Study title

Using a purposive sampling method at four locations across the UK, participants were invited by a marketing company to attend one of eight scheduled focus groups sessions (January 2016). Groups were segregated on the basis of sex, age and socio-economic grouping to facilitate easier interaction between group members. Therefore in total, 67 individuals participated - 50 females and 17 males (Table 1). Each participant had some responsibility for buying beef and fish in their household. All participants provided informed written consent and the study was approved by the School of Biological Sciences Ethical Committee at Queen's University Belfast.As food supply chains have become increasingly global and complex, new and challenging risks have emerged. One of the risks gaining attention from industry, governments, regulatory bodies and consumer organisations is food fraud conducted for economic gain. The Food Standards Agency says that Food fraud is committed 'when food is deliberately placed on the market, for financial gain, with the intention of deceiving the consumer'. Although there are many kinds of food fraud the two main types are: (1) the sale of food which is unfit for consumption and (2) the deliberate misdescription of food. Both types may directly threaten human health. For example, a cancer causing toxin (called melamine) was added to milk and infant formula in China to increase its protein content. Additionally, swapping one fish species with another could expose consumers to different allergens which could make them sick. In many instances, food fraud can reduce consumer trust in the both the food industry and food safety, and negatively impact on sales, as was demonstrated in the UK horsemeat scandal. There is a growing concern that in some ways food fraud may be more risky than traditional threats to the food supply as the adulterants used in these activities are often unconventional. Melamine for example was not considered a potential contaminant...