Factors influencing European consumer uptake of personalised nutrition. Results of a qualitative analysis

Appetite

Volumn 66, Issue , 2013, Pages 67-74

  Stewart Knox, Barbara ^a   Kuznesof, Sharron ^b   Robinson, Jenny ^a   Rankin, Audrey ^a   Orr, Karen ^a   Duffy, Maresa ^a   Poínhos, Rui ^c   de Almeida, Maria Daniel Vaz ^c   Macready, Anna ^d   Gallagher, Caroline ^e   Berezowska, Aleksandra ^f   Fischer, Arnout R H ^f   Navas Carretero, Santiago ^g   Riemer, Martina ^h   Traczyk, Iwona ⁱ   Gjelstad, Ingrid M F ^j   Mavrogianni, Christina ^k   Frewer, Lynn J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

^d UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^f WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

^h Molecular Nutrition Unit   (Germany)

ⁱ NATIONAL FOOD AND NUTRITION INSTITUTE   (Poland)

^j UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^k HAROKOPIO UNIVERSITY   (Greece)

more..

Author keywords

Acceptance; Barriers; Consumer; Focus group; Food4Me; Nutrigenomics; Personalised nutrition; Qualitative

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; FEMALE; GERMANY; GREECE; HUMAN; INTERNET; IRELAND; LIFESTYLE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; NUTRITION; PERCEPTION; PERSONALISED NUTRITION; POLAND; PORTUGAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; SOCIAL BELIEF; SPAIN; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DIET; EUROPE; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRIGENOMICS; NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX DISTRIBUTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84876309183     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: 10958304     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Armitage C.J., Conner M. The theory of planned behaviour: Assessment of predictive validity and perceived control. British Journal of Social Psychology 1999, 38(1):35-54.
2. Barbour R. Doing focus groups 2007, Sage Publications Ltd., London.
3. Bates B.R., Lynch J.A., Bevan J.L., Condit C.M. Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks. A focus group study of public understanding of genetic research. Social Science and Medicine 2005, 60(2):331-344.
4. Boland M. Innovation in the food industry. PN and mass customisation. Innovation-Management Policy and Practice 2008, 10(1):53-60.
5. Bredahl L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 2001, 24:23-61.
6. Castle D., Ries N.A. Ethical, legal and social issues in nutrigenomics. The challenges of regulating service delivery and building health professional capacity. Mutation Research-Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 2007, 622:138-143.
7. Catz D.S., Green N.S., Tobin J.N., Lloyd-Puryear M.A., Kyler P., Umemoto A., et al. Attitudes about genetics in underserved. Culturally diverse populations. Community Genetics 2005, 8(3):161-172.
8. Costa-Font J., Mossialos E. Are perceptions of 'risks' and 'benefits' of genetically modified food (in)dependent?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:173-182.
9. Handbook of qualitative research 1994, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.).
10. Fischer, A. R. H., Van Dijk, H., De Jonge, J., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (in press). The impact of balanced risk-benefit communication. Attitude and attitudinal ambivalence change for nanotechnology in food. Public Understanding of Science, 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512440220.
11. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 1978, 9:127-152.
12. Frewer L.J., Bergmann B., Brennan M., Lion R., Meertens R., Rowe G., et al. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies. Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2011, 22(8):442-456.
13. Gaskell G., Allansdottir A., Allum N., Castro P., Esmer Y., Fischler C., et al. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences letter. Nature Biotechnology 2011, 29. 2, 11, 114.
14. Gibbs G. Analysing qualitative data 2007, Sage Publications Ltd., London.
15. Hogarth S., Javitt G., Melzer D. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2008, 9:161-182.
16. Kaput J., Rodriguez R.L. Nutritional genomics. The next frontier in the postgenomic era. Physiological Genomics 2004, 16(2):166-177.
17. Knoppers B.M., Chadwick R. Human genetic research. Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics, Science and society 2005, 6:75-79.
18. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
19. Lennernäs M., Fjellström C., Becker W., Giachetti I., Schmitt A., Remaut de Winter A., et al. Influences on food choice perceived to be important by nationally-representative samples of adults in the European Union. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997, 51(Suppl. 2):S8-15.
20. Madden J., Williams C.M., Calder P.C., Lietz G., Miles E.A., Cordell H., et al. The impact of common gene variants on the response of biomarkers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to increased fish oil fatty acids intakes. Annual Review of Nutrition 2011, 31:203-234.
21. Miles S., Frewer L.J. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:47-61.
22. Miles S., Scaife V. Optimistic bias and food. Nutrition Research Reviews 2003, 16:3-19.
23. Nishida C., Uauy R., Kumanyika S., Shetty S. The joint WHO/FAO expert consultation on diet nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Process product and policy implications. Public Health Nutrition 2004, 7(1A):245-250.
24. Pin, R. R. (2009). Perceptions of nutrigenomics: affect, cognition & behavioral intention. University of Twente.
25. Pin R.R., Gutteling J.M. The development of public perception research in the genomics field. An empirical analysis of the literature in the field. Science Communication 2009, 31(1):57-83.
26. Rimbach G., Minihane A. Nutrigenetics and PN. How far have we progressed and are we likely to get there?. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2009, 68:162-172.
27. Ronteltap A., van Trijp H., Berezowska A., Goossens J. Nutrigenomics-based personalised nutritional advice. In search of a business model?. Genes & Nutrition 2012, 1:1-11.
28. Ronteltap A., van Trijp J.C.M., Renes R.J. Making nutrigenomics work -Integrating expert stakeholder opinions and consumer preferences. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2008, 19:390-398.
29. Ronteltap A., van Trijp J.C.M., Renes R.J. Consumer acceptance of nutrigenomics-based PN. British Journal of Nutrition 2009, 101(1):132-144.
30. Ronteltap A., van Trijp J.C.M., Renes R.J., Frewer L.J. Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations. Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 2007, 49:1-17.
31. Rose A.L., Peters N., Shea J.A., Armstrong K. Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genetics 2005, 8(3):145-151.
32. Saba A., Messina F. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:637-645.
33. Schenk M.F., Fischer A.R.H., Frewer L.J., Gilissen L.J.W.J., Jacobsen E., Smulders M.J.M. The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health Risk and Society 2008, 10:263-282.
34. Sengupta J., Zhou R. Understanding impulsive eaters' choice behaviors. The motivational influences of regulatory focus. Journal of Marketing Research 2007, 44(2):297-308.
35. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards. The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 2000, 20(5):713-719.
36. Skirton H. A legacy for the children. Attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2006, 15(5):565-573.
37. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Social theories of risk 1992, 117-152. Praeger, Westport. S. Krimsky, D. Golding (Eds.).
38. Slovic P., Peters E., Finucane M.L., MacGregor D.G. Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology 2005, 24(4):S35-S40.
39. Sparks P., Shepherd R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An experimental study. Risk Analysis 1994, 14(5):799-806.
40. Stewart-Knox B.J., Bunting B.P., Gilpin S., Parr H.J., Pinhão S., Strain J.J., et al. Attitudes toward genetic testing and PN in a representative sample of European consumers. British Journal of Nutrition 2008, 101:982-989.
41. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory 1998, Sage Publications Ltd., London. 2nd ed.
42. van Kleef E., Frewer L.J., Chryssochoidis G.M., Houghton J.R., Korzen-Bohr S., Krystallis T., et al. Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: Results from a cross-European study. Appetite 2006, 47(1):46-63.
43. Van Kleef E., Frewer L.J., Chryssochoidis G., Houghton J.R., Korzen-Bohr S., Krystallis T., et al. Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: Results from a cross-European study. Appetite 2006, 47(1):46-63.
44. Weinstein N.D. Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science 1989, 246(4935):1232-1233.
45. WHO - World Health Organisation (2011). Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Description of the global burden of NCDs, their risk factors and determinants.
46. Williams P.R.D., Hammitt J.K. Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: Pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk Analysis 2001, 21(2):319-330.