Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products

Trends in Food Science and Technology

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 603-608

  Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RISK ASSESSMENT;

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES; PERCEIVED RISKS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCES;

TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 55649107054     PISSN: 09242244     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ayers T. A tomato by any other name? U.S. and EC grapple with labeling. Science 281 (1998) 714-715
2. Backstrom A., Pirttila-Backman A.M., and Tuorila H. Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales. Appetite 43 1 (2004) 75-83
3. Brown J.L., and Ping Y.C. Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 2 (2003) 208-214
4. Butz P., Needs E.C., Baron A., Bayer O., Geisel B., Gupta B., et al. Consumer attitudes to high pressure food processing. Food, Agriculture and Environment 1 1 (2003) 30-34
5. Caporale G., and Monteleone E. Influence of information about manufacturing process on beer acceptability. Food Quality and Preference 15 3 (2004) 271-278
6. Cobb M.D., and Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6 (2004) 395-405
7. Devcich D.A., Pedersen I.K., and Petrie K.J. You eat what you are: modern health worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives in functional foods. Appetite 48 (2007) 333-337
8. In: Durant J., Bauer M.W., and Gaskell G. (Eds). Biotechnology in the public sphere (1998), Science Museum, London
9. Earle T.C., and Cvetkovich G.T. Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society (1995), Praeger, Westport, CT
10. Earle T.C., Siegrist M., and Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Siegrist M., Earle T.C., and Gutscher H. (Eds). Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind (2007), Earthscan, London 1-49
11. Frewer L., Howard C., Hedderley D., and Shepherd R. Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - the influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference 8 4 (1997) 271-280
12. Frewer L., Scholderer J., and Lambert N. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: issues for the future. British Food Journal 105 (2003) 714-731
13. Gaskell G., Allum N., Bauer M., Durant J., Allansdottir A., Bonfadelli H., et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000) 935-938
14. Gaskell G., Bauer M.W., Durant J., and Allum N.C. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285 (1999) 384-387
15. Grankvist G., and Biel A. The importance of beliefs and purchase criteria in the choice of eco-labeled food products. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (2001) 405-410
16. Grunert K.G., Bredahl L., and Scholderer J. Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 4 (2003) 435-445
17. Henson S. Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies - the case of food irradiation. Food Policy 20 2 (1995) 111-127
18. Huotilainen A., and Tuorila H. Social representation of new foods has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005) 565-572
19. Jandt K.D. Probing the future in functional soft drinks on the nanometre scale - towards tooth friendly soft drinks. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 263-271
20. Kuzma J., and VerHage P. Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production (2006), Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
21. Lähteenmäki L., Grunert K., Ueland O., Aström A., Arvola A., and Bech-Larsen T. Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product alternative. Food Quality and Preference 13 (2002) 523-533
22. Lähteenmäki L., Lyly M., and Urala N. Consumer attitudes towards functional foods. In: Frewer L., and van Trijp H. (Eds). Understanding consumers of food products (2007), Woodhead, Cambridge, UK 412-427
23. Lockie S., Lyons K., Lawrence G., and Grice J. Choosing organics: a path analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australian consumers. Appetite 43 (2004) 135-146
24. MacFie H. Consumer-led food product development (2007), Woodhead, Cambridge, UK
25. Magnusson M.K., and Hursti U.K.K. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 39 1 (2002) 9-24
26. Miller H.I. A rational approach to labeling biotech-derived foods. Science 284 (1999) 1471-1472
27. Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., and Atman C.J. Risk communication: A mental model approach (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
28. Pidgeon N., Kasperson R.E., and Slovic P. The social amplification of risk (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
29. Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., Rowe G., Jones T.-H., Walls J., and O'Riordan T. Using surveys in the public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Analysis 25 (2005) 467-479
30. Pliner P., and Hobden K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 19 (1992) 105-120
31. Raudenbush B., and Frank R.A. Assessing food neophobia: the role of stimulus familiarity. Appetite 32 (1999) 261-271
32. Ronteltap A., van Trijp J.C.M., and Renes R.J. Expert views on critical success and failure factors for nutrigenomics. Trends in Food Science & Technology 18 (2007) 189-200
33. Ronteltap A., van Trijp J.C.M., Renes R.J., and Frewer L.J. Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49 (2007) 1-17
34. Rowe G., and Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (2000) 3-29
35. Rozin P. The meaning of "natural". Psychological Science 16 (2005) 652-658
36. Rozin P. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgment and Decision Making 1 2 (2006) 91-97
37. Rozin P., Spranca M., Krieger Z., Neuhaus R., Surillo D., Swerdlin A., et al. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43 (2004) 147-154
38. Saher M., Lindeman M., and Koivisto Hursti U.-K. Attitudes towards genetically modified and organic foods. Appetite 46 (2006) 324-331
39. Sanguansri P., and Augustin M.A. Nanoscale materials development - a food industry perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 547-556
40. Scholderer J., and Frewer L. The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy 26 (2003) 125-157
41. Siegrist M. Belief in gene technology: the influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences 24 (1998) 861-866
42. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20 (2000) 195-203
43. Siegrist M. Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research 6 (2003) 45-60
44. Siegrist M. Consumer attitudes to food innovation and technology. In: Frewer L., and van Trijp H. (Eds). Understanding consumers of food products (2007), Woodhead, Cambridge, UK 236-253
45. Siegrist M., Cousin M.-E., Kastenholz H., and Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49 (2007) 459-466
46. Siegrist M., Gutscher H., and Earle T.C. Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research 8 (2005) 145-156
47. Siegrist M., Keller C., Kastenholz H., Frey S., and Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 27 (2007) 59-69
48. Siegrist M., Keller C., and Kiers H.A.L. Lay people's perception of food hazards: comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite 47 (2006) 324-332
49. Sjöberg L. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research 3 (2000) 353-367
50. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., and MacGregor D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24 (2004) 311-322
51. Spence A., and Townsend E. Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis 26 (2006) 657-670
52. Steptoe A., Pollard T.M., and Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25 (1995) 267-284
53. Tenbült P., de Vries N.K., Dreezens E., and Martijn C. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45 (2005) 47-50
54. Tuorila H., Lähteenmäki L., Pohjalainen L., and Lotti L. Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference 12 (2001) 29-37
55. Verbeke W. Functional foods: consumer willingness to compromise on taste for health. Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 126-131
56. Visschers V.H.M., Meertens R.M., Passchier W.F., and deVries N.K. How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis 27 (2007) 715-727
57. Wiedemann P.M., and Schütz H. The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives 113 4 (2005) 402-405
58. Wilkinson S.B.T., Rowe G., and Lambert N. The risks of eating and drinking. EMBO Reports 5 (2004) S27-S31