What do we know about international public and consumer responses to future food technologies? Lynn J. Frewer, Nidhi Gupta and Arnout Fischer

1
What do we know about international public and
consumer responses to future food
technologies?Lynn J. Frewer, Nidhi Gupta and
Arnout Fischer
2
Key issues

• Increasingly impact assessment associated with
  food technology is focusing on both risks and
  benefits
• Consumer decision-making involves a trade-off
  between perceived risk and benefit
• New governance models are beginning to
• Incorporate integrated risk-benefit metrics at
  the assessment stage
• Consider health, environment, socio-economic and
  ethical impact as assessment metrics

3
Globalisation of food culture and the food supply

4
Consumer health

• Affluent countries face a pandemic
• of obesity
• Healthy foods
• Optimal taste
• Functional foods and ingredients
• Lifestyle-related illnesses increasing
• in emerging economies
• Food shortages in many parts of the
• world, despite the green revolution.

5
Sustainability

• More efficient production
• Reduced consumer wastage
• Environmental protection
• The biofuels crisis
• Implications for food availability

6
Misalignment between expert and citizen
perspectives regarding food risk management?
Results from Denmark, Germany, Greece,
Slovenia and the UK.
7
Consumers Experts A Perceptual Divide
Consumers
Experts
Consumer Awareness
Consumers not willing to seek information
Poor quality of information
Adequate Risk management and happy consumers
Risk management efforts
Continuing problems
More acceptance of economic interests
Risk management priorities
Less acceptance of economic interests
Emphasise consumer protection
Emphasise state and industry
Responsibility
Negative view - create public anxiety
Positive view
Media
Not acknowledged by all institutions
Inherent in science
Uncertainty
Krystallis et al, 2007, Health, Risk Society
8
Genetically modified foods in Europe consumer
protest
9
The case of genetically modified foods (1)

• Consumer values such as concern about the
  integrity of nature, and trust in the regulatory
  system were an important part of societal and
  consumer acceptance
• Developing communication about substantial
  equivalence did not address consumer concerns
• Control over consumption of GM foods was
  important to European consumers, necessitating
  the labelling of GM foods and implementation of
  effective traceability systems

10
The case of genetically modified foods (2)

• The negative public reaction to GM foods was less
  to do with risk, and more to do with consumer
  choice and provision of relevant information
• Marketing issue, not an ideological issue (who
  wants what products and why?)
• Opaque risk analysis systems and decision-making
  practices were not helpful in reassuring the
  public
• The absence of 1st generation products with
  tangible and desirable consumer benefits

11
From risk to risk-benefit.

• Considerable (and increasing) research activity
  directed towards perception of, and communication
  about, emerging technologies
• Most research has focused on risk communication?
• What impact does benefit communication have on
  attitudes?
• Transparent technology governance
• Effective citizen participation
• Informed consumer choice

12
Psychological determinants of public reactions to
food technologies Most research has focused on
perceived risk, trust and culpability, and, more
latterly, perceived benefit,
13
Gupta, Fischer and Frewer, in preparation
14
Psychological determinants of public reactions to
food technologies
15
An example of developing predictive models of
technology acceptance The case of GM trees
16
GM Hypoallergenic apple
Female0, Male1 Non-patient0, Patient1
Gender
-0.13
Rejection Factors
0.23
-0.34
Environ- mental concerns
Acceptance implementation Genetic Modification
R2 0.08
r - 0.60
Health concerns
Benefits
0.50
R2 0.57
Allergic patient
(Schenk et al, 2008)
17
GM hypoallergenic Birch tree
Female0, Male1 Non-patient0, Patient1
Gender
-0.16
Rejection Factors
Environ- mental concerns
0.17
-0.28
R2 0.06
Acceptance implementation Genetic Modification
r - 0.57
Health concerns
Benefits
0.11
R2 0.58
0.54
Allergic patient
0.18
R2 0.05
0.11
(Schenk et al, 2008)
18
Nanotechnology applications associated with
risk, benefit and cost
Application Benefit Risk Cost Uncertainty
Foods which have the potential for cognitive enhancement Improved cognitive performance Overuse /misuse of substances Nanoparticles in human body Financial (who can afford to be enhanced?) Creation of socially excluded individuals Unintended effects? Population level variability?
Nano-enabled microsensors in animals Real-time monitoring of health status through ICT application Animal welfare issues(?) Disadvantaged groups of farmers (e.g. in developing countries) Effects on human health through ingestion (?)
Nanoscale genetics Improved food production /Personal care products /Pharmaceutical production Negative consumer attitudes (from the GM debate) Research and development if consumer acceptance does not occur Environmental and health risk benefit assessment adequate?
19
Citizen attitudes to different agri production
technologies
Positive, strong (established) attitudes
Positive
Negative, strong (established) attitude
Negative
20

• What impact does risk and benefit information
  have on established attitudes?

21
Impact of risk-benefit information on established
attitudes

• Negative attitudes become slightly less negative
• Positive attitudes become slightly less positive

22
Citizen attitudes to different agri production
technologies
Positive
Moderately negative, ambivalent attitude
Negative
Van Dijk et al, submitted
23
Inverse U-shape relation between attitude and
attitudinal ambivalence post balanced information
provision
24
Individual differences in attitude

• Three segments of consumers
• Group 1 (42) became more negative
• Less / average education
• Group 2 (46 ) didnt change
• Less / average education
• Group 3 (12) became more positive
• Younger or older
• Male
• Highly educated

25
Potential marketing segments

• GROUP 1
• Food technology rejectors
• Group 2
• ambivalent
• Group 3
• Battlestar Galactica fanclub

26
Who will set the agenda for public debate

• Who will set the agenda for public debate
• .those people and societal groups who are either
  extremely positive or negative towards the food
  technology
• Industry must provide honest risk-benefit
  communication if consumer trust is to be
  maintained
• Undecided individuals will absorb the attitudes
  of those with whom they perceive to share values
• Future food technology is dependent on developing
  products which people want and need
• Consumer choice is essential

27
Conclusions

• Need to collect data a the same time in different
  geographical regions
• Increasingly sophisticated psychological
  modelling (e.g. risk/benefit perceptions) of
  attitudes
• Test link between attitudes and behaviour
• Consumers are not homogenous individual
  differences important
• Once established, attitudes difficult to change

28
Thank you! Any questions?