European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural
Abstract
Attitudes to natural foods and genetically modified organisms, assessed by multiple choice items, definitions of natural, and free associations to the word "natural" were determined for a representative sample of adults from France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S.A. Individuals in all countries had a very positive attitude to natural. There is a surprising degree of similarity in conceptions of natural across the six countries, with a focus of food (and beverages) as central to the idea of natural, and links to the ideas of biological, healthy, plants, and the environment. Demographic differences (e.g., sex, education) were also small. Analysis of definitions and free associations suggests, and other data confirm, that across all countries, natural is defined principally by the absence of certain "negative" features (e.g., additives, pollution, human intervention), rather than the presence of certain positive features. Across all countries, plants, and in particular, plant foods, are more frequent exemplars of "natural" than are animals, with green the dominant color associated with natural. There is opposition to genetic engineering, which can be thought to be the opposite of natural, in all countries, but it is highest in continental Europe and lowest in the U.S.A.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Genetic engineering is considered the opposite of 'natural'.
“Indeed, genetic engineering is considered the opposite of”
From Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition (2015) · cites this paper as [36]
Cites
1 retracted
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
GASKELL, G. D., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., et al. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
RetractedSlovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271 · see citing works
Lewis, M. D., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2000) · Cited by 1,304 · see citing works
ROZIN, P., FISCHLER, C., IMADA, S., SARUBIN, A., & WRZESNIEWSKI, A. (1999) · Appetite · doi:10.1006/appe.1999.0244 · Cited by 673 · see citing works
Self-citationRozin, P. N., Spranca, M. D., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005 · Cited by 532 · see citing works
Self-citationRozin, P. N. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Self-citationGM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
GASKELL, G. D., Allum, N., Wagner, W., et al. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit
Tambiah, S. J. (1969) · Ethnology · doi:10.2307/3772910 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics
Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Disgust and related aversions.
Angyal, A. F. (1941) · Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0058254 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe
Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669870210153684 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Ohnuki‐Tierney, E. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400820979 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Perceived risk and tampering with nature
Sjöberg, L. (2000) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669870050132568 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Rozin, P. N. (2006) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002308 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Self-citationNeophobia in humans and the special status of foods of animal origin
Pliner, P. P., & Pelchat, M. L. (1991) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/0195-6663(91)90059-2 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0833 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Hamilton, S. (2010) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.1353/tech.2010.0049 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering
Frewer, L. J., HEDDERLEY, D. I., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1023/a:1007331524432 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Free associations to “food:” the effects of gender, generation, and culture
Rozin, P. N., Kurzer, N., & Cohen, A. B. (2002) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00002-8 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Self-citationFinucane, M. L. (2002) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1079/pns2001127 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Rice as Self: Japanese Identities Through Time.
Creighton, M. R., & Ohnuki‐Tierney, E. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2076440 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
European Public Perceptions of Food Risk: Cross‐National and Methodological Comparisons
Hohl, K., & GASKELL, G. D. (2008) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01021.x · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Rozin, P. N., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argelès, C. (2009) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500004010 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationDefining “natural product” between public health and business, 17th to 21st centuries
Stanziani, A. (2008) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.007 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Shields-Argelès, C. (2004) · Food Culture & Society · doi:10.2752/155280104786577905 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition
Blancke, S., Van Breusegem, F., De Jaeger, G., Braeckman, J., & Van Montagu, M. (2015) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
McMahan, E. A., Cloud, J. M., Josh, P., & Scott, M. (2016) · Ecopsychology · doi:10.1089/eco.2015.0068 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argelès, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- American University of Paris (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Rozin, Paul
- ORCID
- Rozin, Paul
- Venue
- Appetite
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 448-455
- ISSN
- 0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140318392
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 5.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Appetite (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Keywords
- natural food, genetically modified organisms, consumer attitudes, free association, cross-cultural comparison, plant-based foods, color associations, food additives, healthy food perception, Europe and United States
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Choice Behavior, Europe, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Food, Genetically Modified, Young Adult, Food, Organic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
