CoChat
Sign Up
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 ‘bioactive’ raise particular concerns - related to unpredictable effects, uncontrolled use, and ethical concerns. Perceptions of ‘unnaturalness’ alone are unlikely to raise a food technology to high levels of public rejection. Trust in regulation and effective labelling are also important considerations.

Overview

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.

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 0 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Behrens, 2009, Brazilian consumer views on food irradiation, Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 10, 383, 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.01.001 · DOI
  2. Bergmann, 2007, Bioethical considerations for human nutrigenomics, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 567
  3. Bruhn, 1998, Consumer acceptance of irradiated food: theory and reality, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 52, 129, 10.1016/S0969-806X(98)00088-7 · DOI
  4. Butler, 2009, Cloned animal products in the human food chain: FDA should protect American consumers, Food and Drug Law Journal, 64, 473
  5. Butz, 2003, Consumer attitudes to high pressure food processing, Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 1, 30
  6. Cobb, 2004, Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395, 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 · DOI
  7. 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
  8. Currall, 2006, What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?, Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153, 10.1038/nnano.2006.155 · DOI
  9. Diehl, 1993, Will irradiation enhance or reduce food safety?, Food Policy, 18, 143, 10.1016/0306-9192(93)90022-4 · DOI
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Frewer, 2004, Societal aspects of genetically modified foods, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1181, 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002 · DOI
  13. Gaskell, 2004, GM foods and the misperception of risk perception, Risk Analysis, 24, 185, 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x · DOI
  14. Gunes, 2006, Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods: results of a survey conducted on Turkish consumers, Food Science and Technology, 39, 443
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Joost, 2005, Nutrigenomics. Scientific basis, status and perspectives of application, Journal of the American Dietics Association, 105, 589
  22. Kahan, 2008, Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87, 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 · DOI
  23. Kaput, 2004, Nutritional Genomics: the next frontier in the postgenomic era, Physiological Genomics, 16, 166, 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00107.2003 · DOI
  24. Komduur, 2007, The good life: living for health and life without risks? On a prominent script of nutrigenomics, Nutrition Reviews, 65, 301
  25. Kuznesof, S.A.B. (2010). Consumer Acceptance of Novel Foods: A grounded theory study. PhD thesis submitted to and available from Newcastle University.
  26. Lassen, 2002, Ethics and genetic engineering - lessons to be learned from GM foods, Bioprocess Biosystems Engineering, 24, 263, 10.1007/s004490100262 · DOI
  27. 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
  28. Mehta, 2004, From biotechnology to nanotechnology: what can we Learn from Earlier technologies?, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 34, 10.1177/0270467604263119 · DOI
  29. 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
  30. Muller, 2003, Nutrigenomics: goals and strategies, Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 315, 10.1038/nrg1047 · DOI
  31. 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
  32. Oberdörster, 2005, Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 823, 10.1289/ehp.7339 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Ravishankar, 2008, Pulsed electric fields, Food Science and Technology International, 14, 429, 10.1177/1082013208100535 · DOI
  38. Renn, 2006, Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 153, 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 · DOI
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Suk, 2007, Dolly for dinner? Assessing commercial and regulatory trends in cloned livestock, Nature Biotechnology, 25, 47, 10.1038/nbt0107-47 · DOI
  45. 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
  46. Weiss, 2006, Functional materials in food nanotechnology, Journal of Food Science, 71, 107, 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00195.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–347 of 347

Metadata

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
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
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