Label it or ban it? Public perceptions of nano-food labels and propositions for banning nano-food applications
Source abstract
Abstract
The future of nano-food largely hinges on public perceptions and willingness to accept this novel technology. The present study utilizes the scientific literacy model and psychometric paradigm as the key theoretical frameworks to examine the factors influencing public support for labeling and banning of nano-food in Singapore. Using data collected from a nationally representative survey of 1001 respondents, the findings demonstrated that attitudes toward technology, preference for natural product, science knowledge, and risk perception were found to substantially affect public support for both labeling and banning of nano-food. Conversely, attention to food safety news on traditional media and attention to nano-news on new media were only associated with public support for labeling of nano-food. Similarly, benefit perception was only significantly associated with public support for banning of nano-food. Theoretically, these findings support the growing body of literature that argues for the significant role played by predispositions, media use, science knowledge, and risk and benefit perceptions on attitude formation toward nano-food. It serves as the pioneering piece to address the aspect of banning in the field of nano-food. Practically, insights drawn from this study could aid relevant stakeholders in enlisting effecting strategies to convey the benefits of nano-food while mitigating the risk perceptions among the public.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Genetically Modified Organisms Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (88)
Show source-provided references
1. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x ↗
2. Bhasin K (2011) 9 PR fiascos that were handled brilliantly by management. Business Insider http://www.businessinsidercom/pr-disasters-crisis-management-2011-5?IR=T&r=US&IR=T/#johnson-and-johnsons-cyanide-laced-tylenol-capsules-1982-1 . Accessed 1 Aug 2017
3. Bieberstein A, Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F (2012) Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany. Eur Rev Agric Econ 40(1):73–9410.1093/erae/jbr069 ↗
4. Biello D (2008) Do nanoparticles in food pose a health risk? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-nanoparticles-in-food-pose-health-risk/
5. Bonfadelli H, Dahinden U, Leonarz M (2002) Biotechnology in Switzerland: high on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Underst Sci 11(2):113–13010.1088/0963-6625/11/2/302 ↗
6. Brossard D (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(Supplement 3):14096–14101. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.121274411010.1073/pnas.1212744110 ↗
7. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250708730410.1177/0963662507087304 ↗
8. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labelling. Rev Policy Res 30(5):512–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.1203510.1111/ropr.12035 ↗
9. Brumfiel G (2003) Nanotechnology: a little knowledge. Nature 424(6946):246–248. https://doi.org/10.1038/424246a10.1038/424246a ↗
10. Center for Food Safety (2009) USDA Considers a ban on nanotech in organic. http://centerforfoodsafety.com/press-releases/1181/video . Accessed 4 Jul 2016
11. Chandrasekhar A (2016) Government approves GMO ban extension, SWI swissinfo.ch. https://www.swissinfoch/eng/genetically-modified-organisms_government-approves-gmo-ban-extension/42260828 . Accessed 1 Aug 2017
12. Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J, Ross B, Boxall A, Castle L, Aitken R, Watkins R (2008) Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Addit Contam 25(3):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/0265203070174453810.1080/02652030701744538 ↗
13. Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (2010) Nanotechnologies in food: what, why, & how. In: Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (eds) Nanotechnologies in food. RSC Publishing, Cambridge, pp 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847559883-0000110.1039/9781847559883 ↗
14. Cheng CH (2010) Are the Chinese really more risk averse? A cross-cultural comparison of the risk-return relationship. J Global Bus Manag 6(2):1
15. Chun AL (2009) Will the public swallow nanofood? Nat Nanotechnol 4(12):790–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.35910.1038/nnano.2009.359 ↗
16. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-410.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
17. Coles D, Frewer LJ (2013) Nanotechnology applied to European food production—a review of ethical and regulatory issues. Trends Food Sci Technol 34(1):32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.08.00610.1016/j.tifs.2013.08.006 ↗
18. Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2007) Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. Br Food J 109(9):675–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070071078067010.1108/00070700710780670 ↗
19. Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB (2008) Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33(2):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.00210.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002 ↗
20. Curtis KR, McCluskey JJ, Wahl, TI (2004) Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum 7(1–2):70–75
21. Dimara E, Skuras D (2005) Consumer demand for informative labeling of quality food and drink products: a European Union case study. J Consum Mark 22(2):90–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/0736376051058925310.1108/07363760510589253 ↗
22. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers
23. EU Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1363/2013 of 12 December 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No1169/2011 EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on provision of food information to consumers as regards the definition of ‘engineered nanomaterials.’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1363 . Accessed on 21 Jul 2017
24. European Parliament (2014) Novel foods: MEPs call for moratorium on nano-foods and labelling of cloned meat [Press Release]. http://www.smhcomau/national/health/green-group-intensifies-calls-for-ban-on-nanomaterials-in-food-and-packaging-20150327-1m96c7html . Accessed 28 Jul 2017
25. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–15210.1007/BF00143739 ↗
26. Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.00210.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002 ↗
27. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTAS.2005.156349610.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
28. Friends of Earth (2008) 96% Australians want safety testing 92% support labelling nanofoods and food packaging. http://www.emergingtechfoeorgau/96-australians-want-safety-testing-92-support-labelling-nanofoods-and-food-packaging/ . Accessed 30 Jul 2017
29. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Castro P, Esmer Y, Fischler C, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Hampel J, Mejlgaard N (2010) Europeans and biotechnology in 2010 winds of change? https://www.repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/21297/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 20 Jul 2017
30. 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(12):2751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2751-110.1007/s11051-014-2751-1 ↗
31. Gregory J, Miller S (1998) Science in public communication, culture and credibility. Plenum, New York
32. Gruère GP (2011) Labeling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6(2):117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2011.02.00510.1016/j.nantod.2011.02.005 ↗
33. Gupta N, Fischer AR, George S, Frewer LJ (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(8):1838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1838-410.1007/s11051-013-1838-4 ↗
34. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12(8):2703–2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-810.1007/s11051-010-0038-8 ↗
35. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Underst Sci 22(5):606–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251141793610.1177/0963662511417936 ↗
36. Ho SS, Yang X, Thanwarani A, Chan JM (2017) Examining public acquisition of science knowledge from social media in Singapore: an extension of the cognitive mediation model. Asian J Commun 27(2):193–212
37. Hough A (2013) Horse meat scandal: Tesco apologies over ‘hay’ Twitter post telegraph. http://www.telegraphcouk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9810767/Horse-meat-scandal-Tesco-apologises-over-hay-Twitter-posthtml . Accessed 2 Aug 2017
38. Huffman WE, Shogren JF, Rousu M, Tegene A (2003) Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food labels in a market with diverse information: evidence from experimental auctions. J Agric Resour Econ 28(3):481–502
39. Jourdan A (2014) Starbucks, Burger King dragged in as China food scandal spreads Business Insider. http://www.businessinsidercom/r-starbucks-burger-king-dragged-in-as-china-food-scandal-spreads--2014-21?IR=T&r=US&IR=T . Accessed 4 Aug 2017
40. Kalaitzandonakes N, Marks LA, Vickner SS (2007) Consumer response to mandated labeling of genetically modified foods, labeling genetically modified food: the philosophical and legal debate. Oxford University Press, New York10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326864.003.0007 ↗
41. Katare B, Yue C, Hurley T (2013) Consumer willingness to pay for nano-packaged food products: evidence from experimental auctions. In 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, DC (no. 149676). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association
42. Keller AA, Lazareva A (2013) Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1(1):65–7010.1021/ez400106t ↗
43. Kessler R (2011) Engineered nanoparticles in consumer products: understanding a new ingredient. Environ Health Perspect 119(3):a120–a125
44. Kim HK, Lwin MO (2016) Cultural effects on cancer prevention behaviors: fatalistic cancer beliefs and risk optimism among Asians in Singapore. Health Commun 32(10):1201–1209
45. Kjærgaard RS (2010) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Underst Sci 19(1):80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250809309010.1177/0963662508093090 ↗
46. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Mass Commun Q 83(4):819–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990060830040610.1177/107769900608300406 ↗
47. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700528147410.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
48. Liang X, Ho SS, Brossard D, Xenos MA, Scheufele DA, Anderson AA, Hao X, He X (2015) Value predispositions as perceptual filters: comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Underst Sci 24(5):82–60010.1177/0963662513510858 ↗
49. Liu L (2009) Emerging nanotechnology power: nanotechnology R&D and business trends in the Asia Pacific Rim. World Scientific, Hackensack10.1142/7224 ↗
50. Liu H, Priest S (2009) Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication, and trust in key actors. Public Underst Sci 18(6):04–71810.1177/0963662508097625 ↗
51. Lozano N, Lores M (2013) Food safety agencies’ challenge: is social media the definitive communicative solution? Catalan J Commun Cult Stud 5(2):285–293. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs.5.2.285_110.1386/cjcs.5.2.285_1 ↗
52. Macoubrie J (2006) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/2662/informed_public_perceptions_of_nanotechnology_and_trust_in_government.pdf
53. Miller J (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112(2):29–48
54. Monica JC Jr (2008) FDA labeling of cosmetics containing nanoscale materials nanotechnology. Law Bus 5:63–71
55. Moraru C, Huang Q, Takhistov P, Dogan H, Kokini J (2009) Food nanotechnology: current developments and future prospects. In: Gustavo V, Mortimer A, Lineback D, Spiess W, Buckle K, Colonna P (eds) Global issues in food science and technology. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 369–39910.1016/B978-0-12-374124-0.00021-1 ↗
56. Nanotechnology N (2010) Nanofood for thought. Nat Nanotechnol 5:8910.1038/nnano.2010.22 ↗
57. Nanotechnology Industries Association (2010) Canada bans nanotechnology in ‘organics’. http://www.nanotechia.org/news/news-articles/canada-bans-nanotechnology-%E2%80%98organics%E2%80%99 . Accessed 4 Jul 2016
58. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV (2002) Biotechnology and the American media: the policy process and the elite press 1970 to 1999. Sci Commun 23(4):359–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470020230040110.1177/107554700202300401 ↗
59. Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.733910.1289/ehp.7339 ↗
60. Parisi C, Vigani M, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2015) Agricultural nanotechnologies: what are the current possibilities? Nano Today 10(2):124–12710.1016/j.nantod.2014.09.009 ↗
61. Philips N (2014) Green group calls for ban on nano-materials in food. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.europarleuropaeu/news/en/press-room/20141125IPR80424/novel-foods-meps-call-for-moratorium-on-nano-foods-and-labelling-of-cloned-meat . Accessed 4 Aug 2017
62. Rakhlin M (2008) Regulating nanotechnology: a private-public insurance solution. Duke Law & Technology Review 7(1):1–20
63. Rollin F, Kennedy J, Wills J (2011) Consumers and new food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(2):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.09.00110.1016/j.tifs.2010.09.001 ↗
64. Rozin P (2005) The meaning of “natural” process more important than content. Psychol Sci 16(8):652–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x ↗
65. Rozin P (2006) Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgm Decis Mak 1(2):9110.1017/S1930297500002308 ↗
66. Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D, Swerdlin A, Wood K (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43(2):147–15410.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005 ↗
67. Rutsaert P, Regan Á, Pieniak Z, McConnon Á, Moss A, Wall P, Verbeke W (2013) The use of social media in food risk and benefit communication. Trends Food Sci Technol 30(1):84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.00610.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.006 ↗
68. Saher M, Lindeman M, Hursti UKK (2006) Attitudes towards genetically modified and organic foods. Appetite 46(3):324–33110.1016/j.appet.2006.01.015 ↗
69. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-210.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
70. Shelke K (2009) Is nano a no-no? Functional Ingredients [serial online] (93):18. http://www.newhope.com/supply-news-amp-analysis/nanotechnology-no-no . Accessed 30 Nov 2016
71. Siegrist M (2003) Perception of gene technology, and food risks: results of a survey in Switzerland. J Risk Res 6(1):45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698703200004779810.1080/1366987032000047798 ↗
72. Siegrist M (2008) Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(11):603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.01710.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017 ↗
73. Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):762–176910.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01720.x ↗
74. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HA (2005) A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Anal 25(1):211–22210.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x ↗
75. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007a) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging. The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.00210.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
76. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007b) Laypeople’s and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
77. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.02010.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 ↗
78. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H (2009) Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumer’s willingness to buy. Br Food J 111(7):660–66810.1108/00070700910972350 ↗
79. Sjöberg L, Moen BE, Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception: an evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde, Trondheim. https://www.forskningsradet.no/csstorage/vedlegg/Psychometric_paradigm.pdf . Accessed 8 Jun 2016
80. Smolander M, Chaudhry Q (2010) Nanotechnologies in food packaging. In: Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (eds) Nanotechnologies in food. RSC Publishing, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847559883-0008610.1039/9781847559883-00086 ↗
81. Swinnen JFM, McCluskey JJ, Francken N (2005) Reshaping agriculture’s contribution to society. Blackwell Oxford, Oxford
82. Te Kulve H (2006) Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Sci Cult 15(4):367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950543060102269210.1080/09505430601022692 ↗
83. Trefis Team (2014) McDonald’s faces declining sales in Asia after China food scandal Forbes. https://www.forbescom/sites/greatspeculations/2014/09/11/mcdonalds-faces-declining-sales-in-asia-after-china-food-scandal/#5b23f4f56de1 . Accessed 3 Aug 2017
84. Verbeke W, Ward RW (2001) A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agric Econ 25(2–3):359–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00215.x10.1111/j.1574-0862.2001.tb00215.x ↗
85. Weiss J, Takhistov P, McClements DJ (2006) Functional materials in food nanotechnology. J Food Sci 71(9):R107–R11610.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00195.x ↗
86. Yang X, Chuah ASF, Lee EWJ, Ho SS (2017) Extending the cognitive mediation model: examining factors associated with perceived familiarity and factual knowledge of nanotechnology. Mass Commun Soc 20(3):403–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.127143610.1080/15205436.2016.1271436 ↗
87. Yue C, Zhao S, Cummings C, Kuzma J (2015) Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J Nanopart Res 17(7):283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-3084-410.1007/s11051-015-3084-4 ↗
88. Zhou G (2013) Nanotechnology in the food system: consumer acceptance and willingness to pay. Theses and dissertation--Agricultural economics. 10. http://www.uknowledgeukyedu/agecon_etds/10 . Accessed 4 Jul 2016