Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Genetic Modification in the Food Industry pp 27–46Cite as

Consumer perceptions of modern food biotechnology

  • Chapter

Abstract

The significant economic and social benefits of modern biotechnology may not be realized if consumer acceptance issues are not adequately addressed (Stenholm and Waggoner, 1992). Public reaction is a crucial factor in developing and introducing biotechnology (Cantley, 1987; De Flines, 1987). The issue of consumer confidence in novel products, whether from the point of view of safety or perceptions of quality, must be answered within the wider social context in which the technology is embedded. The exploitation of biotechnology to its full extent is likely to depend on public acceptance of a range of issues including perceptions of ethical and socio-economic impacts, as well as food safety. Cross-cultural differences in acceptance are likely to exist, as well as individual differences within specific populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Barke, R. P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993) Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 425–439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (1995) Resistance to new technology and its effects on nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology, in Resistance to New Technology M. Bauer (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–45.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buchmann, M. (1995) The impact of resistance to biotechnology in Switzerland: A sociological view of the recent referendum, in Resistance to New Technology M. Bauer (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantley, M. (1987) Democracy and biotechnology: Popular attitudes, information, trust and public interest. Swiss Biotech, 5(5), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capek, S. M. (1993) The ‘environmental justice’ frame: a conceptual discussion and an application, Social Problems, 40, 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T., von Winterfeldt, D. and Slovic, P. (1986) Risk communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts, 3, 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Flines, J. (1987) Publieke opinie essentieel voor biotechnologie, Interview. De Ingenieur, 6, 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer 39.1 (1993) Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans think about it in 1993. INRA for the Commission of European Communities, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137–146.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Bostrum, A. and Quadrel, M. J. (1993) Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. et al. (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K. (1993) Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository; Risk Analysis, 13,(6), 643–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foreman, C. T. (1990) Food safety and quality for the consumer: policies and communication. In NABC report 4, Animal Biotechnology: Opportunities and Challenges. J. Fessenden Macdonald (ed.), National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, NY, pp. 121–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Raats, M. M. and Shepherd, R. (1993/1994) Modelling the media: The transmission of risk information in the British press. IMA Journal of Mathematics Applied in Business and Industry, 5, 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J. and Shepherd, R. (1994) Attributing information to different sources: Effects on the perceived qualities of the information, on the perceived relevance of the information, and on attitude formation. Public Understanding of Science, 3,(4), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1995) Genetic Engineering and Food: What determines Consumer Acceptance? British Food Journal, 97(8), 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1995) Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology, Agriculture and Human Values, 12(1) 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J. et al. (1996a) Consumer concerns about food processing technologies: implications for effective communication, Proceedings, Joint annual meeting of Agriculture and Human Values Society, Association for the Study of Food and Society, and the International Food Choice Conference, St Louis, US, 6th-8th June 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J. et al. (1996b) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs, Risk Analysis, 16, 473–486.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J. et al. (1997a) ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering, Agriculture and Human Values, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., et al. (1997b) Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production — the influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1997) Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics, Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godown, R. D. (1987) The Science of Biotechnology, in Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, L. R. Batra and W. Klassen (eds), Agricultural Research Institute, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerstand, T. (1967) Innovation Diffusion As A Spatial Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamstra, A. M. (1991) Biotechnology in Foodstuffs. Towards a Model of Consumer Acceptance, Research report 105, SWOKA, The Hague, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamstra, A. (1992) Consumer Research on biotechnology, in Biotechnology In Public. A Review Of Recent Research, J. Durant (ed.) Science Museum, London, pp. 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijs, W. J. M., Midden, C. J. H. and Drabbe, R. A. J. (1993) Biotechnology: Attitudes and Influencing Factors, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J. (1996a) Trends in consumer acceptance and awareness of biotechnology. Journal of Food Distribution Research 27(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T.J. (1996b) How Japanese consumers view biotechnology. Food Technology July, 85–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J. and Kendall, P. A. (1992) Consumer Attitudes about the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J. and Kendall, P. (1993) Public perceptions of the benefits and risks of biotechnology, in Agricultural Biotechnology: A Public Conversation about Risk, J. Fessenden MacDonald (ed.), National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, New York, pp. 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelly, H. H. (1953) Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis, Risk Analysis, 13(2), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1995) Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology, in Resistance to New Technology M. Bauer (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 335–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S. and Durant, J. (1995) The UK national consensus conference on plant biotechnology, Public Understanding of Science, 4,(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R., Golding, D. and Tuler, S. (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks, Journal of Social Issues, 48, 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kepplinger, H. M. (1995) Individual and Institutional impacts upon press coverage of sciences: The case of nuclear power and genetic engineering in Germany, in Resistance to New Technology M. Bauer (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 357–378.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, I. and Ovesen, L. (1994) Assessment of novel foods: A call for a new and broader GRAS concept. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 21, 365–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieppe, M. R., Greenwald, A. G. and Baumgardner, M. H. (1982) Delayed persuasion as a consequence of associative interference: A context confusion effect. Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. T. and Smith, V. K. (1990) Risk communication and attitude change: Taiwan’s national debate over nuclear power. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. C. (ed.) (1984) Citizen participation in Science Policy, University of Massachussets Press: Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlier, E. (1992) Eurobarometer 35.1, in Biotechnology In Public. A Review Of Recent Research, J. Durant (ed.) Science Museum, London, pp. 52–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin S. and Tait, J. (1993) Release Of Genetically Modified Organisms: Public Attitudes And Understanding. Open University, Centre for Technology Study, Milton Keynes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. and Lee, J. (1993) Sounding the global alarm: Environmental issues in the US national news. Social Studies of Science 23, 681–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (1987) Putting Radon on the public’s risk agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values 12, 86–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. E. and Shaw, D. L. (1972) The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. (1992) Lay discourses of science — Science in general, science in particular and self. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17, 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S. et al. (1995) A comparison of public and professionals’ attitudes towards genetic developments, Public Understanding of Science. 4(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowsky, J. and Ross, C. E. (1986) Social patterns of distress, Annual Review of Sociology. 12, 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (1995) Forms of Intrusion: Comparing resistance to information technology and biotechnology in the USA, in Resistance to New Technology M. Bauer (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 379–392.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Consensus Conference, Final report, (1994) UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, Science Museum, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plough, A. and Krimsky, S. (1987) The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 12, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, D. A. and Griffiths, M. W. (1993). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in Canada, Proceedings, Food Technology, August, pp. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhrmann, G. (1992) Genetic Engineering in the press: A review of research and results of a content analysis, in Biotechnology in Public. A Review of Recent Research. J. Durant (ed.), Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology, London, pp. 169–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, L. and Drottz-Sjoberg, B. M. (1994) Risk Perception Of Nuclear Waste: Experts And The Public. Report No. 16. Stockholm School of Economics: Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) Risky assumptions, Psychology Today, 14, 44–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Kraus, N. and Covello, V. (1990) What should we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 389–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy, Risk Analysis, 13,(6), 675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smink, G. C. J. and Hamstra, A. M. (1996) Informing Consumers About Foodstuffs Made With Genetic Engineering: A Constructive Contribution To The Issue. Swoka, Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1994) Public perceptions of the hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study, Risk Analysis 14,(5), 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L. J. (1994) Gene technology, food production and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11,(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenholm, C. W. and Waggoner, D. B. (1992) Public Policy, in Animal Biotechnology in the 1990’s: Opportunities and Challenges, J. Fessenden MacDonald (ed.), National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, NY, pp. 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Kendall, E. and Coote, A. (1994) Citizens’ Juries, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straughan, R. (1992) Ethics, Morality and Crop Biotechnology, ICI Seeds, Fernhurst, Surrey, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The Framing of decisions and the psychology of Choice, Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. and Griffin, E. (1991) The influence of decision makers goals on their concerns about procedural justice, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21, 1629–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, E. (1993) Individual and cultural differences in adaptation to environmental risks, American Psychologist, 48, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information, Environment, March, 10-15 and 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechendorf, (1994) What the public thinks about biotechnology, Bio/Technology, 12 September, 870–875.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Lynn J. Frewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. South Bank University London, UK

    Sibel Roller

  2. Pillsbury R&D Minneapolis, USA

    Susan Harlander (Vice-President) (Vice-President)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. (1998). Consumer perceptions of modern food biotechnology. In: Roller, S., Harlander, S. (eds) Genetic Modification in the Food Industry. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5815-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5815-6_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7665-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5815-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation