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

Items 201–300 of 347

Determinants of the willingness to buy products certified by omics technology: differences between regular and occasional consumers of organic food.
Sesini, G., Castellini, G., Iannello, P., Lombi, L., Lozza, E., Lucini, L., & Graffigna, G. (2022) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.112324 · Cited by 14
A Review of the Challenges Facing Global Commercialization of the Artificial Meat Industry
Liu, W., Hao, Z.-P., Florkowski, W., Wu, L.-H., & Yang, Z.-Y. (2022) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods11223609 · Cited by 14
“The uncertain health effects, taste, and opaque production processes of meat substitutes affect, to a varying extent, consumer acceptance [72,95,96].”
Background
Fish Prisons and Bluehouses: Perceived Risks and Benefits of Land-based Aquaculture in Four US Communities
Rickard, L., Houston, C., McGreavy, B., Johnson, B., & Gurney, G. (2022) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2022.2062020 · Cited by 14
“According to decades of consumer marketing research, public acceptance of food production often hinges on how individuals weigh perceived bene ﬁ ts against perceived risks, as well as how (un)na-tural a technology appears (Frewer et al., 2011; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020).”
Background
Consumers’ willingness to pay for beef products derived from RNA interference technology
Britton, L. L., & Tonsor, G. T. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.008 · Cited by 16
Consumer response to irradiated food: purchase versus perception
Hénon, P. (2015) · doi:10.2212/spr.2015.3.5 · Cited by 14
Pink slimed: Media framing of novel food technologies and risk related to ground beef and processed foods in the U.S.
Runge, K. K., Chung, J. H., Su, L. Y.-F., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2018) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.013 · Cited by 13
Effective communication of novelty: The case of ripened cheese
Deegan, K., Palmujoki, I., Isotalo, J., & Tuorila, H. (2015) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.004 · Cited by 13
Multi-stakeholder responses to the European Union health claims requirements
Bremmers, H., van der Meulen, B., & Purnhagen, K. (2013) · Journal on Chain and Network Science · doi:10.3920/jcns2013.1006 · Cited by 13
“Consumers are poorly informed about the quality of the authorisation procedure of NHC’s (Frewer et al. 2011).”
Background
Public Perception of Animal Biotechnology
Eenennaam, A. L. V., & Young, A. E. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92348-2_13 · Cited by 18
Probiotics and Fermented Foods in Human Nutrition
Dini, I. (2026) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules31081353 · Cited by 14
Drivers for the emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge areas: An actor-level perspective on building legitimacy for the case of synthetic life sciences
Baum, C. M., Sick, N., & Bröring, S. (2025) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103173 · Cited by 12
Assessing moderated mediation effects influencing consumer acceptance of cell-cultured Meat: A PLS-SEM modeling approach
Sheng, J., Su, W., Jin, S., Chen, S., Wall, P., & Yue, Y. (2024) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105331 · Cited by 12
Who is willing to pay a premium for leafy greens produced by indoor agriculture? A comparative choice experiment with US consumers
Seong, J., de Souza, S. V., Athnos, A., & Peterson, H. C. (2024) · Agribusiness · doi:10.1002/agr.21931 · Cited by 11
Perceptions of Spanish consumers towards novel lamb burgers enriched with natural antioxidants and healthy fatty acids
Horrillo, A., Díaz-Caro, C., Crespo-Cebada, E., Tejerina-Barrado, D., Mesías, F., Rodríguez-Ledesma, A., & García-Torres, S. (2022) · Italian Journal of Food Science · doi:10.15586/ijfs.v34i4.2246 · Cited by 12
“Consumers, however, might not share this perception as they tend to be reluctant to try new products and technologies, on account of their concern about the potential risks and the doubts about the possible benefits involved, but also as a sign of neophobia, that is, a common negative reaction to all things new (Frewe…”
Background
How to Communicate Food Safety after Radiological Contamination: The Effectiveness of Numerical and Narrative News Messages
Wolf, H. V., Perko, T., & Thijssen, P. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17124189 · Cited by 12
“Evidence suggests that food risks are perceived differently from non-food risks [3], on the one hand because a complete avoidance of food risks is not possible, on the other hand because food has cultural, symbolic, and religious connotations [4].”
Background
Consumers’ Valuation for Lab Produced Meat: An Investigation of Naming Effects
Asioli, D., Bazzani, C., & Nayga, R. (2018) · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.274066 · Cited by 12
“In this regard, Frewer et al. (2011) observed that the way the information about the production method is conveyed to consumers could significantly affect consumer acceptance of new food technologies.”
Background
Changing Food Consumption Behaviors
Lowe, B., Fraser, I., & Souza-Monteiro, D. (2015) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20793 · Cited by 12
What Drives Pet Food Choices? A Systematic Literature Review
Ai, C., Akaichi, F., Glenk, K., Revoredo-Giha, C., & Costa-Font, M. (2025) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani15223235 · Cited by 11
“However, consumers acceptance of these novel pet food products remains low due to concerns regarding safety and ethical considerations [113–115].”
The Forgotten Factor: Exploring Consumer Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in the Food and Agriculture Systems
Yang, C.-X., Baker, L. M., Mattox, A., Diehl, D. C., & Honeycutt, S. (2025) · Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100553 · Cited by 11
Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?
Kuo, C., Koralesky, K. E., von Keyserlingk, M., & Weary, D. (2024) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625241227091 · Cited by 11
“Much of this work uses surveys to examine acceptance (e.g. Beghin and Gustafson, 2021; Frewer et al., 2013), willingness to pay (e.g. Costa-Font et al., 2008; Kilders and Caputo, 2021), and attitudes (Frewer et al., 2011).”
Background
Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing
Nawaz, S., & Satterfield, T. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265635 · Cited by 11
Seafood stories: the effect of video message type on U.S. support for sustainable aquaculture
Yang, J., Rickard, L., Liu, S., & Boze, T. (2021) · Journal of applied communications research · doi:10.1080/00909882.2021.1939403 · Cited by 11
“Unsurprisingly, support for aquaculture was primarily relayed through positive emotion and benefit perception, which has been evidenced elsewhere in the literature on emerging technology (Costa-Font et al., 2008; Frewer et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2014; Siegrist, 2008).”
Background
Evaluative Conditioning of Food Technologies
Loebnitz, N., & Grunert, K. (2015) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20813 · Cited by 11
Regulation of Genome Editing in Plant Biotechnology: European Union
Voigt, B., & Münichsdorfer, A. (2019) · Regulation of Genome Editing in Plant Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17119-3_5 · Cited by 11
Examining the Role of Food Technology Neophobia in Shaping Consumer Attitudes and Intentions to Purchase Genetically Modified Foods
Özeltürkay, E. Y., Dogrul, U., Oğuz, S., Yalçıntaş, D., & Gülmez, M. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17146416 · Cited by 10
Consumer reaction to indoor farming using LED lighting technology and the effects of providing information thereon
Yano, Y., Maruyama, A., Lü, N., & Takagaki, M. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16823 · Cited by 13
Assuring Food Security: Consumers’ Ethical Risk Perception of Meat Substitutes
Liu, W., Hao, Z., Florkowski, W. J., Wu, L., & Yang, Z. (2022) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture12050671 · Cited by 12
“(2011) proposed that in the early stages of product R&D [95], government and industry invite should public participation to promote the success of new foods [101,102].”
Background
Understanding knowledge and perceptions of genome editing technologies: a textual analysis of major agricultural stakeholder groups
Robbins, M., Calabrese, C. R., Featherstone, J. D., & Barnett, G. A. (2021) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.20050207 · Cited by 14
A study of system dynamics modelling and optimization for food safety risk communication in China
Lang, L. (2020) · Alexandria Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.aej.2020.11.039 · Cited by 10
Risk and benefit perceptions of human enhancement technologies: The effects of Facebook comments on the acceptance of nanodesigned food
Kuttschreuter, M., & Hilverda, F. (2019) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.177 · Cited by 14
“…In the food sector, nanotechnology is also used for different purposes, such as to improve food color, texture or flavor; to improve food packaging by adding nanosensors to detect contamination; and to increase product shelf life (Frewer et al., 2011; Hayes & Sahu, 2017).”
Background
Irradiation of meat and meat products
Nam, K., Jo, C., & Ahn, D. (2016) · doi:10.1002/9781118350676.ch2 · Cited by 10
Safety of irradiated food
Nishihira, J. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-817240-7.00016-4 · Cited by 10
Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe
Bunker, I., & Zscheischler, J. (2023) · Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10806-023-09917-7 · Cited by 9
“This is based on themes identified by Donner et al. (2021), that frequently came up in acceptability studies and case studies on agri-food innovations (e.g. Frewer et al., 2011; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020; Sogari et al., 2019).”
Background
Does “Precision” Matter? A Q Study of Public Interpretations of Gene Editing in Agriculture
Nawaz, S., Satterfield, T., & Phurisamban, R. (2022) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/01622439221112460 · Cited by 9
“…2000; Durant and Legge 2005; Frewer et al. 2013; Costa-Font, Gil, and Traill 2008; Diamond, Bernauer, and Mayer 2020; Poortinga and Pidgeon 2005; Frewer et al. 2011; McComas, Besley, and Steinhardt 2014; Gaskell et al. 2004; Rose, Brossard, and Scheufele 2020; House et al. 2004; Wunderlich and…”
Background
Non-thermal Microbial Inactivation of Honey Raspberry Wine Through the Application of High-Voltage Electrospray Technology
Wang, Y., Hu, Z.-Y., Wang, B., Liao, J., & Zhang, M. (2022) · Food and Bioprocess Technology · doi:10.1007/s11947-021-02755-3 · Cited by 9
“The size and geometric characteristics of microbial cells (BarbosaCanovas & Sepúlveda, 2005) largely affect the strength of the applied electric field that can cause the cell membrane to rupture (Vereijken et al., 2011).”
Background
The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic quality on the willingness to pay for a convenient meal: A combination of home‐use‐test with online auctions
Garrido, D., Gallardo, R., Ross, C., Montero, M. L., & Tang, J.-M. (2021) · Journal of Sensory Studies · doi:10.1111/joss.12682 · Cited by 9
Framework for the socio-economic analysis of the cultivation of genetically modified crops
Kathage, J., Gómez-Barbero, M., & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2015) · doi:10.2791/060437 · Cited by 9
“There is a growing body of scientific literature on the public understanding and acceptance of GM crop cultivation globally (Costa-Font et al., 2008; De Groote, 2011; Frewer et al., 2011; Lusk et al., 2005; Smale et al., 2009).”
Background
Consumer Perception of Irradiated Food Products in the Abai Region of Kazakhstan
Orynbekov, D., Kalibekkyzy, Z., Nurgazezova, A., Nurymkhan, G., Kassenov, A., & Yermekov, Y. (2025) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods14091625 · Cited by 8
Misconceptions Still Drive Citizens’ Scepticism Towards Biotechnologically Produced Food
Spreen, N., & Klimmt, C. (2024) · Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/02704676241258060 · Cited by 8
“Similarly, there is extensive literature investigating determinants of acceptance of new food technologies (for reviews see, e.g.,: Frewer et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2012; Lusk et al., 2014; Rollin et al., 2011; Ronteltap et al., 2007; Siegrist, 2008; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020).”
Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants
Weisenfeld, U., Hauerwaas, A., Elshiewy, O., Halder, P., Wesseler, J., Cingiz, K., & Broer, I. (2023) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104883 · Cited by 12
How information affects consumers' attitudes toward and willingness to pay for cultured meat: evidence from Chinese urban consumers
Chen, J., Zhang, M., & Bai, J. (2023) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-12-2022-1133 · Cited by 10
Chinese public perceptions of food applications based on synthetic biology
Jin, S., Dawson, I. G. J., Clark, B., Li, W., & Frewer, L. J. (2023) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104950 · Cited by 8
“…been applied to explain people ’ s acceptance of emerging food technologies and/or their applications based on their risk and benefit perceptions (Frewer et al., 2011), e.g. in relation to genetic modification (Jin et al., 2022), nanotechnology (Gupta et al., 2015), food irradiation (Behrens et…”
Self-citation
Consumers fear for novel food processing technologies: an application of Food Technology Neophobia Scale in the consumption of processed milk products in Northern Uganda
Okello, R., Odongo, W., & Ongeng, D. (2022) · Applied Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.afres.2022.100053 · Cited by 8
“New food processing technologies are continuously being introduced in the food industry due to their potential beneﬁts such as longer product shelf life, convenience, sensory appeal, and nutritional superiority ( Frewer et al. 2011 ).”
The inverse relation between risks and benefits: The impact of individual differences in information processing style
Śleboda, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255569 · Cited by 12
“, due to pesticides or additives) was found to be unlikely to prompt a high level of public rejection [43].”
Background
Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure awareness on consumption of irradiated foods
Rusin, T., Araújo, W., Faiad, C., & Vital, H. D. C. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189314 · Cited by 8
Acceptance of a food of animal origin obtained through genetic modification and cloning in South America: a comparative study among university students and working adults
Schnettler, B., Velásquez, C. R., Miranda, H., Lobos, G., Orellana, L., Sepúlveda, J., Miranda, E., Adasme-Berríos, C., & Grunert, K. (2015) · Food Science and Technology · doi:10.1590/1678-457x.6699 · Cited by 8
“The majority preferred the best-established brands in the market (except Group 1 WA subsample), confirming that brand helps reduce the risk of buying foods produced with new technologies (Frewer et al., 2011; Rollin et al., 2011; Schnettler et al., 2012, 2014), such as GM and cloning.”
Background
The Role of Public (Mis)perceptions in the Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Implications for Food Nanotechnology Applications
Nucci, M. L., & Hallman, W. K. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118886373.ch3 · Cited by 13
Keys to Understanding and Addressing Consumer Perceptions and Concerns about Processed Foods
Meneses, Y. J., Cannon, K. J., & Flores, R. (2014) · Cereal Foods World · doi:10.1094/cfw-59-3-0141 · Cited by 8
Consumer Acceptance of Personalized Nutrition
Szakály, Z., Fehér, A., & Kiss, M. (2019) · Trends in Personalized Nutrition · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816403-7.00009-x · Cited by 8
Risk Perception, Communication and Food Safety
Frewer, L. (2012) · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2502-7_11 · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Acceptability of a sustainable technological innovation applied to traditional soft cheese: information concerning the benefits for health and the environment can compensate for a lower hedonic appreciation
Martin, C., Harel-Oger, M., Garric, G., le Loir, Y., Soler, L., & Marette, S. (2022) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104753 · Cited by 7
Feed for Thought: Factors Predicting Public Support for Funding and Labeling Preferences of Alternative Aquafeed
Ho, S. S., Tan, W.-D., Chuah, A. S. F., Chua, P., Lau, K. X. L., & Chan, J. Z. A. (2022) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2022.2051577 · Cited by 7
“In particular, the regulation and harmonization of labeling strategies and requirements can contribute to higher consumer acceptance (Frewer et al., 2011).”
Background
Would you purchase milk from a milk ATM? Consumers’ attitude as a key determinant of preference and purchase intention in uganda
Kataike, J., Kulaba, J., Mugenyi, A., de Steur, H., & Gellynck, X. (2019) · Agrekon · doi:10.1080/03031853.2019.1589543 · Cited by 7
“Therefore, it is important to involve consumers’ judgement since they are key stakeholders in determining the success of food technologies in the agri-food industry (Frewer et al., 2011).”
Background
Preferences for sunflower oil produced conventionally, produced with nanotechnology or genetically modified in the Araucanía Region of Chile
Schnettler, B., Crisóstomo, G., Mills, N., Miranda, H., Mora, M., Lobos, G., & Grunert, K. (2013) · International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources · doi:10.4067/s0718-16202013000100002 · Cited by 7
“Because the acceptance of foods produced with new technologies is directly associated with consumers’ perception of the risks and benefits of the associated technology (Frewer et al., 2011; Rollin et al., 2011; Siegrist et al., 2008; Siegrist et al., 2007), these results suggest that the participants perceived GM prod…”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Fundamentals of Food Irradiation
Moreira, R., & Castell-Perez, M. (2021) · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815781-7.00008-1 · Cited by 7
Unravelling Recent Advances in Ionizing Irradiation-Based Management of Post-Harvest Crop Losses: a Pan-Global Survey
Mitra, R., Das, P., Acharya, K., Chakraborty, A., Corato, U. D., Minkina, T., Kirichkov, M., Kalinitchenko, V., Sarkar, A., Keswani, C., et al. (2024) · Journal of Crop Health · doi:10.1007/s10343-024-01046-z · Cited by 6
“This apprehension can be elucidated by a myriad of factors, including the unfamiliarity of the technology used for processing food (Frewer et al. 2011).”
Exploring consumer perceptions and familiarity on apple production and processing under different conditions: conventional, organic, home-made, artisanal and industrial
Espinosa-Brisset, L., Pénicaud, C., Souchon, I., & Saint-Eve, A. (2023) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-01-2023-0026 · Cited by 6
Sense of Place and Perceived Community Change in Perceived Impacts of and cooperation with Local Aquaculture Development in the U·S
Johnson, B., & Rickard, L. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101882 · Cited by 6
Consumer Insight and Approaches in New Dairy Products Development
Mikkola, M., & Colantuono, F. (2017) · doi:10.1002/9781118906460.ch4g · Cited by 6
Food Safety: Consumer Perceptions and Practices
Wilcock, A., & Ball, B. (2017) · doi:10.1002/9781118474563.ch2 · Cited by 6
Os Principais Desafios para a Popularização de Práticas Inovadoras de Agricultura Inteligente
Sordi, V., & Vaz, S. M. (2021) · Desenvolvimento em Questão · doi:10.21527/2237-6453.2021.54.204-217 · Cited by 6
Bytes and bites: Consumer perceptions toward the power of artificial intelligence for foodborne risk mitigation through traceable food
Yang, C.-X., Baker, L. M., Irani, T., Telg, R., Bunch, J., & Watson, J. (2025) · Current Research in Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.crfs.2025.101119 · Cited by 5
“First, several studies have highlighted that trust plays a crucial role in the acceptance of new food technologies, significantly impacting consumer support on this issue (Frewer et al., 2011; Meijer et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2025; Lin et al., 2021; Roosen et al., 2015).”
Influential
Growing knowledge impact of gene-editing technology on public acceptance: a longitudinal analysis in Japan
Sato, A., Watanabe, D., & Saito, Y. (2024) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2024.2435709 · Cited by 5
“26 The coefficient for dummy variable representing respondents with children ( d_child ) is positive and significant in the CONS and MED categories, suggesting that parents with children are more likely to perceive GE technology positively than those without children.”
Evaluating Consumer Acceptance of Technological Advancements in Sustainable Agriculture
Merlino, V., Baima, L., Costamagna, C., Borra, D., Massaglia, S., Blanc, S., & Brun, F. (2025) · Applied Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.afres.2025.101362 · Cited by 4
Benefit Perceptions and their Influence on the Willingness to Join Community Supported Agriculture (CSA).
Galley, S., Saleh, R., & Bottazzi, P. (2025) · Cleaner and Responsible Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.clrc.2025.100263 · Cited by 4
Public opinion outweighs knowledge: A dual‐process framework for understanding acceptance of genetic modification among scientists and laypeople
Chen, A.-F., Zhang, X., & Jin, J. (2025) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.17704 · Cited by 4
“Ethical considerations and skepticism regarding the boundaries of scientiﬁc knowledge further contribute to public scrutiny of risk assessments and regulatory frameworks for GM technology (Frewer et al., 2011).”
Developing Food Consumer Attitudes towards Ionizing Radiation and Genetic Modification
Junaedi, I., McNeill, L. S., & Hamlin, R. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16203427 · Cited by 4
“For example, in one study, food irradiation may evoke connections with nuclear power and radioactivity [25,54,86].”
Background
Information on the processing of organic food: consumers' perception
Sinesio, F., Saba, A., Moneta, E., Peparaio, M., Civitelli, E. S., & Paoletti, F. (2023) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-04-2023-0317 · Cited by 4
Are improvements in convenience good enough for consumers to prefer new food processing technologies?
Garrido, D., & Gallardo, R. K. (2021) · Agribusiness · doi:10.1002/agr.21716 · Cited by 4
“As such, emerging food processing technologies are needed, however, these are often rejected because they are perceived to be risky or against societal norms (Frewer et al., 2011; Lusk et al., 2014).”
Background
Social dimensions of synthetic biology in the agrifood sector: the perspective of Chinese and EU scientists
Jin, S., Clark, B., Li, W., Kuznesof, S. A., & Frewer, L. J. (2021) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-12-2020-1142 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Assessing trajectories for innovation in farming from a profit theory perspective: The case of Ontario, Canada
Menna, A., & Walsh, P. (2020) · doi:10.1177/0030727020937383 · Cited by 4
“Locally grown foods are perceived to be fresher, healthier with economic benefits to the community at large, hence consumers may be willing to pay a premium price (Frewer et al., 2011; Mount, 2012).”
Background
Assessing Readiness Levels of Production Technologies for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture
Maciejczak, M., & Faltmann, J. (2018) · doi:10.19041/apstract/2018/1-2/7 · Cited by 4
Synthetic biology applied in the agrifood sector: Societal priorities and pitfalls
Frewer, L. J., Coles, D. G. H., Dijkstra, A. M., Kuznesof, S. A., Kendall, H., & Kaptan, G. (2016) · Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce · doi:10.19041/apstract/2016/2-3/10 · Cited by 5
“…high levels of risk perception associated with GM was driven by concerns related to (for example) irreversibility of negative biological effects once released into the environment, such as the ability to confer “unnatural” traits on “descendant” organisms (Torgersen, 2009; Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
Consumer expectations and attitudes toward nanomaterials in foods
Zhao, S.-L., Yue, C.-Y., & Kuzma, J. (2020) · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815866-1.00017-0 · Cited by 4
Sustainable Innovation in Food Science and Engineering
Betoret, E., Calabuig-Jiménez, L., Betoret, N., Barrera, C., Seguí, L., & Fito, P. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-803751-5.00008-8 · Cited by 4
The views of experts and the public regarding societal preferences for innovation in nanotechnology
Gupta, N. (2013) · doi:10.18174/282201 · Cited by 4
“It has been noted that the experiences with genetically modified organisms and other controversial technologies have been linked with new technologies (including nanotechnology (Frewer et al., 2011a; Marchant et al., 2008)).”
BackgroundInfluential
Analysis of the consumer’s perception of urban food products from a soilless system in rooftop greenhouses: a case study from the Mediterranean area of Barcelona (Spain)
Ercilla-Montserrat, M., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Sanyé-Mengual, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Banderas, K., Rieradevall, J., & Gabarrell, X. (2019) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-019-09920-7 · Cited by 3
Non-Thermal Processing Technologies in Food Industries
Yuan, X.-Y., Fang, Y., Diao, Y., Wu, B., Wen, X., Nag, A., & Liang, Y. (2026) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods15101677 · Cited by 3
“The increasing demand from customers for fresher food materials with longer shelf life and improved sensory properties has driven extensive research into non-thermal food treatment [33].”
From microbes to market: Unveiling consumers’ beliefs regarding precision fermentation-derived Gouda
Kilimann, J., Hartmann, M., Macht, J., & Klink-Lehmann, J. (2025) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105844 · Cited by 4
Comparing apples to oranges: Consumer ambivalence regarding an eco-innovation – laser marking of organic fruits
Pfiffelmann, J., Untilov, O., Thøgersen, J. B., Gengenbach, A., & Mionetto, C. (2025) · Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) · doi:10.1177/20515707241305245 · Cited by 2
“Due to the anticipation of potential risks, consumers are generally suspicious of new products and technology (Cardello et al., 2007; Frewer et al., 2011; Siddiqui et al., 2022).”
How Argentinian Consumers Perceive the Safety of Irradiated Foods
Rusin, T., Villavicencio, A. L. C. H., Araújo, W. M. C., & Faiad, C. (2024) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods13233891 · Cited by 3
“Providing positive information about food irradiation can significantly increase consumer acceptance [40].”
Evaluating consumers' acceptability of laser-labeled apple fruit
Khadka, D., Talavera, M. J., Pliakoni, E. D., Britton, L. L., Nwadike, L., & Bhullar, M. (2024) · Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100401 · Cited by 3
Assessment of awareness on consumption of irradiated foods among Saudi population using a validated psychometric scale
Shubayr, N. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1387219 · Cited by 3
Opportunities, problems and pitfalls of nutrition and health claims
Bremmers, H., & van der Meulen, B. (2013) · doi:10.19041/apstract/2013/2-3/16 · Cited by 3
Introduction to the GM and Non‐GM Supply Chain Co‐Existence and Traceability
Bertheau, Y., & Davison, J. (2012) · doi:10.1002/9781118373781.ch1 · Cited by 3
“…GMOs, as well as risk–beneﬁt analyses and associated risk communication, may differ between countries (Durant and Legge, 2005, 2006; Finucane and Holup, 2005; Frewer et al., 2011; Frewer et al., 2003a; Frewer et al., 2003b; Guehlstorf, 2008; Guehlstorf and Hallstrom, 2005; van Dijk et al., 2011).”
Background
FoodTech and AgriTech Startup Valuation
Moro-Visconti, R. (2021) · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71608-0_15 · Cited by 3
Public Perceptions of the Ethics of In-vitro Meat: Determining an Appropriate Course of Action
Laestadius, L. I. (2015) · Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9573-8 · Cited by 116
“We also know from prior research that altering food using what is perceived as ‘‘unnatural’’ and ‘‘bioactive’’ techniques appears to generate a particularly negative response among members of the public and also raises ethical concerns (Frewer et al. 2011).”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Os usuários frente aos alimentos geneticamente modificados e a informação na etiqueta
Sebastian-Ponce, M. I., Sanz-Valero, J., & Wanden-Berghe, C. (2014) · Revista de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/s0034-8910.2014048004914 · Cited by 2
Sensory Evaluation and Consumer Perception of Precision Fermentation-Derived Foods: Current Insights and Future Directions
Stein, A., Gibbons, J. G., & Nolden, A. (2026) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2026.105791 · Cited by 2
Cross-country differences in consumer acceptance and advocacy of novel food technologies
Lin, B., Conroy, D., Errmann, A., Gan, I., & Fahn, H. (2026) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2026.105897 · Cited by 2
Beyond risk-benefit perceptions: social influence pathways in public attitudes toward genetic modification in China
Zhang, X., Chen, A.-F., & Jin, J. (2026) · Chinese Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/17544750.2025.2606000 · Cited by 2
Future-oriented trajectories of business model innovation for agri-food SMEs
Bruni, A., Magno, F., & Cassia, F. (2025) · EuroMed Journal of Business · doi:10.1108/emjb-10-2024-0282 · Cited by 5
A comprehensive review of postharvest quality and non-thermal preservation techniques for functional mushrooms
Nayana, N. P., Ramya, C., Kumar, T. V. A., Aradwad, P. P., Thakur, A., & Sahoo, P. K. (2025) · Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2024.2448211 · Cited by 2
“Non-thermal food processing offers a viable alternative to traditional thermal methods, meeting consumer demand for high-quality processed foods by eliminating elevated temperatures and avoiding the adverse effects of heat on food products (Frewer et al. 2011).”
Consumers’ Risk Perceptions of Production Practices to Enhance the Nutrient Content of Microgreens
Rihn, A., Walters, K., Bumgarner, N., & Bajgain, P. (2024) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101542 · Cited by 2
Characterizing Healthy Dietary Practices in Japan: Insights from a 2024 Nationwide Survey and Cluster Analysis
Nomura, S., Eguchi, A., Maruyama-Sakurai, K., Higashino, R., Yoneoka, D., Kawashima, T., Tanoue, Y., Kawamura, Y., Kumar, R. S., Fujita, T., et al. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16101412 · Cited by 2
“This finding challenges the traditional perception that frozen foods are inferior in health quality or less desirable compared to fresh foods [45,46].”
Background
Innovative approaches in food processing: enhancing quality, preservation, and safety through advanced technologies: A review
Salifou, A., Konfo, C. T., Bokossa, A., Chabi, N., Tchobo, F., & Soumanou, M. (2023) · World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2023.20.2.2297 · Cited by 2
“Precision nutrition stands out as a promising future direction [80, 81].”
Background
Public sensemaking of active packaging technologies: A feature-based perspective
Festila, A., Chrysochou, P., Hieke, S., & Massri, C. (2021) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625211015830 · Cited by 2
“The complex and equivocal nature of the technology tends to foster a sense of uneasiness and individuals can become circumspect towards and often even frightened of the technology (Frewer et al., 2011).”
BackgroundInfluential
Bibliometric analysis of traceability in agri-food research
Hisjam, M., Sartika, V., Priyandari, Y., & Sutopo, W. (2020) · IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environment · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/583/1/012029 · Cited by 2
Heterogeneity in attitudes underlying preferences for genomic technology producing hybrid poplars on public land
Maruta, A. A., Boxall, P. C., & Mohapatra, S. (2018) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0293 · Cited by 2
Sustainable Intensification of Modern Agriculture Through Production Technologies on Different Readiness Levels
Maciejczak, M., & Faltmann, J. (2017) · doi:10.24326/fmpmsa.2017.39 · Cited by 2

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