Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnology in food products: an attribute-based analysis

Steenis, Nigel D.; Fischer, Arnout R.H.

doi:10.1108/bfj-09-2015-0330

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Perceived benefits are defined both as useful, needed/necessary (Henson, Annou, Cranfield, & Ryks, 2008), and healthy (Labrecque, Doyon, Bellavance, & Kolodinsky, 2006;Verbeke, 2005) as well as advantageous for the environment (Chen, 2008). Thereby, consumers who perceived a food technology innovation as beneficial exhibit positive evaluations (Prati, Pietrantoni, & Zani, 2012;Steenis & Fischer, 2016). Perceived risk, which is associated with impact on health, being harmful/dangerous, negative impact on environment, and cause for concern/worry, unknown/uncertain , had a negative influence on food evaluation among consumers (for example, Rodríguez-Entrena & Salazar-Ordóñez, 2013 Kim, 2015;Sodano, Gorgitano, Verneau, & Vitale, 2016).…”

Section: Frequency Of Factors In Chain Actors' Evaluation Behavior Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kamrath

Wesana

Bröring

et al. 2019

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New food technologies, such as genetic modification, food fortification, and processing technologies, are of growing interest for future food security and safety. For ensuring successful implementation of such technologies, consumers and other food supply chain actors should embrace them. We present a systematic review to identify and compare key factors of supply chain actors’ evaluation of new food technologies. Evaluation encompasses indicators such as likelihood or intention to perform a behavior, perceived benefits/risks, willingness to pay, acceptance/adoption, and attitudes. Results from 183 studies showed several imbalances in research. Although studies mainly focused on (1) genetically modified foods, (2) by consumers, (3) in developed countries, only very few studies have targeted other food technologies, other supply chain actors such as farmers (13 studies) or processors (two studies), or developing countries (43 studies). With respect to consumers’ evaluation, key determinants were trust in institutions, information assessment, perceived risks and benefits, attitudes toward the product or technology, perceived behavioral control, quality perception of the product, and impact on health. Farmers’ evaluation of new food technologies was explained by the factors of perceived risk and benefits and of actual source of information. For the few processor evaluation studies, no convergence of factors could be reached. This systematic review contributes to a better understanding of consumers’ and farmers’ evaluation behavior and opens up avenues for future research on supply chain actors’ food technology evaluations. The differences in the conceptualization and measurement of extracted factors demonstrate the need for standardized approaches in future studies.

show abstract

Section: Frequency Of Factors In Chain Actors' Evaluation Behavior Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kamrath

Wesana

Bröring

et al. 2019

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food packaging is generally perceived as less problematic than food products (Katare, Yue, and Hurley 2013;Siegrist 2008;Stampfli, Siegrist, and Kastenholz 2010); applications such as targeted drug delivery and water filtration techniques are also regarded relatively beneficial (Gupta et al 2013). Generally, applications closer to the body are seen as riskier but not necessarily more beneficial, making rejection more likely (Steenis and Fischer 2016).…”

Section: Nanotechnology Risk Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies: mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products

Feindt

Poortvliet

2019

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using focus groups, the research analyses the mental and social processes through which consumers form perceptions and opinions about unfamiliar technologies and the derived products, taking the perception of nanotechnology and nano-products, GM and GM products as example. Our findings suggest that limited understanding of the technological principles and lack of (visible) products prevent the formation of experience-based attitudes and behavioral intentions. In this context, consumers interpret and assess cognitive interventions such as product labels or product information, as well as the trustworthiness of unfamiliar information sources, based on heuristic clues, association, mutual reassurance and previous attitudes. The established determinants of technology risk perception (e.g. knowledge, social norms, perceived risks and benefits and controllability) were the subject of constant deliberation and negotiation among participants. Consequently, the perception of risk and technology communication interventions might vary greatly across different locations and segments of the public, complicating risk communication and trust-building.

show abstract

“…Some believe that the benefits of nanotechnology should be highlighted in a balanced way to promote public acceptance of nanotechnology (Kim et al 2014: 977). Steenis andFischer (2016: 1262) suggested that communicating the personal benefits of nanotechnology in food will be a key element in building acceptance. They also suggested that more attention should be paid to identifying and communicating the concrete benefits of nanotechnology to actual consumers (Steenis andFischer 2016: 1264).…”

Section: (Iii) Increase Clarity and Consistency In Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Steenis andFischer (2016: 1262) suggested that communicating the personal benefits of nanotechnology in food will be a key element in building acceptance. They also suggested that more attention should be paid to identifying and communicating the concrete benefits of nanotechnology to actual consumers (Steenis andFischer 2016: 1264). Sodano et al (2016: 7249) have generally recommended that policymakers should engage in communication aimed at increasing public acceptance by conveying information about benefits and Burging greater trust in industry and science.Ĥ owever, it is also argued that if nanotechnology benefits are overemphasized, the public might have problems accepting nanotechnology if disturbing news about hazards emerges in the future.…”

Section: (Iii) Increase Clarity and Consistency In Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public

Boholm

Larsson

2019

J Nanopart Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical and societal issues concerning justice, safety, risks, and benefits are well-established topics in the discourses of nanotechnology innovation and development. That nanotechnology innovation should be socially and ethically responsible is generally accepted by scientists, policymakers, regulators, and industry, and the idea of public involvement and communication is part and parcel of the conceptualization of responsible technology development. This paper systematically reviews the social science research literature accumulated between 2002 and 2018 on the communication of nanotechnology. A critical and constructivist perspective on policy problems guides the analysis. Two questions are asked of this literature: what problems are identified regarding the communication of nanotechnology to the public? How can these problems be managed and/or resolved? Three different problem themes are identified: the public, societal institutions, and nanotechnology itself. While for some identified problems, there are corresponding solutions; in other instances, there is little alignment between problems and solutions. In conclusion, the paper recommends that in communicating nanotechnology to the public: (i) the objectives of communication should be defined; (ii) previous research should be used responsibly; (iii) communication strategies should be adapted to the context; and (iv) effort should not be spent trying to develop a generic framework for communication.

show abstract

Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnology in food products: an attribute-based analysis

Cited by 27 publications

References 51 publications

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

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

Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies: mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products

What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About