.

During the last decades we have also witnessed that the number of individual consumption choices have increased considerably in the Western world, due to expanding local markets initiated by the internationalisation of the food market and technological innovation on the one hand, and to higher standards of living with increased individual buying power on the other hand. Even though information and knowledge is available, it is impossible to always get a satisfactory overview which guarantee the best buy with regard to the whole range of attributes that we want to consider. This information problem often lead us to make choices more based on intuition, habits and ad hoc wants, rather than reflexive and rational calculations. The complex and comprehensive food market, with almost infinite possibilities of choice, can easily be perceived by the consumer as overwhelming. We need strategies which can save us from the freedom of choices (Swidler 1986).

According to Luhmann, "trust" is a mechanism that reduces such problematic social complexity. In modern societies with advanced division of labour, we cannot be in control of everything, nor is it possible to always make informed choices (Luhmann 1979 chap.7). By trusting others, institutions or systems, we solve this problem. Luhmann treats trust (as well as distrust) as a positive mechanism that help us simplify our lives.

Beck more explicitly connects the concept of trust, or rather distrust, to uncertainty, risk and fear (Beck 1992). He argues that industrial societies have created dangers of risk unknown in earlier times. What acknowledge and separate these modern risks from former risks, is that they are results of human activity (new production forms) and not natural forces. One example of a modern risk is global warming, another is long term effects of food pollution. Beck’s major point is that living in what he calls a risk society, generate worries and distrust, and thereby stimulate to more active, reflexive and critical individuals (Beck 1994).

While Luhmann focuses on the necessity of reducing complexity, Beck focuses on the necessity of reducing risk. If we accept both approaches, and acknowledge that we live in complex societies with new forms of risks, we can use the approaches of Luhmann and Beck to formulate two mechanisms connected to trust: According to Luhmann, modern citizens can (more or less consciously and free?) choose to use trust, as well as distrust, as a complexity reducing mechanism, that is, a strategy which releases us from time demanding acts of choice. According to Beck, on the other hand, new risks are provoking distrust which can activate reflexivity as a risk reducing mechanism, or strategy to prevent risks connected to consumption.

According to Luhmann, trust (and distrust) simplify our lives, and, according to Beck, distrust complicate our lives by demanding a more active, reflexive and critical consumer attitude.

Events during the last decade have demonstrated that distrust in the safety of the food system is an unpleasant situation – for the individual consumer, market actors as well as political actors (Grünert et al 1996, Latouche et al 1998, Miller & Reilly 1995, Mitchell 1997). Such situations have to be solved in one way or another. We need to eat, and in order not to starve to death, we have to either trust the food we are offered, or we have to handle our distrust by alternative consumer strategies, for example only consume selected foods from certain shops or chefs, eco-foods etc. The main difference between Luhmann and Beck is, as far as we understand, that the complexity reducing consumer would change consumer behaviour in order to regain the pleasant feeling of being safe and secure, while the reflexive consumer would continue to be critical to the food system also after changing consumer behaviour in order to reduce the present risk. In other words; after a food scandal, we could empirically observe similar behavioural patterns among risk reducing and complexity reducing consumers. But their motives and intentions for how to handle their future consumer role would differ. This will, in turn, influence the political debate about food and trust.

In this paper, we distinguish between two main groups of strategies to handle a situation where the credibility of the food system is perceived as not safe. The first is to take individual control and make all necessary investigations and precautions in order to reduce risk. This is how we would expect a conscious and reflexive consumer to meet a food system were short term or long term health risks seems to be present. We also expect that this reflexive consumer would ask for more public information, in order to be better prepared to make informed choices about what kinds of foods are safe and healthy to eat. In this paper we ask: Does distrust in the food system contribute to a higher wish for public information about healthy and safe food?

The other type of strategies for handling distrust in the food system, is to seek for someone or somewhere else to place the, at the moment, lost trust. One way is to place the responsibility with public authorities, and apply for more protection by stronger state interference and control of the food market. Among other strategies, this is how we would expect a consumer inclined to reduce social complexity would respond to a food system with perceived new health risks. We would also expect that this complexity reducing consumer would wish the state to regulate the food market in order to secure healthy food. We ask: Does distrust in the food system contribute to a higher wish for the state to regulate the food market by directives and prices?

The food system is not a coherent system we either trust or distrust. Distrust is usually directed towards specific actors or institutions operating in the food system. In this paper we separate between trust in state interference and control on the one hand and trust in market mechanisms and its actors on the other hand. Does distrust in the market and distrust in state authorities have the same effect, if any, on wish for information and wish for regulation?

By the extension of these questions we also ask whether distrust seems to stimulate to either reflexivity (measured by a wish for information) or complexity reducing strategies (measured by a wish for state regulations), or whether it rather seems as if there is no contradiction between reflexive and complexity reducing behaviour. Do consumers who distrust the food system tend to either ask for more information or ask for stronger state regulations or both?

Trust and distrust are of course, if not totally, at least notably, a result of how the food system function and operate in real life. That is; on the one hand to what extent public authorities are worth trusting and; on the other hand, to what extent harmful forces in the market are kept under control. The Nordic countries have many similarities, but still there are differences in how the food systems operate and what kinds of events consumers have experienced. We therefore ask: Do citizens in the Nordic countries to the same extent want state authorities to regulate the food market? And do citizens of some countries to a greater extent seem to apply for, or reject, public information? Finally we ask whether such differences between the Nordic countries, if there are any, can be explained by different levels of trust directed against public authorities and the market, respectively.

Our material is based on the study ‘Eating and Modern Everyday Life. A Comparative Survey of the Nordic Countries’. Data were collected in April 1997 with Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (Mäkelä et al 1999). Sampling was random, the sample sizes are: 1187 (Denmark), 1200 (Finland), 1178 (Norway), and 1244 (Sweden). In addition to a record of one day of eating and its social context, there was a battery of questions concerning, partly, attitudes towards social norms of meals and eating, partly towards trust, food regulations etc.

This analysis is based on responses to two statements related to preferences for how the state should interfere in the food system (dependent variables), four statements about trust and distrust directed towards the food system (intervening variables), three variables measuring individual characteristics (gender, age and education), and finally country of residence (independent variables).

On the statements, the respondents could choose to; agree, partly agree, don’t know, partly disagree, disagree. Even though these, strictly speaking, do not represent continuous variables which are preferable in regression analyses, we still find it justifiable to use the variables in regression analysis, which has proven to be a rather robust technique (Labovitz 1967). The two statements used as dependent variables are labelled from 5 (agree) to 1 (disagree). To measure distrust, we have chosen to use two index-variables (distrust in market and distrust in state), each based on responses on two statements. In order to separate distrusting consumers from the others, we only value those who show strong distrust towards the food system, and the indexes are then valued 2 (strong distrust on both statements) 1 (strong distrust on one statement) 0 (no strong distrust).

Since the material include as many as 4800 respondents, rather small effects will give statistical significant estimates. In the interpretation of a multivariate step-analysis such small effects will only be confusing, and we therefore choose to exclude estimates smaller than .08**, from the presentation. All the estimates, though, are shown in the enclosed tables.

The material is analysed by SPSS.

Scandinavian consumers were asked to evaluate different statements connected to how market and public institutions, in their opinion, affect health aspects in their everyday lives. In other words, which institutions promote health security and safety in the food system?

In the questionnaire, some statements were formulated positively, some negatively, but in order to get a more simplistic picture, we will present the results in such a way that all the statements point in the same (in Figure 1 positive) direction.

In Figure 1, the statements used in the following analysis, are arranged according to the percentages of positive responses. Almost every Scandinavian agree, or partly agree, that "Public information about healthy food is an important task for public authorities". It is somewhat more surprising that the majority also agree, or partly agree, that "Public authorities should regulate the food market by prices and directives in order to secure safe and healthy food". The distribution of answers on these statements signal that most Scandinavians want a strong, and active, food policy in order to promote food safety. These statements do not, however, tell anything about whether the respondents are satisfied with the situation in their own country or not.

The next two statements refer to trust/distrust in state authorities. One third agree, and another third partly agree that "Public authority control guarantees that the consumer does not get food with salmonella". It is not that common to look at The European Union as an institution promoting safety in the food market. Only 10 percent agree and another 24 percent partly agree that "European common market regulations guarantee that the quality of the food on the market is satisfactory.

The last two statements refer to trust/distrust in the market. Rather few consumers think that "Food producers are - not – more concerned with gaining money than consumers’ health(inversely presented in the questionnaire)", and "Increased international trade have - not - created new kinds of food risks". Nevertheless, based on the responses to these statements, the overall pattern seems to be that the Scandinavian consumer trusts state authorities more than market actors, and that they want market mechanisms to be controlled and regulated by public authority institutions. We are aware of the dark side of the market, and we want the state to regulate it and protect us against food scandals effectuated by the greed of some market actors (i.e. Belgium this summer).

The Nordic countries are quite similar in many respects; culturally, with regard to the relation between state and market, as well as the forms of welfare states (Esping-Andersen 1990). This is also true when it comes to the particular field of consumer protection, with heavy emphasis on public intervention in the market (Ilmonen & Stø 1997). Food safety regulations have been harmonised between the countries for quite a long time. Such common structural and normative frameworks allow a more focussed discussion of concrete variations between the countries (Przeworski & Teune 1970).

Although less well documented, there are, however, a number of differences, with regard to the food market, food consumption and public policies in this field. Denmark, with its export oriented food industry, has been a EU member since 1973. Sweden and Finland, who both joined the EU in 1995, have a much less export oriented food industry. Norway is still not a member, but it is part of the common market (with harmonised regulations) through the EES agreement. The Norwegian food market is heavily dependent on imports, but domestic agriculture has been strongly protected. The traditions of nutrition policy and education are quite diverse in the four Nordic countries (Kjærnes 1997). These types of policies have been most weakly developed in Denmark, most strongly in Norway, Finland and Sweden lying somewhere in between. While Norwegians have been most concerned with market regulation in order to obtain nutritional goals, and Swedes (and Finns) with public catering and school meals, they have all, including the Danes, shared an interest in education through mass media campaigns etc.

The Nordic countries are generally regarded as high-trust societies, but there are variations even here (Listhaug & Wiberg 1995, Miller & Listhaug 1998). Norwegians have a high and stable trust in political institutions. While this used to be true even in Sweden, the level of trust has been reduced in later years, now being similar to the more moderate level of Denmark. Of the four countries, Finns seem to have the lowest level of trust in political institutions.

We might therefore expect that the attitudes are influenced by the traditions with regard to food and nutrition policy, the general situation of political trust, party politics etc., as well as more situational factors, including food scandals and media debates.

Figure 2 shows how answers to the questions included in this analysis vary between the Nordic countries. As mentioned, public information is strongly supported – most heartily among Norwegians, least so among the Swedes. Far less are in favour of market regulation in all the countries, but a similar pattern of variation appears even here. The answers to the statement that control institutions can prevent salmonella in food, are at the same, moderate, level. But while Danes and Norwegians have responded more negatively to this question, the Finns and the Swedes are here more optimistic. All the countries share strong scepticism towards EU regulations as well as market institutions and international trade, the Finns perhaps being somewhat more positive.

In the following, we will present a two-step path analysis, based on regular linear regressions. We first present the results when using wish for information as the dependent variable and then the results when using wish for regulation as the dependent variable. The main purpose of this model is to investigate whether, and eventually how, distrust affect wishes for information and regulation, and whether there are differences among the Nordic countries. Besides country, we also include gender, age and whether the respondents have higher education or not, among the independent variables. The two variables measuring distrust, that is distrust in market and distrust in public authorities, are included in the model as intervening variables.

-.08**.

-.14**

-10**

11** -.09**

-.10**

-.20** .14**

.13**

-.17**

-.10**

.11**

-.10** .17**

-.20**

.13**

Based on the presented results in Model 1 and Model 2, we can illuminate the questions raised in the beginning of this paper: Do consumers react on distrust by alternative trust seeking or by critical reflexivity? First we notice that distrust in state authorities on the one hand and distrust in the market on the other hand, have opposite effects on what role the respondents want the state to play in the food system. Those who distrust the market and its mechanisms (otherwise all equal), tend to prefer both regulations (.13**) and information (.17**) more often than others. But those who distrust state authorities, rather tend to prefer regulations and information more seldom than others (-.09** and -.04**). In other words: Distrust in how the food market operate contribute to a wish for a stronger state intervention, while this is not at all the case when the consumer distrusts the way the state operates.

But how do these results fit the theories/postulates of Luhmann and Beck? These results could be interpreted in two ways: First, if a wish for information is a reflection of reflexivity (Beck) and a wish for state regulations is a reflection of complexity reducing activity (Luhmann), we find support for both theories. It seems as if distrust connected to the food market activate both increased wish for information in order to make informed choices (critical reflexivity) and increased wish for state regulations in order to make consumption more simple (societal complexity reduction by establishing new trusting agents).

We also asked whether distrust in the food system seemed to result in a wish for either more public information or state regulations, or if consumers followed both strategies simultaneously. As shown in the models, distrust in the food market seems to activate both a wish for information and for regulation, but the models do not tell whether it is the same individuals who wish public information and state regulations. Separate calculations show that among those with strong distrust towards the market, about 40 percent strongly wish for both information and regulations and about 40 percent strongly wish for either information or regulation. Based on this interpretation we would assume that the hypothesises drawn from both Luhmann’s and Beck’s theories capture how consumers react on distrust towards the food market. The theories should therefore be treated as supplementary rather than competitive in order to explain and understand consumer behaviour.

As mentioned, the results could probably also be interpreted in a second way: Both dependent variables - wishes for public information and state regulations - can implicitly be understood as indications of trust in the state. With such a comprehension, we might interpret the results as follows: If we cannot trust the food market, we want to trust public authorities; that is, establish stronger trust in state interference in order to compensate for reduced trust in the market. We tend to react in such a way, because, in Luhmann’s term; we need to trust. But if we cannot trust the way the state interferes in the food system, the distrust has more serious consequences. And if that is the case, our model does not cover how the consumer will solve the situation. But probably, because the basis for recruitment of new trusting agents in such a situation is quite limited, the consumer would feel he/she has few other options than to approach the food system in a cautious, conscious, critical and, in Beck’s term, reflexive way. Quite disillusioned, the consumer finds that the only one that can really be trusted, is him/herself.

This latter interpretation could signify that the explanatory power of the theories of Luhmann and Beck will change due to the development of distrust directed towards the food system. In other words; a situation of distrust directed towards the food system will first be met by consumers looking for new trusting agents. But when, or if, distrust continues to grow and reaches a certain level, then reflexive, but also disillusioned, consumers will emerge in greater numbers.

According to our material, however, the Nordic countries were still in a lower stage of distrust development when the data were collected in 1997. As shown in Figure 1, only a minority do not trust public authorities at all, while quite a few do not trust the market. One important implication of these results is that distrust in the food system should not be treated as one coherent quantity. Distrust in the market and distrust in the state seem to have quite different implications.

In the regression equation, we have used Norway as the basis for our comparison among the Nordic countries. The results presented in Model 1 & 2, indicate that Norwegians, more often than other Scandinavians, wish state regulations and public information.

We also asked whether differing wishes for regulations and information among the Nordic countries could be explained by different levels of distrust directed towards the food market and state interference in the market. If the level of distrust was the only explanation and our variables gave an accurate measure of distrust, all effects from country to the dependent variables would be indirect (through distrust in the market and/or distrust in the state), which they are not. Nevertheless, we cannot expect such accuracy from our variables, but the models do indicate traces of such expected indirect effects: Danes and Norwegians distrust the market more than Swedes (-.10**) and Finns (-.20**), which should trigger a higher wish for both information and regulation among Danes and Norwegians. But Denmark is also distinguished by a higher degree of distrust in state authorities (.11**), which pulls in the other direction and reduces the wish for information and regulation. To conclude; one explanation for a higher wish for public information and state regulations in Norway than in the other three Scandinavian countries could be that Norwegians distrust the food market more, and/or distrust state interference less, than citizens of the other Nordic countries.

In this paper, we have not emphasised the implications of gender, education and age, even though we expected such individual characteristics to affect the level of trust and the wish for state regulations and public information. Nevertheless, we have included these variables in the multivariate analysis, not only because this will prevent possible biases on account of differences in the national samples on such variables. It is also of interest to compare the effects of these types of variables with the effect of country of residence. Our analysis shows no significant effects (of some size) from the individual variables on distrust in public authorities. Only age has an effect on distrust in the food market (older people are more sceptical). Neither do we find effects from gender or education on the wish for information, and there is only a small indirect effect of age through distrust in market.

The individual variables do show differences in the wish for state regulations: Women, low educated and older people (indirectly) want the state to regulate the food market with prices and directives more often than others.

Consumer distrust in the food system has received a lot of attention in the media in recent years. This situation of change and turbulence is associated with immense increases in the knowledge about food, knowledge that is highly specialised and largely abstract for the consumers of food. The food system is also increasingly complex, involving a lot of actors, and transparency becomes more and more problematic. On the other hand, the range of foods offered in the market has provided a variety of foods that was difficult to imagine just a few years ago. While opening for individual creativity, this situation can also become a problem and a threat (Giddens 1991, Luhmann 1979).

Food and eating is an essential part of everyday life, and the consumers have to find strategies for handling this situation in ways that can keep the feeling of anxiety away from the family dinner table. In this paper, we have pointed to two different types of strategies for reducing uncertainty and limiting distrust: to reduce complexity by finding parties or institutions that can be trusted, and to increase individual agency through reflexivity.

The first strategy has been operationalised as the classical political solution of consumer protection, which is public regulation of the market. This solution is meant to prevent that inferior and harmful products are marketed. The second strategy has been operationalised as the commonly expressed opposite to this solution, namely consumer information. By this, the consumer becomes more capable of actively choosing between different products and properties, in other words increasing personal control.

Our analysis indicates that for many people in the Nordic countries, information and public regulations are supplementary, rather than alternative strategies. One interpretation is that they wish for public authorities to ensure a basic level of safety. They want a considerable degree of freedom to choose - when this does not threaten this basic safety. One could call this a typical reaction from citizens in and proponents of the Scandinavian, social democratic welfare state.

Trust and distrust in the food system have effects on the wishes for information and regulation, respectively. The food system is complex and trust is a problematical concept. In our analysis, we found it fruitful to distinguish between distrust in market conditions, on the one hand, and distrust directed towards state interference in the market, on the other. According to our analysis, trust in these institutions seems to have rather opposite effects: the more the consumer distrusts the food market, and the more the consumer trusts the way the state interferes in the market, the more common it is to wish for state regulations and information. This means, for example, that if you distrust the way market regulations operate today, you are less likely to wish for public solutions like strong state regulations and public information. On the other hand, distrust in market institutions, which is quite common according to our questions, is associated with a wish for public interference. National public authorities are important as trust building institutions in the Nordic countries, while scepticism towards market as well as international institutions seems to be more widespread.

Trust in public authorities seems to be a significant condition for beliefs in educational and regulatory measures. While information strategies leaves more freedom to choose for the consumer, the use of information has to be funded on trust in the sender (which in this case is public authorities). There are no social groups that stand out as particularly distrustful in relation to public authorities. With regard to market actors, however, the elder age groups are more distrustful than the younger ones. High age is therefore indirectly associated with a stronger belief in public solutions, regulations as well as information.

According to our analysis, Norwegian consumers seem to be somewhat more in favour of market regulations and public information than consumers in the other Nordic countries. The most important finding, though, is probably that the country of residence seems to be more important for the level of distrust than individual background variables. Differences are in total larger, and they are more consistent. This indicates that specific events, political, structural and cultural factors at the national level are more important for the level of trust in the food system than for example gender roles, life phase or education. Even the educational level shows no clear patterns. These findings are somewhat surprising, as most studies of consumer opinions and practices find that these characteristics have strong effects. Institutions at the national level are significant, in particular public institutions.

Finally, we asked whether differences between the Nordic countries can be explained by different levels of trust directed towards public authorities and the market, respectively. Above we have described how the Nordic countries, while having many similarities concerning norms and institutions, also differ in several important respects, both concerning the particular policies in question and more general conditions of trust. One may distinguish between three different levels of interpretation of national variation.

Although lacking good, comparative studies, it may be anticipated that the experiences differ in terms of concrete food scandals. While hardly any scandals have appeared in Norway, there have been quite a few in Denmark in connection with contaminated meat, perhaps more than in Finland and Sweden as well. This may, at least partly explain the relatively higher level of trust and belief in public solutions in Norway (and Sweden and Finland, compared to Denmark.

The second level is related to diverging food policies. Food safety policies are not that divergent in the Nordic countries, at least in principle. However, again, Norwegians have been most eager to regulate the market, Danes, with their export oriented agriculture the least. This is also reflected in their respective nutrition policies. While having long established nutrition policies in Sweden and Finland, their eagerness of market regulation are lower than in Norway. Agricultural policy also seems to have been more rapidly liberalised in these countries, compared to Norway. In Denmark, on the other hand, the liberalistic food policy has been market by a rather high level of conflict, consumer and environmental groups being among the strongest critics. We have seen in our study that distrust in market actors is associated with a higher wish for information and regulation.

The third level of explanation is related to political trust in general. Here, our findings within the field of food are not quite in accordance with studies that are not related to particular issues. While the high level of trust among Norwegians fits in, it was expected that Finland (perhaps also Sweden) would represent the other extreme, Denmark taking an intermediate position. A (very) tentative explanation is that the general conditions of trust mainly have impact indirectly through influence on the concrete policy and the formulation of the public agenda.

To conclude, we want to stress that "trust" is a complicated concept and also that "the food system" is multifaceted and diffuse. It is therefore almost impossible, we think, to find a perfect valid measure of "trust in the food system". This implies that the empirical results should be interpreted cautiously, and, unfortunately, that the results of other operationalisations may differ. Our analysis indicates, however, that questions about trust should relate to concrete actors and institutions, in this case that one should not treat trust in the market and trust in state interference as one common index variable.

Beck, U. (1992). From industrial society to the risk society: questions of survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture and Society, 9: (1). 97-123.

Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. (pp. 1-56). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fischler, C. (1988). Food, self and identity. Social Science Information, 27: (2). 275-292.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aestetics in the modern social order. (pp. 56-109). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Grünert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H.H., & Madsen, T.K. (1996). Market orientation in food and agriculture. Boston,, Dordrect, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ilmonen, K., & Stø, E. (1997). The 'consumer' in political discourse: Consumer policy in the Nordic welfare states. In P. Sulkunen, J. Holmwood, H. Radner, & G. Schulze (Eds.), Constructing the new consumer society. (pp. 197-217). Houndmills and London: Macmillan Press.

Kjærnes, U. (1997). Framveksten av ernæringspolitikk i Norden. In U. Kjærnes (Ed.), Utfordringer i ernæringspolitikken. Nord-Rapport 619. (pp. 73-88). København: Nordisk Ministerråd.

Kjærnes, U., & Dulsrud, A. (1998). Consumption and mechanisms of trust. Presented at The ESA subgroup 'The Sociology of Consumption', University of Milan, Sept 16-17.

Labovitz, S. (1967). Some observations on measurements and statistics. Social Forces, 46:151-160.

Latouche, K., Rainelli, P., & Vermersch, D. (1998). Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case. Food Policy, 23: (5). 347-356.

Listhaug, O., & Wiberg, M. (1995). Confidence in political and private institutions. In H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the state. (pp. 298-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power: two works. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Mäkelä, J., Kjærnes, U., Ekström, M.P., Fürst, E.L., Gronow, J., & Holm, L. (1999). Nordic meals. Methodological notes on a comparative survey. Appetite, 32:73-79.

Miller, A.H., & Listhaug, O. (1998). Policy preferences and political distrust: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. Scandinavian Political Studies, 21: (2). 161-187.

Miller, D., & Reilly, J. (1995). Making an issue of food safety: The media, pressure groups, and the public sphere. In D. Maurer & J. Sobal (Eds.), Eating agendas. Food and nutrition as social problems. (pp. 305-336). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Mitchell, P. (1997). Struggle worldwide to regain consumers' faith in food. The Lancet, 350: (9086). 1234-1235.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: John Wiley.

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51: (2). 273-286.