Cited by 424Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies

Open access

Frewer, L.J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., Vereijken, C.·2011·Trends in Food Science & Technology

DOI 10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.

Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study
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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 0 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

Behrens, 2009, Brazilian consumer views on food irradiation, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 10, 383, 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.01.001 · DOI
Bergmann, 2007, Bioethical considerations for human nutrigenomics, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 567
Bruhn, 1998, Consumer acceptance of irradiated food: theory and reality, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 52, 129, 10.1016/S0969-806X(98)00088-7 · DOI
Butler, 2009, Cloned animal products in the human food chain: FDA should protect American consumers, Food and Drug Law Journal, 64, 473
Butz, 2003, Consumer attitudes to high pressure food processing, Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 1, 30
Cobb, 2004, Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395, 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 · DOI
Costa-Fonta, 2008, Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy, Food Policy, 33, 99, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002 · DOI · Paper page
Currall, 2006, What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?, Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153, 10.1038/nnano.2006.155 · DOI
Diehl, 1993, Will irradiation enhance or reduce food safety?, Food Policy, 18, 143, 10.1016/0306-9192(93)90022-4 · DOI
1999, Directive 1999/3/EC of the European Parliament and of the council on the establishment of a Community list of foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (1999/3EC), Official Journal of the European Communities
2009, List of Member States’ authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with ionising radiation (2009/C 283/02), Official Journal of the European Union
Frewer, 2004, Societal aspects of genetically modified foods, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1181, 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002 · DOI
Gaskell, 2004, GM foods and the misperception of risk perception, Risk Analysis, 24, 185, 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x · DOI
Gunes, 2006, Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods: results of a survey conducted on Turkish consumers, Food Science and Technology, 39, 443
Gupta, N. Fischer, R.H., & Frewer, L.J. (2011). Socio-Psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Understanding of Science, Published online, Public Understanding of Science March 1, doi:10.1177/096366 · DOI
Hawkes, 2008, A characterisation of the methodology of qualitative research on the nature of perceived risk: trends and omissions, Journal of Risk Research, 11, 617, 10.1080/13669870701875776 · DOI
Henson, 1995, Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies: the case of food irradiation, Food Policy, 20, 111, 10.1016/0306-9192(95)00020-F · DOI
Houghton, 2008, The quality of food risk management in Europe: perspectives and priorities, Food Policy, 33, 13, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.05.001 · DOI
Hu, 2005, Labelling genetically modified food: heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, 83, 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.04004.x · DOI
Hugas, 2002, New mild technologies in meat processing: high pressure as a model technology, Meat Science, 62, 359, 10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00122-5 · DOI
Joost, 2005, Nutrigenomics. Scientific basis, status and perspectives of application, Journal of the American Dietics Association, 105, 589
Kahan, 2008, Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87, 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 · DOI
Kaput, 2004, Nutritional Genomics: the next frontier in the postgenomic era, Physiological Genomics, 16, 166, 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00107.2003 · DOI
Komduur, 2007, The good life: living for health and life without risks? On a prominent script of nutrigenomics, Nutrition Reviews, 65, 301
Kuznesof, S.A.B. (2010). Consumer Acceptance of Novel Foods: A grounded theory study. PhD thesis submitted to and available from Newcastle University.
Lassen, 2002, Ethics and genetic engineering - lessons to be learned from GM foods, Bioprocess Biosystems Engineering, 24, 263, 10.1007/s004490100262 · DOI
Lee, 2005, Public attitudes toward emerging technologies - Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology, Science Communication, 27, 240, 10.1177/1075547005281474 · DOI
Mehta, 2004, From biotechnology to nanotechnology: what can we Learn from Earlier technologies?, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 34, 10.1177/0270467604263119 · DOI
Miles, 2005, Public attitudes towards genetically modified food and its regulation: the impact of traceability information, British Food Journal, 107, 246, 10.1108/00070700510589521 · DOI
Muller, 2003, Nutrigenomics: goals and strategies, Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 315, 10.1038/nrg1047 · DOI
Nielsen, 2009, Consumer perception of the use of high-pressure processing and pulsed electric field technologies in food production, Appetite, 52, 115, 10.1016/j.appet.2008.09.010 · DOI
Oberdörster, 2005, Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 823, 10.1289/ehp.7339 · DOI · Paper page
Oey, 2008, Does high pressure processing influence nutritional aspects of plant based food systems?, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19, 300, 10.1016/j.tifs.2007.09.002 · DOI
Olsen, 2010, Consumer acceptance of high-pressure processing and pulsed-Electric-Field: a review, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 21, 464, 10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.002 · DOI
Pidgeon, 2005, Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: the case of the 2003 British GM Nation? public debate, Risk Analysis, 25, 467, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00603.x · DOI
Priest, 2006, The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 563, 10.1007/s11051-005-9060-7 · DOI
Ravishankar, 2008, Pulsed electric fields, Food Science and Technology International, 14, 429, 10.1177/1082013208100535 · DOI
Renn, 2006, Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 153, 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 · DOI
Rimbach, 2009, Nutrigenetics and personalised nutrition: how far have we progressed and are we likely to get there?, The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 68, 162, 10.1017/S0029665109001116 · DOI
Siegrist, 2007, Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust, Appetite, 49, 459, 10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 · DOI
Siegrist, 2006, Lay people’s perception of food hazards: comparing aggregated data and individual data, Appetite, 47, 324, 10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.012 · DOI
Soliva-Fortuny, 2009, Effects of pulsed electrical fields on bioactive compounds in foods: a review, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 20, 544, 10.1016/j.tifs.2009.07.003 · DOI
Sparks, 1994, Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study, Risk Analysis, 14, 799, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00291.x · DOI
Suk, 2007, Dolly for dinner? Assessing commercial and regulatory trends in cloned livestock, Nature Biotechnology, 25, 47, 10.1038/nbt0107-47 · DOI
Vega-Mercado, 1997, Non-thermal food preservation: pulsed electric fields, Trends in Food Science Technology, 8, 151, 10.1016/S0924-2244(97)01016-9 · DOI
Weiss, 2006, Functional materials in food nanotechnology, Journal of Food Science, 71, 107, 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00195.x · DOI

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
“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).”
Background
Recovery of high added-value components from food wastes: Conventional, emerging technologies and commercialized applications
Galanakis, C. M. (2012) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2012.03.003 · Cited by 1,240
Making sense of the "clean label" trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications.
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
“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.”
Background
Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x · Cited by 874
Self-citation
Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - a systematic review and meta-analysis
Frewer, 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
Self-citation
Consumer Understanding of Food Quality, Healthiness, and Environmental Impact: A Cross-National Perspective
Petrescu, D. C., Vermeir, I., & Petrescu-Mag, R. M. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17010169 · Cited by 353
“Cloned animals (Content: Cloned animals) [91]; FG 50.”
Background
Non‐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
“Therefore, non-thermal technologies in food processing have been researched extensively in recent years (Frewer et al., 2011).”
Background
‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom
Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. C. (2014) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013 · Cited by 431
“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).”
Background
Non-thermal Technologies for Food Processing
Jadhav, H., Annapure, U., & Deshmukh, R. (2021) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.657090 · Cited by 324
“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).”
Background
Challenges 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
“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…”
Background
Sustainable consumption in the circular economy. An analysis of consumers’ purchase intentions for waste-to-value food
Coderoni, S., & Perito, M. A. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119870 · Cited by 298
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 358
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
“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.”
Background
Implications 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
Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis
Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003 · Cited by 245
Self-citation
From 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
“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).”
Background
Cold atmospheric pressure plasma and low energy electron beam as alternative nonthermal decontamination technologies for dry food surfaces: A review
Hertwig, C., Meneses, N., & Mathys, A. (2018) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.011 · Cited by 187
“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.…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Emerging 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
“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).”
BackgroundInfluential
The 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
The emerging research landscape on bioeconomy: What has been done so far and what is essential from a technology and innovation management perspective?
Golembiewski, B., Sick, N., & Bröring, S. (2015) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2015.03.006 · Cited by 167
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
Self-citation
Educated consumers don't believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry
Hocquette, A., Lambert, C., Sinquin, C., Peterolff, L., Wagner, Z., Bonny, S. P. F., Lebert, A., & Hocquette, J.-F. J.-F. (2015) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60886-8 · Cited by 196
“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).”
Background
Consumers' growing appetite for natural foods: Perceptions towards the use of natural preservatives in fresh fruit.
Mesías, F., Martín, A., & Hernández, A. V. (2021) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110749 · Cited by 150
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
“…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).”
Background
Issues surrounding consumer trust and acceptance of existing and emerging food processing technologies
Meijer, G., Lähteenmäki, L., Stadler, R., & Weiss, J. (2020) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1718597 · Cited by 146
Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions ofin vitromeat as evidenced by online news comments
Laestadius, L. I., & Caldwell, M. A. (2015) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980015000622 · Cited by 163
“perceptions of new food technologies to be ‘driven by generalised attitude towards food technologies that are perceived to share common characteristics’((25)) (p.”
Background
Food technology neophobia and consumer attitudes toward foods produced by new and conventional technologies: A case study in Brazil
Vidigal, 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
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
“[5] include genetic modification, animal cloning, nutrigenomics, nanotechnology, high-pressure processing (HPP), and pulsed electric field processing (PEF).”
Background
Consumers’ 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
Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: A systematic literature review
Desiderio, E., García-Herrero, L., Hall, D. M., Segrè, A., & Vittuari, M. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.015 · Cited by 180
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
“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-citation
Consumers’ attitude towards food by‐products: the influence of food technology neophobia, education and information
Cattaneo, C., Lavelli, V., Proserpio, C., Laureati, M., & Pagliarini, E. (2018) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/ijfs.13978 · Cited by 115
“…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).”
Background
Risk/Benefit Communication about Food—A Systematic Review of the Literature
Frewer, L. J., Fischer, A. R. H., Brennan, M., Bánáti, D., Lion, R., Meertens, R. M., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., Verbeke, W., & Vereijken, C. (2015) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2013.801337 · Cited by 141
“…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-citation
Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production
Frewer, L. J., Gupta, N., George, S., Fischer, A. R. H., Giles, E. L., & Coles, D. G. H. (2014) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.005 · Cited by 129
Self-citation
Principles and applications of non-thermal technologies and alternative chemical compounds in meat and fish
do Rosário, D. K. A., Rodrigues, B. L., Bernardes, P. C., & Conte‐Júnior, C. A. (2020) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1754755 · Cited by 130
“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).”
Background
The impact of innovation-related perception on consumer acceptance of food innovations – Development of an integrated framework of the consumer acceptance process
Albertsen, L., Wiedmann, K., & Schmidt, S. (2020) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103958 · Cited by 123
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
“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].”
Background
Feeding the world into the future – food and nutrition security: the role of food science and technology†
Tian, J., Bryksa, B., & Yada, R. (2016) · Frontiers in Life Science · doi:10.1080/21553769.2016.1174958 · Cited by 98
“In general, those technologies that are considered bioactive such as the genetically modified food and crops raised the most concerns (Frewer et al. 2011).”
BackgroundInfluential
Factors determining neophobia and neophilia with regard to new technologies applied to the food sector: A systematic review
Giordano, 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
“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).”
BackgroundInfluential
Communicating upcycled foods: Frugality framing supports acceptance of sustainable product innovations
Aschemann‐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 110
“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).”
Background
Nanotechnology 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
“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…”
Background
How Will We Eat and Produce in the Cities of the Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical Farming—A Study on the Perception and Acceptability of New Approaches
Specht, K., Zoll, F., Schümann, H., Bela, J., Kachel, J., & Robischon, M. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11164315 · Cited by 90
“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].”
Background
A 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 124
“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).”
Background
Transforming 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
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
“…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).”
Influential
Ethics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnology: a Comparison of Expert and Consumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal Acceptance
Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2015) · NanoEthics · doi:10.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 · Cited by 105
Self-citation
Three-Dimensional Printing of Foods: A Critical Review of the Present State in Healthcare Applications, and Potential Risks and Benefits
Zhu, W., Iskandar, M. M., Baeghbali, V., & Kubow, S. J. (2023) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods12173287 · Cited by 101
“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].”
Background
Consumer 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
Self-citation
Consumer 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
“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).”
Background
Consumer 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
Biased perception about gene technology: How perceived naturalness and affect distort benefit perception.
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-citation
Consumer 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
“…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).”
BackgroundInfluential
Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis
Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R. H., van der Lans, I. A., & Frewer, L. J. (2012) · Journal of Nanoparticle Research · doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x · Cited by 74
Self-citation
Paying to see a bug on my food
de‐Magistris, T., Pascucci, S., & Mitsopoulos, D. (2015) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-06-2014-0222 · Cited by 73
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 95
“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).”
Background
A systematic review of consumer studies applying the Food Technology Neophobia Scale: Lessons and applications
Wendt, M.-C., & Weinrich, R. (2023) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104811 · Cited by 65
3D printed food attributes and their roles within the value-attitude-behavior model: Moderating effects of food neophobia and food technology neophobia
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
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
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
Consumer behavior in choice of minimally processed vegetables and implications for marketing strategies
Sillani, S., & Nassivera, F. (2015) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.07.004 · Cited by 64
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
“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-citation
Automated 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
Towards a dietary-exposome assessment of chemicals in food: An update on the chronic health risks for the European consumer
Eskola, M. K., Elliott, C. T., Hajšlová, J., Steiner, D. J., & Krska, R. (2019) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.1612320 · Cited by 87
“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).”
Background
Cultured meat: Processing, packaging, shelf life, and consumer acceptance
Siddiqui, S. A., Bahmid, N. A., Karim, I., Mehany, T., Gvozdenko, A. A., Блинов, А. В., Nagdalian, A. A., Arsyad, M., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2022) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2022.114192 · Cited by 81
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).”
Background
Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Tulane virus in processed chicken breast via atmospheric in-package cold plasma treatment
Roh, S. H., Oh, Y., Lee, S.-Y., Kang, J., & Min, S. (2020) · LWT · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109429 · Cited by 60
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
“As long as it is not irradiated” – Influencing factors of US consumers’ acceptance of food irradiation
Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.015 · Cited by 59
Self-citation
What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies
Kamrath, C., Wesana, J., Bröring, S., & Steur, H. D. (2019) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12442 · Cited by 69
“…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;…”
BackgroundInfluential
How consumers' perception and information processing affect their acceptance of genetically modified foods in China: A risk communication perspective.
Guo, Q.-Z., Yao, N.-Z., & Zhu, W.-W. (2020) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109518 · Cited by 57
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
Convergent innovation for sustainable economic growth and affordable universal health care: innovating the way we innovate
Dubé, L., Jha, S. K., 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 61
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
“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.”
Background
Consumer 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
“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…”
Background
A Change for the Better? Digital Health Technologies and Changing Food Consumption Behaviors
Lowe, B., Fraser, I., & Monteiro, D. M. S. (2015) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20802 · Cited by 53
Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland
Bearth, A., Kaptan, G., & Kessler, S. (2022) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-022-10311-8 · Cited by 49
“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…”
BackgroundInfluential
Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases
Kaptan, G., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2017) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1281330 · Cited by 63
Self-citation
Non-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
Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation toward Familiar and Unfamiliar Attitude Objects
van Giesen, R. I., Fischer, A. R. H., van Dijk, H., & van Trijp, J. C. M. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141790 · Cited by 51
“Specifically, with new technologies, ‘unknown’ can quickly turn into ‘unloved’, as happened for instance in the case of genetically modified food [52].”
Background
Consumer Perspectives on Processing Technologies for Organic Food
Hüppe, R., & Zander, K. (2021) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods10061212 · Cited by 46
“Moreover, acceptance depends on whether consumers can control their exposure to a technology, and the potential ethical or environmental impacts of the latter [17].”
BackgroundInfluential
Novel 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 63
“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).”
BackgroundInfluential
The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China
Hu, L.-J., Liu, R., Zhang, W., & Zhang, T. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17207700 · Cited by 45
“In the context of GMF, perceived risks may be a key factor that determines ACC as perceived benefits [16,74,75].”
Background
Effect of information on Chinese consumers’ perceptions and purchase intention for beverages processed by High Pressure Processing, Pulsed-Electric Field and Heat Treatment
Lee, P.-Y., Lusk, K., Mirosa, M., & Oey, I. (2015) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.08.006 · Cited by 45
“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).”
Method
Impact of Emerging Technologies on Virgin Olive Oil Processing, Consumer Acceptance, and the Valorization of Olive Mill Wastes
Perez, 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
“PEF techniques are also positively viewed as energy-saving and environmentally friendly [71].”
Background
Irradiation and Consumers Acceptance
Castell-Perez, E. M., & Moreira, R. G. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815781-7.00015-9 · Cited by 71
Novel Foods in the European Union
Pisanello, D., & Caruso, G. (2018) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93620-8 · Cited by 44
Of Society, Nature, and Health: How Perceptions of Specific Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Foods Shape Public Rejection
Rose, K. M., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1710227 · Cited by 43
The biasing effect of evocative attributes at the implicit and explicit level: The tradition halo and the industrial horn in food products evaluations
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
Emerging techniques for the processing of food to ensure higher food safety with enhanced food quality: a review
Jadhav, H., & Choudhary, P. (2024) · Discover Food · doi:10.1007/s44187-024-00089-5 · Cited by 42
“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].”
Consumer responses to genetically modified food in China: The influence of existing general attitudes, affect and perceptions of risks and benefits
Jin, S., Li, W., Dawson, I. G. J., Clark, B., Chen, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2022) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104543 · Cited by 51
Self-citation
Big 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
Self-citation
Attitudes 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
Self-citation
The impacts of diet-related health consciousness, food disgust, nutrition knowledge, and the Big Five personality traits on perceived risks in the food domain
Siegrist, M., Bearth, A., & Hartmann, C. (2021) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104441 · Cited by 51
Self-citation
Moving from risk communication to food information communication and consumer engagement
Wall, P. G., & Chen, J. (2018) · npj Science of Food · doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0031-7 · Cited by 44
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
“…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…”
Background
Identifying Transition Capacity for Agri-food Regimes: Application of the Multi-level Perspective for Strategic Mapping
Morrissey, J., Mirosa, M., & Abbott, M. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2013.845521 · Cited by 40
“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.”
Background
Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments
Gupta, N., Fischer, A., George, S., & Frewer, L. (2013) · Journal of nanoparticle research · doi:10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4 · Cited by 40
“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-citation
Evidence‐based approaches to the application of precautionary allergen labelling: Report from two iFAAM workshops
DunnGalvin, A., Roberts, G. C., Schnadt, S., ASTLEY, S. B., Austin, M., Blom, W. M., Baumert, J. L., Chan, C., Crevel, R., Grimshaw, K. E. C., et al. (2019) · Clinical & Experimental Allergy · doi:10.1111/cea.13464 · Cited by 47
Consumer awareness and credibility factors of health claims on innovative meat products in a cross-sectional population study in the Netherlands
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

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.
ORCID: Frewer, L.J.
Brennan, M.
Lion, R.
Meertens, R.
Rowe, G.
Siegrist, M.
Venue: Trends in Food Science & Technology
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Published: 2011-08
Volume: 22
Issue: 8
Pages: 442-456
ISSN: 0924-2244 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005
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
Licence: www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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

Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Metadata

Record

About these checks