Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Acceptance of New Technologies in Food Products and Production

  • Chapter
Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies

Abstract

In this chapter, we will discuss the public acceptance of new technologies from the perspective of food production and food products. Food is of particular interest in this context as it serves to illustrate many of the relevant issues pertinent to the introduction and application of emerging technologies more generally. Many food products are produced using traditional methods and approaches. However, food products can also be developed using innovative technologies which, furthermore, may be linked to new qualities or attributes in food products. In addition, food consumption is not only a biological necessity, it is also part of people’s lives, and is associated with cultural and social significance, as well as pleasurable or unpleasant sensory experiences. Thus people’s responses to food are not only based on their assessment of its nutritional characteristics, but on various attributes including quality, social context, and hedonistic response. For example, among the wide range of food products that are produced using traditional and long established methods, many are valued by consumers on the basis of perceived naturalness and application of organic or artisanal production methods (Van Rijswijk et al., in preparation). This is reflected by the introduction of, for example, authenticity labelling by institutions such as the European Commission.1

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • A.S. Alhakami and P. Slovic, ‘A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit’, Risk Analysis, 14 (1994) 1085–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Berg, ‘Trust in food in the age of mad cow disease: a comparative study of consumers’ evaluation of food safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway’, Appetite, 42 (2004) 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Bredahl, ‘Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods: Results of a qualitative study in four countries’, Appetite, 33 (1999) 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Bredahl, ‘Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions with regard to Genetically Modified Food — Results of a Cross-National Survey’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 24 (2001) 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C.M. Bruhn, ‘Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated food’, Journal Of Food Protection, 58 (1995) 175–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • J.T. Cacioppo, R.E. Petty, C.F. Kao and R. Rodriguez, ‘Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1986) 1032–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Chen and S. Chaiken, ‘The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context’, in Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (eds) Dual process theories in social psychology (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Cvetkovich, M. Siegrist, R. Murray and S. Tragesser, ‘New information and social trust: asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers’, Risk Analysis, 22 (2002) 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2003) Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/1_268/1_26820031018eb00240028.pdf

  • J.R. Eiser, S. Miles and L.J. Frewer, ‘Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (2002) 2423–2433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Evans, Emotion: The science of sentiment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO/WHO ‘Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology’; Derived 13 November 2006 from: http://www.fao.org/es/esn/gm/biotec-e.htm

  • R.H. Fazio and T. Towles-Schwein, ‘The MODE model of Attitude-Behavior Processes’, in Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (eds) Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Fife-Schaw and G. Rowe, ‘Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risks: some methodological considerations’, Journal of Risk Research, 3 (2000) 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.L. Finucane, A.S. Alhakami, P. Slovic and S.M. Johnson, ‘The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13 (2000) 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.R.H. Fischer, A.E.I. De Jong, E.D. Van Asselt, R. De Jonge, L.J. Frewer and M.J. Nauta (submitted), ‘Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: an interdisciplinary investigation of microbial hazards during food preparation’.

    Google Scholar 

  • A.R.H. Fischer and P.W. De Vries (submitted), ‘Everyday behaviour and everyday risk: an exploration how people respond to frequently encountered risks’.

    Google Scholar 

  • A.R.H. Fischer and L.J. Frewer (submitted), ‘Food safety practices in the domestic kitchen; Demographic, Personality and Experiential Determinants’.

    Google Scholar 

  • A.R.H. Fischer, L.J. Frewer and M.J. Nauta, ‘Towards improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: a multi-item Rasch scale for the measurement of the safety efficacy of domestic food handling practices’, Risk Analysis, 26 (2006) 1323–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, ‘How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits’, Policy Sciences, 9 (1978) 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, ‘Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods’, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 14 (2003) 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley and R. Shepherd, ‘What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs’, Risk Analysis, 16 (1996) 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley and R. Shepherd, ‘The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks’, Risk Analysis, 17 (1997a) 759–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, C. Howard and R. Shepherd, ‘Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 22 (1997b) 98–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, C. Howard and R. Shepherd, ‘The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production’, Agriculture and human values, 15 (1998) 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, J. Lassen, B. Kettlitz, J. Scholderer, V. Beekman and K.G. Berdalf, ‘Societal aspects of genetically modified foods’, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(2004) 1181–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, S. Miles and R. Marsh, ‘The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk’, Risk Analysis, 22 (2002) 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer and B. Salter, ‘Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: the case of BSE’, Science and Public Policy, 29 (2002) 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer and B. Salter, ‘The changing governance of biotechnology: the politics of public trust in the agri-food sector’, Applied Biotechnology, Food Science and Policy, 1 (2003) 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, J. Scholderer and L. Bredahl, ‘Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: the Mediating Role of Trust’, Risk Analysis, 23 (2003) 1117–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.J. Frewer, R. Shepherd and P. Sparks, ‘The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society’, Journal of Food Safety, 14 (1994) 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.M. Groves, ‘Authentic British food products: a review of consumer perceptions’, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 25 (2001) 246–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K.G. Grunert, L. Lahteenmaki, N.A. Nielsen, J.B. Poulsen, O. Ueland and A.N. Astrom, ‘Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification: Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries’, Food Quality and Preference, 12 (2001) 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Hansen, L. Holm, L.J. Frewer, P. Robinson and P. Sandoe, ‘Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks’, Appetite, 41 (2003) 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.R. Houghton, E. Van Kleef, L.J. Frewer, G. Chryssochoidis, S. Korzen-Bohr, T. Krystallis, J. Lassen, U. Pfenning and G. Rowe, ‘The Quality of Food Risk Management in Europe: Perspectives and Priorities’, Journal of Food Policy (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • W.E. Huffman, M. Rousu, J.F. Shogren and A. Tegene, ‘Consumer’s Resistance to Genetically Modified Foods: The Role of Information in an Uncertain Environment’, Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 2, (2004) article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Jensen and P. Sandoe, ‘Food safety and ethics: The interplay between science and Values’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15 (2002) 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Kornelis, J. De Jonge, L.J. Frewer and H. Dagevos, ‘Classifying consumers on their intended use of food safety information sources’, Risk Analysis (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • C.F. Kreijl, A.G.A.C. Knapp, M.C.M. Busch, A.H. Havelaar, P.G.N. Kramers, D. Kromhout, F.X.R. Van Leeuwen, H.M.J.A. Van Leent-Loenen, M.C. Ocke and H. Verkley, Ons eten gemeten. Gezonde voeding en veilig voedsel in Nederland (Bilthoven, NI, RIVM, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • H.A. Kuiper, H.P.J.M. Noteborn, E.J. Kok and G.A. Kleter, ‘Safety aspects of novel Foods’, Food Research International, 35 (2002) 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Lassen, A. Allansdottir, M. Liakoupulos, A. Olsson and A.T. Mortensen, ‘Testing times: the reception of round-up ready Soya in Europe’, in Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (eds) Biotechnology — The Making of a Global Controversy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • J.K. Lazo, J. Kinnell and A. Fisher, ‘Expert and Lay person Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk’. Risk Analysis, 20 (2000) 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.S. Lerner and D. Keltner, ‘Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice’, Cognition and Emotion, 14 (2000) 473–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.S. Lerner and D. Keltner, ‘Fear, anger, and risk’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2001) 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W.J. McGuire, ‘Attitudes and attitude change’, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds) The handbook of social psychology, 3rd edn (New York, NY: Random House, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • A.L. Meijnders, C.J.H. Midden and H.A.M. Wilke, ‘Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks’, Risk Analysis, 21 (2001) 955–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C.K. Mertz, P. Slovic and I.F.H. Purchase, ‘Judgments of chemical risks: Comparisons among senior managers, toxicologists, and the public’, Risk Analysis, 18 (1998) 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Miles, M. Brennan, S. Kuznesof, M. Ness, C. Ritsonand and L.J. Frewer, ‘Public worry about specific food safety issues’, British Food Journal, 106 (2004) 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Miles and L.J. Frewer, ‘Investigating specific concerns about different food Hazards’, Food Quality and Preference, 12 (2001) 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Miles, O. Ueland and L.J. Frewer, ‘Public attitudes towards genetically modified food and its regulation: the impact of traceability information’, British Food Journal, 107, 4 (2005) 246–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M.J. Nauta, R. De Jonge, A.R.H. Fischer, E.D. Van Asselt and L.J. Frewer, (in preparation, RIVM and Wageningen University), ‘Towards Safer Food Preparation in the Domestic Environment: the effect of an information campaign on microbial contamination of domestically prepared food’ [paper available on request from Fischer or Frewer].

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Oatley and P.N. Johnson-Laird, ‘Towards a cognitive theory of emotions’, Cognition and Emotion, 1 (1987) 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.M. Parry, S. Miles, A. Tridente and S.R. Palmer, ‘Differences in Perception of Risk Between People Who Have and Have Not Experienced Salmonella Food Poisoning’, Risk Analysis, 24 (2004) 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.E. Petty and D.T. Wegener, ‘The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and Controversies’, in Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (eds) Dual process theories in social psychology (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Poortinga and N.F. Pidgeon, ‘Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?’, Risk Analysis, 25 (2005) 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Rowe and L.J. Frewer, ‘Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation’, Science Technology and Human Values, 25 (2000) 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Rozin and A.E. Fallon, ‘A Perspective on Disgust’, Psychological Review, 94 (1987) January, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Rozin and T.A. Vollmecke, ‘Food likes and dislikes’, Annual Review of Nutrition, 6 (1986) 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.A.C. Ruiter, C. Abraham and G. Cok, ‘Scary warnings and rational precautions: a review of the psychology of fear appeals’, Psychology and Health, 16 (2001) 613–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Siegrist, ‘The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology’, Risk Analysis, 20 (2000) 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, ‘Perception of risk’, Science, 236 (1987) 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, ‘Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield’, Risk Analysis, 19 (1999) 689–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, M.L. Finucane, E. Peters and D.G. Macgregor, ‘Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality’, Risk Analysis, 24 (2004) 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, J.H. Flynn and M. Layman, ‘Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste’, Science, 254 (1991) 1603–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, T. Malmfors, D. Krewski, C.K. Mertz, N. Neil and I.F.H. Purchase, ‘Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada’, Risk Analysis, 15 (1995) 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B.D. Solomon and A. Banerjee, ‘A global survey of hydrogen energy research, development and policy’, Energy Policy, 34 (2006) 781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Spence and E. Tonsend, ‘Implicit attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations’, Appetite, 46 (2006) 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Tuorila, L. Lahteenmaki, L. Pohjalainen and L. Lotti, ‘Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods’, Food Quality And Preference, 12 (2001) 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. Van den Hoogen, A.L. Meijnders and C.H.J. Midden, ‘De invloed van onder-scheidbaarheid en saillantie van contextuele informatie op richting en sterkte van context effecten’, in Holland, R., Ouwerkerk, J., Van Laar, C., Ruiter, R. and Ham, J. (eds) Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2005 (Groningen, NI, ASPO pers, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • M.C. Van Putten, L.J. Frewer, L.J.W. Gilissen, B. Gremmen, A.A.C.M. Peijnenburg and H.J. Wichers, ‘Novel foods and food allergies: A review of the issues, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17 (2006) 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. van Rijswijk, L.J. Frewer, D. Menozzi and G. Fiaoli, ‘Consumer perceptions of traceability: a cross national comparison of associated benefits and the links with quality and safety’ (in preparation).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Vebeke, ‘Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis’, Food Quality and Preference, 12 (2001) 489–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Verplanken and S. Orbell, ‘Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33 (2003) 1313–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N.D. Weinstein, ‘Optimistic biases about personal risks’, Science, 246 (1989) 1232–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Witte and M. Allen, ‘A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns’, Health Education and Behavior, 27 (2000) 591–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Arnout R. H. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn J. Frewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social, Cultural and Policy Research, University of Salford, UK

    Rob Flynn  & Paul Bellaby  & 

Copyright information

© 2007 Arnout R.H. Fischer and Lynn J. Frewer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fischer, A.R.H., Frewer, L.J. (2007). Public Acceptance of New Technologies in Food Products and Production. In: Flynn, R., Bellaby, P. (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591288_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation