Consumer acceptance of and willingness to pay for food nanotechnology: a systematic review
Source abstract
Abstract
Consumer's attitudes to, and acceptance of, emerging technologies and their applications, are important determinants of their successful implementation and commercialisation. Understanding the range of socio-psychological, cultural and affective factors which may influence consumer responses to applications of nanotechnology will help "fine-tune" the development of consumer products in line with their expectations and preferences. This is particularly true of applications in the food area, where consumer concerns about technologies applied to food production may be elevated. This research applied systematic review methodology to synthesise current knowledge regarding societal acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology applied to agri-food production. The objective was to aggregate knowledge derived from different research areas to gain an overall picture of consumer responses to nanotechnology applied to food production. Relevant electronic databases of peer-reviewed literature were searched from the earliest date available, for peer-reviewed papers which reported primary empirical data on consumer and expert acceptance of agri-food nanotechnology, using a formal systematic review protocol. Inclusion criteria for papers to be included in the review were: empirical peer-reviewed papers written in English; a population sample of adults aged 18 years and over used in the research; a research focus on consumer and expert acceptance of agri-food nanotechnology; and research on attitudes towards, and willingness to pay for, different applications of agri-food nanotechnology. Two researchers independently appraised the papers using NVivo 10 QSR software. Studies examining consumer and expert acceptance were thematically analysed, and key information was collated. The results were synthesised in order to identify trends in information relevant to consumer acceptance of nanotechnology applied to food production. Eight key themes were identified from the 32 papers which were extracted from the literature. These themes were applied to understand the determinants of consumer acceptance of agri-food nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is more likely to be accepted by consumers when applied to development of novel packaging with distinct benefits rather than when integrated directly into agri-food products. Trust and confidence in agri-food nanotechnology and its governance need to be fostered through transparent regulation and development of societally beneficial impacts to increase consumer acceptance.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability · Sustainable Supply Chain Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (85)
Show source-provided references
1. Ahmadi M, Ahmadi L (2013) Ethical considerations of nanobiotechnology. J Biomater Tissue Eng 3:335–352. doi: 10.1166/jbt.2013.109010.1166/jbt.2013.1090 ↗
2. Arnold H (2014) Consumer attitudes to new and emerging food technologies. Food Australia 66:21–23
3. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J (2009) Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-5910.1186/1471-2288-9-59 ↗
4. Becker S (2013) Nanotechnology in the marketplace: how the nanotechnology industry views risk. J Nanopart Res 15:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-1426-710.1007/s11051-013-1426-7 ↗
5. Bernstein M, Foley R, Bennett I (2014) An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions: the case of nanotechnology governance. J Nanopart Res 16:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11051-014-2492-110.1007/s11051-014-2492-1 ↗
6. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558. doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9323-610.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
7. Bieberstein A, Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2013) Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany. Eur Rev Agric Econ 40:73–94. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbr06910.1093/erae/jbr069 ↗
8. Binder AR, Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR, Corley EA (2011) Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science 1-18. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/0963662510390159
9. Black LJ, Seamans KM, Cashman KD, Kiely M (2011) Efficacy of food fortification for the prevention of vitamin D deficiency—results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 70:E101. doi: 10.1017/S002966511100141810.1017/S0029665111001418 ↗
10. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa10.1191/1478088706qp063oa ↗
11. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30:512–548. doi: 10.1111/ropr.1203510.1111/ropr.12035 ↗
12. Brown J, Fatehi L, Kuzma J (2015) Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-2926-4
13. Burri R, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:387–391. doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9286-710.1007/s11051-007-9286-7 ↗
14. Capon A, Gillespie J, Rolfe M, Smith W (2015) Comparative analysis of the labelling of nanotechnologies across four stakeholder groups. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-3129-8
15. Casolani N, Greehy GM, Fantini A, Chiodo E, McCarthy MB (2015) Consumer perceptions of nanotechnology applications in Italian wine. Italian J Food Sci 27:221–235
16. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2012) About the databases. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/AboutPage.asp . Accessed 13 July 2012
17. Cheng TJ, Lin YP, Li YR, Chou GT (2009) The risk perception of nanotechnology in Taiwanese general population, workers, and experts. Epidemiol 20:S227–S227. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000362761.53798.a810.1097/01.ede.0000362761.53798.a8 ↗
18. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405. doi: 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-410.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
19. Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH (2011) Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal 31:1734–1748. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x ↗
20. Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2007) Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. Br Food J 109:675–688. doi: 10.1108/0007070071078067010.1108/00070700710780670 ↗
21. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2013) 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8 . Accessed 12 Nov 2015
22. de Bakker E, de Lauwere C, Hoes A-C, Beekman V (2014) Responsible research and innovation in miniature: information asymmetries hindering a more inclusive ‘nanofood’ development. Sci Public Policy 41:294–305. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu03310.1093/scipol/scu033 ↗
23. European Commission (2010) Biotechnology. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf . Accessed 11 Nov 2015
24. Farshchi P, Sadrnezhaad S, Nejad N, Mahmoodi M, Ibrahimi Ghavam Abadi L (2011) Nanotechnology in the public eye: the case of Iran, as a developing country. J Nanopart Res 13:3511–3519. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0274-610.1007/s11051-011-0274-6 ↗
25. Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM (2009) What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health 25:1229–1245. doi: 10.1080/0887044090319401510.1080/08870440903194015 ↗
26. Frewer LJ, Norde W, Fischer A, Kampers F (2011) Nanotechnology in the agri-food sector. Wiley, Weinheim10.1002/9783527634798 ↗
27. Frewer LJ, Fischer AR, Brennan M, Banati D, Lion R, Meertens RM, Rowe G, Siegrist M, Verbeke W, Vereijken CM (2015) Risk/benefit communication about food—a systematic review of the literature. Critical Rev Food Sci Nutr. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2013.801337
28. George S, Kaptan G, Lee J, Frewer L (2014) Awareness on adverse effects of nanotechnology increases negative perception among public: survey study from Singapore. J Nanopart Res 16:1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11051-014-2751-110.1007/s11051-014-2751-1 ↗
29. Grobe A, Renn O, Jaeger A (2008) A report for IRGC risk governance of nanotechnology applications in foods and dosmetics. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva
30. Groves C (2013) Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011–2020. Tech Analy Strat Manag 25:507–526. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2013,78551010.1080/09537325.2013.785510 ↗
31. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/0963662510392485
32. Gupta N, Fischer AR, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14:857. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x ↗
33. Gupta N, Fischer AH, George S, Frewer L (2013) Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. J Nanopart Res 15:1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4
34. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2015) Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: a comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. Nanoethics 9:93–108. doi: 10.1007/s11569-015-0222-510.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 ↗
35. Handford CE, Dean M, Spence M, Henchion M, Elliott CT, Campbell K (2015) Awareness and attitudes towards the emerging use of nanotechnology in the agri-food sector. Food Control 57:24–34. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.03.03310.1016/j.foodcont.2015.03.033 ↗
36. Kim Y-R, Lee EJ, Park SH, Kwon HJ, An SSA, Song SW, Pie JE, Yoon M, Kim JH, Kim MK (2014) Comparative analysis of nanotechnology awareness in consumers and experts in South Korea. Int J Nanomed 9:21–27. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S5792110.2217/nnm.13.41 ↗
37. Köhler AR, Som C (2008) Environmental and health implications of nanotechnology—have innovators learned the lessons from past experiences? Human Ecol Risk Assess Int J 14:512–531. doi: 10.1080/1080703080207181210.1080/10807030802071812 ↗
38. Lin YP, Li YR, Chou KT, Cheng TJ (2011) Public perceptions of nanotechnology in Taiwan. Epidemiol 22:S67–S67. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000391869.09804.be10.1097/01.ede.0000391869.09804.be ↗
39. Lowe P, Murdoch J, Marsden T, Munton R, Flynn A (1993) Regulating the new rural spaces: the uneven development of land. J Rural Stud 9:205–222. doi: 10.1016/0743-0167(93)90067-T10.1016/0743-0167(93)90067-T ↗
40. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241. doi: 10.1177/096366250605699310.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
41. Marchant GE, Abbott KW (2012) International harmonization of nanotechnology governance through soft law approaches. Nanotech Law Bus. doi: 10.2202/1941-6008.1120
42. Marette S, Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2009) Impact of environmental, societal and health information on consumers’ choices for nanofood. J Agric Food Ind Org. doi: 10.2202/1542-0485.1274
43. Matin AH, Goddard E, Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2012) Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology? Int J Consum Stud 36:149–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01090.x10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01090.x ↗
44. Mehta MD (2004) From biotechnology to nanotechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies? Bull Sci Tech Soc 24:34–39. doi: 10.1177/027046760426311910.1177/0270467604263119 ↗
45. Militaru G, Ionescu S (2013) An examination of whether and how can reduce the barriers to nanotechnology transfer: a conceptual approach. Metalurgia Int 18:150–154
46. Mir L (2007) Perception of the dangers of nanotechnologies by experts and the uninformed. Environ Risques Sante 6:331–332
47. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The Prisma Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.100009710.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 ↗
48. Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford10.1002/9780470754887 ↗
49. Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T (2011) Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Anal 31:1694–1700. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x ↗
50. Poínhos R, van der Lans IA, Rankin A, Fischer ARH, Bunting B, Kuznesof S, Stewart-Knox B, Frewer LJ (2014) Psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition in 9 European countries. PLoS One 9:e110614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.011061410.1371/journal.pone.0110614 ↗
51. PROPSERO (2012) About PROSPERO. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ . Accessed 12 Nov 2015
52. Rakia N (1993) Becoming clear. Integration 35:14–15
53. Raley MA, Ragona MA, Sijtsema SJ, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2015) Barriers to using consumer science information in food technology innovations: An exploratory study using Delphi methodology. Int J Food Sci Tech10.7455/ijfs.v5i1.291 ↗
54. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–191. doi: 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-710.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
55. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5:181–189. doi: 10.1023/A:102554851243810.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
56. Rogers WA, Mitzner TL, Boot WR, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Fisk AD, Sharit J (2013) Predicting technology acceptance through individual differences and perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. Gerontologist 53:226
57. Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2011) The effect of information choice and discussion on consumers’ willingness-to-pay for nanotechnologies in food. J Agric Res Economics 36:365–374
58. Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Blanchemanche S, Goddard E, Marette S, Vandermoere F (2015) Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food. (Special Section: consumer and trust: empirical investigations on the outcomes of consumer trust in food.). Food Policy 52:75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.00410.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.004 ↗
59. Schiffeler J (2014) Harmony of technology and consumer expectations—the influence of published opinion has an impact on a product. Fleischwirtschaft 94:3
60. Schnettler B, Crisóstomo G, Mills N, Miranda H, Mora M, Lobos G, Grunert KG (2013a) Preferences for sunflower oil produced conventionally, produced with nanotechnology or genetically modified in the Araucanía Region of Chile. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 40:17–29. doi: 10.4067/S0718-1620201300010000210.4067/S0718-16202013000100002 ↗
61. Schnettler B, Crisóstomo G, Sepúlveda J, Mora M, Lobos G, Miranda H, Grunert KG (2013b) Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life. Appetite 69:71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.05.01410.1016/j.appet.2013.05.014 ↗
62. Schnettler B, Crisóstomo G, Mora M, Lobos G, Miranda H, Grunert KG (2014) Acceptance of nanotechnology applications and satisfaction with food-related life in southern Chile. Food Sci Tech (Campinas) 34:157–163. doi: 10.1590/S0101-2061201400500000110.1590/S0101-20612014005000001 ↗
63. Scholl G (2013) Consumer conference on the perception of nanotechnology in the areas of food, cosmetics, and textiles, Germany. In. Pan Stanford Publishing Pte. Ltd., pp 57–69. doi: 10.4032/9789814364348
64. Seifert F, Plows A (2014) From anti-biotech to nano-watch: early risers and spin-off campaigners in Germany, the UK and internationally. NanoEthics 8:73–89. doi: 10.1007/s11569-014-0189-710.1007/s11569-014-0189-7 ↗
65. Siegrist M (1999) A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J Appl Soc Psychol 29:2093–2106. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x ↗
66. Siegrist M (2007) Consumer attitudes to food innovation and technology. In: MacFie H (ed) Consumer-Led Food Product Development. Woodhead Publishing in Food Science Technology and Nutrition 144: 122–138. doi: 10.1533/9781845693381.1.12210.1533/9781845693381.1.122 ↗
67. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.20506410.1111/0272-4332.205064 ↗
68. Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.00210.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
69. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51:283–290. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.02010.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 ↗
70. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H (2009) Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers’ willingness to buy. Br Food J 111:660–668. doi: 10.1108/0007070091097235010.1108/00070700910972350 ↗
71. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, Härlen I, Hertel R, Böl G-F (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1555–1571. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9653-710.1007/s11051-009-9653-7 ↗
72. Stampfli N, Siegrist M, Kastenholz H (2010) Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis. J Risk Res 13:353–365. doi: 10.1080/1366987090323330310.1080/13669870903233303 ↗
73. Stone JV (2009) Public perceptions of agrifood nanotechnologies: using extension to assess and link stakeholder knowledge with public policies. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc 237:125
74. Suerdem AK, Gumus B, Unanoglu M Determinants of risk perception towards science and technology. In: Istanbul, 2013. 4th international conference on risk analysis and crisis response, RACR 2013. pp 777–783
75. Suhaimee S, Serin T, Ali AK, Sulaiman NH, Ghazali Z (2014) Public awareness and perception of nanotechnology among Malaysian. World Applied Sciences Journal 31:367–375
76. Tanaka Y (1995) The major factors promoting public acceptance of a variety of technologies. Jpn J Exp Soc Psychol 35:111–11710.2130/jjesp.35.111 ↗
77. Teggatz JL (2013) Scholarly and public views: Understanding narratives around nanotechnology. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 74
78. Thompson P (n.d.) The ethics of getting small. Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing
79. Thoenes HW (1982) Risk acceptance in technology and society. Stahl Eisen 102:1029–1032
80. van Broekhuizen P, Reijnders L (2011) Building blocks for a precautionary approach to the use of nanomaterials: positions taken by trade unions and environmental NGOs in the European nanotechnologies debate. Risk Anal 31:1646–1657. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01615.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01615.x ↗
81. von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Responsible Innovation. Wiley, pp 51–74. doi: 10.1002/9781118551424.ch310.1002/9781118551424.ch3 ↗
82. Yawson RM, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33:299–32210.1007/s10603-010-9134-5 ↗
83. Yue C, Zhao S, Cummings C, Kuzma J (2015a) Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-015-3084-4
84. Yue CY, Zhao SL, Kuzma J (2015b) Heterogeneous consumer preferences for nanotechnology and genetic-modification technology in food products. J Agric Econ 66:308–328. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.1209010.1111/1477-9552.12090 ↗
85. Zimmer R (2008) Nanotechnology and public opinion—the perception of innovative technology. Nanotechnologie: Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Risiken, Regulierung. doi: 10.1515/9783899496192.3.93