Pesticides and Eroding Food Citizenship: Understanding Individuals’ Perspectives on the Greek Food System

Abstract

This study explores consumer perceptions of the Greek food system, focusing on safety concerns related to pesticide residues. Utilizing a qualitative research design, thematic analysis was conducted on data collected from 1024 participants through an online survey platform between May and November 2024. Participants, representing diverse demographics across Greece, provided insights into their experiences and concerns regarding food safety. The analysis revealed significant themes, including a crisis of confidence in governance, demands for transparency, and skepticism towards food system actors. Participants expressed disillusionment with the state’s role in ensuring food safety and highlighted the need for a governance framework that aligns with community values. The findings underscore the importance of empowering consumers with accurate information to foster informed decision-making and rebuild trust in the food system. Ultimately, this study emphasizes the necessity for a transformative approach to food governance that incorporates diverse voices and perspectives, aiming to create a more equitable and sustainable food system in Greece. These insights contribute to the broader discourse on food citizenship and the collective responsibilities of all stakeholders in ensuring food safety and integrity.

1. Introduction

The industrialization of agriculture has led to significant challenges, including food overproduction, reliance on monocultures, and increased use of agrochemicals, which in turn exacerbate issues of hunger, malnutrition, and environmental degradation. In response, food sovereignty has emerged as a crucial framework advocating for sustainable practices [1,2,3,4]. At the same time, the global food supply is becoming increasingly strained due to population growth, urbanization, and climate change, highlighting the need for reduced waste and effective crop protection measures [5].

In the context of mounting pressures on the global food supply, the promotion of fruit and vegetable consumption has emerged as a pivotal strategy to enhance nutrition. A report from the European Food Safety Authority [6] indicates that individuals from Greece and Spain are most likely to view a diet rich in fruit and vegetables as a key component of a healthy lifestyle. The available evidence indicates that increased consumption of these foods outweighs the potential adverse effects of pesticide residues [7,8,9]. It is recommended that public health messages promote regular and abundant consumption of a variety of fruits and vegetables [8]. Sufficient fruit and vegetable intake plays a pivotal role in ensuring a diverse and nutritionally balanced diet. It has been estimated that at least 5.6 million deaths annually worldwide could be prevented by dietary modifications that reduce the risk of chronic diseases [10].

In the context of contemporary agriculture, which is facing significant challenges related to population growth, food security, and the health risks associated with chemical pesticides, the importance of consumer perceptions of food safety has increased [11,12]. Consumers in Greece prioritize a diet rich in fruits and vegetables for health benefits [13]. However, perceptions of food safety remain divided, influenced by factors such as education, age, gender, and concerns about pesticide residues [14,15]. To foster trust between regulatory bodies and various sociodemographic groups, effective communication strategies are essential [14,16,17,18].

Public perception of pesticides is increasingly shaped by social media, where users and NGOs emphasize health risks, while government and industry focus on regulations [19]. Health-conscious consumers prioritize nutritional value and healthy behaviors, while environmentally aware individuals consider the broader impact of their consumption, leading to significant concerns about food safety and pesticide residues affecting purchasing decisions [20,21]. The stigma surrounding pesticides stems from fear of long-term illnesses like cancer, leading people to blame external factors. This mindset creates a sense of control by fighting a perceived enemy [15]. In Brazil, over 60% believe food can be produced without pesticides, and 95.3% support labeling for pesticide presence [22]. To address these issues, effective marketing strategies, including labeling, origin reassurance, and sustainability systems, are recommended [16,23,24], along with improved pesticide monitoring and farmer education on unauthorized pesticide risks [25]. Additionally, Meagher [11] found that Europeans are more concerned about chemical than biological risks, highlighting the need for public engagement in regulatory science [26].

The European Union (EU) is actively working to mitigate pesticide risks and promote sustainable agriculture through policies like Directive 2009/128/EC and the European Green Deal, which aims to reduce pesticide use by 50% by 2030 as part of the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy [27,28]. Currently, only 466 of the 1378 registered active substances are approved for use [29]. The F2F Strategy sets ambitious targets for pesticides, fertilizers, organic farming, and antimicrobial resistance by 2030 [27], but achieving these goals presents challenges, including increased costs, food security concerns, and necessary shifts in agricultural practices [30].

A comprehensive approach that balances environmental, social, and economic factors is crucial for success. The EU’s integration of Sustainable Development Goals into the Common Agricultural Policy reflects its commitment to sustainable agriculture [30]. However, Omar and Thorsøe [31] contend that the F2F Strategy’s focus on technology and finance may not benefit farmers or promote a sustainable food system. Achieving sustainable agriculture requires a multifaceted strategy, including raising public awareness through media, providing subsidies and financial support to farmers, and improving subsidy management [32]. The success of the F2F Strategy hinges on the EU’s ability to balance environmental sustainability, food security, and economic viability, while also fostering consumer trust and understanding in the food system.

The interplay between trust, risk perception, and consumer behavior in food choices, particularly regarding pesticides, is vital for understanding food safety attitudes. Research indicates that higher trust in the food system enhances perceived benefits and reduces perceived risks, thereby boosting consumer confidence [33]. Conversely, diminished trust correlates with increased concerns about pesticides, as individuals perceive greater risks in conventionally grown produce [34,35]. Those who view the benefits of pesticides as outweighing their risks tend to exhibit greater confidence in plant-based food safety, while skepticism diminishes trust [17]. Effective communication and transparency through food labeling are essential for building consumer trust and influencing public risk acceptance [36,37,38,39,40]. Trust in government agencies and confidence in the food supply are critical predictors of risk perceptions, especially when individuals feel a lack of direct control [35,41,42]. Confidence stems from impersonal relationships with formal institutions, emphasizing standardization and predictability. It relies on collective public opinion and formal information, as well as trust in the legitimacy of established procedures like monitoring and traceability [41]. Positive perceptions of government actions enhance food protective behaviors [43], while favorable views of technology bolster trust in risk management organizations [44]. Governance reforms emphasizing transparency, stakeholder participation, and environmental protection can improve acceptance of regulatory decisions, influenced by citizens’ environmental ideologies and the balance between environmental protection and economic growth [45].

These reforms align closely with the concept of food citizenship which has emerged in response to new demands for food systems, global agro-food governance, and citizen participation in food policy, emphasizing the need to address hunger, malnutrition, and food equity while providing better food information [46]. However, barriers such as an unsustainable food system, federal policies favoring large-scale agriculture, and corporate interests complicate the practice of food citizenship [1,47]. The theoretical framework of food citizenship is based on eight core principles: the universal right to sufficient, healthy food; justice and fairness in the food system; autonomy and access to truthful information; responsibilities towards humans, other beings, and the environment; recognition of all citizens as subjects of food citizenship; individual and collective action; participatory governance; and a cosmopolitan perspective acknowledging the global interconnectedness of food issues [4,46].

In accordance with the principles of food citizenship as outlined in the preceding discussion, this study aims to examine the underlying motivations that contribute to the heightened apprehension among Greek individuals regarding food safety and pesticide residues. By employing the theoretical framework of food citizenship, this research seeks to explore the beliefs and attitudes of the Greek public, with a particular focus on how their lived experiences shape their concerns about food safety. This study will specifically investigate the factors that lead to a high level of uncertainty among Greek consumers, especially in the context of an unsustainable food system and policies that may not adequately support food equity and transparency. Furthermore, this research intends to contribute to the broader conversation on food citizenship, examining its implications for food systems, consumer attitudes, and policy-making and advocating for a more participatory approach to addressing these pressing issues.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employed a qualitative research design utilizing thematic analysis to gain insight into the complex landscape of participants’ experiences and perceptions regarding the safety of Greek food. A total of 1024 participants were recruited for the data collection process. The selection strategy for the participant group involved the use of multiple recruitment channels, including email calls, social media posts, website announcements, and electronic news outlets. The dataset was collected between May and November 2024 as part of a larger ongoing epidemiological study, designated “HELLANS 2024–2025”, which was designed to record consumers’ perceptions regarding food safety in relation to pesticide residues, as well as to collect information pertaining to food consumption and related matters among adults residing permanently in Greece. As part of this survey, respondents are invited to answer an open question, prompting them to identify their primary concerns regarding the safety of Greek food. These verbatim texts constituted the primary data source for the analysis.

The data were collected via the EU Commission EUSurvey platform, which serves as an online survey management system designed for the creation of official public opinion surveys. An advanced privacy option was implemented to ensure the confidentiality of respondents while facilitating the creation of an anonymous dataset. The study protocol complied with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and covered all aspects of data protection, including comprehensive anonymization procedures, data access and exchange, record linkage, and a defined data retention period. This study received ethical approval from the ethics committee of the Hellenic Mediterranean University in line with the requisite ethical standards. Prior to the commencement of data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants. To guarantee the confidentiality of the data, they were anonymized and stored securely. The process of communication between a potential participant and the research team was designed to ensure that the individual had a comprehensive understanding of the scope of this study, the methods employed, and the intended use of the data. The participants were informed of their rights and were entitled to terminate their participation in the survey at any time. Once the individual had consented to participate, their acceptance and compliance with the survey procedures was assured through the digital signing of the consent form.

Thematic analysis was conducted in accordance with the methodology originally proposed by Braun and Clarke [48] as modified in 2019 [49,50]. At the outset of the analysis, the research team engaged in repeated examination of the data, with the objective of familiarizing themselves with the material and facilitating the identification of preliminary patterns and themes. Subsequently, the data were subjected to preliminary coding by the first author in order to assign specific codes to segments of the data, reflecting the participants’ experiences and perspectives. The coding process was facilitated by the use of the ATLAS.ti Web software (version 9.6.0).

The thematic analysis of the coded data involved an iterative process. Initially, the researchers familiarized themselves with the dataset and identified significant themes, defined as patterns of meaning anchored by shared concepts. These themes were constructed through the researchers’ systematic engagement with the dataset [50]. During the coding procedure, the first author organized the codes into broader patterns, which were reviewed and refined by the research team. This included constructing a coding frame to guide data allocation, followed by reviews to ensure the coherence and distinctiveness of the themes [50].

The analysis shifted from a superficial examination of semantic subjects to a deeper exploration of underlying meanings. The initial coding phase revealed numerous codes that captured subtle nuances within the dataset. As the codes were clustered, three broad patterns of meaning emerged, focusing on skepticism, apprehension, and distrust. A subsequent review of the data in relation to the codes and the full dataset highlighted underlying ideas driving discussions about the food system. This led to a more theoretical analysis, uncovering a distinct logic surrounding the food system, which included ideas related to trust, uncertainty, and disempowerment, as well as a desire for agency and citizenship within the system.

Key aspects of this desire for food citizenship included demands for greater transparency, accountability, and sustainability. The analysis culminated in the formulation of an analytic structure comprising six themes, which resonated with the concept of food citizenship theory. This theory emphasizes the importance of active participation and engagement in shaping the food system, highlighting the need for individuals to take an active role in influencing the development and direction of the food system.

To ensure the rigor and reliability of the findings, several strategies were implemented. The research team engaged in peer briefing to discuss the findings and coding process, ensuring consistency and coherence. Additionally, a detailed account of the data collection and analysis process was maintained, documenting all coding decisions and theme construction.

Utilizing a constructionist epistemological perspective [51], our analysis reveals the complex social influences that shape individuals’ experiences and perceptions of the food system. We posit that individuals’ understanding of the food system is formed through interactions with various actors and institutions, including food producers, retailers, and policymakers. These interactions are further shaped by the broader social and cultural landscape, where norms emphasizing individual choice and responsibility significantly influence perceptions.

In this analysis, we examine the complex nature of food systems, recognizing their development through social interactions, institutional influences, and cultural norms. This approach reflects the “social construction” of the food system and highlights the intricacies of individual experiences. Our goal is to illuminate the social and cultural contexts of food systems, using food citizenship theory [52] as a foundation. By analyzing themes and patterns from our data, we aim to provide a nuanced understanding of these contexts and advocate for a more equitable and sustainable food system that values diverse perspectives and experiences.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Participants

This study included a diverse group of participants (N = 1024) with a range of demographic characteristics. There was a slightly higher number of male participants, and most were middle-aged, particularly in their 40s and 50s. However, there were also younger participants included. The participants had an advanced educational background and were geographically distributed across Greece, with the majority residing in urban areas. The cohort was also diverse in terms of family structures, with a mix of participants who had minor children and those who did not. Lifestyle choices varied, with most participants being non-smokers and exhibiting a range of physical activity levels. Finally, the presence of a relatively small number of vegetarians by choice and a higher proportion of pesticide users among the participants suggests a diversity of opinions regarding health and environmental matters.

A comprehensive illustration of the sociodemographic attributes of the sample is presented in

Table A1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 1024).

	Demographic Variables	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Female	581	43.3%
	Male	443	56.7%
Age	18–24	67	6.5%
	25–34	59	5.8%
	35–44	158	15.4%
	45–54	428	41.8%
	55–64	264	25.8%
	≥65	48	4.7%
Educational background	Less than high school	3	0.3%
	High school—Technical education	143	14.0%
	Bachelor’s degree	383	37.4%
	Master’s degree	402	39.2%
	Doctoral degree	91	8.9%
Population of place of residence	Rural area (<2000 residents)	100	9.8%
	Semi-urban area (2000–10,000 residents)	139	13.6%
	Urban area (>10,000 residents)	785	76.6%
Residential geographical area	Northern Greece	384	37.5%
	Central Greece	407	39.7%
	Southern Greece	233	22.8%
Minor children in the family	No	575	56.2%
	Yes	449	43.8%
Smoking attitude	No	803	78.4%
	Yes	221	21.6%
Sports activity	Never	124	12.1%
	Rarely	305	29.8%
	Often	199	19.4%
	Habitually	396	38.7%
Vegetarians by conviction	No	988	96.5%
	Yes	36	3.5%
Pesticide users	No	709	69.2%
	Yes	315	30.8%

.

3.2. Thematic Analysis Results

A thematic analysis of the data was conducted, resulting in the identification of six key themes. These key themes were constructed from the participants’ responses, which were subsequently coded, categorized, and analyzed. The summary of these themes is presented in

Table 1. Key themes constructed from thematic analysis of consumers’ responses.

	Theme	Description
1	Participants’ Crisis of Confidence in Food System Governance	Lack of trust in the credibility and accountability of food system governance
2	Participants’ Experiences of Uncertainty Regarding Food Risks	Uncertainty and apprehension about food safety and quality risks
3	Deficit of Confidence in Food System Actors	Questioning of food system stakeholder credibility
4	Participants’ Disempowerment in the Food System	Perceived disempowerment and alienation within the food provisioning landscape
5	Participants’ Demands for Food System Transparency	The issue of enhanced transparency in food safety
6	Concerns about Food System Sustainability and Integrity	Concerns about the long-term viability and ethical soundness of the food production

. As illustrated in Figure 1, the most frequently used words identified in the responses offer a visual representation of the predominant concerns and perspectives within the data.

The following sections outline six key themes derived from the thematic analysis of participants’ responses to the open question, “Please describe your main concerns regarding the safety of Greek food”. These themes provide a nuanced understanding of consumers’ experiences and perceptions of the food system, emphasizing the most pressing issues. Representative excerpts from participants’ statements illustrate the depth of their concerns.

3.2.1. Theme No 1—Crisis of Confidence in the Food System Governance

Participants express profound distrust towards institutions responsible for food safety, feeling abandoned by the state, as one noted, “the state does not protect its citizens”. This sentiment is fueled by perceptions that government policies neglect local food production, with a participant expressing desire for a return to traditional practices, “I would like them [the food] to be produced in Greece, as in the past”, reflecting the influence of their social, cultural, and historical contexts on their understanding of the government’s role.

Participants’ language portrays an environment where bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays have fostered corruption, with some suspecting inspectors’ complicity, as expressed in concerns about “Transparency of controls. Corruption of inspectors”. Others perceive an “ineffective legal framework for official controls” and inadequate enforcement, citing “inadequate and few controls, bureaucracy and delays in dealing with infringement cases”, highlighting their negotiation of the perceived lack of transparency and accountability within the control mechanisms.

The participants’ accounts further construct the control mechanisms as inadequate and ineffective, resulting in a sense of powerlessness. As one participant observed, they worry about “The problematic functioning of the public control mechanisms” while another noted, “But control is the main thing that I believe is not being implemented”. These concerns are particularly salient in the context of food safety, where the perceived lack of controls is seen as having serious consequences.

Participants perceive a lack of accountability in the system, where unlawful actors operate with impunity, as one noted, “no fines are paid to those who violate the law so that they are corrected”. This has led to the construction of certifications as unreliable, with a participant highlighting the “huge disorder from the mainly private certification bodies” and another pointing out the lack of “proper and accurate information for citizens” and “systematic controls”.

The participants’ concerns also extend to the perceived “lack of control over agronomists and farmers regarding the distribution and use of pesticides”, which they construct as contributing to the “indiscriminate use of pesticides” and to a perceived “lack of awareness of food safety by agronomists, farmers, ordinary citizens”.

Participants noted that under-staffing of control services and insufficient legal protection for inspectors have compromised the effectiveness of the food safety system. One participant stated, “Food controls by state services are minimal or non-existent due to lack of staff”, while another remarked, “Under-staffing of services conducting safety and hygiene controls, along with the lack of legal cover for inspectors, hinders their ability to perform effectively”.

Ultimately, this theme reveals how participants’ deep-seated distrust towards food safety institutions is socially constructed through their language and discursive practices, reflecting their perceptions of government failure, bureaucratic inefficiencies, corruption, and inadequate controls, all situated within their lived experiences and the broader social and cultural context.

3.2.2. Theme No 2—Experiences of Uncertainty Regarding Food Risks

Participants’ accounts express profound concerns about the cumulative effects of pesticides, as one noted, “The excessive use of pesticides […] is dangerous for health, in the long term and the environment”. These socially produced concerns reflect participants’ fears and anxieties about the long-term consequences of agricultural practices on health and the environment.

Participants’ personal experiences shape their concerns about pesticide residues, as one noted, “If the concentration of pesticides in the items I eat regularly (apple, pear, potato, tomato) can have a negative impact on my health”. This highlights how their concerns are tied to everyday food consumption and perceived health risks.

The prevailing sentiment among participants is uncertainty and skepticism about food safety controls, as seen in their questions, such as “How often residue control is carried out on fresh fruit and vegetables, and what action is taken when a product is found to have an excess of pesticides?”.

The question of the validity of controls is another critical concern, prompting the call for “Ensuring the validity of controls”, as well as the implementation of food control measures prior to the product’s market release, with participants questioning “Whether the necessary controls on the use of prohibited or dangerous pesticides are carried out before they are placed on the market”. This skepticism extends to the enforcement of regulations, as one participant queries, “Are controls being carried out? Are fines imposed?”.

Participants worry about the proper use of pesticides and the effectiveness of controls, seeking reassurance about food safety, as seen in questions like “The controls carried out (how often and how effectively)”. Their language also constructs concerns about pesticide use, as exemplified by the statement, “The extent to which farmers are using the right amounts of pesticides and not overdosing for quicker and bigger production?”. These concerns reflect their attempts to navigate the complexities and uncertainties of food production practices.

Participants’ discussion about food choices also reveals an attempt to navigate the complexities of food safety, as illustrated by the statement, “What is appropriate? To have the possibility of proper residue-free use of pesticides or to risk exposure to mycotoxins?”. This illustrates the intricate ways they navigate and define food safety by framing their decision-making as a trade-off between two risks.

Overall, this theme reveals how the participants’ uncertainty and apprehension regarding food safety and quality risks are socially constructed through their language and discursive practices. Their concerns about pesticides and the effectiveness of control mechanisms are shaped by their personal experiences, social and cultural contexts, and the broader discourses surrounding food safety.

3.2.3. Theme No 3—Deficit of Confidence in Food System Actors

The food system, as a social construct, generates unease and distrust as participants collectively interpret the actions and roles of key actors, shaping their reality through shared understandings and values. The root of the issue lies in the social construction of agronomists’ and farmers’/producers’ identities and competencies. Participants have expressed concerns about the perceived “ignorance of agronomists and farmers about how harmful pesticide residues in food are”.

The notion that farmers are “misinformed” by agronomists, who provide incomplete or misleading information on the “correct use of pesticides (e.g., the amount and frequency of pesticides to be applied per area)” is a socially constructed narrative that positions these actors as deficient or untrustworthy. Conversely, concerns about farmers not following agronomists’ instructions, prompting for “Compliance with agronomists’ instructions for harvesting after spraying”, reveal another socially constructed understanding that erodes confidence in these actors.

The distrust extends to farmers and producers, who are socially constructed as “semi-literate”, “uneducated” individuals prioritizing financial gain over public health, as evident in their concerns about “indiscriminate use of pesticides” and “failure to comply with production specifications”. This characterization is a socially negotiated interpretation that portrays them as untrustworthy and unfit for their roles, reflecting a perceived focus on quantity over quality, as “[…] producers attach great importance to the quantity they produce and not to the quality of their production” and a lack of concern for the “seriousness of the situation”.

Underlying these perceptions is a sense of powerlessness and a belief that those with the “ability to influence public opinion” are equally “ignorant” and complicit in this system. The notion of a “lack of scientific knowledge” among agricultural producers and the perception of “insufficient controls” by regulatory authorities are further examples of their perception of a compromised food supply.

The deeply rooted sentiments of distrust present a troubling picture of the food system as a socially constructed narrative that has emerged through the interactions and interpretations of the participants. Rebuilding trust will require a fundamental shift in how the practices, motivations, and accountability of key actors are perceived and communicated in this important area.

3.2.4. Theme No 4—Perceived Disempowerment Within the Food System

This theme highlights a critical concern, particularly through a constructionist lens. Participants express frustration over the unclear information regarding food production practices, chemicals, and treatments, which arises from a perceived reality shaped by their experiences and interactions with the food system. The unsettling realization that “farmers and breeders may lack the knowledge of what they use and the risks” amplifies their unease, reflecting their active interpretation of their environment and the information they receive.

The perceived lack of transparency in the food system is a significant concern, as seen in the statement, “That you cannot know what sprays/pesticides or fertilizers the plants have received, […], if they apply the precautions and time limits of use prescribed, either out of ignorance or indifference”. This highlights the perceived complexity of the food system and the challenges participants face in understanding production processes and risks, leading to a collective narrative of uncertainty and alienation.

Participants express skepticism about “whether organic products are truly organic” and the “absence of an official and impartial body” to provide food safety updates. This contributes to feelings of disempowerment, as seen in statements like “I can’t know everything when I am at the farmers’ market. I think that the suitability of all products must be certified before they reach the consumer” and “The fact that ultimately we know nothing or almost nothing about the use of pesticides from official and authoritative sources”. These statements highlight the desire for a more structured and transparent system to support decision-making.

Underlying this theme is a profound sense of vulnerability, as participants articulate fears about the “dangerous foods we consume as a family” of which they are unaware. This fear is compounded by a pervasive suspicion of “pesticide residues” and other unseen hazards, which they interpret as potential threats to their health. The lack of transparency fuels concerns about carcinogenic risks, as expressed by a male participant who worries about the “zero information of carcinogenesis associated with pesticides”. These constructed fears reflect the participants’ attempts to make sense at an experiential level of the complex food landscape.

Participants also convey a lack of knowledge that hinders their ability to make informed decisions. The statement “That unfortunately I don’t know much in general about pesticides, their use and how many dangerous foods we consume as a family” illustrates the gap between their lived experiences and the information available to them. This gap deepens their feelings of disempowerment and alienation.

Participants feel powerless by the perceived failure of institutions meant to support consumers, including agricultural education, research, and public oversight. They express deep-seated distrust in these institutions, as seen in the statement “The weaknesses of agricultural, agronomic education combined with the research decline of laboratories […] the weakened, disoriented and lacking organization of public control […]”. This highlights the need for a more robust and reliable system of official control and education to support informed food choices.

The importance of clear and accurate labeling is crucial for empowering consumers to make informed decisions. As one participant stated, “Pesticide residues and the undefined (unlabeled) control of the above products by the state. Consumers have little information about the products we buy”. This sentiment emphasizes the need for transparent labeling that provides participants with the information needed to navigate their food choices effectively.

Participants are not merely seeking additional information; they are striving for a sense of control and involvement in their food-related decisions. The statement “There is not the right information and education for the consumer or it is so scattered that it is hard to gather” encapsulates their desire for a more coherent and accessible framework of knowledge.

Ultimately, the perceived lack of transparency, control, and reliable information in the food system leaves participants uncertain about their food choices. There is a pressing need for enhanced public oversight, education, and communication to empower consumers, allowing them to create informed narratives about their food and fostering a sense of agency in their decision-making.

3.2.5. Theme No 5—Demands for Food System Transparency

This theme reflects participants’ subjective experiences and understandings of the food safety regulatory framework, characterized by deep mistrust and disillusionment. Consumers view the current system as inadequate and advocate for “thorough and frequent controls” and “stricter fines for indiscriminate use of pesticides”, highlighting their perceptions of an effective food safety system.

Consumers’ frustration with the perceived lack of clarity in the control process reflects their subjective understandings of transparency. They feel that foods are not monitored frequently enough for pesticide residues and that controls are inadequate. They demand more thorough assessments of contamination throughout the production process and seek information about the health effects of pesticides. As one participant notes, “more controls need to be carried out and the results need to be made more public so that people are aware of them.” They call for clear labeling and public disclosure of pesticide residue test results, noting about “non-obvious certification of controls on the finished product”.

The participants’ skepticism extends towards certification bodies and organic producers. As one respondent notes, there is “no control of the certification bodies (it is formal and not substantial) […] (incidents are detected even in organic producers)”. They have formed their own views on the value and reliability of certification, which may differ from its intended purpose.

Ultimately, the theme of consumer demands for transparency reflects participants’ subjective realities and constructed understandings of the food safety regulatory framework, shaped by their unique experiences, beliefs, and interpretations.

3.2.6. Theme No 6—Concerns About Food System Sustainability and Integrity

Consumers express unease and mistrust toward the food system, viewing it as prioritizing profits over human and planetary well-being. Their concerns stem from experiences and observations of excessive agrochemical use, which they see as threats to environmental health and food safety. One consumer noted “incomplete control by competent authorities” and “excessive environmental pollution from the use of chemicals in agriculture” reflecting personal experiences and societal narratives that shape their negative view of the food system.

Consumers are concerned about the perceived decline in food quality, particularly in flavors and aromas of fruits and vegetables. The statement “prices are rising while quality is constantly deteriorating” reflects a constructed reality where economic pressures overshadow food’s intrinsic value. This narrative shows that consumers connect declining food quality to broader health implications, viewing the link between profit motives and food quality through their experiences.

Pesticide use is a major concern for consumers, who worry about its impact on soil fertility, human health, and the environment. They note that “every year they [farmers] use more and more pesticides to ensure their production”. The perceptions that “the indiscriminate use of pesticides […] for the profit of multinational corporations” and “[…] the phenomenon is global and not Greek” highlight a constructed understanding of the global food system’s priorities, where local experiences are part of a larger, interconnected narrative.

Consumers seek greater openness and responsibility in the food system for trust and security in food sourcing, reflected in their preference for purchasing from known producers, as expressed in statements such as, “products I consume […] almost always come from relatives—friends producers and I do not trust the retail trade”, highlighting the importance of personal connections with producers in alleviating uncertainty and mistrust. Furthermore, concerns about the accessibility of pesticides, such as “the abundance of pesticides in commerce”, underscore regulatory inadequacies and a perceived lack of protective measures, prompting consumers to advocate for more stringent controls and responsible practices that prioritize safety within the food system.

There is a collective desire for a holistic approach to food production, prioritizing sustainability, transparency, and accountability. Participants advocate for practices that enhance plant health, rather than relying on chemicals, as seen in their calls for “controls on proper preservation methods, as well as pesticide residues” and “investigating of nutritional status of plants in order to enhance their defensive capacity”, reflecting a constructed understanding of food production that aligns with their values and concerns.

In summary, concerns about the food system’s sustainability and integrity reveal how consumers construct their perceptions through experiences, societal narratives, and shared unease, driving calls for transparency, accountability, and a holistic approach that aligns with their values.

3.3. Interactions Between Themes

Figure 2 illustrates the complex interplay of factors influencing consumers’ perceptions of food safety in Greece. A key interaction is the negative relationship between the crisis of confidence in governance and the uncertainty about food safety, with many participants perceiving a lack of government protection, leading to heightened apprehension and exacerbated uncertainty about food safety controls.

The uncertainty surrounding food safety contributes to a lack of confidence in food system actors, who are perceived as prioritizing profit over public health. A perceived misinformation, fueled by agronomists and agrochemical companies, creates a cycle of distrust, alienating participants from the food system.

The perceived disempowerment and alienation of consumers are driving demands for transparency in food safety processes, as individuals seek to regain control over their food choices amidst a lack of reliable information. This highlights the complex interplay between governance, consumer uncertainty, and food system actor performance. Addressing these interrelated issues is crucial to promoting a food system that prioritizes safety, transparency, and public health in Greece, requiring a comprehensive approach that considers consumer perspectives and promotes accountability among all actors.

Overall, the qualitative nature of this study, combined with the open-ended format of the survey, limits the ability to establish definitive correlations between demographic groups and the identified themes. Moreover, while correlations may be detected, they do not constitute conclusive evidence of causation. Future research could benefit from a mixed-methods approach that integrates both qualitative and quantitative elements, enabling a more comprehensive exploration of these relationships and a deeper understanding of the complexities involved.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to analyze perceptions of the food system in Greece using thematic analysis. This approach identified factors affecting consumer views on governance and food system integrity. Participants were diverse in gender, age, education, and geography, including urban, rural, and semi-urban areas, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of experiences within the Greek food system.

The constructed themes, which ranged from crises of confidence in governance to demands for transparency, highlighted significant challenges that resonated with food citizenship theory as conceptualized by Lozano-Cabedo and Gómez-Benito [46]. This discussion connects these themes to food citizenship principles, emphasizing the need for a transformative approach to food governance and consumer engagement that includes diverse voices and perspectives [4,53,54,55].

In discussing the crisis of confidence regarding the governance and integrity of the Greek food system, it is essential to examine the constructed themes through a social construction perspective. This perspective emphasizes that our understanding of reality, including the food system, is shaped by social interactions, cultural norms, and shared beliefs [51,56]. At the heart of this crisis is a challenge to the foundational principle of food citizenship which asserts that access to healthy food is a social right [46,53]. Participants express disillusionment with the state’s role in ensuring food safety, reflecting a collective belief that their entitlement to adequate nutrition is being undermined [53]. Food governance narratives in contemporary society significantly shape our perceptions and emotions. Research indicates that our feelings are closely linked to cultural beliefs and social contexts. This interplay between societal narratives and emotions is both powerful and pervasive [57]. Ultimately, this crisis highlights the need for a governance framework that aligns with community values regarding food security and safety [53].

Participants described the regulatory landscape as marked by bureaucratic delays, corruption, and ineffective control mechanisms, undermining the principles of justice, equality, and fairness in food citizenship [46]. It has been reported in the past that consumers in Greece are skeptical about food safety control systems. Consumers perceive the system as ineffective due to insufficient enforcement against violators, with corruption identified as a major obstacle [36,58,59,60]. The participants’ frustrations about the opacity of the current system and the unbalanced power dynamics highlight a significant sense of injustice, which is not merely an individual grievance but is socially constructed and shapes their understanding of the food system [51,61]. This sense of injustice is compounded by a deep-seated distrust, which may stem less from uncertainty and more from an inability to exert practical control over the outcomes of these issues [42]. Therefore, improving trust will require more than just alleviating feelings of uncertainty or minimizing potential hazards; it necessitates tangible improvements in the quality of food and a demonstration of social justice [41]. By addressing these interconnected concerns, we can foster a more equitable and transparent food system that empowers participants and rebuilds trust.

This uncertainty is exacerbated by the participants’ experiences with food safety, where they grapple with ambiguous information about the health effects of pesticide residues and the reliability of official controls. The perceived absence of an impartial body to provide clear and truthful information about food safety directly contravenes the principle of autonomy in food citizenship theory [46]. Participants feel adrift, unable to exercise their rights and responsibilities due to the lack of accessible information. Kjærnes et al. [41] suggest that declining trust is associated with increased access to information via TV and the Internet, government centralization, and risk amplification by the media. Empowering consumers with accurate, comprehensible information is crucial for fostering informed decision-making and a sense of agency within the food system [52,62]. Previous research indicates that authoritative knowledge on pesticides can significantly reduce consumers’ risk perception, underscoring the importance of transparency and information accessibility [14,36].

Underlying these perceived systemic failures is a pervasive deficit of confidence in food system actors, including agronomists, farmers, producers, and retailers. Participants express skepticism about the motivations of these stakeholders, perceiving a prioritization of profit over public health. This skepticism is socially constructed through narratives that circulate within the community [51,56], reinforcing distrust and undermining the principle of food citizenship that emphasizes responsibilities to human beings, other living beings, and the environment [1,46]. In essence, trust thrives when individuals and institutions consistently meet their obligations, fostering a sense of stability and confidence in their actions [41,63]. The disconnect between the ethical obligations of food citizenship and the perceived realities of the Greek food system further erodes trust and confidence among consumers.

In response, participants express a clear demand for greater transparency within the food system. They call for more thorough and frequent controls, stricter enforcement of legislation, and greater public dissemination of control results. These demands align with the principle of food citizenship which asserts the right and obligation to participate in the governance of the food system. This principle is crucial, as it not only enables individuals to make informed choices but also empowers them to actively engage in reshaping the food system [46,53,54,62]. The participants’ insistence on stricter enforcement and transparency reflects a deep-seated desire to be active agents in food system governance, highlighting their aspiration to influence decision-making processes that impact their lives [1]. Performative issues, the control of science, scientific contingencies, and the handling of the unknown are more closely associated with people’s skepticism [41,54].

Participants worry about food system sustainability and integrity, which encompass issues such as environmental degradation, loss of quality and flavor, and a perceived disconnect between producers and consumers. These concerns resonate with the principles of food citizenship, which emphasize environmental responsibility and the need for individual and collective action [4,46]. Participants’ statements are in line with food citizenship responsibilities, expressing worries about environmental pollution, soil fertility, and the increasing frequency of pesticide use. This recognition of shared responsibilities highlights a fundamental tenet of food citizenship, requiring individuals to be conscious of the consequences of their food-related behaviors and to assume obligations to nature, society, and future generations [46,55].

There is an understanding among participants that each individual, regardless of their role in the food system, is inherently a stakeholder in this collective endeavor. This holistic view emphasizes that food citizenship transcends socioeconomic boundaries, challenging the misconception that it is a privilege reserved for the affluent [4,46,64]. Participants express a strong belief in the necessity of collaboration among diverse actors—ranging from agronomists and farmers to retailers and consumers—to reshape the food system into one that is more just and equitable. Their narratives reflect a shared commitment to inclusivity, underscoring that the responsibility for a sustainable food future belongs to all members of society [4,55,65]. This perspective highlights how social constructs influence their beliefs and actions, reinforcing the notion that food citizenship is a collective endeavor rooted in mutual accountability and shared values [52].

Furthermore, the participants exhibit a deep awareness of the global interconnectivity of food systems, aligning with the cosmopolitan principles of food citizenship [46]. They acknowledge that issues like pesticide use and the influence of multinational corporations are part of a global framework, not limited to local contexts. This understanding, shaped by their interactions and shared narratives, frames food citizenship as a collective responsibility that transcends national borders [1,4]. The participants’ statements about the “global and not Greek” nature of these challenges reflect a sophisticated understanding of the complex dynamics that shape food systems worldwide, illustrating how their beliefs are constructed through social discourse and collective awareness of global interdependencies [66].

4.1. Implementations: Strategies for Strengthening the Greek Food System

This study’s findings highlight key implementations to enhance the Greek food system. Establishing a Food Citizenship Framework is essential to define stakeholder rights and responsibilities, alongside adopting a National Food Policy through comprehensive consultations. Launching consumer education initiatives will empower individuals with knowledge about food safety and sustainability.

Enhancing transparency is vital, achieved by labelling for sourcing and safety information, as well as the provision of authoritative guidance from trusted bodies. Collaborative governance can be promoted by establishing local food councils, facilitating meaningful consumer participation in policy discussions. Supporting local food systems through grants for farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture initiatives is crucial for fostering engagement.

The implementation of food waste reduction programs is important, with initiatives aimed at minimizing waste throughout the supply chain. The development of digital platforms for local food distribution has the potential to connect producers directly with consumers, thereby improving access to fresh products and reducing reliance on large-scale distribution.

Strengthening regulatory frameworks and increasing funding for inspections will help restore public trust in the food system. Certification programs promoting best practices are necessary to ensure compliance among food system actors, while accountability must be cultivated. Investing in research will address food system challenges and ensure policies are informed by the latest findings. Finally, establishing metrics to monitor and evaluate progress will support continuous improvement.

The integration of these strategies has the potential to facilitate Greece’s transition towards a more resilient, sustainable, and equitable food system, thereby benefiting all stakeholders.

4.2. Limitations

This study is subject to several limitations that must be considered. A key limitation is the inherent subjectivity involved in qualitative research, particularly in reflexive thematic analysis [50]. The personal experiences, beliefs, and background in food safety control of the primary researcher—data coder (K.B.S.)—may have shaped interpretations and analysis of the data. Rather than perceiving this subjectivity as a limitation to be controlled, it is recognized as a vital resource that enriches the analysis and provides depth to the understanding of participants’ perspectives [67,68]. This subjectivity allows for a nuanced interpretation of the themes, reflecting the complexities of participants’ attitudes toward food safety. While the researcher’s subjectivity is instrumental in this process, it is crucial to recognize that it may also result in an emphasis on certain themes over others, potentially influencing this study’s overall findings. Additionally, while concerted efforts were made to include a diverse dataset, concerns regarding transferability persist. This study’s objective is to capture a range of meanings and experiences within the specific context of the participants, which may limit the extent to which findings can be applied to other settings or populations. However, the in-depth exploration of the research questions provides valuable insights that may resonate with similar contexts, allowing for potential applicability in related areas. The reliance on self-reported data may also introduce biases, as participants might express socially desirable responses. Finally, it is important to consider the context in which the survey was conducted, as consumer attitudes can be influenced by various factors such as economic conditions and current events. In this case, the survey was conducted during a specific time when the country was recovering from a decade of austerity politics and the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, longitudinal approaches should be considered in future research to capture these changes and further explore the role of social construction in qualitative analysis.

5. Conclusions

In the context of these circumstances, the analysis demonstrates that participants, as part of the Greek consumer base, are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the prevailing state of the food system. The participants express a desire for a model that aligns with the principles of food citizenship, namely justice, transparency, and sustainability. The narratives presented illustrate a significant discrepancy between the aspirations for a more equitable food system and the realities encountered, emphasizing the urgent necessity for systemic reforms. This disillusionment serves to highlight the necessity for a renewed commitment to the empowerment of citizens as active participants in the food system.

The incorporation of these insights into the theoretical framework of food citizenship facilitates a nuanced comprehension of the multifaceted challenges confronting the Greek food system. It is evident that in order to address the concerns raised by the participants, it is not sufficient to merely strengthen regulatory oversight and control mechanisms. Instead, there is a pressing need to foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and shared responsibility among all actors in the agro-food system. By embracing the principles of food citizenship—which include recognizing the social right to food, promoting justice and equality, ensuring autonomy and access to information, and integrating individual and collective responsibilities—we can work towards the realization of a food system that reflects the aspirations of all citizens. It is only through such a comprehensive and inclusive approach that a sustainable and just food future can be achieved.