Hot potato: Expert-consumer differences in the perception of a second-generation novel food

Risk Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1041-1055

  Hagemann, Kit S ^a,b   Scholderer, Joachim ^a  

^a AARHUS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS   (Denmark)

^b Athos Palace   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Expert consumer comparisons; Genetically modified foods; Mental models; Novel foods; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL PROCESS; CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS; EXPERT-CONSUMER COMPARISONS; GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS; HOT-POTATO; IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS; IN-LINE; MENTAL MODEL; MENTAL MODELS; NOVEL FOODS; PUBLIC DEBATE; QUALITATIVE STUDY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS; SOCIAL SCIENTISTS; TECHNICAL EXPERTS;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

RISK PERCEPTION;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; MODELING; POTATO; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELPHI STUDY; DNA MODIFICATION; FEMALE; FOOD INTAKE; HAZARD; HUMAN; MALE; POTATO; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; FOOD; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LEGISLATION, FOOD; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PERCEPTION; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RISK FACTORS; SOLANUM TUBEROSUM; UNCERTAINTY;

SOLANUM TUBEROSUM;

EID: 67650422008     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01229.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith H. Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists' risk perception and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 1993 13 : 425 426.
2. Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Morgan G. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 1992 48 : 85 100.
3. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 1992 14 : 959 970.
4. Bostrom A, Stoto MA, Evans G. Vaccine risk communication: Lessons from risk perception, decision making, and environmental risk communication research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1998 14 : 237 239.
5. Bredahl L. Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified food. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 1999 33 : 343 360. (Pubitemid 30015591)
6. Brüggemann A, Jungermann H. Abstrakt oder konkret: Die Bedeutung der Beschreibung von Biotechnologie für ihre Beurteilung. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 1998 45 : 303 318. (Pubitemid 128652699)
7. Byram S, Fischoff B, Embrey M, de Bruin W, Thorne S. Mental models of women with breast implants: Local complications. Behavioural Medicine, 2001 27 : 4 14. (Pubitemid 32879063)
8. Dawid AP. Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference. International Statistical Review, 2002 70 : 161 189.
9. DEFRA. Managing the footprint of agriculture: Towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. Report of the ACRE sub-group on wider issues raised by the farm-scale evaluations of herbicide tolerant GM crops. London : Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFAR), 2007.
10. Eggers SL, Fischhoff B. Setting policies for consumer communications: A behavioral decision approach. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2004 23 : 14 27. (Pubitemid 38750515)
11. Fisher EB, Walker EA, Bostrom A, Fischoff B, Haire-Joshu D, Johnson S. Behavioural science research in the prevention of diabetes: Status and opportunities. Diabetes Care, 2002 25 : 599 606.
12. Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2004 42 : 1181 1193. (Pubitemid 38581214)
13. Frewer LJ, Miles S, Marsh R. The GM foods controversy. A test of the social amplification of risk model. Risk Analysis, 2002 22 : 713 723.
14. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. Risk Analysis, 2003a 23 : 1117 1133.
15. Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S. Eurobarometer 58.0: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Brussels, Belgium : Public Opinion Sector of the European Commission, 2003.
16. Gray PCR, Wiedemann PM. The interactive construction of risks: How lay people construct genetic engineering risks and benefits in social settings. Paper presented at the Society of Risk Analysis Annual European Conference, Paris, 11-14 October, 1998.
17. Grunert KG, Lähteenmäki L, Nielsen NA, Poulsen JB, Ueland O, Åström A. Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification: Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference, 2001 12 : 527 542. (Pubitemid 33633611)
18. Hagemann K, Scholderer J. Consumer versus expert hazard identification: A mental models study of mutation-bred rice. Journal of Risk Research, 2007 10 : 449 464. (Pubitemid 47147896)
19. Hamstra AM, Feenstra MH. Consument en biotechnologie. Kennis en meningsvorming van consumenten over biotechnologie. SWOKA onderzoeksrapport nr. 85. Den Haag, The Netherlands : SWOKA, 1989.
20. Hilgartner S. The dominant view of popularization. Social Studies of Science, 1990 20 : 519 539.
21. INRA Europe. Eurobarometer 49: Les Européens et la Sécurité des Produits Alimentaires. Brussels, Belgium : Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998.
22. Jensen KK, Sandøe P. Food safety and ethics. The interplay between science and values. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2002 15 : 245 253. (Pubitemid 34767061)
23. Lappalainen R, Kearney J, Gibney M. A pan EU survey of consumer attitudes to food, nutrition and health: An overview. Food Quality and Preference, 1998 9 : 467 478.
24. McCue KF, Allen PV, Shepherd LVT, Blake A, Whitworth J, Maccree MM, Rockhold DR, Stewart D, Davies HV, Belknap WR. The primary in vivo steroidal alkaloid glucosyltransferase from potato. Phytochemistry, 2006 67 : 1590 1597. (Pubitemid 44233614)
25. Miles S, Frewer LJ. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preferences, 2001 12 : 47 61. (Pubitemid 33630654)
26. Morgan M, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2002.
27. Newman MEJ. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 2003 42 : 167 256.
28. Scholderer J, Balderjahn I, Bredahl L, Grunert KG. The perceived risks and benefits of genetically modified food products: Experts versus consumers. European Advances in Consumer Research, 1999 4 : 123 129.
29. Scholderer J, Frewer L. The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 2003 2 : 125 157.
30. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM, Gray PCR. Die intuitive beurteilung gentechnischer produkte - kognitive und interaktive Aspekte. Pp. 133 169 in J. Hampel, O. Renn (eds). Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung Einer Umstrittenen Technologie. Frankfurt/Main, Germany : Campus, 1999.
31. Van Kleef E, Houghton JR, Krystallis A, Pfenning U, Rowe G, Van Dijk H, Van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ. Consumer evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe. Risk Analysis, 2007 27 : 1565 1580. (Pubitemid 350264544)