Systems Mapping of Consumer Acceptance of Agrifood Nanotechnology

Journal of Consumer Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 299-322

  Yawson, Robert M ^a   Kuzma, Jennifer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Experts' opinion; Nanofood; Nanotechnology; Systems dynamics; Trust

Indexed keywords

EID: 78249286489     PISSN: 01687034     EISSN: 15730700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10603-010-9134-5     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Andersen, D., Cappelli, D. M., Gonzalez, J. J., Mojtahedzadeh, M., Moore, A. P., Rich, E., et al. (2004). Preliminary System dynamics maps of the insider cyber-threat problem. System dynamics modeling for information security: An invitational group modeling workshop. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. February 2004.
2. Boecker, A., & Nzuma, J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) foods in Europe: What's trust in government and industry got to do with it? Canada: FARE, University of Guelph. Available at: http://www. inferg. ca/presentations/boecker07a. shtml.
3. Bronfman, N. C., Vázquez, E. L., & Dorantes, G. (2009). An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 47, 686-692.
4. Cardello, A. V. (2003). Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: Effects on product liking. Appetite, 40(3), 217-233.
5. Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 73-83.
6. Chaudhry, Q., Scotter, M., Blackburn, J., Ross, B., Boxall, A., Castle, L., et al. (2008). Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 25(3), 241-258.
7. Cloutier, L. M., & Boehlje, M. D. (2001). Value cycle and innovation management under uncertainty: A system dynamics perspective on R& D investments in biotechnology. Paper prepared for presentation at the 10th annual meeting of the International Association for the Management of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. 8-10 March 2001.
8. Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239.
9. Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
10. Cox, D. N., Evans, G., & Lease, H. J. (2007). The influence of information and beliefs about technology on the acceptance of novel food technologies: A conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 813-823.
11. Currall, S. C. (2009). New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 79-80.
12. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153-155.
13. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2008). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Volume 1, presenting futures (pp. 109-116). Dordrecht: Springer.
14. De Jonge, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., van der Lans, I. A., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2008). How trust in institutions and organizations builds general consumer confidence in the safety of food: A decomposition of effects. Appetite, 51(2), 311-317.
15. Dutta, A. (2001). Business planning for network services: A systems thinking approach. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 260-285.
16. Dutta, A., & Roy, R. (2002). System dynamics. OR/MS Today, 29(3), 30-35.
17. Earle, T. C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2007). Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle, & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and skepticism in the public mind (pp. 1-49). London: Earthscan.
18. Ebbesen, M. (2008). The role of the humanities and social sciences in nanotechnology research and development. Nanoethics, 2, 1-13.
19. Elias, A. A., & Cavana, R. Y. (2005). Stakeholder analysis for systems thinking and modeling. New Zealand: School of Business and Public Management, Victoria University of Wellington. Available at: http://portals. wi. wur. nl/files/docs/ppme/BobCavana. pdf.
20. Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R& D project management. R& D Management, 32(4), 301-310.
21. EU (2004) EU Policy for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, the European Union.
22. FAO. (1999). The application of risk communication to food standards and safety matters. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 70. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
23. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
24. Fisher, D. K., Norvell, J., Sonka, S., & Nelson, M. J. (2000). Understanding technology adoption through system dynamics modeling: Implications for agribusiness management. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(3), 281-296.
25. Food Chemical News. (2007). Food industry accused of secretly using nanotechnology. Food Chemical News, 2, 13-14.
26. Forrester, J. W. (1958). Industrial dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Business Review, 36(4), 37-66.
27. Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Waltham: Pegasus Communications.
28. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
29. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1999). Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 35-50.
30. Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003). Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Issues for the future. British Food Journal, 105, 714-731.
31. Fritz, M., & Schiefer, G. (2008a). Innovation and system dynamics in food networks. Agribusiness, 24(4), 301-305.
32. Fritz, M., & Schiefer, G. (2008b). Food chain management for sustainable food system development: An European research agenda. Agribusiness, 24(4), 440-452.
33. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2004). Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3(8), 496.
34. Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischle, C., et al. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64. 3. A report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research.
35. Georgiadis, P., Vlachos, D., & Iakovou, E. (2005). A system dynamics modeling framework for the strategic supply chain management of food chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 70(3), 351-364.
36. Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Scholderer, J. (2003). Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 4, 435-445.
37. GSS (2006) Responses to: How much have you heard about nanotechnology? Have you heard a lot, some, just a little, or nothing at all? University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, General Social Survey (GSS). In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. National Science Board, Washington DC.
38. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 23(4), 93-109.
39. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandoe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41, 111-121.
40. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2008). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults conducted on behalf of the project on emerging nanotechnologies. Washington: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.
41. IOM. (2009). Nanotechnology in food products: Workshop summary. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM). Washington: The National Academies Press.
42. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87-90.
43. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Cultural Cognition Working Paper No. 22. Connecticut: Yale Law School.
44. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. L., & Kysar, D. (2008). Biased assimilation, polarization and cultural credibility: an experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Brief No. 3. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
45. Karsh, B.-T., & Alper, S. J. (2005). Work system analysis: The key to understanding health care systems. Advances in Patient Safety, 2, 337-348.
46. Kuzma, J., Larson, J., & Najmaie, P. (2009). Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: A case study of genetically engineered organisms. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(4), 546-586.
47. Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., & Kokotovich, A. (2008). Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case studies approach. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1081-1098.
48. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240-267.
49. Macoubrie, J. (2005a). Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts.
50. Macoubrie, J. (2005b). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221-241.
51. Mantovani, E., Porcari, A., Meili, C., & Widmer, M. (2009). Mapping study on regulatory and governance of nanotechnologies. Report prepared by AIRI/Nanotec IT, and the Innovation Society. Published under the FramingNano project as deliverable D1. 1 for Work Package 1.
52. Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Paddock, L. C. (2006). Keeping pace with nanotechnology: A proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. ELR News and Analysis, 36 No. 10943.
54. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95-98.
55. Porter, M. E. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
56. Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97-110.
57. Priest, S. (2006). The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 563-568.
58. Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The "trust gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as functions of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751-766.
59. Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite, 49, 1-17.
60. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4. doi: 10. 1038/NNANO. 2009. 265.
61. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes towards nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91-94.
62. Scholderer, J., & Frewer, L. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125-157.
63. Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2093-2106.
64. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-203.
65. Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 603-608.
66. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.
67. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007b). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459-466.
68. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007a). Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59-69.
69. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
70. Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis, 26, 657-670.
71. Stave, K. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 139-167.
72. Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(1), 8-25.
73. Tague, N. R. (2004). The quality toolbox (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: Amer Society of Quality, Quality Press.
74. Tenbult, P., de Vries, N. K., Dreezens, E., & Martijn, C. (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45, 47-50.
75. Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Scoones, I., Ely, A., Marshall, F., Shah, E., et al. (2007). Agrifood system dynamics: Pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty. Brighton, UK: STEPS Centre. STEPS Working Paper 4.
76. Vensim® (2008). Vensim simulation software, Ventana Systems, Inc. See: http://www. vensim. com/software. html.
77. Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2008). Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: A review of the literature. Risk Management, 10, 156-167.
78. Wilson, C., Evans, G., Leppard, P., & Syrette, J. (2004). Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. Risk Analysis, 24, 1311-1321.