IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i18p8221-d1748335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Perceptions of Rice Safety and Pesticide Residues in Portugal: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Constantino Madadisse

    (Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra, Bencanta, 3045-601 Coimbra, Portugal)

  • Isabel Calha

    (Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária, I.p, Quinta do Marques, 2780-157 Oeiras, Portugal)

  • Maria de Fátima Oliveira

    (Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, Rua da Misericórdia, Lagar dos Cortiços, S. Martinho do Bispo, 3045-093 Coimbra, Portugal
    Research Center for Natural Resources, Environment and Society (CERNAS), Polytechnic University of Coimbra, Bencanta, 3045-601 Coimbra, Portugal)

Abstract

Portugal has the highest per capita rice consumption in Europe. This study, conducted in Abrantes city through a non-probabilistic questionnaire and interviews with two key institutions in agri-food research and regulation representatives, revealed that most consumers are unaware of whether the rice they eat complies with EU Maximum Residue Levels. Few follow media or official sources on pesticide use, deepening the information gap. Only a small number buy organic rice, showing low prioritization of sustainability. Although there is a strong preference for domestically produced rice due to origin concerns, price is the main purchase driver, followed by nutritional content. Institutional insights highlight DGAV’s vital role in monitoring pesticide residues and INIAV implementing traceability technologies to ensure rice authenticity and safety. These results point out the urgent need for better consumer education and communication strategies, stronger support for sustainable choices, and reinforced regulatory frameworks to promote food safety and sustainability in the rice sector. Portugal has the highest per capita rice consumption in Europe. A survey in Abrantes, complemented by interviews with agri-food regulators and researchers, revealed that most consumers are unaware of whether their rice complies with EU residue limits and rarely follow official information sources. Only a small proportion purchase organic rice, showing limited prioritization of sustainability. While domestic rice is strongly preferred, price remains the main driver of purchase decisions, followed by nutritional value. Institutional insights emphasized DGAV’s role in monitoring pesticide residues and INIAV’s development of traceability technologies to ensure authenticity and safety. These findings underline the urgent need for improved consumer education, greater support for sustainable choices, and stronger regulatory framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Constantino Madadisse & Isabel Calha & Maria de Fátima Oliveira, 2025. "Consumer Perceptions of Rice Safety and Pesticide Residues in Portugal: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8221-:d:1748335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8221/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8221/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konstantinos B. Simoglou & Emmanouil Roditakis, 2022. "Consumers’ Benefit—Risk Perception on Pesticides and Food Safety—A Survey in Greece," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Trienekens, Jacques & Zuurbier, Peter, 2008. "Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 107-122, May.
    3. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    4. Baker, Gregory A., 1999. "Consumer Preferences For Food Safety Attributes In Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, And Marketing Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), pages 1-18, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ki-Hueng Kim & Kwan-Ryul Lee, 2019. "What Are South Korean Consumers’ Concerns When Buying Eco-Friendly Agricultural Products?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Elena Gazzea & Péter Batáry & Lorenzo Marini, 2023. "Global meta-analysis shows reduced quality of food crops under inadequate animal pollination," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Brian Innes & John Cranfield, 2009. "Consumer preference for production-derived quality: analyzing perceptions of premium chicken production methods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 395-411.
    4. Christian Garavaglia & Paolo Mariani, 2017. "How Much Do Consumers Value Protected Designation of Origin Certifications? Estimates of willingness to Pay for PDO Dry‐Cured Ham in Italy," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(3), pages 403-423, June.
    5. Garavaglia, Christian & Mariani, Paolo, 2015. "How Much Do Consumers Value PDO Certifications? Estimates of WTP for PDO Dry-Cured Ham in Italy," 145th Seminar, April 14-15, 2015, Parma, Italy 200376, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Tingqiang Chen & Lei Wang & Jining Wang & Qi Yang, 2017. "A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-16, December.
    7. Jabbar, Mohammad A. & Admassu, Samuel A., 2009. "Assessing consumer preferences for quality and safety attributes of food in the absence of official standards: the case of beef in Ethiopia," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50120, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Hattori, Keisuke & Higashida, Keisaku, 2014. "Misleading advertising and minimum quality standards," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-14.
    9. Monica Sharma & Akshay Patidar & Neha Anchliya & Neeraj Prabhu & Amal Asok & Anjesh Jhajhriya, 2023. "Blockchain adoption in food supply chain for new business opportunities: an integrated approach," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1949-1967, December.
    10. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    11. Meyer, Christian H. & Fritz, Melanie & Schiefer, Gerhard, 2010. "Customer Communication of Regional Quality Efforts: A Case From the Grain Sector," 2010 International European Forum, February 8-12, 2010, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 100595, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    12. Curzi, Daniele & Raimondi, Valentina & Olper, Alessandro, 2013. "Quality Upgrading, Competition and Trade Policy: Evidence from the Agri-Food Sector," 2013: Productivity and Its Impacts on Global Trade, June 2-4, 2013. Seville, Spain 152386, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    13. Thome, Karen & Meade, Birgit & Rosen, Stacey & Beghin, John C., "undated". "Assessing Food Security in Ethiopia with USDA ERS’s New Food Security Modeling Approach," ARE Working Papers 257823, North Carolina State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Mahdi Ghodsi, 2024. "Regulatory convergence within technical barriers to trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(5), pages 1870-1915, May.
    15. Fracarolli Nunes, Mauro & Lee Park, Camila & Shin, Hyunju, 2021. "Corporate social and environmental irresponsibilities in supply chains, contamination, and damage of intangible resources: A behavioural approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    16. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    17. Naphtal Habiyaremye & Nadhem Mtimet & Emily A. Ouma & Gideon A. Obare, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for safe and quality milk: Evidence from experimental auctions in Rwanda," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1049-1074, October.
    18. Jan Mei Soon-Sinclair & Thanh Mai Ha & Iwan Vanany & Mark Raguindin Limon & Wandee Sirichokchatchawan & Ikarastika Rahayu Abdul Wahab & Ruhil Hayati Hamdan & Mohd Hafiz Jamaludin, 2024. "Consumers’ perceptions of food fraud in selected Southeast Asian countries: a cross sectional study," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 16(1), pages 65-77, February.
    19. Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Plasek & Gyula Kasza & Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Towards Understanding the Food Consumer Behavior–Food Safety–Sustainability Triangle: A Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    20. Ramo Barrena & Mercedes Sánchez, 2012. "Abstraction and product categories as explanatory variables for food consumption," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(30), pages 3987-4003, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8221-:d:1748335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.