Psychological Determinants of Consumer Acceptance of

Food Technologies- A Review

Nidhi Gupta, Arnout Fischer and Lynn J. Frewer

Marketing & Consumer Behaviour Group

Wageningen University

1

Summary

Historically research into the determinants of public acceptance of merging technologies

(in general, and those focused in the agri-food sector) has tended to occur subsequent to public

rejection of the application of technologies. Increasingly such research may be used to explore

how such products will be received before they have been developed (“consumer pull”). Most of

the peer reviewed research is directed towards building our understanding on factors that play

an important role in determining consumer acceptance of food technology. From this review it

becomes clear that research has increasingly incorporated an ever-increasing variety of

determinants used to predict public acceptance. In particular, research is focusing on how

consumers make trade- offs between perceived risks and benefits, as well as the role of other

psychologically relevant factors such as affective response and the use of heuristics in

consumer decision making regarding the products of new technologies. However, the influence

of socio political and cultural differences in the results; in combination with the lack of studies

covering many regions in the world, implies that extrapolating the findings and interpretation

from one region to another is difficult. This is particularly relevant if the results are to be used to

develop a regionally focused market strategy. In many areas of emerging food technologies,

despite societal discussion about the need to develop research focused on consumer

acceptance, the actual peer reviewed literature is scare (for example, in the area of

personalised nutrition or nanotechnology applied to food production). Cross-cultural

comparisons outside of Europe and Northern America are also infrequently researched, in

particular using the same models and potential predictors of consumer acceptance.

The issue of public acceptance has been relatively well studied in the Europe and

Northern America, but peer reviewed data from South East Asia and other emerging economies

is scarce. Therefore systematic cross-cultural analysis using state of the art methodology, which

is also published in peer reviewed literature and made available in the public domain, is

required. Analyzing public acceptance of novel food technologies in these countries could be

very interesting as they comprise of some of the largest growing economies in the world, as well

as representing very many increasingly affluent consumer populations.

2

1. Introduction

1.1 Technology, Society and Consumer Acceptance of Novel Foods

Producers, processers and wholesalers of food, as well as retailers, are negotiating the

development of new markets with many stakeholders across many regional and even cross-

continental borders. Successful development of new markets is, however, ultimately dependent

on consumer acceptance and purchasing of produced foods.

New technologies are increasing being applied to ensure food security as well as

providing additional consumer benefits related to health and quality. For example, limiting the

health burden caused by Vitamin A deficiency has motivated the development of Golden Rice

9which has been genetically modified to increase beta-carotene content of the diet, which is

metabolised to vitamain A). Consumer acceptance of food technologies is an important

determinant of consumer acceptance of the products themselves.

Understanding consumer responses to emerging technologies and their applications, is

key to optimizing strategic development of science and technology in the future, as well as

developing and refining commercialisation strategies associated with specific products (Frewer,

Howard, & Shepherd, 1997). Societal responses to the application of different technologies in

the agrifood sector has been a focus of increased societal concern in comparison to, for

example, medical applications of technology (Bredahl, 2001), in part because many of these

technologies have been developed without reference to potential consumer acceptance of

different applications in the agrifood sector per se (Henson, Annou, Cranfield, & Ryks, 2008),

contextualised by an increasing internationalised market. Although many of these technologies

promise to deliver profound benefits to society, they may also be associated with substantial

risks both in terms of environmental and health impacts (Gunter & Harris, 1998), and consumer

perceptions of risk. The risk- benefit trade-off for these technologies have often sparked

controversy and led to social, political and ethical debates in the past and today. In addition, it

makes little sense to consider food technologies in isolation of other technological events and

their relation to society, as attitudes to food technologies are informed by technological

developments in other spheres.

3

Some new technologies have been transformative, insomuch as they impact upon the way

society structures and organises itself. For example; improvements in ICT technologies have

resulted in increased communication availability of individuals independent of time and space,

which potentially improves work-related flexibility, but on the other hand the increasing potential

availability pressure on individual working practices. The green revolution at the beginning of the

twentieth century has severely limited famine in the developed world and created opportunity for

large scale industrialised farming, rather than the labour intensive farm practice that were

dominant before this time. This has allowed cities to expand further, and agriculture to become

a sector with reduced dependency on human labour, resulting in increased employment in other

sectors. “Transformative technology has defined as a “social practice that embodies the

capacity of societies to transform themselves by creating and manipulating not only physical

objects, but also symbols and cultural forms” (Mordini, 2007). Evident from this definition is that

sequentially evolving technologies are not isolated from the general society in which they are

embedded, but contribute significantly to the social environment in which they are embedded.

The increased dependency of society on these technologies has indicated the need to

systematically assess “society-technology” interactions. Such interactions are “two way”. On

one hand, technology brings about radical changes in society, while on the other the fate of a

technology and its applications is determined by the society in which it is embedded. Increased

complexity in terms of technological developments poses new challenges to public

understanding of their implications, whilst at the same time these same developments are

shaped by public controversies and concerns (Horst, 2005).

Various technologies have historically been the subject of negative consumer and/or citizen

attitudes. Negative public attitudes frequently resulted in negative consequences for the

commercialization of these technologies. In particular, unpredicted events and accidents

affecting the public have resulted in fear and reluctance to adopt certain technologies for use in

society, as well as resulting in consumer rejection of the products of these technologies... The

market introduction of the first generation of genetically modified food crops created highly

polarised dialogue internationally. The high levels of societal debate was detrimental for the

adoption and commercialisation of GMO, at least in some regions of the world (Aerni, 2005;

Batrinou, Dimitriou, Liatsos, & Pletsa, 2005; Groth Iii, 2001; Klintman, 2002; Scholderer &

Frewer, 2003; Trait, 2001). As a consequence, the issue of societal acceptance of technology

has acquired immense importance in terms of strategic development, application and

commercialization of emerging technologies, not least in the agri-food sector.

4

1.2 Science, Society and Food Technologies

In the context of potentially controversial technologies, food technologies deserve special

mention. It has often been stated in the literature that food technology may represent a

particular source of controversy (Slovic, 1987), and to some extent this is supported in the

scientific literature. Food is vital for human survival, and concern about its production and

preparation is widespread, at least in Europe (Hohl & Gaskell, 2008). Notable is the fact that

food-related issues co-evolved with human civilization. From surviving as hunters and

gatherers, humans evolved and mastered the art of agriculture, introducing new varieties of

edible crops and ways to grow and process these into safer and longer lasting foodstuffs, thus

improving food security. Agriculture rapidly became the most important occupation for many

members of the population across the world, which further led to the development of nations

evolving agriculturally based economies. Many food technologies can be described as

“transformative” as they have the capacity to transform society by introducing completely new

social phenomena. A case in point is demonstrated by the rise of agricultural technology which

shifted the dominant societal structure from the dominant nomadic hunter-gatherer paradigm to

one focused on stationary communities, with time available to develop more complex

technologies. Food consumption is integral to community survival, as well as having culturally

symbolic associations and implications for employment and societal structure. What once

started as simple means to control the growth of natural food sources to facilitate food security

now involves application of state of the art technology, involving highly mechanized tools and

technological innovations for production and processing. In the context of the global market and

international trade, food is treated as a commodity and its import and export enables

transactions within the global “food market”. Surplus food or food scarcity determines, to a

certain extent, the overall well-being of all nations thereby placing immense importance in areas

of applications of new technologies to food as decisive element of product and process

innovation (Henson et al., 2008).

Research and development activities in the food industry is currently investing in a variety of

novel production and processing technologies that may result in economic and high quality

products. Food technologies are not only used to enhance productivity and food security, but

are also used to develop new products with additional qualities which promote health and

sustainable production. The application of genetic modification to develop new traits in crops

has resulted in the introduction of crops with such as increased pesticide resistance, or ability to

5

grow in arid conditions. Public opposition to the uncontrolled release of such genetically

modified plants has been well documented (Frewer et al., 1997). The strategic development and

commercialization of genetically modified animals for food production processes has been the

subject of continued public debate and scrutiny (E.g. see www.projectpegasus.eu). The cloning

of production animals has been a particular source of controversy in the US (Horst, 2005;

Sharma, 2005). Other recent developments include examples include functional foods and

nutrigenomics, which deliver health benefits to both humans (and potentially production

animals). The use of human genetic data in the delivery of personalized nutrition strategies

remains controversial (Ronteltap, van Trijp, Renes, & Frewer, 2007). More recently innovations

in nanotechnology are delivering improvements across the food chain, including production (for

example, the introduction of smart pesticides), animal health (remote bio monitoring of animal

health), improved delivery of micronutrients and quality enhancers through, for example,

microencapsulation) and improved safety and nutritional qualities (for example, through the use

of nano-filters to remove micro-organisms and undesirable food components such as saturated

fats from fluids). (See; inter alia, www8.nationalacademies.org, www.biont.wur). Despite

potential advantages, some resistance to nanotechnology has already been identified in some

parts of the worlds, for example, Switzerland (Siegrist, Stampfli, Kastenholz, & Keller, 2008).

Food technologies have the potential for long-term effects on human values, power

structures and ideas and act as potential drivers of socioeconomic, political and institutional

change (Crow & Sarewitz, 2001; Dolata, 2009). Examples of transformative food technologies in

the last century include the “green revolution”, in particular the widespread introduction of

chemical pesticides introduced in the early 1940s. Increased food security and reduced agrarian

labour requirements enabled a shift from rural to urban communities in the 1950’s and 1960’s,

and facilitated the restructuring of the workforce in many areas. More recently, cloning

technology has reduced uncertainties associated with plant and animal breeding, but also raised

ethical concerns in some areas of the world. (Table1). These innovative food technologies have

permeated society, at times being applauded by the society for its contribution to solving world

problems such as food security (as was the case in the “Green Revolution”), while

simultaneously raising public criticism and caution in the areas of food and feed safety,

sustainable agriculture and conservation of natural ecosystems as seen in the case of plant

genetic engineering (Byrne et al., 2002).

6

Today, consumers are becoming more selective about what they consume, and more

conscious of the technological processes underpinning novel food production (Kornelis, De

Jonge, Frewer, & Dagevos, 2007). This reflects their increased concerns about food quality,

safety and its nutritional status, as well as societally relevant trends in terms of fair trade and

sustainable production (Da Costa, 2000). To ensure successful commercialization of emerging

food technologies and effective national, regional and international food governance, consumer

acceptance plays a pivotal role (Cardello, Schutz, & Lesher, 2007; Henson et al., 2008). The

way in which the public conceptualises different applications of food technology is driven by

perceptions of risk and benefit associated with particular applications or production methods

(Frewer, Howard, & Aaron, 1998). More recently, the discussion has focused on the

interrelationship between risk, benefit and cost, in terms of economic and ethical factors (Koenig

et al, in press). Effective risk benefit communication is also contingent on ‘societal trust’ in

regulators, regulatory institutions, industry and other food chain actors. The occurrences of

various food safety incidents, many of which have had international and national consequences

for quality of life and economic functioning has highlighted the need to develop and maintain

public confidence in the safety of food and in the management of emerging technologies (Eiser,

Miles, & Frewer, 2002; Van Kleef et al., 2007).

7

Table1. Transformative food technologies developed and applied over the last sixty years

Technology1 First commercial application

Major impacts and effects of technology

Major actors

Pesticides (Crane et al., 2006; Haylamicheal & Dalvie, 2009; Rother, Hall, & London, 2008)

1940- DDT use

-Revolutionizes pest and disease management

-Increases agricultural productivity

-Ensured food security

-Increases environment consciousness

-Development of risk assessment models

-Regulators -Industrialists -Farmers -Consumers -NGOs - Bystanders and end-users

RFID (Reid, 2007; Wright et al., 2009)

1977- transponders

-Fastens payment services

-Privacy/tracking issues

-Security concerns

-Regulators -Policy makers

-Citizens -Companies

Genomics (Costa-Font & Mossialos, 2006; Foster & Sharp, 2002; Møldrup, 2001)

1988- mapping and sequencing of human genome

-Catalyses ethical debate

-Privacy issues -improvised health and nutrition

-food security -re-emergence of religious belief with scientific developments

-Regulators -Policy makers

-Scientists -Citizens Consumers

Genetic modification (Bauer, 2002; Lynskey, 2006; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2000; Talukder & Kuzma, 2008; Uzogara, 2000; Vergragt & Brown, 2008; von Geibler, Liedtke, Wallbaum, & Schaller, 2006)

1994- first GM crop

-Social, political and economic issue

-Health and environment concern

-Creates Ethical debate

-Mobilizes Pro poor discourse

-radical developments in pharmaceutical sector

- Regulators -Policy makers

-Farmers -Industries -Citizens - Consumers -NGOs

8

Cloning (Kitzinger & Williams, 2005; Nisbet & Goidel, 2007)

1996- Cloned sheep “Dolly”

- Leads to ethical debate

-Privacy concern -Raises questions about quality of life

-religion

-Regulators -Policy makers

-Scientists -NGOs -citizens -consumers

Nanotechnology (Burri, 2007; Kuzma & Besley, 2008; Throne-Holst & Stø, 2008)

Now

- Decisive influence on production processes, energy and material use and communication and information systems

- Economic growth with reduced material consumption

- Cheaper, cleaner, lighter and stronger products

- Ethical debate - Political discussion - Environmental and

health risk

-Regulators -Policy makers

-Scientists -Farmers -Consumers -NGOs

1 References to the papers used to identify the moment of introduction, societal transformation and relevant stakeholders for each transformative technology

Societal rejection of technologies has generated wide interest in academia, particularly in

the arena of social and behavioural research, and science and technology studies (Sjöberg,

2002). Considerable research has been conducted on risk (and more recently benefit)

perceptions and public attitudes as these are believed to be among the most important factors

which potential influencing societal acceptance of new technologies (Alhakami & Slovic, 1994;

Barnett, Cooper, & Senior, 2007; Costa-Font, Rudisill, & Mossialos, 2008; Gaskell et al., 2004;

Johnson & Slovic, 1995; Knight & Warland, 2005; MacGregor, Slovic, & Morgan, 1994;

Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2006; Purvis-Roberts, Werner, & Frank, 2007; Renn, 2006; Savadori et

al., 2004; Schulte, Hart, & Van der Vorst, 2004; Sjoberg & Fromm, 2001; Slovic, 1996; Slovic,

Flynn, & Layman, 1991). Different research traditions have influenced how theoretical

understandings of risk and benefit perceptions operationalise societal responses to emerging

technologies and their applications. For example, research in the psychological tradition has

attempted to analyze how individuals define risks and to understand the key factors influencing

9

risk perceptions, and how these influence behaviour and human decision-making (Ricci,

Newsholme, Bellaby, & Flynn, 2006). Empirical research on food risk perception has became

preeminent following to the debates about genetic modification of food and a number of

significant food scares in the 1990s, for example associated with food additives and

preservatives, pesticide use such as Daminozide (Alar) and organophosphates, mad cow

disease (BSE) in cattle, the Belgian dioxin crises, and other contamination incidents such as

Sudan red in international food chains, and cases of deliberate fraud such as melamine added

to milk powder in china to increase profitability (Houghton et al., 2008)

Many studies focused on (food) risk perception have been informed by the psychometric

paradigm developed in the late 1970’s to investigate public perceptions of the risks of nuclear

power, natural hazards, and chemicals (Slovic, 1996). Miles and Frewer (2001) report that food

risk perception is multidimensional and includes not only health risks but also risks related to the

environment, economy, animals, and future generations (Hohl & Gaskell, 2008). The

acceptability of food technologies reflects public attitudes toward technology in general, as well

as perceptions associated with specific technologies (Frewer et al., 1998).

This report will draw upon insights from social science research into the food technologies in

past which have had major impacts on society. This will facilitate better understanding of the

issues society faces as many new developments in food sector begin to have various impacts

on society. The report brings together published evidence from various empirical studies,

dealing with the issue of social responses to transformative food technologies. In particular, this

review aims to summarize the psychological factors relevant to understanding societal

technology acceptance or rejection. The social science approaches to understanding societal

responses to risk, benefit and technology will be assessed, together with temporal changes in

these activities with time and different geographical and cultural locations.

Thus this report aims to review the available evidence to answer the following questions:

• What factors influence public perception about food technology?

• What are the trends over time with regard to public perception research associated

with food technology?

• What are the regional trends with regard to public perception research associated

with food technology?

• What gaps within the research field can be identified?

10

2. Methods

2.1 The Database

A search was carried out using the Scopus1 (electronic) database to identify scientific papers

which included information on determinants of consumer acceptance of technology. As the aim

of the research was to examine how different factors influence technology acceptance, non-food

technologies of importance in this regard were included. Scopus covers over sixteen thousand

peer reviewed journals belonging to scientific, medical and social science disciplines. The

search was conducted twice, once to gain information on which technologies have led to

relevant social research. Having identified these technologies, papers related to them were

collected using a set of search keywords. The keywords are entered in the search field matches

were identified “article, title, abstract and keywords”. The search was limited to peer-reviewed

articles and review papers and the subject area was confined to social science including

psychology. There was no restriction on publication date of the articles. The title, authors,

abstract, keywords and bibliographical data of the articles founded were stored in Endnote.

Duplicate articles, opinion papers and non related articles were omitted, leaving only relevant

articles and review papers.

2.2 Selection of Technologies

In order to finalize the technologies to be included in the present study, the search profile in

Scopus included the following terms: “new technology scare”, “technology scare”, “controversy

new technology”, “controversy new technology environment”, “fear new technology society”,

“fear new technology”, “risk perception new technology”, “risk new technology” and “new

technology consumer response”. The search led to in total 15,010 papers (Table2). A review of

these papers indicated that ten technologies were found to appear prominently (although not

necessarily evenly distributed in time). These were nuclear technology, Information and

communication technology (including computers, internet and GSM), Chemicals used in

agriculture (pesticide and insecticide), Biotechnology (Genetic modification, Genomics and

cloning), hydrogen technology, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and nanotechnology.

1 www.Scopus.com (subscription required). Only peer reviewed papers in the English language were considered as inclusion of non-English papers and finding non-published reports requires competences and capacity beyond the scope of this project.

11

Table2. Preliminary search in Scopus for identifying the technologies

KEYWORDS RESULTS

New Technology Scare 25

Technology Scare 83

Controversy New Technology 702

Controversy New Technology, Environment 47

Fear New Technology Society 121

Fear New Technology 652

Fear New Technology Agriculture 15

Risk Perception New Technology 306

Risk New Technology 12,739

New Technology Consumer Response 335 A further literature search was conducted to gather papers focused on these technologies. The

keywords used for each of the technologies were: “name of the technology” AND “scare OR

fear”; “controversy”; “risk perception”; “consumer acceptance OR consumer response OR

consumer acceptability”; “societal response OR societal acceptance OR societal concern OR

social acceptability”. In total 301 papers were found to be of relevance. Table 3 illustrates the

breakup of the papers found for each of the technologies. Out of these ten technologies, six of

them are related to food. These six technologies will be used for further analyses.

Table3. Summary of papers found for specific technologies

Technology No. of relevant papers

“Genetic Modification OR GM OR GMO OR Genetically modified” 106

Genomics 13

Cloning 12

“Nuclear energy OR nuclear technology OR nuclear power” 49

“Hydrogen energy OR hydrogen fuel” 07

“GSM OR Mobile phones” 11

RFID 06

“Pesticide OR Insecticide” 33

Nanotechnology 17

“ICT OR Information technology OR Internet OR computer science” 47

12

2.3 Analytical Categorization of the Literature

Relevant and important information such as year of publication, research question, country

(where the data were collected), methodology, and the results were extracted from the research

articles. Out of these 301 papers, 94 papers were found to address the factors affecting and

shaping social acceptance of food technology. The factors identified were categorized using a

grounded approach developed from insights into perceptions relevant to technology

acceptance. The categories were Expert versus Citizen knowledge; Affect (general, negative

and positive); General impact general, positive and negative); Impact on health (positive and

negative); Impact on the environment (positive and negative); Heuristics and decision rules;

Values (general, positive and negative); Perceived risk; Perceived benefit; Perceived cost; Risk

management (positive and negative); Risk assessment (complete and incomplete); Attitudes

(general, and negative); Ethics and values; Role of societal actors; Trust and culpability; Values

(general, positive and negative); Negative concern; Citizen knowledge; Individual differences;

Technology characteristics; Communication and Costs (see appendix for the abbreviations of

these factors used in the figures).

For all the 94 research papers, the countries where data were collected were noted. In total,

twenty five different countries were identified, (including research which had compared data

from consumers in different countries or cultural contexts) and, where available, studies

containing secondary data. These countries were then categorized into eleven regions : North-

West Europe (UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Poland, Ireland,

Norway); Northern America (USA and Canada); Latin America (Trinidad, Mexico and

Argentina); Mediterranean (Turkey, Italy and Spain); South East Asia (Malaysia, Japan);

Australia; Developing countries (Nepal, Bangladesh and Philippines); Sub Saharan Africa; India;

Cross Cultural (papers where data were collected for more than one country) and Secondary

Data (position papers and review articles). There were 11 research papers including cross

cultural analysis. These included some of the countries from the categories already described,

but in addition included some unique countries not found elsewhere. These were: France,

Greece, Portugal, Norway, China, Romania, South Africa and New Zealand. It is important to

note that data published in non-peer reviewed sources, or sources not included in Scopus, were

excluded from the analysis, in order to develop and maintain boundaries for inclusion, including

that of academic rigour.

13

2.4 Data Analysis

The results of the categorization were arranged in an incidence matrix of 94 rows

(representing articles) and 30 columns (representing the determinants of technology acceptance

or rejection), with 1 indicating the presence of the determinant in that article, and 0 indicating its

absence. Correspondence analysis was used to analyze this matrix using SPSS.

Correspondence analysis is an exploratory data analysis technique for the graphical display of

contingency tables and multivariate categorical data. In this analysis the rows and columns of a

rectangular data matrix is scaled in corresponding units so that each can be displayed

graphically in the same low-dimensional space (Hoffman & Franke, 1986). Correspondence

analysis offers great potential for qualitative data analysis as it not only helps to identify the

existence of relationship between variables, but also helps to show how variables are related.

To avoid determinants with very low frequencies distorting the analysis, the determinants that

occurred only once were merged into broader categories (explicitly, the role of societal actors

positive and negative were merged into role of societal actors; risk management complete and

incomplete were merged into risk management and risk assessment complete and incomplete

were merged into risk assessment).

3. Result and Discussion

3.1 Determinants influencing public perception about food technologies

3.1.1 Determinants & Technology

Thirty determinants were found to influence public perception of six of the technologies

(Fig.1). From the graph we can see that perceived risk, trust, perceived benefit, citizen

knowledge and individual differences are the most studied determinants contributing to more

than 50% of the total number of times a determinant appeared in a study. Perceived risk was

found to be the most researched issue (13%), followed by trust (12%) and perceived benefit

(11.8%). Twenty eight % of the influential factors were explained by the constructs: attitudes

(general), negative health and environment impact, the role of societal actors, negative affect,

technology characteristics, cost and general values. The majority of papers associated with

determinants of social acceptance focused on the technology of genetic modification.

Correspondence analysis showed that certain determinants tend to be associated with

specific technologies (Fig. 2). Pesticides were found to be more strongly associated with

attitudes, and to a lesser extent with health impacts (ether positive or negative), citizen

knowledge and perceived benefits. The majority of the determinants studied were found to have

strong association with GM technology, which shows this technology has been investigated

14

frequently and from many societal angles. The factors related to GMO were perceived risk,

positive environment impact, negative environment impact, negative impact general, role of

societal actors, negative health impact, perceived benefit, positive health impact, citizen

knowledge, trust, perceived cost, general attitude and general positive impact. Genomics was

found to be more strongly associated with technology characteristics, attitude, perceived cost,

positive impact and trust. Risk management and general affect were associated to a lesser

extent with genomics. Heuristics, expert versus citizen knowledge, ethics and values were seen

to be much more strongly associated with studies on cloning. In addition affect negative was

also associated with cloning but to a much more minor extent. Nanotechnology was seen to be

more frequently associated with risk management, affect, and technology characteristics. In

addition to these, perceived cost, attitude general, positive impact and trust were also

associated with Nanotechnology, but to a lesser extent. Research into RFID technology

indicated high association with negative affect.

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pe

rc

iev

ed

Ris

k

Tru

st

Pe

rc

iev

ed

Be

ne

fit

Citiz

en

Kn

ow

led

ge

Ind

ivid

ua

l Diffe

re

nc

e

Attitu

de

Ge

ne

ra

l

Ne

ga

tive

He

alth

Imp

ac

t

Ne

ga

tive

En

vir

on

me

nt Im

pa

ct

Ro

le o

f So

cie

tal a

cto

rs

Affe

ct N

eg

ativ

e

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

ra

cte

rstic

s

Co

st

Va

lue

Ge

ne

ra

l

Pe

rc

iev

ed

Co

st

Eth

ics

Co

mm

un

ica

tion

Ne

ga

tive

Imp

ac

t G

en

era

l

Po

sitiv

e Im

pa

ct

He

uris

tics

Ne

ga

tive

Attitu

de

Po

sitiv

e A

ttitud

e

Ris

k M

an

ag

em

en

t

Ex

pe

rt v

s C

itize

n K

no

wle

dg

e

Affe

ct G

en

era

l

Po

sitiv

e H

ea

lth Im

pa

ct

Ris

k A

sse

ssm

en

t

Po

sitiv

e E

nv

iro

nm

en

t Imp

ac

t

Va

lue

Po

sitiv

e

Co

nc

ern

Imp

ac

t Ge

ne

ra

lfr

eq

ue

ncy

of

de

te

rm

ina

nts

Determinants in different technologies

Genetic Modification Pesticide Nanotechnology Cloning Genomics RFID

Figure 1: Distribution of determinants across food technologies

16

Figure 2: Correspondence Analysis of Technology and Categorized Determinants

17

3.2 Public perception about food technologies- Regional and temporal trends

3.2.1 Trend over time

Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of research articles covering different food technologies over

the years included in the sample. The oldest paper dates back to 1988 and focused on societal

acceptance of pesticides. The most recent paper is from 2009 focused on Genomics. Pesticide

studies first featured in the analysis 1988, disappeared as a focus of scholarly attention, and

then again started featuring in research articles a decade later in 1998. In the case of Genetic

modification, the first publications were identified in 1994 followed by a few more studies in 1988

and 2000. After 2000, there had been a considerable increase in the number of studies related

to GM technology. Research articles on cloning appeared in 2000, 2002 and 2006. Similarly,

articles related to genomics followed a non-continuous publication trend, in 2004, 2006,

2007and in 2009. RFID related studies featured in just 2005. Most recent among these

technologies is Nanotechnology, with relevant papers being published in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

This trend can be partly related to year of introduction of these respective technologies.

Oldest among the technologies is pesticides which were first introduced in 1940, but which

became controversial after 1962 with the publication in that year of ‘silent spring’ by Rachel

Carson, inspiring widespread public concerns associated with pesticide use and environmental

pollution (Kroll, 2001; Pollock, 2001). Nineteen ninety four witnessed the initial

commercialization of genetically modified foods, and, ever since its introduction, the technology

has been exposed to media attention and societal debate about its merits or otherwise.

Research focused on the application of cloning technology to food started appearing around

1997 when the first cloned higher animal “Dolly” (sheep) was developed (note that the search

has excluded biomedical applications of cloning). Employing genomics in food (nutritional

genomics and personalized nutrition) is a relatively recent concept (articles were identified in

2004, 2006, 2007 and 2009). In the case of RFID technology, just one paper was found in the

year 2005. This might indicate that its application in food industry has not yet resulted in many

public perception studies. Nanotechnology is both in terms of its development and introduction,

the most recent among the technologies, and publications related to it are exclusively recent.

The analysis was extended to assess temporal trends in studying different determinants.

The temporal analysis indicates that research directed towards understanding transformative

food technologies is becoming increasingly sophisticated, as shown by an increase in papers

which also consider more determinants. The increase in research papers is related to an

18

increased number of determinants studied over the years (Fig. 4). Empirical studies on

determinants of technology first were first found in 1994 and for the year 2000 and onwards, the

research on different determinants has increased significantly (Fig.5). Key research issues

focus on risk perception, benefit perception, trust, knowledge, individual differences, attitude

and negative impact (health and environment), and the interrelationships between these

constructs Determinants such as perceived technology characteristics, the role of heuristics in

decsion -making, consumer perceptions of the potential for positive impact, and perceived cost

(economic and in social terms) were also found increasingly studied over the sampling period.

3.2.2 Regional trends

3.2.2.1 Trends across countries and technologies

The greatest numbers of studies covering food technologies have been conducted in the

USA (24% of the total sample). Studies conducted in the UK rank second, contributing 15% of

the total. Other countries where research has been conducted include Germany (5%), The

Netherlands (4%) and Switzerland (3%). Research in the majority of the countries focused on

GM technology, other technologies were addressed in the USA, UK, Germany, The

Netherlands, Italy, France, Japan, The Philippines and Switzerland (Fig.6). Other countries were

included in cross-cultural comparative studies. This shows a bias towards Western Europe and

Northern America in terms of research, with some exceptions in Asian countries. This may be

indicative for the larger focus on consumer research in these regions, although a possible

source of bias is that only publications in the English language were considered, which may

lead to under- representation of certain countries. However, within the context of this report it is

not feasible to include non-English publications.

The association between technologies and countries was investigated through application of

correspondence analysis (Fig.7).The results of the correspondence analysis indicated that there

is strong association between North Europe and studies on Nanotechnology, and less

association with cloning and RFID, and genomics. Research in North America and content from

secondary data indicates the greatest association between research focused on GM technology

and genomics. Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Australia and Latin America were also found to be

strongly associated with studies relating to GM and genomics. Mediterranean countries were

most strongly associated with research into pesticides.

19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Fre

qu

en

cy

Year of Publication

RFID

cloning

genomics

Nanotechnology

Pesticide

GMO

Figure 3: Distribution of Articles covering different food technologies in our sample over the years: 1988-2009 (N = 94)

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1988 1994 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

No of determinants studied No of research articles

Figure 4: Distribution of research articles and the number of attitudinal determinants across time

21

0

50

100

150

200

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fre

qu

en

cy

of d

ete

rm

in

an

ts

Year

POSIMP EXPvsCIT AFFNEG

NEGIMP NEGHEALTH NEGENV

POSHEALTH POSENV HEURISTICS

VALUES PERRISK PERBEN

PERCOST RM RA

POSATT ETHICS ACTORS

TRUST NEGATT ATT

KNOW AFFECT INDDIFF

TECHCHAR COMM COST

VALPOS IMPACT CONCERN

Figure 5: Distribution of determinants across time

22

Key to terms used in figure 5. and in subsequent correspondence analyses POSIMP=Positive Impact EXPvsCIT=experiment versus secondary analsysis AFFNEG=Negative affect or emotion

NEGIMP=Negative impact NEGHEALTH=Negative health impact NEGENV=Perceived negative environmental impact

POSHEALTH= Positive effect on health POSENV=Perceived positive environmental impact HEURISTICS=Heuristic assessment measures

VALUES=Human values assesses PERRISK=Perceived personal risk PERBEN=Perceived personal benefit

PERCOST=Personal cost assesses RM =Perceived efficacious institutional risk management RA=Perceived efficacious risk assessment

POSATT=Positive consumer attitudes ETHICS=Ethic concerns ACTORS=Conflict between different actors

TRUST=Consumer Trust NEGGAT=Negative attitude ATT=Attitudes in general

KNOW=Knowledge AFFECT=Affective response or emotional response INDIFF=Ambivalence

TECHCHAR =Perceived technology COMM=Communication testes COST=Perceived cost in general

characteristics

VALPOS=Consumer values positive IMPACT=Perceived impact CONCERN=Consumer concern

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

US

A

UK

Se

co

nd

ary

Da

ta

Ge

rm

an

y

Th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Ita

ly

Gre

ec

e

Fra

nc

e

Ch

ina

Ro

ma

nia

Ja

pa

n

Au

stra

lia

Sw

ed

en

Ph

ilipp

ine

s

Sp

ain

Me

xic

o

Su

b S

ah

ara

n A

fric

a

Ca

na

da

Ind

ia

Be

lgiu

m

Trin

ida

d

Ire

lan

d

Arg

en

tin

a

Ma

lay

sia

No

rw

ay

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Tu

rk

ey

Ne

pa

l

Ba

ng

lad

esh

Po

lan

d

So

uth

Afric

a

Po

rtu

ga

l

No

. o

f s

tu

die

s

Countries covering different technologies

Genetic Modification Pesticide Genomics

Nanotechnology Cloning RFID

Figure 6: Distribution of Food Technology articles focused on attitude development in different countries.

24

3.2.2.2 Trends across countries and determinants It appeared that regional variation in the study of the different determinants of consumer

acceptance did not matter much. A few determinants were specific to only one or two countries

(Fig.6). Perceived benefit appeared most frequently across the countries, accounting for 13% of

the total times a factor appeared in the sample across different countries. Next to it were

“perceived risk” (12%) and “trust” (11%). Individual differences, citizen knowledge and attitude

were researched across all countries (9%, 7% and 6% respectively). With regard to countries,

the USA was found to have research focused on 28% of the determinants. The UK (13%) came

second in this regard followed by Germany and Italy (8% each); although this is confounded by

the facts that these countries also contributing strongly to the research in this area in general,

due to probably attributable to a higher critical mass of researchers. Some of the determinants

that occurred least frequently in the sample across different countries were perceived positive

environment impact, perceived positive risk assessment, negative attitude, positive values and

general impact (Figure 7).This is probably because these terms are less relevant to people’s

perception of the acceptability of different food technologies.

More light was shed on the relationship between countries and factors by the application

of correspondence analysis. The results of the analysis shows certain countries are more

strongly associated with certain research activities / determinants than the others (Fig.9). It was

observed that North America and South East Asia were strongly associated with research

focused on consumer knowledge about food technologies, effective risk (and benefit)

communication, perceived risk, perceived benefit, consumer values, general technology impact,

perceived efficacious risk assessment and perceived positive environmental impact. North

Western European countries were more strongly associated with assessment of perceived

technology characteristics, the role of heuristics, perceived cost, perceived efficacy of risk

management, emotional responses to food technology, , positive consumer values, , negative

emotional or effective responses to food technologies, ,consumer trust in regulators, industry,

and information about food technologies, concern, expert versus citizen knowledge, and

negative health and environment impacts. Research in Latin America, Australia, India and

developing countries exhibited a similar profile to North West Europe. Australia and developing

countries were also associated with research focused on perceived cost, the role of societal

actors, ethical concerns, consumer attitudes in general, individual differences in attitudes and

perceptions, and perceived positive impact. . The Mediterranean countries were found to be

25

strongly associated with research into attitude (positive and negative) and (less strongly)

associated with general negative impacts.

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

PE

RB

EN

PE

RR

ISK

TR

US

T

IND

DIF

F

KN

OW

AT

T

CO

ST

AC

TO

RS

NE

GH

EA

LT

H

NE

GE

NV

PO

SIM

P

AF

FN

EG

ET

HIC

S

TE

CH

CH

AR

PO

SH

EA

LT

H

CO

MM

PE

RC

OS

T

EX

Pv

sCIT

VA

LU

ES

RM

PO

SA

TT

AF

FE

CT

NE

GIM

P

HE

UR

IST

ICS

PO

SE

NV

RA

NE

GA

TT

VA

LP

OS

CO

NC

ER

N

IMP

AC

T

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f d

ete

rm

ina

nts

Determinants studied in different countries

USA UK Germany Italy Sec Data France

Switzerland The Netherlands Sweden Belgium Australia Sub Saharan Africa

Trinidad Argentina Malaysia Japan India Mexico

Romania China Nepal Bangladesh Phillipines Spain

Canada Portugal Poland Norway Greece Turkey

Ireland South Africa New Zealand

Figure 7: Distribution of determinants across Countries. Key as for figure 5.

27

Figure 8: Results of the Correspondence Analysis of the Categorized Determinants and Countries

28

3.3 Gaps in current research

The analysis indicated that gaps in research on public acceptance of food technologies can

be identified. Most of the research has focused on GM technology. This may coincide with an

expansion of research into science and technology studies at a time when this particular

technology was becoming controversial in societal terms Alternatively the growth in research

may reflect increased societal debate about the development and application of technology per

se. This in turn may reflect recent advances in scientific complexity of technology, as well as the

fundamental nature of recent technological advances (for example, in the case of GM altering

the “basic nature of life”).

Most research into societal acceptance of technology has focused on specific key factors -

perceived risk, perceived benefit, trust, individual differences in perceptions and attitudes,

citizen knowledge, attitude and cost. On one hand, this may reflect temporal trends and

incremental increases in knowledge. These determinants may be the most robust in terms of

predicting attitudes, whilst it may also imply that the most frequently studied factors are also the

best predictors. The temporal analysis indicates that research directed towards understanding

transformative technologies in general, and emerging food technologies in particular, is

becoming increasingly sophisticated. Key research issues focus on risk and benefit perceptions,

attitudes and trust as determinants of acceptance. Research interest in these determinants has

been continuous over time indicating that these are among the more robust predictors of

consumer acceptance of new technologies and their applications that are currently known.

Most research published in the refereed literature and accessible through a standardised

data base has been conducted in North America and Europe. However, an important key point

is that little research which has been both peer reviewed and which is available in the public

domain has been conducted in South Eastern Asia, Africa, Latin America, China and India, at

least in the English language peer reviewed literature. . From an industry perspective, research

may have been conducted regarding the acceptability of specific food products. However, there

is little information available which can provide guidance regarding international policy regarding

the international harmonization of regulation and commercialisation of emerging food

technologies. One consequence for industry is that there is a reluctance to launch new products

into the marketplace, given concerns about public negativity internationally. A case in point is

that of nanotechnology, where numerous products are either ready, or close, to

commercialisation, but where there is little information available regarding local or international

29

consumer acceptance. In particular, a strategic development and commercialisation strategy is

needed for emerging markets in regions such as south East Asia, India and Latin America. It is

essential to conduct rigorous investigations in these areas using state of the art consumer

research methodologies. It is also important to look at differences in attitudes across regions at

the same time in order to make appropriate comparisons in both time and space. Future

research in these parts of the world could yield interesting observations and findings, especially

as different societal philosophies may reduce or enhance the explanatory power of specific

determinants. An example might include the individualistic focus in Europe and the USA

contrasted against a collectivist focus in Eastern Asia. In addition, as increased globalization is

resulting in increased call to harmonize regulations (regarding, for example, food and ingredient

traceability and labelling practices), understanding of consumer preferences and requirements

in this regard is an international priority.

In the case of novel food technologies, it is the interplay of more than one determinant

that shapes consumer preferences. Various psychological processes potentially influence

consumer preference for nutrigenomics based personalized nutrition – for example, perceived

risk and uncertainty; subjective norms perceived cost-benefit and perceived behavioural control.

In common with other research it is the (perceived) benefit to consumers which will determine

public uptake. Almeida et al (2006) have reported that consumers across six European

countries are willing to accept nutrigenomics if the products deliver “health benefits”. Research

into consumer concerns regarding nanotechnology applications in food suggests that trust in

government agencies, perceived benefits and general attitudes toward nanotechnology are

important factors in determining perceived risk associated with both the technology and its

agrifood applications. Emotional responses and perceived control have been shown to be

important factors influencing benefit risk perception. Perceived technology characteristics may

also found to influence consumer acceptance. For example, food packaging containing nano-

materials may be perceived as less problematic than foods containing nanoparticles.

Genetically modified foods present the area with by far the most extensively researched

determinants of consumer acceptance. Perceived trust in regulators and industry, consumer

concerns about unnaturalness, perceived personal control over consumption, and the consumer

requirements for choice over both production process and consumption of genetically modified

foods and ingredients determine consumer acceptance as much as perceived risk. There is no

30

reason to believe that similar consumer perceptions will not be equally influential in the area of

emerging technology developments such as nanotechnology.

Some of the psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of emerging food

technologies may be vary (in terms of predictive capacity and relative impact) in different

cultures and contexts. However, research is needed to determine if this is the case. By-and-

large the existing literature focuses on findings in Europe and North America. The results cannot

be automatically generalized to South East Asia. Therefore, additional consumer research, and

cross validation of results from Europe and America in South East Asia is suggested as a

research priority. Finally, despite extensive societal discussion about, for example, the issue of

personalized nutrition and human genetics, or application of (bio) nanotechnology to food

production, the peer reviewed research on attitude and acceptance in specific regions, such as

south East Asia is actually very limited. Differences in individualistic versus more community

oriented societies, and resulting ethical values may therefore not be generalized globally. The

priorities of different countries also need to be considered. Food availability remains an

international issue. However, as some populations became more affluent towards the end of the

20th century, the focus of food technology has shifted to food quality, and health. This is true of

affluent and emerging economies in particular.

Many published papers focus on the need to involve consumers and stakeholders in the

debate, without providing a methodology or strategy regarding how to operationalise this. The

developments of predictive models which will facilitate identification of commercialisation

strategies are also limited.

4. Conclusion

Research into public acceptance of food technologies is increasing. Historically such

research has tended to occur after public rejection of the application of technologies has

occurred. Increasingly such research is becoming contemporary with market introduction, or

may be used to explore how such products will be received before they have been developed.

This reflects a shift in emphasis from “technology push” to “consumer pull demonstrating that

public acceptance is accepted by many product developers as an important element of the

introduction of new technologies. To this end, most of the published research is directed

towards building our understanding on factors that play an important role in determining

consumer acceptance of food technology. From this review it becomes clear that research has

31

increasingly incorporated an ever-increasing variety of determinants used to predict public

acceptance. In particular, research is focusing on how consumers make trade- offs between

perceived risks and benefits. The extent to which such models have been developed has

increased over time, leading to more elaborate and indeed effective models for the prediction of

public acceptance of food technologies. However, the influence of socio political and cultural

differences in the results; in combination with the lack of studies covering many regions in the

world, implies that extrapolating the findings and interpretation from one region to another is

difficult. This is particularly relevant if the results are to be used to develop a regionally focused

market strategy.

This review has also indicated that most of the research applied to emerging food

technologies has been applied to genetic modification technology in food, while more recently;

applications of Nanotechnology in food are beginning to increase the societal debate discussion

about novel food technologies and public acceptance. Although there is considerable discussion

on issues of personalized nutrition, we find very few papers in the peer review literature

addressing public acceptance issues, which also provide data. In part, this is because the

market introductions of the more complex forms of the technologies have been limited.

The issue of public acceptance has been relatively well studied in the Europe and

Northern America, but peer reviewed data from South East Asia and other emerging economies

is scarce. Therefore systematic cross-cultural analysis using state of the art methodology, which

is also published in peer reviewed literature and made available in the public domain, is

required. Analyzing public acceptance of novel food technologies in these countries could be

very interesting as they comprise of some of the largest growing economies in the world, as well

as representing very many increasingly affluent consumer populations. Some of these countries

are the world’s largest exporter and importer of various food commodities, and thus research

which focuses on consumers’ responses to emerging food technologies in these developing

markets in increasingly important.

32

References

Aerni, P. (2005). Stakeholder attitudes towards the risks and benefits of genetically modified

crops in South Africa. Environmental Science and Policy, 8(5), 464-476. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between

perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward

modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 921-933. Batrinou, A. M., Dimitriou, E., Liatsos, D., & Pletsa, V. (2005). Genetically modified foods: the

effect of information. Nutrition & Food Science 35(3), 148-155. Bauer, M. W. (2002). Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis.

Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 93-111. Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to

genetically modified foods - results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(1), 23-61.

Burri, R. V. (2007). Deliberating risks under uncertainty: Experience, trust, and attitudes in a Swiss nanotechnology stakeholder discussion group. NanoEthics, 1(2), 143-154.

Byrne, P. F., Namuth, D. M., Harrington, J., Ward, S. M., Lee, D. J., & Hain, P. (2002). Increasing public understanding of transgenic crops through the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science, 11(3), 293-304.

Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 73-83.

Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2006). The public as a limit to technology transfer: The influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(6), 629-645.

Costa-Font, J., Rudisill, C., & Mossialos, E. (2008). Attitudes as an expression of knowledge and "political anchoring": The case of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1273-1287.

Crane, M., Norton, A., Leaman, J., Chalak, A., Bailey, A., Yoxon, M., et al. (2006). Acceptability of pesticide impacts on the environment: What do United Kingdom stakeholders and the public value? Pest Management Science, 62(1), 5-19.

Crow, M. M., & Sarewitz, D. (2001). Nanotechnology and Societal Transformation. Washington DC: American Academy for the Advancement of Science.

Da Costa, M. C. (2000). Non conventional technologies and impact on consumer behavior. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11(4-5), 188-193.

Dolata, U. (2009). Technological innovations and sectoral change. Transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change: An analytical framework. Research Policy, 38(6), 1066-1076.

Eiser, R., Miles, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2002). Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2423-2433.

Foster, M. W., & Sharp, R. R. (2002). Race, ethnicity, and genomics: Social classifications as proxies of biological heterogeneity. Genome Research, 12(6), 844-850.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Aaron, J. I. (1998). Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops. Pesticide Science, 52(4), 388-393.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science Technology and Human Values, 22(1), 98-124.

33

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., et al. (2004). GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185-194.

Groth Iii, E. (2001). The Debate over Food Biotechnology in the United States: Is a Societal Consensus Achievable? Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 327-346.

Gunter, V. J., & Harris, C. K. (1998). Noisy winter: The DDT controversy in the years before silent spring. Rural Sociology, 63(2), 179-198.

Haylamicheal, I. D., & Dalvie, M. A. (2009). Disposal of obsolete pesticides, the case of Ethiopia. Environment International, 35(3), 667-673.

Henson, S., Annou, M., Cranfield, J., & Ryks, J. (2008). Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1601-1617.

Hoffman, D. L., & Franke, R. G. (1986). Correspondence Analysis: Graphical Representation of Categorical Data in Marketing Research Journal of Marketing Research 23(3), 213-227.

Hohl, K., & Gaskell, G. (2008). European public perceptions of food risk: Cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 311-324.

Horst, M. (2005). Cloning sensations: Mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 185-200.

Houghton, J. R., Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J., Van Kleef, E., Chryssochoidis, G., Kehagia, O., et al. (2008). The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities. Food Policy, 33(1), 13-26.

Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 485-494.

Kitzinger, J., & Williams, C. (2005). Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science and Medicine, 61(3), 731-740.

Klintman, M. (2002). Arguments surrounding organic and genetically modified food labelling: a few comparisons. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 4(3), 247-259.

Knight, A. J., & Warland, R. (2005). Determinants of food safety risks: A multi-disciplinary approach. Rural Sociology, 70(2), 253-275.

Kornelis, M., De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., & Dagevos, H. (2007). Consumer selection of food-safety information sources. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 327-335.

Kroll, G. (2001). The "Silent Springs" of Rachel Carson: Mass media and the origins of modern environmentalism. Public Understanding of Science, 10(4), 403-420.

Kuzma, J., & Besley, J. C. (2008). Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. NanoEthics, 2(2), 149-162.

Lynskey, M. J. (2006). Transformative technology and institutional transformation: Coevolution of biotechnology venture firms and the institutional framework in Japan. Research Policy, 35(9), 1389-1422.

MacGregor, D. G., Slovic, P., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 815-828.

Møldrup, C. (2001). Ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics: A critical review. Community Genetics, 4(4), 204-214.

Mordini, E. (2007). Technology and fear: is wonder the key? Trends in Biotechnology, 25(12), 544-546.

Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421-440.

Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2000). Food policy research for developing countries: Emerging issues and unfinished business. Food Policy, 25(2), 125-141.

Pollock, C. G. (2001). Silent spring revisited: A 21st-century look at the effect of pesticides on wildlife. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, 15(1), 50-53.

34

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Exploring the structure of attitudes toward genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 26(6), 1707-1719.

Purvis-Roberts, K. L., Werner, C. A., & Frank, I. (2007). Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 291-302.

Reid, A. S. (2007). Is society smart enough to deal with smart cards? Computer Law and Security Report, 23(1), 53-61.

Renn, O. (2006). Risk communication - Consumers between information and irritation. Journal of Risk Research, 9(8), 833-849.

Ricci, M., Newsholme, G., Bellaby, P., & Flynn, R. (2006). Hydrogen: Too dangerous to base our future upon? Paper presented at the Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, Manchester.

Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite, 49(1), 1-17.

Rother, H. A., Hall, R., & London, L. (2008). Pesticide use among emerging farmers in South Africa: Contributing factors and stakeholder perspectives. Development Southern Africa, 25(4), 399-424.

Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289-1299.

Scholderer, J., & Frewer, L. J. (2003). The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125-157.

Schulte, I., Hart, D., & Van der Vorst, R. (2004). Issues affecting the acceptance of hydrogen fuel. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 29(7), 677-685.

Sharma, B. R. (2005). Cloning controversies: An overview of the science, ethics and politics. Medicine, Science and the Law, 45(1), 17-26.

Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. (2008). Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 51(2), 283-290.

Sjöberg, L. (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 379-400.

Sjöberg, L., & Fromm, J. (2001). Information technology risks as seen by the public. Risk Analysis, 21(3), 427-441.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. Slovic, P. (1996). Perception of risk from radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68(3-4),

165-180. Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear

waste. Science, 254(5038), 1603-1607. Talukder, K., & Kuzma, J. (2008). Evaluating technology oversight through multiple frameworks:

A case study of genetically engineered cotton in India. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 121-138.

Throne-Holst, H., & Stø, E. (2008). Who should be precautionary? Governance of nanotechnology in the risk society. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20(1), 99-112.

Trait, J. (2001). More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops. Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), 175-189.

Uzogara, S. G. (2000). The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances, 18(3), 179-206.

35

Van Kleef, E., Houghton, J. R., Krystallis, A., Pfenning, U., Rowe, G., Van Dijk, H., et al. (2007). Consumer evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe. Risk Analysis, 27(6), 1565-1580.

Vergragt, P. J., & Brown, H. S. (2008). Genetic engineering in agriculture: New approaches for risk management through sustainability reporting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(6), 783-798.

von Geibler, J., Liedtke, C., Wallbaum, H., & Schaller, S. (2006). Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: Experiences from the biotechnology industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(5), 334-346.

Wright, D., Gutwirth, S., Friedewald, M., De Hert, P., Langheinrich, M., & Moscibroda, A. (2009). Privacy, trust and policy-making: Challenges and responses. Computer Law and Security Report, 25(1), 69-83.