Consumer acceptance of food nanotechnology in Italy

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate attitudes of Italian consumers towards a set of applications of nanotechnology in the food domain. The chief goal is to identify the main factors influencing the willingness to buy nanofoods (WTBN), distinguishing between factors related to the products, in terms of perceived risks and benefits and psychological factors. Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was administered to a sample of about 300 people to gather information about the willingness to buy six nanofoods (namely: creamier ice cream with the same fat content; salt and sugar that do not form lumps with moisture; fruit juices enriched with bioactive molecules; bread enriched with Omega-3; plastic bottles for beer; antimicrobial food packaging for meat) and psychological characteristics, measured by several attitudinal scales. In order to study the influence of the attitudinal factors on the WTBN a simultaneous equations model was estimated, defining both its structural and reduced form. Findings – Respondents show a certain reluctance to buy foods produced using nanotechnologies The estimates of the econometric model indicate that WTBN is affected by the risks and benefits perceived with respect to the six nanofoods under consideration; the level of neophobia, as captured through the food technology neophobia scale; and the level of trust in food industry. Originality/value – The study extends the literature on nanofood consumer acceptance by adding useful evidence from the Italian case, which has not yet been studied.

What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies

“…For example, respondents who hold a skeptical view of biotechnology companies were less likely to consume nutritionally enhanced GM cereals than those who trusted biotechnology companies (Onyango & Nayga, ). Attitude toward product or technology: Several studies found evidence that general attitude toward product or technology (innovation) is the most important explanatory attitudinal factor for novel food technology evaluations. This relationship was primarily positive (for example, with respect to GM: Costa‐Font & Gil, ; Laros & Steenkamp, ; Spence & Townsend, ; fortification: Carrillo, Prado‐Gascó, Fiszman, & Varela, ; Cranfield, Henson, & Masakure, ; Krutulyte et al., ; and nanotechnology: Cook & Fairweather, ; Kim & Kim, ; Sodano, Gorgitano, Verneau, & Vitale, ). As illustrated in Figure , attitude toward product or technology (innovation) is significantly influenced by information assessment.…”

“…Respondents for whom naturalness of food was important perceived more risks to be associated with nanotechnology compared to respondents who considered naturalness of foods to be less important (Siegrist et al., ). Concerning perceived healthiness, this attribute had a positive influence on purchase intention for functional food (Dobrenova, Grabner‐Kräuter, & Terlutter, ), GM food (Hu, Adamowicz, & Veeman, ), and food nanotechnology (Sodano et al., ). Figure shows that quality perception of the product mediates information assessment. Impact on health: Regarding impact on health, studies can be distinguished based on how a variable was conceptualized.…”

“…But, on the other hand, there are studies that show older people who were willing to pay more for innovative food (with respect to GM: Lusk & Rozan, ; non‐GM biofortification: Oparinde, Banerji, Birol, & Ilona, ; fortification: Kavoosi‐Kalashami et al., ; Siegrist et al., ; Vecchio et al., ), had less fear toward GM foods (González, Johnson, & Qaim, ; Laros & Steenkamp, ; Sjöberg, ; Titchener & Sapp, ), or had higher intention to buy functional food or nutraceutical products (Henson et al., ). Gender: Results of gender influences on food evaluation seem to be more consistent. Overall, compared to men, women evaluated GM foods (Chen, ; Govindasamy, Onyango, Hallman, Jang, & Puduri, ; Lusk & Rozan, ; Napier, Tucker, Henry, & Whaley, ; Zepeda, Douthitt, & You, ) as well as food produced by nanotechnology more negatively (Sodano et al., ; Spence & Townsend, ) but were more attentive to healthy life including healthy food and more willing to try functional food (Annunziata et al., ; Chen, ; Coppola et al., ). There are also a few studies that have demonstrated that men were more reluctant toward new food than women (Cranfield et al., ; Nayga, Fisher, & Onyango, ; Sjöberg, ). Education and income: In terms of education and income level, different studies find varied effects on food evaluation.…”

Attitudes and Sensory Perceptions of Food Consumers towards Technological Innovation in Mexico: A Case-Study on Rice-Based Dessert

“…The application of FTNS has been mostly limited to developed countries: Australia [8,9], Italy [10,11,20,[25][26][27], Canada [7,22], South Korea [28] and Poland [29]. In the case of developing countries we find Brazil [12], Uganda [13] and Chile [30] with variability in the results between both contexts (developed and developing countries) without reaching consensus; therefore, possibilities are still being explored.…”

“…The evidence on studies in Mexico is non-existent, therefore, this research is one of the first to provide guidelines in this line and allows to know the preferences of the Mexican consumer towards the products elaborated with food technology. The most commonly used food technologies in recent studies have been: pasteurized fruit juice, high-pressure fruit juice processing, salads in modified atmosphere packaging, triploid prawns, genetically modified oilseeds and bioactive yoghurt [8,9], processed organic food, light and frozen [10,11,20,25] and the use of nanotechnology [12,22,26,28], vacuum packaging [7], fortified and functional products [27,29]. Some findings that have been obtained in a comparative way indicate that Brazilians are less neo-phobic than Australians and Canadians [9,12,22], the participants are unfamiliar with genetically modified food and nanotechnology, influenced by risk and perceived benefit as well as the level of confidence in the food industry [12,26], there is also a predictive effect between ethical values and ecological awareness with the intention of buying genetically modified food [28].…”