Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies
Open accessAbstract
The issue of consumer acceptance of food technologies, and their applications, needs to be addressed early in technology development. However, whether extensive assessment of consumer acceptance is necessary for all food-related technologies a priori is uncertain. A review of studies of seven food-related technologies associated with different levels of public acceptance suggests that those characterised as being âbioactiveâ raise particular concerns - related to unpredictable effects, uncontrolled use, and ethical concerns. Perceptions of âunnaturalnessâ alone are unlikely to raise a food technology to high levels of public rejection. Trust in regulation and effective labelling are also important considerations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cites
Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2006.07.002 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security.
van Huis, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153704 · Cited by 1,891 · see citing works
“Perceived risk, benefit, and control (regulation and effective labeling) are powerful determinants of consumer acceptance of novel and traditional foods (57), as are perceptions of potential environmental impact, at least for some consumers (60).”
BackgroundGalanakis, C. M. (2012) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2012.03.003 · Cited by 1,240 · see citing works
Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T., & Varela, P. (2017) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.022 · Cited by 997 · see citing works
“In addition, they need to regain greater consumer trust in regulations and food production processes (Frewer et al., 2011) in response to the factors underlying the clean label trend.”
BackgroundConsumer acceptance of novel food technologies
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x · Cited by 700 · see citing works
Self-citationFrewer, L. J., van der Lans, I., Fischer, A., Reinders, M., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X.-Y., van den Berg, I., & Zimmermann, K. (2013) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Self-citationPetrescu, D. C., Vermeir, I., & Petrescu-Mag, R. M. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17010169 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
“Cloned animals (Content: Cloned animals) [91]; FG 50.”
BackgroundNon‐thermal technologies and its current and future application in the food industry: a review
Zhang, Z.-H., Wang, L.-H., Zeng, X.-A., Han, Z., & Brennan, C. (2018) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/ijfs.13903 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
“Therefore, non-thermal technologies in food processing have been researched extensively in recent years (Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundVerbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. (2015) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
“Furthermore, the importance of involving the public and consumers early in the development process has been stressed as a determinant of future technology acceptance (Frewer et al., 2011) and successful food product development (Grunert, Verbeke, Kügler, Saeed, & Scholderer, 2011).”
BackgroundNon-thermal Technologies for Food Processing
Jadhav, H., Annapure, U., & Deshmukh, R. (2021) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.657090 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
“The rise in consumer demand for fresh food with longer shelf-life and good sensory qualities led to extensive research in the field of non-thermal treatment of food (11).”
BackgroundChallenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat
Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Loo, E. V. V. (2015) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60884-4 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
“Two recent reviews identified about 15 different issues impacting on consumer acceptance of novel agro-food technologies in general (Frewer et al. 2011; Rollin et al. 2011), while Hopkins and Dacey (2008) proposed about a dozen possible objections that might be provoked if a product like cultured…”
BackgroundCoderoni, S., & Perito, M. A. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119870 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Review of factors affecting consumer acceptance of cultured meat.
Pakseresht, A., Kaliji, S. A., & Canavari, M. (2021) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105829 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry
Santeramo, F. G., Carlucci, D., De Devitiis, B., Seccia, A., Stasi, A., Viscecchia, R., & Nardone, G. (2018) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.039 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
“Frewer et al. (2011) and Buckley et al. (2007) pointed on the importance of other limiting factors for consumption such as limited spare time, social environment and eating out.”
BackgroundImplications of nanotechnology for the agri-food industry: Opportunities, benefits and risks
Handford, C. E., Dean, M., Henchion, M., Spence, M., Elliott, C. T., & Campbell, K. (2014) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.09.007 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Self-citationFrom social capital to entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities
Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., García-Villaverde, P. M., Ruiz-Ortega, M., & Parra‐Requena, G. (2017) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.006 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
“In the last few years, novel food technologies such as genetically modified foods and food irradiation (Frewer et al., 2011) have brought about several technological changes in the industry to fulfill the changing demands of consumers (Sarkar & Costa, 2008).”
BackgroundHertwig, C., Meneses, N., & Mathys, A. (2018) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.011 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
“Ghomi et al. (2005) investigated the antimicrobial efficiency of pulsed LEEB (80 keV) by treating different concentrations of E. coli. The authors reported a reduction of bacterial inactivation with increasing initial concentrations, which was attributed to the formation of cell agglomerates for higher concentration.…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEmerging food processing technologies and factors impacting their industrial adoption
Priyadarshini, A., Rajauria, G., O'Donnell, C., & Tiwari, B. (2018) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2018.1483890 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
“Research also suggest that while perceived benefits drive technology acceptance by consumers, lack of perceived benefits results in accentuating concerns and perceived risks about the novel technology (Frewer et al. 2011, Rollin, Kennedy, and Wills 2011, Siegrist 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe application of PEF technology in food processing and human nutrition
Nowosad, K., Sujka, M., Pankiewicz, U., & Kowalski, R. (2020) · Journal of food science and technology · doi:10.1007/s13197-020-04512-4 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Golembiewski, B., Sick, N., & Bröring, S. (2015) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2015.03.006 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
European consumer healthiness evaluation of ‘Free-from’ labelled food products
Hartmann, C., Hieke, S., Taper, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.12.009 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Self-citationAure'lie, Hocquette, Carla, Lambert, Clémentine, Sinquin, Laure, Peterolff, Zoé, Wagner, et al. (2015) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60886-8 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
“Artificial meat is a new product, not yet known by consumers, who may be afraid of it because new, not surely healthy, neither tasty and that the process to make it is unclear or unknown so far (Frewer et al. 2011; Verbeke 2011).”
BackgroundMesías, F., Martín, A., & Hernández, A. V. (2021) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110749 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat
Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J. (2015) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662514521106 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
“…risk management provision, ethics, risk and benefit perceptions, uncertainty and unknown long-term effects, and concerns about wider implications of science for society (Siegrist, 2008; Palma-Oliveira et al., 2009; de Barcellos et al., 2010; Frewer et al., 2011; Rollin, Kennedy and Wills, 2011).”
BackgroundMeijer, G., Lähteenmäki, L., Stadler, R., & Weiss, J. (2020) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1718597 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments
Laestadius, L., & Caldwell, M. (2015) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980015000622 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
“perceptions of new food technologies to be ‘driven by generalised attitude towards food technologies that are perceived to share common characteristics’((25)) (p.”
BackgroundVidigal, M. C., Minim, V., Simiqueli, A. A., Souza, P. H. M., Balbino, D. F., & Minim, L. A. (2015) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2014.10.058 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
World Market Development and Consumer Acceptance of Irradiation Technology
Maherani, B., Hossain, F., Criado, P., Ben-Fadhel, Y., Salmieri, S., & Lacroix, M. (2016) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods5040079 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
“[5] include genetic modification, animal cloning, nutrigenomics, nanotechnology, high-pressure processing (HPP), and pulsed electric field processing (PEF).”
BackgroundConsumers’ attitudes and change of attitude toward 3D-printed food
Brunner, T., Delley, M., & Denkel, C. (2017) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.12.010 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: a systematic literature review
Desiderio, E., García-Herrero, L., Hall, D., Segrè, A., & Vittuari, M. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.015 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Nanotechnology applied to European food production – A review of ethical and regulatory issues
Coles, D., & Frewer, L. (2013) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2013.08.006 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
“For example, it would not be ethically just or fair if the benefits of a new technology were enjoyed by the manufacturer while all the risks accrued to the consumer, even if these were very small or uncertain (Frewer, Bergmann, et al. , 2011; Frewer, Norde, et al. , 2011).”
Self-citationCattaneo, C., Lavelli, V., Proserpio, C., Laureati, M., & Pagliarini, E. (2018) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/ijfs.13978 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
“…needs innovative technologies in food development, there is large evidence that a major group of consumers are doubtful about both novel foods and technologies because of the perceived risks and lack of health benefits (Tucker et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2007; Frewer et al., 2011; Zhang & Liu, 2015).”
BackgroundRisk/Benefit Communication about Food—A Systematic Review of the Literature
Frewer, L., Fischer, A., Brennan, M., Bánáti, D., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., Verbeke, W., & Vereijken, C. (2016) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2013.801337 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
“…such as genetic modification of crops and animals for food production processes or the use of nanotechnology in food processing and agriculture (Siegrist et al., 2007a; CostaFont et al., 2008; Frewer et al., 2011; Frewer et al., 2011; Frewer et al., in press 2013; Fischer et al., in press).”
BackgroundSelf-citationConsumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production
Frewer, L., Gupta, N., George, S., Fischer, A., Giles, E., & Coles, D. (2014) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.005 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationRosario, D. K., Rodrigues, B., Bernardes, P. C., & Conte-Júnior, C. (2020) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1754755 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
“On the other hand, while perceived benefits promote consumer acceptance of technology, the absence of this perception exposes new technologies to concerns and risks (Frewer et al. 2011; Rollin, Kennedy, and Wills 2011).”
BackgroundAlbertsen, L., Wiedmann, K., & Schmidt, S. (2020) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103958 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Importance and health hazards of nanoparticles used in the food industry
Naseer, B., Srivastava, G., Qadri, O. S., Faridi, S. A., Islam, R., & Younis, K. (2018) · Nanotechnology Reviews · doi:10.1515/ntrev-2018-0076 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
“The use of natural food constituents is preferred more than nanostructured additives, so this dynamic technology has identified commercial applications in food packaging market with good consumer acceptance than the nanotechnology food themselves [9, 11].”
BackgroundTian, J., Bryksa, B., & Yada, R. (2016) · Frontiers in Life Science · doi:10.1080/21553769.2016.1174958 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
“In general, those technologies that are considered bioactive such as the genetically modified food and crops raised the most concerns (Frewer et al. 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialGiordano, S., Clodoveo, M. L., de Gennaro, B., & Corbo, F. (2017) · International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.10.001 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
“Acceptance is thus strongly linked to consumer trust as shown in studies of various food innovations (GMF, irradiation, additives and pesticides) as well as beyond the field of food (Hunt and Frewer, 2001; Jang, and Kim, 2015; Baker et al., 2016; Slovic, 1987; Deroy et al., 2015; Megido et al., 2014; Chen, 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialAschemann-Witzel, J., Asioli, D., Banović, M., Perito, M. A., & Peschel, A. O. (2022) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104596 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
“The consumer attitude towards new food is very important to determine the success of products in the marketplace (Frewer et al., 2011; Van Kleef et al., 2005).”
BackgroundNanotechnology and its impact on food and nutrition: a review.
Sonkaria, S., Ahn, S., & Khare, V. (2012) · Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture · doi:10.2174/2212798411204010008 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
“However, the nanofood market despite the initial excitement has been slowed by the potential risks of implementing nanoparticles in food stuffs as consumers [9-13], the World Health Organisation [14], governmental regulatory bodies [15, 16], academia [17, 18] and industry [19] currently debate and assess new standards…”
BackgroundSpecht, K., Zoll, F., Schümann, H., Bela, J., Kachel, J., & Robischon, M. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11164315 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“With novel foods, just as the aforementioned novel technologies, it is especially important for the consumer to know or be able to observe the specific advantages of the food product before they favor it over an already familiar product [84,85].”
BackgroundA comparative analysis of the attitudes of rural and urban consumers towards cultured meat
Shaw, E., & Iomaire, M. M. C. (2019) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-07-2018-0433 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
“The manipulation of food or animals using techniques which would not occur naturally in nature has been shown to evoke major negative responses from consumers (Frewer et al., 2011; Siegrist and Sütterlin, 2017).”
BackgroundTransforming Beef By-products into Valuable Ingredients: Which Spell/Recipe to Use?
Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., & O’Callaghan, J. (2016) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2016.00053 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life.
Schnettler, B., Crisóstomo, G., Sepúlveda, J., Mora, M., Lobos, G., Miranda, H., & Grunert, K. (2013) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2013.05.014 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
“…in response to problems identified by scientists and consumers alike, it is well documented that consumers are increasingly wary of new technologies because of the perceived risks and a perceived lack of consumer benefits (Cox, Evans, & Lease, 2007; Frewer et al., 2011; Rollin et al., 2011).”
InfluentialGupta, N., Fischer, A., & Frewer, L. (2015) · NanoEthics · doi:10.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Self-citationZhu, W., Iskandar, M., Baeghbali, V., & Kubow, S. (2023) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods12173287 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“Because personalized nutrition may involve genetic testing and nutrigenomics, consumers may be hesitant to embrace it due to ethical, social, and private disclosure concerns [83].”
BackgroundConsumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications
Frewer, L. (2017) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/jbx007 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationConsumer attitudes toward new technique for preserving organic meat using herbs and berries.
Haugaard, P., Hansen, F., Jensen, M., & Grunert, K. (2014) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.06.010 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“Previous research has shown a good deal of skepticism among consumers with regard to new meat processing technologies and have generally shed more light on factors leading to rejection rather than acceptance of new technologies (Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundConsumer attitudes towards the application of smart packaging technologies to cheese products
O'Callaghan, K., & Kerry, J. (2016) · Food Packaging and Shelf Life · doi:10.1016/j.fpsl.2016.05.001 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., & Sütterlin, B. (2016) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.021 · Cited by 74
“For example, gene technology is publicly discussed but not well accepted in many European countries (Gaskell et al., 2011, 2000).”
BackgroundSelf-citationConsumer acceptance of precision fermentation technology: A cross-cultural study
Banović, M., & Grunert, K. (2023) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2023.103435 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“…fermentation shows great potential, it is crucial to take consumers ’ attitudes into account, as many consumers make negative inferences from technologies (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020) that they believe are not in line with expectations for natural, healthy, and tasty foods (Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialFactors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis
Gupta, N., Fischer, A., van der Lans, I., & Frewer, L. (2012) · Journal of nanoparticle research · doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x · Cited by 71
Self-citationde-Magistris, T., Pascucci, S., & Mitsopoulos, D. (2015) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-06-2014-0222 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Increasing the impact of science and technology to provide more people with healthier and safer food
Chávez‐Dulanto, P. N., Thiry, A. A., Glorio‐Paulet, P., Vögler, O., & Carvalho, F. P. (2020) · Food and Energy Security · doi:10.1002/fes3.259 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
“Especially those technologies that interfere with the genomes, such as the genetically modified crops and derived foods, are the ones that raise most of consumers’ concerns (Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundWendt, M.-C., & Weinrich, R. (2023) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104811 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Lee, K.-H., Hwang, K.-H., Kim, M.-S., & Cho, M. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.05.013 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Technological dynamism and entrepreneurial orientation: The heterogeneous effects of social capital
García-Villaverde, P. M., Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., Parra‐Requena, G., & Ruiz-Ortega, M. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.004 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Awareness and attitudes towards the emerging use of nanotechnology in the agri-food sector
Handford, C., Dean, M., Spence, M. T. Z., Henchion, M., Elliott, C., & Campbell, K. (2015) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.03.033 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Sillani, S., & Nassivera, F. (2015) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.07.004 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Psychological Determinants of Consumer Acceptance of Personalised Nutrition in 9 European Countries
Poínhos, R., van der Lans, I., Rankin, A., Fischer, A., Bunting, B., Kuznesof, S., Stewart-Knox, B., & Frewer, L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110614 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“Social trust in institutions and regulators has been found to be an important determinant of consumer acceptance of technological innovation in the agri-food sector [23–26].”
BackgroundSelf-citationAutomated food safety early warning system in the dairy supply chain using machine learning
Liu, N.-J., Bouzembrak, Y., Bulk, L., Gavai, A., Heuvel, L., & Marvin, H. (2020) · Food Control · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-119633/v1 · Cited by 63
Eskola, M., Elliott, C., Hajšlová, J., Steiner, D., & Krska, R. (2019) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.1612320 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“Consumers who have trust in the institutions, who e.g. regulate food applications, see more benefits than risks (Frewer et al. 2011; Hartmann et al. 2018).”
BackgroundCultured meat: Processing, packaging, shelf life, and consumer acceptance
Siddiqui, S., Bahmid, N. A., Karim, I., Mehany, T., Gvozdenko, A. A., Blinov, A., Nagdalian, A., Arsyad, M., & Lorenzo, J. (2022) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2022.114192 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Sustainable Food System in the European Union
Jackson, P., Candel, J., Davies, A., de Vries, H., Derani, C., Dragović-Uzelac, V., Hoel, A. H., Holm, L., Morone, P., Penker, M., et al. (2023) · doi:10.3390/books978-3-0365-8319-8 · Cited by 60
“A decade ago, studies highlighted the importance of considering consumer acceptance and attitudes early in technology development (Frewer et al., 2011; Lyndhurst, 2009).”
BackgroundRoh, S. H., Oh, Y., Lee, S.-Y., Kang, J., & Min, S. (2020) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109429 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Brazilian consumer's perception of food processing technologies: A case study with fruit juice.
Martins, I. B. A., Oliveira, D., Rosenthal, A., Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2019) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108555 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.015 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citationKamrath, C., Wesana, J., Bröring, S., & de Steur, H. (2019) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12442 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“…befitting the complexity of the food supply chain, it is not only crucial to identify the factors of technology acceptance or adoption by consumers (Frewer et al., 2011; Ronteltap, van Trijp, Renes, & Frewer, 2007; Siegrist, 2008), but also by other supply chain actors (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013;…”
BackgroundInfluentialGuo, Q.-Z., Yao, N.-Z., & Zhu, W.-W. (2020) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109518 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods: the case of Italian consumers
Galati, A., Moavero, P., & Crescimanno, M. (2019) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-05-2018-0336 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Dubé, L., Jha, S., Faber, A., Struben, J., London, T., Mohapatra, A., Drager, N., Lannon, C., Joshi, P., & McDermott, J. J. (2014) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.12548 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk
Mendly-Zambo, Z., Powell, L., & Newman, L. (2021) · Food, Culture, and Society: an international journal of multidisciplinary research · doi:10.1080/15528014.2021.1888411 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“As Frewer et al. (2011) note, perceptions of “unnaturalness” alone are unlikely to raise levels of public rejection, but they open the public to being overly negative toward agricultural innovation.”
BackgroundConsumer Perceptions of Precision Livestock Farming—A Qualitative Study in Three European Countries
Krampe, C., Serratosa, J., Niemi, J., & Ingenbleek, P. (2021) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani11051221 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“This finding has implications for consumer acceptance of PLF technologies, because it offers an addition to the frequently mentioned influencing factors, such as consumers’ prior knowledge [15], their attitudes towards the technology [16], the transparency of a technology [50], the behavioural control [51] and the (in…”
BackgroundA Change for the Better? Digital Health Technologies and Changing Food Consumption Behaviors
Lowe, B., Fraser, I., & Souza-Monteiro, D. (2015) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20802 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Bearth, A., Kaptan, G., & Kessler, S. (2022) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-022-10311-8 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“For decisions regarding the regulation of emerging applications of gene technology, it is vital to understand the public’s view, and learn from previous challenges that have for example led to the 1998 de facto moratorium that suspended approvals of new genetically modified organisms in the EU including UK (Frewer et…”
BackgroundInfluentialExtrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases
Kaptan, G., Fischer, A., & Frewer, L. (2018) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1281330 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationNon-thermal processing of milk: Principles, mechanisms and effect on milk components
Pegu, K., & Arya, S. (2023) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100730 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation toward Familiar and Unfamiliar Attitude Objects
van Giesen, R., Fischer, A., van Dijk, H., & van Trijp, H. V. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141790 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“Specifically, with new technologies, ‘unknown’ can quickly turn into ‘unloved’, as happened for instance in the case of genetically modified food [52].”
BackgroundConsumer Perspectives on Processing Technologies for Organic Food
Hüppe, R., & Zander, K. (2021) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods10061212 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Moreover, acceptance depends on whether consumers can control their exposure to a technology, and the potential ethical or environmental impacts of the latter [17].”
BackgroundInfluentialNovel and emerging biotechnological crop protection approaches
Giudice, G., Moffa, L., Varotto, S., Cardone, M. F., Bergamini, C., Lorenzis, G. D., Velasco, R., Nerva, L., & Chitarra, W. (2021) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.13605 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“1 Plant Biotechnology Journal (2021), pp. 1–16 doi: 10.1111/pbi.13605 2016; Change, 2018), their use is still associated with strong public concern, which is related to putative risks for human health and environment contamination (Carzoli et al., 2018; Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialHu, L.-J., Liu, R., Zhang, W., & Zhang, T. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17207700 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“In the context of GMF, perceived risks may be a key factor that determines ACC as perceived benefits [16,74,75].”
BackgroundLee, P.-Y., Lusk, K., Mirosa, M., & Oey, I. (2015) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.006 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“HPP involves the application of hydrostatic pressure while high-voltage pulses are used in PEF processing to inactivate microorganisms and prolong the products shelf-life (Frewer et al., 2011; Hicks et al., 2009).”
MethodPerez, M., López-Yerena, A., Lozano-Castellón, J., Olmo-Cunillera, A., Lamuela-Raventós, R., Martín-Belloso, O., & Vallverdú-Queralt, A. (2021) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox10030417 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“PEF techniques are also positively viewed as energy-saving and environmentally friendly [71].”
BackgroundIrradiation and Consumers Acceptance
Castell-Perez, M., & Moreira, R. G. (2020) · Innovative Food Processing Technologies · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815781-7.00015-9 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Novel Foods in the European Union
Pisanello, D., & Caruso, G. (2018) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93620-8 · Cited by 44
Rose, K. M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1710227 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Richetin, J., Demartini, E., Gaviglio, A., Ricci, E., Stranieri, S., Banterle, A., & Perugini, M. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101890 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Jadhav, H., & Choudhary, P. (2024) · Discover Food · doi:10.1007/s44187-024-00089-5 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“Due to numerous advantages of non-thermal treatment to food, it is considered as a boon to food industry and has a potential prowess to utterly abolish the thermal food processing treatments [11–14].”
Jin, S., Li, W.-J., Dawson, I. G. J., Clark, B., Chen, S., & Frewer, L. (2022) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104543 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationBig issues for a small technology: Consumer trade-offs in acceptance of nanotechnology in food
Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Dillon, E., Greehy, G., & McCarthy, S. (2019) · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2019.102210 · Cited by 42
Risk perception associated with an emerging agri-food risk in Europe: plant viruses in agriculture
Hilaire, J., Tindale, S., Jones, G., Pingarron-Cardenas, G., Bačnik, K., Ojo, M., & Frewer, L. (2022) · Agriculture & Food Security · doi:10.1186/s40066-022-00366-5 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationAttitudes towards genetically modified animals in food production
Frewer, L., Coles, D., Houdebine, L., & Kleter, G. (2014) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-08-2013-0211 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationSiegrist, M., Bearth, A., & Hartmann, C. (2021) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104441 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationMoving from risk communication to food information communication and consumer engagement
Wall, P., & Chen, J. (2018) · npj Science of Food · doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0031-7 · Cited by 40
Cultivating Benefit and Risk: Aquaculture Representation and Interpretation in New England
Rickard, L., Noblet, C., Duffy, K., & Brayden, W. C. (2018) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1480821 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“…of aquaculture and risk/benefit perceptions as two critical variables for understanding citizens’ acceptance of aquaculture as a “food technology” (Frewer et al. 2011), we ask: RQ3: To what degree are New England residents aware of aquaculture, including: (a) aquaculture products and processes…”
BackgroundMorrissey, J., Mirosa, M., & Abbott, M. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2013.845521 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“Frewer et al. (2011) examine what is known about consumer responses to foodrelated technologies that have been associated with different levels of consumer rejection, for example.”
BackgroundGupta, N., Fischer, A., George, S., & Frewer, L. (2013) · Journal of nanoparticle research · doi:10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“The negative societal response to GM foods is frequently regarded as the normative societal response to technological innovation in the agrifood sector, even in the absence of data relating to specific areas of technological application (Frewer et al. 2011a, b).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationDunnGalvin, A., Roberts, G., Schnadt, S., Astley, S., Austin, M., Blom, W., Baumert, J., Chan, C., Crevel, R., Grimshaw, K., et al. (2019) · Clinical and Experimental Allergy · doi:10.1111/cea.13464 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Strijbos, C., Schluck, M., Bisschop, J., Bui, T., de Jong, I. D., van Leeuwen, M. V., von Tottleben, M., & van Breda, S. V. (2016) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.014 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., & Vereijken, C.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Unilever Research and Development Vlaardingen (NL)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Frewer, L.J.
- Venue
- Trends in Food Science & Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 442-456
- ISSN
- 0924-2244 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086262717
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 18.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.wur.nl
- Locations
- Trends in Food Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Funders
- Danone
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- consumer acceptance, agri-food technology, emerging food technologies, bioactive foods, consumer perception, unnaturalness, trust in regulation, food labeling, ethical considerations, public acceptance
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
