Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat

Siegrist, Michael, Sütterlin, Bernadette·2017·Appetite
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Bearth, 2014, The consumer's perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions, Food Quality and Preference, 38, 14, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.008 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Briz, 2008, Barriers to fruit consumption: Driving forces behind consumer behaviour, Scripta Horticulturae, 8, 7
  3. Dickson-Spillmann, 2011, Development and validation of a short, consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge questionnaire, Appetite, 56, 617, 10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.034 · DOI
  4. Evans, 2010, Consumers' ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods, Appetite, 54, 557, 10.1016/j.appet.2010.02.014 · DOI
  5. Frewer, 2013, Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - a systematic review and meta-analysis, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30, 142, 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Marcu, 2015, Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat, Public Understanding of Science, 24, 547, 10.1177/0963662514521106 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Motteli, 2016, Measuring practical knowledge about balanced meals: Development and validation of the brief PKB-7 scale, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 505, 10.1038/ejcn.2015.173 · DOI
  8. Post, 2012, Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects, Meat Science, 92, 297, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Roe, 1999, The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18, 89, 10.1177/074391569901800110 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Rozin, 2005, The meaning of “natural”, Psychological Science, 16, 652, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. Rozin, 1999, Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible implications for the diet-health debate, Appetite, 33, 163, 10.1006/appe.1999.0244 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Rozin, 2004, Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines, Appetite, 43, 147, 10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Schifferstein, 1998, Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in The Netherlands, Food Quality and Preference, 9, 119, 10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00044-X · DOI · Paper page
  14. Siegrist, 2016, Biased perception about gene technology: How perceived naturalness and affect distort benefit perception, Appetite, 96, 509, 10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.021 · DOI
  15. Siegrist, 2014, Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions, Risk Analysis, 34, 1482, 10.1111/risa.12179 · DOI
  16. Siegrist, 2016, People's reliance on the affect heuristic may result in a biased perception of gene technology, Food Quality and Preference, 54, 137, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.012 · DOI
  17. Sütterlin, 2014, The reliance on symbolically significant behavioral attributes when judging energy consumption behaviors, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 259, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.005 · DOI
  18. Sütterlin, 2015, Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food, Appetite, 95, 252, 10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.011 · DOI
  19. Verbeke, 2015, 'Would you eat cultured meat?': Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom, Meat Science, 102, 49, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Verbeke, 2015, Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat, Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14, 285, 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Williams, 2001, Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: Pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins, Risk Analysis, 21, 319, 10.1111/0272-4332.212114 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
113
Pages
320-326
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019
OpenAlex
W2596495708
Cited by
277
References
9
FWCI
18.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019
The paper
Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2017). Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.019

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.