Research on the Influence Mechanism of Rational Consumers’ Food Safety Supervision Satisfaction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Literature Review
2.2. Consumers’ Experience and Attitude to Food Safety
2.1.1. Consumers’ Experience and Attitude to Food Safety
2.2.2. Consumers’ Experience and Policy Influence
2.2.3. Consumers’ Experience and Regulatory Expectations
3. Data Source and Sample Feature Analysis
3.1. Data Source
3.2. Descriptive Statistics
3.3. Analysis of the Satisfaction with Food Safety of Consumers in Different Types
4. Model Estimation and Discussion
4.1. Model Building
4.2. Description about Variables
4.3. Results and Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Juan, J.S.; Fu, Y. On Right to Adequate Food and Relevant Concepts from the Legal Perspective. J. Hum. Rights 2017, 16, 256–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robbins, J.A.; Franks, B.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy 2016, 61, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, H.Q.; Nguyen, T.M. Behaviors in the market for safe vegetables under information asymmetry: modeling approach. Eurasian Econ. Rev. 2018, 8, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Jin, Y.; Qiao, H.; Zheng, F. Product quality asymmetry and food safety: Investigating the “one farm household, two production systems” of fruit and vegetable farmers in China. China Econ. Rev. 2017. [CrossRef]
- Mcarthur, L.H.; Fasczewski, K.S.; Wartinger, E.; Miller, J. Freshmen at a University in Appalachia Experience a Higher Rate of Campus than Family Food Insecurity. J. Community Health 2018, 43, 969–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xin, C.; Ying, H. Interpretation of the Food Safety Law of the People; China Legal Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 3–10. ISBN 9787503693380. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, C.H.; Thai, V.V. Do port security quality and service quality influence customer satisfaction and loyalty? Marit. Policy Manag. 2016, 43, 720–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habel, J.; Klarmann, M. Customer reactions to downsizing: when and how is satisfaction affected? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 768–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dani, V. Measuring Customer Satisfaction for F&B Chains in Pune Using ACSI Model. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 133, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boomsma, A. Systems under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction; North-Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1982; pp. 149–173. ISBN 9780444863010. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, W.; Xiao, W.; Wang, X. Passenger satisfaction evaluation model for Urban rail transit: A structural equation modeling based on partial least squares. Transp. Policy 2016, 46, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, H.C.; MacLaurin, T.; Cho, J.-E.; Hahm, S.-P. Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2010, 10, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeck, G.; Veeck, A.; Zhao, S. Perceptions of Food Safety by Urban Consumers in Nanjing, China. Prof. Geogr. 2015, 67, 490–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Cruz, F.T.; Menasche, R. Tradition and diversity jeopardised by food safety regulations? The Serrano Cheese case, Campos de Cima da Serra region, Brazil. Food Policy 2014, 45, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadia, V.D.C.; Daleen, V.D.M.; Bosman, M.; Erasmus, A.; Ellis, S. Consumers’ prepurchase satisfaction with the attributes and information of food labels. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayin, E.; Krishna, A.; Ardelet, C.; Decre, G.B.; Goudey, A. “Sound and safe”: The effect of ambient sound on the perceived safety of public spaces. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2015, 32, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Broughton, E.I.; Walker, D.G. Policies and practices for aquaculture food safety in China. Food Policy 2010, 35, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eibach, R.P.; Mock, S.E. The vigilant parent: Parental role salience affects parents’ risk perceptions, risk-aversion, and trust in strangers. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 47, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spreng, R.A.; Page, T.J. The impact of confidence in expectations on consumer satisfaction. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 18, 1187–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Bronstering, K.; Lannon, S. Awareness and Perceptions of the Risks of Exposure to Indoor Radon: A Population-Based Approach to Evaluate a Radon Awareness and Testing Campaign in England and Wales. Risk Anal. Off. Publ. Soc. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 1800–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rios, K.; Demarree, K.G.; Statzer, J. Attitude Certainty and Conflict Style: Divergent Effects of Correctness and Clarity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 40, 819–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kwark, Y.; Chen, J.; Raghunathan, S. Online Product Reviews: Implications for Retailers and Competing Manufacturers. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honda, H.; Ogawa, M.; Murakoshi, T.; Masuda, T.; Utsumi, K.; Park, S.; Kimura, A.; Nei, D.; Wada, Y. Effect of visual aids and individual differences of cognitive traits in judgments on food safety. Food Policy 2015, 55, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Hum. Relat. 1963, 16, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, R.M.W.; Yee, W.M. Consumer Perception of Food Safety Related Risk. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2005, 17, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcfadden, J.R.; Huffman, W.E. Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products. Food Policy 2017, 69, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Fischhoff, B.; Lichtenstein, S. Rating the risks. Environment 1979, 21, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaver, E.A.; Stewart, T.R. Dimensions of Judgment: Factor Analysis of Individual Differences. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2012, 25, 402–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krajewski, P. Food Safety and Sustainable Development. Probl. Ekorozw. 2014, 9, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
- Mccluskey, J.J.; Kalaitzandonakes, N.; Swinnen, J. Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2015, 7, 467–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W. The effects of different types of trust on consumer perceptions of food safety. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2013, 5, 43–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, M. Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, and Decision: A Rank-Dependent Analysis. Math. Popul. Stud. 2015, 22, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weigert, L.A.J. The Social Dynamics of Trust: Theoretical and Empirical Research, 1985-2012. Soc. Forces 2012, 91, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spellman, S.V. Trust Brokers: Traveling Grocery Salesmen and Confidence in Nineteenth-Century Trade. Enterp. Soc. 2012, 13, 276–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolpert, M.; Deighton, J.; Fleming, I.; Lachman, P. Considering Harm and Safety in Youth Mental Health: A Call for Attention and Action. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 42, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allenby, G.M.; Garratt, M.J.; Rossi, P.E. A Model for Trade-Up and Change in Considered Brands. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.W.; Chartrand, T.L.; Fitzsimons, G.J. The influence of gender and self-monitoring on the products consumers choose for joint consumption. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2015, 32, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Dong, P.; Labroo, A.A. Feeling disconnected from others: The effects of ambient darkness on hedonic choice. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2017, 35, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortega, D.L.; Wang, H.H.; Wu, L.; Olynk, N.J. Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China. Food Policy 2011, 36, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, N.; Cui, D. Effects of celebrity involvement on young people’s political and civic engagement. Chin. J. Commun. 2014, 7, 409–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mockshell, J.; Birner, R. Donors and domestic policy makers: Two worlds in agricultural policy-making? Food Policy 2015, 55, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearson, H. A Judge-Free Semantics for Predicates of Personal Taste. J. Semant. 2013, 30, 103–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagust, J.; Forsythe, I.D.; Kerkut, G.A. Joint presentation reduces the effect of emotion on evaluation of public actions. Cognit. Emot. 2011, 25, 657–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poterba, J.M.; Sinai, T. Revenu costs and incentiv effects of the mortage intrest deduction for owner-occupied housing. Natl. Tax J. 2011, 64, 531–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bánáti, D.; Lakner, Z. The food safety issue and the consumer behavior in a transition economy: A case study of Hungary. Acta Aliment. 2002, 31, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Social Demographic Characteristics | Characteristic | Sample Size | Percentage(%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | ||
Age | <20 | 271 | 173 | 9.0% | 8.2% |
20–30 | 865 | 569 | 28.7% | 26.9% | |
31–40 | 721 | 527 | 23.9% | 25.0% | |
41–50 | 623 | 449 | 20.6% | 21.2% | |
51–60 | 373 | 286 | 12.3% | 13.5% | |
>60 | 165 | 109 | 5.5% | 5.1% | |
Sex | Male | 1405 | 1056 | 46.5% | 50% |
Female | 1613 | 1057 | 53.5% | 50% | |
Highest Degree | Colleague degree or above | 1614 | 1126 | 53.6% | 53.3% |
High school and technical secondary school | 756 | 520 | 25.1% | 24.6% | |
Junior High School | 443 | 337 | 14.6% | 15.9% | |
Primary School or Below | 205 | 130 | 6.8% | 6.2% | |
place of domicile | Native | 2177 | 1557 | 72.1% | 73.7% |
Other cities in Jiangsu | 556 | 361 | 18.4% | 17.1% | |
Outside of Jiangsu | 285 | 195 | 9.5% | 9.2% | |
household registration type | City (town) residents | 1742 | 1228 | 57.7% | 58.1% |
Rural Household | 1276 | 885 | 42.3% | 41.9% | |
Jobs | Government Employee | 1351 | 943 | 44.8% | 44.6% |
Freelancer | 855 | 663 | 28.3% | 31.4% | |
Farmer | 223 | 131 | 7.4% | 6.2% | |
Students | 368 | 235 | 12.2% | 11.1% | |
Retirees and unemployed people | 221 | 141 | 7.3% | 6.7% |
Satisfaction Rating | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Population | Percentage | Population | Percentage | |
Very satisfied | 151 | 7.2% | 280 | 9.3% |
Satisfied | 631 | 29.8% | 1071 | 35.5% |
General | 956 | 45.2% | 1307 | 43.3% |
Not so satisfied | 282 | 13.3% | 307 | 10.2% |
Not satisfied | 93 | 4.4% | 53 | 1.7% |
total | 2113 | 100% | 3018 | 100% |
Type | Variables | Variables Values | Mean Value | SD | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | |||
Individual Characters | Age | <20 = 1; 20–30 = 2; 31–40 = 3; 41–50 = 4; 51–60 = 5; >60 = 6 | 3.204 | 3.152 | 1.331 | 1.346 |
Sex | Male = 1; Female = 2 | 1.5 | 1.535 | 0.5 | 0.499 | |
Degree | Primary School and below = 1; Junior High School = 2; High school and technical secondary school = 3; Collage or above = 4 | 2.654 | 2.659 | 1.157 | 1.147 | |
household registration type | urban registration = 1; Rural household = 2 | 1.417 | 1.423 | 0.493 | 0.494 | |
Food safety status assessment | Aquatic products (X1) | Worry a lot = 1; Worry a bit = 2; General = 3; Not very worry about = 4; Never worry about = 5 | 2.843 | 2.768 | 1.366 | 1.396 |
Farmer Market (X2) | Worry a lot = 1; Worry a bit = 2; General = 3; Not very worry about = 4; Never worry about = 5 | 2.896 | 2.797 | 1.23 | 1.22 | |
Food safety status assessment | Catering enterprise health environment (X3) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.762 | 2.587 | 0.999 | 0.964 |
Food safety supervision work evaluation | Publicity and education work (X4) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.801 | 2.632 | 0.915 | 0.842 |
Daily regulatory assessment (X5) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.771 | 2.619 | 0.894 | 0.848 | |
Daily sampling (X6) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.804 | 2.633 | 0.914 | 0.865 | |
Food safety information disclosure (X7) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.861 | 2.697 | 0.947 | 0.89 | |
Food safety supervision work evaluation | Fight against illegal activities (X8) | No efforts = 1; Minor efforts = 2; General = 3; A bit effort = 4; very powerful = 5 | 3.003 | 2.802 | 0.969 | 0.919 |
Food safety supervision work evaluation | Penalty information disclosure (X9) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.917 | 2.748 | 0.967 | 0.906 |
Overall evaluation of food safety satisfaction | Knowledge of food safety (X10) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.724 | 2.62 | 0.874 | 0.827 |
Local food confidence level (X11) | Worry a lot = 1; Worry a bit = 2; General = 3; Not very worry about = 4; Never worry about = 5 | 2.651 | 2.483 | 0.836 | 0.806 | |
Overall satisfaction with the status (X12) | Dissatisfied = 1; not quite satisfied = 2; General = 3; Satisfied = 4; Very Satisfied = 5 | 2.656 | 2.511 | 0.812 | 0.798 |
Variables | Refer to | β | Wald | p value | OR value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | ||
age | >60 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
<20 | 0.261 | 0.245 | 0.560 | 1.110 | 0.454 | 0.292 | 1.245 | 1.277 | |
20–30 | 0.240 | 0.197 | 0.703 | 1.068 | 0.402 | 0.301 | 1.218 | 1.217 | |
31–40 | 0.206 | 0.209 | 0.501 | 1.256 | 0.479 | 0.262 | 1.177 | 1.232 | |
41–50 | −0.093 | −0.120 | 0.339 | 0.432 | 0.560 | 0.511 | 0.876 | 0.887 | |
51–60 | 0.008 | 0.107 | 0.010 | 0.353 | 0.921 | 0.553 | 0.978 | 1.113 | |
sex | Male | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
female | −0.217 | −0.169 | 6.990 | 5.914 | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.802 | 0.845 | |
degree | Colleague or above | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
High school and technical secondary school | 0.047 | 0.085 | 0.089 | 0.432 | 0.766 | 0.511 | 1.048 | 1.089 | |
Junior high school | −0.013 | 0.028 | 0.009 | 0.068 | 0.923 | 0.794 | 0.988 | 1.028 | |
Primary school or below | −0.003 | 0.014 | 0.000 | 0.020 | 0.983 | 0.887 | 0.997 | 1.014 | |
household registration type | Rural household | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
urban registration | 0.098 | −0.048 | 1.068 | 0.393 | 0.301 | 0.531 | 1.103 | 0.953 |
variables | Ref to | β | Wald | p Value | OR Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | ||
Publicity and education work | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −1.193 | −0.771 | 13.699 | 6.436 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.303 | 0.462 | |
Not very satisfied | −1.001 | −0.774 | 13.429 | 12.042 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.367 | 0.461 | |
general | −0.680 | −0.583 | 7.719 | 9.675 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.506 | 0.558 | |
satisfied | −0.297 | −0.362 | 1.596 | 4.251 | 0.206 | 0.039 | 0.743 | 0.696 | |
Daily supervision evaluation | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −1.616 | −1.368 | 20.746 | 16.425 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.255 | |
Not very satisfied | −0.897 | −0.765 | 10.211 | 10.542 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.408 | 0.465 | |
General | −0.551 | −0.418 | 4.980 | 4.502 | 0.026 | 0.034 | 0.577 | 0.658 | |
Satisfied | −0.135 | 0.002 | 0.333 | 0.000 | 0.564 | 0.991 | 0.874 | 1.002 | |
Daily sampling | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −2.322 | −1.598 | 39.583 | 20.504 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.098 | 0.202 | |
Not very satisfied | −1.779 | −1.465 | 34.438 | 34.986 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.169 | 0.231 | |
General | −1.381 | −0.883 | 25.621 | 16.643 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.251 | 0.414 | |
Satisfied | −0.817 | −0.589 | 10.309 | 8.740 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.442 | 0.555 | |
Food safety informationdisclosure | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −1.226 | −1.237 | 12.285 | 13.557 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.294 | 0.290 | |
Not very satisfied | −1.292 | −1.051 | 18.440 | 17.923 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.275 | 0.350 | |
General | −1.013 | −0.854 | 13.762 | 15.091 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.363 | 0.426 | |
Satisfied | −0.732 | −0.458 | 8.042 | 5.014 | 0.005 | 0.025 | 0.481 | 0.633 | |
Fight against illegal activities | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −1.453 | −1.455 | 19.448 | 22.523 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.234 | 0.233 | |
Not very satisfied | −1.277 | −1.517 | 23.486 | 46.653 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.279 | 0.219 | |
General | −0.998 | −0.990 | 16.527 | 24.070 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.369 | 0.372 | |
Satisfied | −0.587 | −0.533 | 6.138 | 7.968 | 0.013 | 0.005 | 0.556 | 0.587 | |
Penalty information disclosure | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −2.470 | −2.553 | 49.903 | 59.407 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.085 | 0.078 | |
Not very satisfied | −1.749 | −1.733 | 33.604 | 48.838 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.174 | 0.177 | |
General | −1.131 | −1.167 | 16.708 | 26.826 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.323 | 0.311 | |
Satisfied | −0.395 | −0.575 | 2.304 | 7.573 | 0.129 | 0.006 | 0.673 | 0.563 |
Variables | Ref to | β | Wald | p value | OR Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | Direct Experience | Indirect Experience | ||
Knowledge of food safety | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −1.528 | −1.311 | 17.768 | 13.122 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.217 | 0.270 | |
Not very satisfied | −0.833 | −1.152 | 10.263 | 25.691 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.435 | 0.316 | |
General | −0.673 | −0.827 | 8.009 | 16.568 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.510 | 0.437 | |
Satisfied | −0.307 | −0.262 | 1.802 | 1.828 | 0.179 | 0.176 | 0.736 | 0.769 | |
Local food confidence level | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −2.311 | −3.026 | 17.322 | 30.880 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.099 | 0.048 | |
Not very satisfied | −2.092 | −2.320 | 46.422 | 89.752 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.123 | 0.098 | |
General | −1.607 | −1.629 | 33.017 | 59.722 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.200 | 0.196 | |
Satisfied | −0.736 | −0.824 | 7.935 | 18.534 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.479 | 0.439 | |
Food safety regulatory satisfaction | Very satisfied | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||||
Very dissatisfied | −5.038 | −4.257 | 96.219 | 82.316 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.014 | |
Not very satisfied | −3.839 | −3.264 | 141.984 | 173.373 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.022 | 0.038 | |
General | −2.776 | −2.446 | 93.418 | 134.213 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.062 | 0.087 | |
Satisfied | −1.667 | −1.597 | 39.625 | 69.845 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.189 | 0.202 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Diao, H.; Tou, L. Research on the Influence Mechanism of Rational Consumers’ Food Safety Supervision Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 739. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050739
Wang J, Diao H, Tou L. Research on the Influence Mechanism of Rational Consumers’ Food Safety Supervision Satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(5):739. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050739
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jianhua, Hanyu Diao, and Lulu Tou. 2019. "Research on the Influence Mechanism of Rational Consumers’ Food Safety Supervision Satisfaction" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 5: 739. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050739