Perceiving Food Risk in the Digital Age: A Risk Society Based Thematic Analysis of Consumer Comments

Abstract

This study examines how public perceptions and attitudes towards food safety risks are shaped and articulated on social media platforms within the framework of Ulrich Beck’s risk society theory. Through a content analysis of 71.345 comments posted on 123 social media posts shared by a prominent food safety awareness account operating on Instagram in Türkiye, five main thematic categories were identified: invisible risks, institutional trust crisis, individual risk management, digital activism, and informational uncertainty and confusion. The findings reveal a significant erosion of public trust towards state institutions and food companies, with users expressing intense concerns over regulatory inadequacies, unethical pricing strategies, and opacity regarding product contents. Moreover, individuals are seen engaging in reflexive behaviors such as reading labels, boycotting products, and adopting alternative consumption strategies in an effort to protect themselves from risks, while simultaneously using digital platforms to mobilize public opinion and organize collective responses. When evaluated alongside Beck’s concepts of “unpredictability of risk,” “reflexive modernity,” and “individualization of risk,” the results indicate that food has become a contested object of meaning in late modern societies. This study contributes to the literature on risk communication, digital activism, and food governance, highlighting the need for more transparent, participatory, and responsive policies in food regulation.

Keywords

• Değişme
• Azgelişmişlik ve Modernleşme Sosyolojisi

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. Almas, R. (1999). Food trust, ethics and safety in risk society. Sociological Research Online, 4(3), 275-281. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.337
2. Altay, G. (2023). Gıda güvenliği ve kent [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.
3. Aspers, P. (2024). Uncertainty: Individual problems and public solutions. Oxford University Press.
4. Atınç, M., & Kahraman, T. (2022). Tüketicilerin gıda güvenliği bilinç düzeyleri: Almanya, Macaristan ve Türkiye karşılaştırması. Aydın Gastronomy, 6(2), 179-189.
5. Aydın Eryılmaz, G., Kılıç, O., & Başer, U. (2018). Gıda güvenliği konusunda tüketici davranışlarının belirlenmesi: Samsun ili kentsel alan örneği. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.28979/comufbed.474766
6. Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., ... & Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
7. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage Publications.
8. Beck, U. (1995). Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity Press
9. Beck, U. (1999a). Siyasallığın icadı, (N. Ülner, Çev.) İletişim Yayınları.
10. Beck, U. (1999b). World risk society. Polity Press.
11. Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Polity Press.
12. Buchler, S., Smith, K., & Lawrence, G. (2010). Food risks, old and new: Demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 353-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783310384449
13. Castells, M. (2004). The network society. Edward Elgar Publishing.
14. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Polity Press.
15. Chassy, B. M. (2010). Food safety risks and consumer health. New Biotechnology, 27(5), 534-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2010.05.018
16. Chou, Kt. & Hm. Liou. (2010). ‘System destroys trust?’-Regulatory institutions and public perceptions of food risks in Taiwan. Social Indicators Research, 96, 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9465-2
17. Doyle, A. (2007). Trust, citizenship and exclusion in the risk society. Law Commission of Canada, Risk and Trust: Including or Excluding Citizens, 7-22.
18. Duncan, J. (2015). Global food security governance: Civil society engagement in the reformed Committee on World Food Security. Routledge.
19. Fabiansson, C., & Fabiansson, S. (2016). Food and the risk society: The power of risk perception. Routledge.
20. Frewer, L. (2003). Science, society and public confidence in food risk management. Belton, P. S. & Belton, T. (Yay. haz.), Food, science and society içinde (ss. 47-60). Springer.
21. Gao, H., Dai, X., Wu, L., Zhang, J., & Hu, W. (2023). Food safety risk behavior and social co-governance in the food supply chain. Food Control, 152, 109832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109832
22. Garland, D. (2003). The rise of risk. Doyle, A. & Ericson, D. (Yay. haz.), Risk and morality içinde (ss. 48-86). University of Toronto Press.
23. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
24. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT press.
25. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5
26. Jenkins, H., Ford, S. & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York University Press.
27. Karakuş Umar, E. (2019). Sağlığın değişen anlamı: Beslenme üzerinden bir inceleme. Gece Akademi.
28. Karakuş Umar, E. (2020). Neoliberal küreselleşme bağlamında Oltu’da sağlığın değişen anlamı ve beslenme kültürü. Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 35-56.
29. Kasperson, R. E., & Kasperson, J. (2012). Social contours of risk: Volume I: Publics, risk communication and the social. Routledge.
30. Kırık, A. M., & Özcan, A. G. A. (2014). Bir dijital aktivizm örneği: akıllı ağ çeteleri smart mobs. AJIT-E: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 5(14), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2014.1.004.x
31. Kırmacı, H. A., & Özçelik, H. (2021). Tüketicilerin gıda güvenliği ile ilgili bilgi düzeyleri ve tutumları (Ankara ili örneği). Safran Kültür ve Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 258-273
32. Knowles, T., Moody, R., & McEachern, M. G. (2007). European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. British Food Journal, 109(1), 43-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710718507
33. Kozinets, R. V., Gershoff, A. D., & White, T. B. (2020). Introduction to special issue: trust in doubt: consuming in a post-truth world. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(2), 130-136. https://doi.org/10.1086/708543
34. Köster, E. P. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002
35. Krahmann, E. (2011). Beck and beyond: selling security in the world risk society. Review of International Studies, 37(1), 349-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000264
36. Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 757-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648
37. Lockie, S. (2009). Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: assembling the “citizen consumer”. Agriculture and Human Values, 26, 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9155-8
38. Motarjemi, Y., & Lelieveld, H. (2014). Fundamentals in management of food safety in the industrial setting: challenges and outlook of the 21st century. V. Anderson, H. Lelieveld & Y. Motarjemi (Yay. haz.), Food safety management içinde (ss. 1-20). Academic Press.
39. Mühürdaroğlu, A. (2024). Bilim ve toplum ilişkisi bağlamında küresel riskler: COVID-19 pandemisi vakası. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.1428454
40. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications.
41. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson Education Limited.
42. Papadopoulos, A., Sargeant, J. M., Majowicz, S. E., Sheldrick, B., McKeen, C., Wilson, J., & Dewey, C. E. (2012). Enhancing public trust in the food safety regulatory system. Health Policy, 107(1), 98-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.010
43. Regan, Á., McConnon, Á., Kuttschreuter, M., Rutsaert, P., Shan, L., Pieniak, Z., ... & Wall, P. (2014). The impact of communicating conflicting risk and benefit messages: An experimental study on red meat information. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.019
44. Schneider, A., & Scherer, A. G. (2015). Corporate governance in a risk society. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1943-4
45. Sevinç, B. (2021). Risk toplumunda proaktif yaşam sanatı, siyasal mobilizasyon ve söylem inşası: MSA National’ın helal gıda aktivizmi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 237-258.
46. Tufan Yeniçıktı, N. (2016). Halkla ilişkiler aracı olarak Instagram: sosyal medya kullanan 50 şirket üzerine bir araştırma. Selçuk İletişim, 9(2), 92-115.
47. Tuncel, G. & Yolcu, F. S. (2022). Kamuoyu oluşturmada sosyal medya kullanımının yarattığı muhtemel riskler, International Academic Social Resources Journal, 7(44), 1740-1747. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASRJOURNAL.66998
48. Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004). Consumer attitudes, knowledge and behaviour: a review of food safety issues. Trends in food science & technology, 15(2), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2003.08.004
49. Zhang, H., Sun, C., Huang, L., & Si, H. (2021). Does government intervention ensure food safety? Evidence from China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3645. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073645

Cite this publication

@article{oguzozgur2025perceiving,
  author = {O{\u{g}}uz {\"O}zg{\"u}r, Hatice},
  title = {{Perceiving Food Risk in the Digital Age: A Risk Society Based Thematic Analysis of Consumer Comments}},
  journal = {Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters},
  volume = {43},
  number = {1},
  pages = {130--146},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2025},
  month = {4},
  issn = {1301-5737},
  doi = {10.32600/huefd.1687807},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/dijital-cagda-gida-riskinin-algilanmasi-tuketici-yorumlarinin-risk-toplumu-temelli-tematik-analizi},
  language = {tr},
  keywords = {De{\u{g}}i{\c{s}}me, Azgeli{\c{s}}mi{\c{s}}lik ve Modernle{\c{s}}me Sosyolojisi},
  abstract = {This study examines how public perceptions and attitudes towards food safety risks are shaped and articulated on social media platforms within the framework of Ulrich Beck's risk society theory. Through a content analysis of 71.345 comments posted on 123 social media posts shared by a prominent food safety awareness account operating on Instagram in T{\"u}rkiye, five main thematic categories were identified: invisible risks, institutional trust crisis, individual risk management, digital activism, and informational uncertainty and confusion. The findings reveal a significant erosion of public trust towards state institutions and food companies, with users expressing intense concerns over regulatory inadequacies, unethical pricing strategies, and opacity regarding product contents. Moreover, individuals are seen engaging in reflexive behaviors such as reading labels, boycotting products, and adopting alternative consumption strategies in an effort to protect themselves from risks, while simultaneously using digital platforms to mobilize public opinion and organize collective responses. When evaluated alongside Beck's concepts of ``unpredictability of risk,'' ``reflexive modernity,'' and ``individualization of risk,'' the results indicate that food has become a contested object of meaning in late modern societies. This study contributes to the literature on risk communication, digital activism, and food governance, highlighting the need for more transparent, participatory, and responsive policies in food regulation.},
  affiliation = {ISPARTA UYGULAMALI B{\.I}L{\.I}MLER {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I}}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Oğuz Özgür, Hatice
TI  - Perceiving Food Risk in the Digital Age: A Risk Society Based Thematic Analysis of Consumer Comments
T2  - Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters
VL  - 43
IS  - 1
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025/04/30/
SP  - 130
EP  - 146
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 1301-5737
DO  - 10.32600/huefd.1687807
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/dijital-cagda-gida-riskinin-algilanmasi-tuketici-yorumlarinin-risk-toplumu-temelli-tematik-analizi
AB  - This study examines how public perceptions and attitudes towards food safety risks are shaped and articulated on social media platforms within the framework of Ulrich Beck’s risk society theory. Through a content analysis of 71.345 comments posted on 123 social media posts shared by a prominent food safety awareness account operating on Instagram in Türkiye, five main thematic categories were identified: invisible risks, institutional trust crisis, individual risk management, digital activism, and informational uncertainty and confusion. The findings reveal a significant erosion of public trust towards state institutions and food companies, with users expressing intense concerns over regulatory inadequacies, unethical pricing strategies, and opacity regarding product contents. Moreover, individuals are seen engaging in reflexive behaviors such as reading labels, boycotting products, and adopting alternative consumption strategies in an effort to protect themselves from risks, while simultaneously using digital platforms to mobilize public opinion and organize collective responses. When evaluated alongside Beck’s concepts of “unpredictability of risk,” “reflexive modernity,” and “individualization of risk,” the results indicate that food has become a contested object of meaning in late modern societies. This study contributes to the literature on risk communication, digital activism, and food governance, highlighting the need for more transparent, participatory, and responsive policies in food regulation.
KW  - Değişme
KW  - Azgelişmişlik ve Modernleşme Sosyolojisi
LA  - tr
AD  - ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ
ER  -