Beyond knowledge: Understanding the drivers of safe and unsafe plastic packaging use in food consumption
4 affiliations
- 1Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Viet Nam
- 2Institute of Strategy and Policy on Agriculture and Environment, Vietnam's Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Hanoi, Viet Nam
- 3VNU University of Economics & Business, Hanoi, Viet Nam
- 4VNU University of Economics & Business, Hanoi, Viet Nam; Corresponding author.
Abstract
This study examines why knowledge does not necessarily translate into responsible plastic-packaging practices by distinguishing three outcomes: frequency of use, safe handling, and unsafe handling. Safe handling is operationalized as checking plastic identification codes before bottle reuse, whereas unsafe handling is measured using an index of five potentially risk-bearing food-contact practices. Survey data from 244 university students in Hanoi, Vietnam, were analyzed using outcome-appropriate multivariable models. The results show different patterns of association across the three outcomes. Convenience was positively associated with frequency of use, whereas choice-evaluation capability was negatively associated with frequency; habit was not statistically significant after adjustment. Safe handling was positively associated with health-risk perception and choice-evaluation capability but negatively associated with knowledge. Health-risk perception was negatively associated with unsafe-handling index scores, whereas choice-evaluation capability was positively associated with these scores. These findings highlight behavioral specificity: factors related to routine consumption differ from those associated with safe and unsafe handling. The negative relationship between knowledge and the safe-handling indicator should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of a causal gap because of the cross-sectional design and the narrow operationalization of safe handling. The findings suggest that efforts to reduce routine plastic use may benefit from addressing convenience-related barriers, whereas safer handling may benefit from specific health-risk communication, clearer labeling, and actionable guidance.
Related
- Analysis of trade-offs of post-sorting plastic packaging
- STEM-ESD Project on Plastic Waste to Improve Students’ Integrative Knowledge and Sustainability Action
- LCA simplification in the context of packaging reuse loops
- Regulatory frameworks need to distinguish persistent from transient plastic fragments
- Accumulation of stranded plastic objects and other artefacts at Inaccessible Island, central South Atlantic Ocean
BibTeX
@article{nguyen2026beyond,
title = {{Beyond knowledge: Understanding the drivers of safe and unsafe plastic packaging use in food consumption}},
author = {Giang T.H. Nguyen and Manh V. Lại and Ngoc T.T. Lai and Linh B.K. Le and Minh L.N. Nguyen and Chinh C. Tran},
journal = {Cleaner and Responsible Consumption},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1016/j.clrc.2026.100510},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2026.100510},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Beyond knowledge: Understanding the drivers of safe and unsafe plastic packaging use in food consumption
AU - Giang T.H. Nguyen
AU - Manh V. Lại
AU - Ngoc T.T. Lai
AU - Linh B.K. Le
AU - Minh L.N. Nguyen
AU - Chinh C. Tran
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - Cleaner and Responsible Consumption
DO - 10.1016/j.clrc.2026.100510
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2026.100510
AB - This study examines why knowledge does not necessarily translate into responsible plastic-packaging practices by distinguishing three outcomes: frequency of use, safe handling, and unsafe handling. Safe handling is operationalized as checking plastic identification codes before bottle reuse, whereas unsafe handling is measured using an index of five potentially risk-bearing food-contact practices. Survey data from 244 university students in Hanoi, Vietnam, were analyzed using outcome-appropriate multivariable models. The results show different patterns of association across the three outcomes. Convenience was positively associated with frequency of use, whereas choice-evaluation capability was negatively associated with frequency; habit was not statistically significant after adjustment. Safe handling was positively associated with health-risk perception and choice-evaluation capability but negatively associated with knowledge. Health-risk perception was negatively associated with unsafe-handling index scores, whereas choice-evaluation capability was positively associated with these scores. These findings highlight behavioral specificity: factors related to routine consumption differ from those associated with safe and unsafe handling. The negative relationship between knowledge and the safe-handling indicator should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of a causal gap because of the cross-sectional design and the narrow operationalization of safe handling. The findings suggest that efforts to reduce routine plastic use may benefit from addressing convenience-related barriers, whereas safer handling may benefit from specific health-risk communication, clearer labeling, and actionable guidance.
SN - 2666-7843
ER -