journal article·2015-03

Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies

J. Brown, L. Fatehi, J. Kuzma

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 17· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

To better explore and understand the public's perceptions of and attitudes toward emerging technologies and food products, we conducted a US-based focus group study centered on nanotechnology, nano-food, and nano-food labeling. Seven focus groups were conducted in seven locations in two different US metropolitan areas from September 2010 to January 2011. In addition to revealing context-specific data on already established risk and public perception factors, our goal was to inductively identify other nano-food perception factors of significance for consideration when analyzing why and how perceptions and attitudes are formed to nanotechnology in food. Two such factors that emerged—altruism and skepticism—are particularly interesting in that they may be situated between different theoretical frameworks that have been used for explaining perception and attitude. We argue that they may represent a convergence point among theories that each help explain different aspects of both how food nanotechnologies are perceived and why those perceptions are formed. In this paper, we first review theoretical frameworks for evaluating risk perception and attitudes toward emerging technologies, then review previous work on public perception of nanotechnology and nano-food, describe our qualitative content analysis results for public perception toward nano-food—focusing especially on altruism and skepticism, and discuss implications of these findings in terms of how public attitudes toward nano-food could be formed and understood. Finally, we propose that paying attention to these two factors may guide more responsible development of nano-food in the future.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Risk Perception and Management · Environmental Education and Sustainability

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (81)

Show source-provided references
1. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100:464–47710.2307/2234133 ↗
2. Bauman Z (1998) Work, consumerism and the poor. Open University Press, Buckingham
3. Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus, Amherst, NY
4. 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 40:73–9410.1093/erae/jbr069 ↗
5. Blair T (2003) Progress and justice in the 21st century. Fabian Society, London
6. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30:512–54810.1111/ropr.12035 ↗
7. Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanaopart Res 10:387–39110.1007/s11051-007-9286-7 ↗
8. Cai Y, Shaw WD, Wu X (2008) Risk perception and altruistic averting behavior: removing arsenic in drinking water. In 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27–29, 2008, Orlando, Florida, no. 6149. American Agricultural Economics Association (new name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association)
9. Carey MA (1994) The group effect in focus groups: planning, implementing and interpreting focus group research. In: Morse J (ed) Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 225–241
10. Carey MA, Smith MW (1994) Capturing the group effect in focus groups: a special concern in analysis. Qualitat Health Res 4(1):123–12710.1177/104973239400400108 ↗
11. Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J, Ross B, Boxall A, Castle L, Watkins R (2008) Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Addit Contam 25:241–25810.1080/02652030701744538 ↗
12. Chun AL (2009) Will the public swallow nano food? Nat Nanotechnol 4:790–79110.1038/nnano.2009.359 ↗
13. Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2007) Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. Br Food J 109:675–68810.1108/00070700710780670 ↗
14. De Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40:330–35410.1177/0013916506297831 ↗
15. De Groot JIM, Steg L, Poortinga W (2013) Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal 33:307–31710.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.x ↗
16. Dickie M, Gerking S (2007) Altruism and environmental risks to health of parents and their children. J Environ Econ Manag 53:323–33410.1016/j.jeem.2006.09.005 ↗
17. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–37210.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444 ↗
18. Douglas M, Wildavsky AB (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley
19. Dudo A, Choi DH, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the news. coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–8910.1016/j.appet.2010.11.143 ↗
20. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2007) Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (eds) Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and skepticism in the public mind. Earthscan, London
21. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc 3:159–17210.1080/713670162 ↗
22. Fischer AR, van Dijk H, de Jonge J, Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2013) Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public Underst Sci 22:817–83110.1177/0963662512440220 ↗
23. 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 9:127–15210.1007/BF00143739 ↗
24. Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, Vereijken C (2011) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:442–45610.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005 ↗
25. Giddens A (1994) Beyond left and right. Polity, Cambridge
26. Gupta N, Fischer AR, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14:1–15
27. Gwet KL (2014) Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC, Gaithersburg
28. Hopper JR, Nielsen JM (1991) Recycling as altruistic behavior normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environ Behav 23:195–22010.1177/0013916591232004 ↗
29. House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee (2010) Nanotechnologies and food. Authority of the House of Lords. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldsctech/22/22i.pdf . Accessed 15 Nov 2014
30. Jones-Lee MW (1991) Altruism and the value of other people’s safety. J Risk Uncertain 4:213–21910.1007/BF00056126 ↗
31. Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of risk theory. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 725–75910.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_28 ↗
32. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Legal Stud 4:465–50510.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x ↗
33. Kahan D, Slovic P, Braman D, Cohen G, Gastil J (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
34. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–7010.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S ↗
35. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8:177–18710.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x ↗
36. Khwaja A, Sloan F, Chung S (2006) The effects of spousal health on the decision to smoke: evidence on consumption externalities, altruism and learning within the household. J Risk Uncertain 32:17–3510.1007/s10797-006-6664-5 ↗
37. Klein P (2010) Skepticism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/skepticism/ . Accessed 24 November 2014
38. Köhler A, Som C (2008) Environmental and health implications of nanotechnology—have innovators learned the lessons from past experiences? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14:512–53110.1080/10807030802071812 ↗
39. Krueger RA, Casey MA (2009) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Los Angeles
40. Kuzma J, Verhage P (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production: anticipated applications. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2706/94_pen4_agfood.pdf . Accessed 24 November 2014
41. Lusk JL, Nilsson T, Foster K (2007) Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environ Resour Econ 36:499–52110.1007/s10640-006-9039-6 ↗
42. Lux Research (2014) Nanotechnology update: corporations up their spending as revenues for nano-enabled products increase. https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/report_excerpt/16215 . Accessed 24 November 2014
43. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–24110.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
44. Marsh S, Dibben MR (2005) Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust–an exploration of the dark (er) side. In: Hermann P et al (eds) Trust management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 17–3310.1007/11429760_2 ↗
45. McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2001) Trust and distrust definitions: one bite at a time. In: Falcone R et al (eds) Trust in cyber-societies. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–5410.1007/3-540-45547-7_3 ↗
46. Mishler W, Rose R (1997) Trust, distrust and skepticism: popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. J Polit 59:418–45110.2307/2998171 ↗
47. Morgan D (1996) Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 22:129–15210.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 ↗
48. Morgan DL, Krueger RA (1993) When to use focus groups and why. In: Morgan DL (ed) Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 3–1910.4135/9781483349008.n1 ↗
49. NNI National Nanotechnology Initiative (2014) http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/special . Accessed 24 November 2014
50. Office of Basic Energy Sciences (2006) The scale of things – Nanometers and more. Office of Science, US Department of Energy. http://science.energy.gov/bes/news-and-resources/scale-of-things-chart/ . Accessed 15 Nov 2014
51. PEN Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2014) Consumer inventory. http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/ . Accessed 24 November 2014
52. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–21010.1080/13698570701306906 ↗
53. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23:961–97210.1111/1539-6924.00373 ↗
54. Powell D, Leiss W (2004) Mad cows and mother’s milk, 2nd edn. McGill Queen’s University Press, Montreal
55. Pritchard D (2004) Contemporary skepticism. In: Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont/ . Accessed 24 November 2014
56. Rabiee F (2004) Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc 63:655–66010.1079/PNS2004399 ↗
57. Rohrmann B, Renn O (2000) Risk perception research. Cross-cultural risk perception. Springer, New York, pp 11–5310.1007/978-1-4757-4891-8_1 ↗
58. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm . Accessed 24 November 2014
59. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:4752–475810.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
60. Schiff M (1970) Some theoretical aspects of attitudes and perception. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
61. Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. Adv Experim Soc Psychol 10:221–27910.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5 ↗
62. Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31:1762–176910.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01720.x ↗
63. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–46610.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
64. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51:283–29010.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 ↗
65. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H (2009) Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: a conjoint study examining consumers’ willingness to buy. Br Food J 111:660–66810.1108/00070700910972350 ↗
66. Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–1210.1111/0272-4332.00001 ↗
67. Slimak MW, Dietz T (2006) Personal values, beliefs and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 26:1689–170510.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x ↗
68. Slovic P, Västfjäll D (2010) Affect, moral intuition, and risk. Psychol Inquity 21:387–39810.1080/1047840X.2010.521119 ↗
69. Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–42410.1111/0022-4537.00175 ↗
70. Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50:65–8410.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x ↗
71. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A social psychological theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97
72. Taylor-Gooby P (2006) Social divisions of trust: scepticism and democracy in the GM nation debate. J Risk Res 9:75–9510.1080/13669870500288742 ↗
73. Thøgersen J, Ölander F (2002) Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J Econ Psychol 23:605–63010.1016/S0167-4870(02)00120-4 ↗
74. Throne-Holst H, Strandbakken P (2009) Nobody told me I was a nano-consumer: how nanotechnologies might challenge the notion of consumer rights. J Consum Policy 32:393–40210.1007/s10603-009-9114-9 ↗
75. Tucker WT, Ferson S (2008) Evolved altruism, strong reciprocity, and perception of risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1128:111–12010.1196/annals.1399.012 ↗
76. U.S. Census Bureau (2015) http://www.census.gov/topics.html . Accessed 15 February 2015
77. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain. The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20:195–20610.1177/0963662509350139 ↗
78. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Forrest A (1988) Altruistic and private valuations of risk reduction. J Policy Anal Manag 7:227–24510.2307/3323826 ↗
79. WÅhlberg AE (2001) The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception. J Risk Res 4:237–25010.1080/13669870152023791 ↗
80. Whitfield SC, Rosa EA, Dan A, Dietz T (2009) The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29:425–43710.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x ↗
81. Zhuo G, Wuyang H, Schieffer J, Robbins L (2013) Public acceptance of and willingness to pay for nanofood: case of canola oil. Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2013 AAEA & CAES joint annual meeting, Washington, DC, August 4–6, 2013