Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance
of Novel Food Technologies:
Research Highlights, Implications
and Recommendations
This research was undertaken by Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, University College Cork and Dublin Institute of
Technology as part of a Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM) project funded through the Department of Agriculture, Food
and the Marine under the NDP 2007-2013.
DAFM Reference Number: 08RDTAFRC659
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
Table of Contents
List of Figures 5
List of Tables 5
Executive Summary 7
Section 1: Background 9
1.1 Purpose of the Research 9
1.2 What are Novel Food Technologies? 9
1.3 Layout of Report 9
Section 2: Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective 10
2.1 Consumer Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies 10
2.2 Research Approach 11
2.3 Qualitative Research 11
2.3.1 Novel Food Technologies Examined 11
2.3.2 Methods 11
2.3.3 Key Findings 13
2.3.4 Key Insights 22
2.4 Quantitative Research 24
2.4.1 Methods 24
2.4.2 Key Findings 27
2.4.3 Key Insights 34
Section 3: Research and Analysis: Industry Perspective 36
3.1 Innovation and Technology Development in the
Food Industry 36
3.2 Methods 37
3.3 Key Findings 39
3.4 Key Insights 47
Section 4: Concluding Remarks and Recommendations 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.2 Research Highlights 49
4.3 Recommendations 51
References 53
Appendices 55
3
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
List of Figures
2.1 Factors Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes towards NFTs 13
2.2 Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Consume Products Using Nanotechnology
and Traditional Methods for Nano-inside and Nano-outside Applications 27
3.1 IP Protection Mechanism being Used by Irish Food Companies 41
3.2 Perceived Relevance of Regulation Type to Innovation Activities in Irish Food Companies 42
3.3 Impact of the Health and Nutrition Legislation (1924/2006/EC) on
Company Innovation Activities 42
3.4 Current Strategic Priorities for Respondent Companies 43
3.5 Average Value Placed on Different Knowledge Sources by Irish Food Companies 43
3.6 Prevalence of Different Types and Levels of Technological Innovation in Irish Food Companies 44
List of Tables
2.1 Issues Impacting Consumer Acceptance across the Specific Technologies 18
2.2 Product Prototype Attributes and Associated Levels 26
2.3 Relative Importance (%) of each of the Attributes and Utility Scores for each of
the Attribute Levels for the Nano-inside and Nano-outside Products 28
2.4 Characteristics of Nano-inside Segments 30
2.5 Differences in Utility Scores for each of the Attribute Levels across the Nano-inside Segments 30
2.6 Characteristics for Nano-outside Segments 32
2.7 Differences in Utility Scores for eachof the Attribute Levels across the
Nano-outside Segments 32
3.1 Number and Percentage of Companies in the Three Levels of Absorptive
Capacity for M1 and M2 45
Appendices
1. Technology Specific Summary Sheets 55
2. Overview of Hypothetical Scenarios of Food Applications of the Technologies
Presented to Consumers 60
3. Description and Diagram Provided to Respondents by the Interviewer 61
4. Example of Hypothetical Nano-inside (Cheese) and Nano-outside (Chicken
Packaging) Product Prototype Attributes and Levels 61
5. Socio-demographic Profiles of all Nano-inside and Nano-outside Respondents
and their Clusters 62
6. Mean Scores for Trust, Attitudes, Motives and Food Choice Rankings for the Total Sample,
the Nano-inside and Nano-outside Respondents 63
7. Mean Consumer Acceptance Scores for all the Product Prototypes and % Willing
to Eat the Products 64
8. Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Companies 65
4
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
The Research Team
Project Coordinator:
• Dr Maeve Henchion,
Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown.
Research Relating to Consumer
Perspectives on Novel Food Technologies
University College Cork:
• Dr Mary McCarthy, Senior Lecturer
• Ms Gráinne Greehy, Researcher
Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown:
• Dr Maeve Henchion, Head of Department
• Dr Sinéad McCarthy, Research Officer
• Dr Emma Dillon, Research Officer
Research Relating to Industry
Perspectives on Novel Food Technologies
Dublin Institute of Technology:
• Dr Gwilym Williams, Lecturer
• Ms Gráinne Kavanagh, Teagasc Post Graduate
Research Fellow
Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown:
• Dr Maeve Henchion, Head of Department
• Dr Sinéad McCarthy, Research Officer
University College Cork:
• Dr Mary McCarthy, Senior Lecturer
Acknowledgements
Achievement of the objectives of this project was
supported by strong co-operation and consultation
with major stakeholders through an Advisory Group.
This group comprised representatives from industry,
academia, funding bodies, policy makers and
support agencies. We wish to sincerely thank the
Advisory Group and also the participating
companies, scientists and consumers for their
contributions to this research.
5
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
Executive Summary
The Irish government has invested significantly in acceptance. How individuals “made sense” of the
novel technology research in recent years as one technologies based on their life experiences,
way to support the development of Ireland as a “perceived power and control” and the “perceived
knowledge-based bio-economy. Furthermore, the relevance” of the technologies resulted in a diverse
EU’s plans for sustainable food production set of evaluations across the sample. This draws
emphasise the role emerging technologies will play attention to rather heterogeneous groups within the
in delivering solutions to long-term challenges in population that respond differently to information on
society, such as climate change and a growing NFTs and suggests that rapid, widespread
world population. These novel technologies will not acceptance of radically new technologies is unlikely.
deliver the required benefits unless they are The key insights presented highlight that the
adopted by industry and accepted by consumers. processes of forming and changing attitudes
This FIRM funded research, undertaken by Teagasc towards NFTs are complex and dependent on
Food Research Centre, Ashtown, University College characteristics of the individual and the technology,
Cork and Dublin Institute of Technology examines and are impacted by the types and forms of
Irish consumer acceptance and industry uptake of information provided. Contextualisation of
novel food technologies (NFTs) in order to develop information about NFTs by consumers is based on
industry strategies and government policies to their life experiences and the beliefs and values that
support a knowledge based bio-economy. NFTs are are important to them. However, it is important to
described as scientific and technological note that the majority of people will not spend much
developments that alter the way food is produced time or effort trying to form rationally based
and processed and may or may not result in attitudes on NFTs. This presents an interesting
differentiated products for consumers. challenge when communicating with the public
about the merits of adopting cutting edge
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were technologies in food production.
used to collect consumer acceptance data. A
qualitative exploration of Irish consumers’ views on The quantitative consumer research focused on one
NFTs, involving observations of one-to-one specific technology (nanotechnology) with two
deliberative discourses (structured conversations) applications. Nanotechnology offers an interesting
between food scientists and consumers, unpicked case of enquiry as it is an emerging technology with
how attitudes about a range of such technologies potential for a wide range of applications in the food
form and considered the key influences on industry, yet currently the public, both nationally
7
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
Executive Summary
and internationally, are relatively unfamiliar with Qualitative in-depth interviews and a postal industry
food applications of this technology. Hence this survey were employed to gather clear insights into
research provides an early marker for potential the barriers and facilitators that impact industry
acceptance issues that may be encountered. This uptake of novel technologies. Overall the research
stage of the research involved surveying a nationally findings highlighted technological complexity, and
representative sample of 1,046 adult consumers. associated industry capacity, as a barrier to uptake.
For the purposes of assessing consumer The postal questionnaire revealed relatively high
preferences, the sample was divided into two groups levels of new product and process development over
with half of the respondents evaluating the use of the past three years within the Irish food industry.
nanotechnology in food (“nano-outside”) and the Using established measures of innovative capacity,
other half evaluating its use in food packaging which equate this attribute with the level of new
(“nano-outside”). Attitudinal determinants of NFT product/process/packaging development, the
acceptance and consumer trade-offs between industry may be judged to be ‘innovative’. However,
product attributes were measured. a consideration of conventional measures of
innovative capacity (such as the cited use of
The analysis highlighted that acceptance of patenting and existence of in-house research
nanotechnology is influenced by application, with infrastructure), in conjunction with opinions voiced
many consumers displaying negative attitudes in qualitative in-depth interviews, reveal a more
towards the technology. Nonetheless, these modest level of ‘true’ (radical) innovation. This leads
negative values (as measured by utility scores) for to questioning the utility of using measures of
nanotechnology may be counter-balanced by certain product and process development to anticipate the
benefits. The research demonstrated the value of receptivity of a company to radical technology
segmenting consumers as: all are not equally pro- emerging from the Irish third level sector. Using the
or anti-technology; all are not influenced to the more conventional measures, the research found
same extent by how the product is produced in their that Irish food companies can be divided into three
decision making; and, all do not value potential (approximately equal) capability levels ranging from
product benefits offered by the technology in the those that possess the required profile to
same way. It also highlighted that the number and commercialise advanced technologies to those with
size of consumer segments varies by technology virtually no ability to assimilate knowledge and
application. The absence of significant differences in commercialise outputs from a typical FIRM-funded
segments according to demographic variables project.
indicates that demographic variables are of limited
use in segmenting consumers. Food product As public perception and industry attitudes can have
attribute preferences were used to effectively a strong impact, both direct and indirect, on the
segment this sample. However attitudinal variables, progress of new technologies, the main
such as attitudes to nature, the environment and recommendation arising from this research is as
science and technology may also provide a basis for follows:
categorisation of consumers.
The development trajectory of new technologies
needs to be considered well in advance of market
launch with specific strategies required for
different stages of the development trajectory.
Openness and transparency should be fostered by
all stakeholders throughout the process.
8
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
1. Background
1.1 Purpose of the Research
This research examines the views of the Irish To date, NFTs have been met with mixed public
food industry and consumers about novel food reactions. A review commissioned by the Food
technologies (NFTs). Current Government Standards Authority (FSA), UK (Fell et al., 2009)
policy aims to develop Ireland as a knowledge- found that the majority of European consumers
based bio-economy and as a result, there has tend to be undecided in their opinions or feel
been significant investment in public and inadequately informed to establish definitive
private R&D (Forfás, 2011). NFTs form a key opinions about these technologies, while a
output from this investment and such minority are either strongly positive or negative.
technologies can support Irish food firms in Equally, the application of some technologies
developing products that can compete (e.g. nanofoods) may be considered more
effectively in a rapidly changing global food controversial than others (e.g. functional
market (Teagasc, 2008). They also form part of foods).
the EU’s plan for sustainable food production
and part of the solution to addressing long- 1.3 Layout of Report
term societal challenges such as climate Section 2 reports on consumer views about,
change and an increasing global population. and responses to, NFTs. Section 2.3 provides an
Given the scale of investment required to account of qualitative research of Irish
develop novel technologies, and related consumers’ responses to information on a
products, it is important to document the range of NFTs and key insights emerging. In
factors supporting and impeding industry particular, attention is given to the evaluative
uptake of such technologies and examine how processes within consumers’ minds that frame
consumers’ assessments of such technologies these responses and resulting attitudes
are framed. These data combined provide towards NFTs. Section 2.4 presents the findings
relevant information to support greater industry of quantitative research. It focuses on
uptake of novel technologies, while consumer behaviour and attitudes in relation to
appreciating and taking account of sources of two applications of nanotechnology and
public concern. Thus, the findings of this work examines the determinants of nanotechnology
should help inform and guide industry acceptance, in particular the trade-offs
strategies and government agri-food and consumers consider when making hypothetical
innovation policies. product choices.
1.2 What are Novel Food Technologies? Section 3 reports on the challenges faced by
NFTs are described as scientific and industry in the uptake of NFTs. Attitudes to
technological developments that alter the way innovation, new product development and
food is produced and processed and may or related issues are investigated among Irish
may not result in differentiated products for food companies, using mixed methods.
consumers. These developments may be
entirely new discoveries (e.g. in vitro meat), or Policy implications and recommendations are
their application to food may be what is novel discussed in the final section of the report.
(e.g. nanotechnology). They may offer a variety
of benefits to food companies, ranging from
efficiency gains to product differentiation. From
a marketing perspective, these technologies
can provide the food industry with opportunities
to gain a competitive advantage by satisfying
consumers’ diverse and increasingly conflicting
demands from foods. However this advantage
will only be achieved if the technology is not
met with suspicion or outright rejection.
9
Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
2.1 Consumer Acceptance of Novel Food 1. At the general level:
Technologies a) Socio-demographic factors, such as age,
Consumer acceptance of NFTs cannot be gender, level of education and social class
assumed. Genetically modified (GM) foods offer (Fell et al., 2009).
a case in point, where to date; the technology b) General attitudes and values, including
has broadly been rejected by the European attitudes towards technological progress,
public. Thus, as investments are made in the nature and the environment, and ethical and
development of novel technologies (frequently moral concerns (Bredahl, 2001; Grunert et
funded by the tax payer), it is imperative to al., 2003; Rollin et al., 2011).
appreciate the concerns and evaluative criteria c) Level of information processing (specifically,
used by the public when such technologies the use of simple rules, either intuitive or
come to the forefront of their consciousness. learned, when forming attitudes and making
Incorporating public opinions about NFTs at an decisions) (Slovic, 1987). For example,
early stage of their development (Siegrist, 2008) trust in government, industry and science,
is important, as public assessments can perceived control over exposure to potential
directly (e.g. through outright rejection) and risks and concepts and images associated
indirectly (e.g. through governmental agencies with the name of the technology have been
imposing stricter regulations, potentially found to influence attitude formations
leading to higher production costs) impact (Henson, 1995; Siegrist, 2008; Frewer et al.,
technological progression (Siegrist, 2010). The 2011).
public may perceive and evaluate both d) Perceived knowledge, understanding and
technologies and resulting food products in available information.
numerous and sometimes unanticipated ways.
2. At the technology and product level:
Food forms an integral part of everybody’s daily a) The perception of tangible benefits (Siegrist,
life and holds a variety of meanings, many of 2008; Fell et al., 2009) or risks associated
which are socially constructed and strongly with the technology and foods (Cardello,
embedded. These meanings, which are driven 2003) and their relevance to the individual
by beliefs, provide the framework for our and others.
responses to new food offerings and direct our b) Perceived or actual uncertainty about
reactions to new information about products potential unknown risks associated with the
and processes. In fact, responses to new technology (Hagemann and Scholderer,
situations are normally shaped (both 2009).
consciously and unconsciously) by prior beliefs c) Regulation and labelling (to enable freedom
and expectations. Thus, life experiences and of choice).
social structures (i.e. patterned social d) Congruency between the technology
arrangements such as gender, social class, application and carrier food product (e.g. the
etc.) form important determinants of responses addition of probiotics to dairy products).
to new situations. Modern society produces e) The specific application of the technology
diverse and complex lifestyles across the (Fell et al., 2009) and the interaction of the
population; consequently the interactions that technology with the product: e.g.
guide and direct beliefs, and thus responses to nanotechnology-based food packaging is
new situations, are many and varied. perceived as more beneficial and therefore,
In the area of NFTs, research to date has more acceptable than nanofoods
highlighted a number of influences on (Siegrist et al., 2007).
consumers’ evaluations of these technologies Given the wide array of influences that can
including: intersect and interact in the evaluations of
10Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
NFTs, it is not surprising that all NFTs are not implications of this for attitudes and
equally acceptable and that the public are not acceptance.
homogenous in their evaluations of them.
Appreciating the determinants of public 2.3.1 Novel Food Technologies Examined
evaluations of NFTs prior to product As the goal of this research was to gain
development and market commercialisation is insights into how consumers’ evaluative
necessary to guide food firms’ strategies and processes unfold, it was necessary to include a
inform government policy. In particular, policy range of technologies that represents a
can take account of the legitimate concerns of spectrum of possible food applications. Factors
the public with regard to these technologies in such as novelty, potential for controversy and
risk assessment, management and moral and ethical concerns, stage in
communication processes. Communication development and proximity to the market place,
based on meaningful recognition of public potential types of risk and benefits, and
concerns may also enhance interaction and likelihood for public debate guided the
engagement between stakeholders, which selection of the following eight technologies:
should in turn facilitate more informed
consumer decision making about these • Functional Foods
technologies (House of Lords, 2010). • GM Foods
• In Vitro Meat
2.2 Research Approach • Irradiated Foods
In the current study, both qualitative and • NanofoodsNon-thermal Technologies (High
quantitative methods are employed to identify Voltage Pulsed Electric Field and High
the determinants of consumer attitudes Intensity Ultra Sound)
towards and acceptance of NFTs. These two • Nutrigenomics/Personalised Nutrition
methods complement each other. The Products (PNPs)
qualitative study provides depth, delving into • Thermal Technologies (Radio Frequency
the determinants of acceptance across eight Heating and Ohmic Heating)
NFTs. The approach takes account of how
perspectives towards NFTs may evolve as new Appendix 1 includes a summary sheet
information is provided over time (i.e. it explaining each of these technologies.
considers the impacts of information on
attitude formation and change). The 2.3.2 Methods
quantitative study examines the determinants Fell et al. (2009: 54) stress “the lack of good
of acceptance of a specific technology in detail. qualitative work examining the links between
The potential trade-offs between a variety of underlying values, expressed attitudes and
benefits and potential perceived risks (using actual behaviours” in terms of NFTs and the
product attributes) are evaluated at a point in necessity to understand how these elements
time using a conjoint design. interact in order to “gain a full understanding of
public perceptions”. In addition, the European
2.3 Qualitative Research Commission (2009:17) has highlighted the need
This qualitative research examines how Irish to engage with citizens in terms of scientific
consumers evaluate eight selected NFTs. More developments and “to experiment with ways of
specifically it explores how individuals interaction, and evaluate where they might
construct meaning around and interpret lead”. These recommendations are taken into
information about these technologies, and the account through the approach adopted.
11Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
What the Approach Involved ensure participants felt comfortable expressing
This research was interested in understanding their opinions.
consumers’ evaluative processes towards
NFTs. In particular it sought to understand how The pre-discourse interview with consumers
new information is used and assimilated, and established their knowledge and attitudes
the implications of this on attitudes and towards the use of the technology. As public
acceptance. Consequently, an approach of awareness of NFTs (excluding GM foods) is
observing one-to-one “deliberative discourses” generally low (Fell et al., 2009), participants
between food scientists and consumers formed were given a summary sheet to read, which
the basis of this enquiry. included some factual information about the
relevant technology (detailed in Appendix 1).
A “deliberative discourse” is essentially an Doing this ensured that participants had a
interactive, structured conversation during minimum standard level of information about
which an issue is discussed in detail. This the technology prior to the discourse; and
approach ensured that the technology was could, therefore, engage in the two-way
brought to the forefront of participants’ conversation with more confidence. During the
consciousness. Scientists’ involvement in the discourse, the scientist was able to clarify and
process meant that any questions posed by build on the information presented in the
participants about the technology could be summary sheet. In other words, participants
responded to and expanded upon. In addition to considered the initial information provided and
the discourse, participants completed pre- and questioned the scientist regarding this and
post-discourse interviews to determine their then the scientist added information that the
knowledge before, and perspectives after, participants considered, questioned and
participating in the discourse. evaluated.
Participants In order to further explore attitudes towards
For each technology, a scientist with relevant different applications of the technology, the
expertise participated. Consumers were scientist presented pre-defined hypothetical
recruited, from the general public, based on (albeit topical) scenarios of its applications. The
pre-defined criteria. The sample included scenarios (summarised in Appendix 2)
consumers from a mix of socio-demographic illustrated benefits and risks (and pros and
backgrounds that were directly involved in food cons) of different applications of the technology
purchase decisions, were not employed within from a societal, consumer, environmental and
the food sector and displayed moderate to high industry perspective. Even for the more familiar
levels of generalised self-confidence (thus technologies (e.g. GM foods), the scenarios
increasing the likelihood of good interaction presented included novel applications (i.e. new
with the scientist). In total, 47 consumers information was provided). Participants were
participated in the discourses on the different probed to ascertain how they framed their
technologies. Each consumer discussed one views as information was presented.
technology. Developing the scenarios in advance ensured
consistency in the information presented; thus,
The Process facilitating comparative analysis of consumers’
A detailed “discourse guide” was prepared for reactions.
the scientists in advance to help them to
navigate through the discourse process. They Analysing the Data
were asked not to indicate their personal views Thematic analysis was undertaken on the
on the technology during the discourses, to discourse and interview transcripts with the
12Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
support of a qualitative software package (NVivo9), following the approach of Braun and Clarke (2006).
Thematic analysis involves identifying, coding, analysing and reporting themes within the data, and
interpreting these emerging themes in the context of the research questions.
2.3.3 Key Findings
A complex array of factors influenced consumers’ assessments of the eight selected technologies. The
key emerging themes in terms of these framing factors are summarised in Figure 2.1. The impact and
relevance of the identified factors (and associated themes) on consumers’ attitude formations varied,
depending on the technology and applications in question, and individuals’ characteristics and
interpretations of information. Consumers used different reasoning and thought processes in
evaluating the technologies.
General attitudes Networks of
& values meaning
Making sense of
the technology
Emerging
attitudes towards
Perceived relevance & technologies Uncertainty & need for
necessity within contexts information
Perceived Individuals’
relevance perceived
power/control
Trust, regulation &
Trade-offs
assurance of safety
Figure 2.1: Factors Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes towards NFTs
13Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
Theme 1: Making Sense of the Technology therefore resistant to change and
In an attempt to “make sense of the technology”, progress.
individuals drew on their previously held general
attitudes and values and “networks of meaning” to 1(b) Networks of Meaning
form initial evaluations of the technologies. When exposed to information about a specific
technology, individuals appeared to draw on pre-
1(a) General Attitudes and Values existing concepts and meanings to process such
Attitudes were shaped by individuals’ personality information. These “networks of meaning” were
traits and value orientations. In particular, general relied upon to classify and understand information
risk sensitivity and attitudes to nature, science and (i.e. place it within a context in individuals’ minds).
technology played substantive roles in guiding How these meanings were formed was driven by
evaluations. Each of these variables is discussed in individuals’ characteristics and experiences.
turn.
• Reasoned thinking (i.e. drawing on one’s own
• Those perceiving there to be generally high logical thought processes) acted as a
levels of risk associated with life activities mechanism for creating “meaning” around the
formed cautious responses to the applications technology (and prioritising risk and benefit
presented and stressed the need for adequate assessments). Specifically, existing knowledge
regulation, safety assurances and and personal experiences (i.e. knowledge of
transparency. Conversely, those exhibiting low food related issues including regulatory
risk sensitivity were more lassiez-faire (less standards/ safety assessments, work roles,
anxious) in their assessments. health status, educational experience, and life
stage) shaped evaluations as part of this
• Evaluations were influenced by individuals’ process of reflection. For example, those
stances on man’s ability (and right) to control working as accountants or business
nature, e.g. some were concerned about professionals drew on these experiences to
potential unknown repercussions of trying to create meanings and associations when
“control” nature. Attitudes varied in terms of assessing information about the technologies,
what was (and was not) perceived as natural; for example referring to economic implications,
e.g. some viewed the technologies to be using terms such as “demand”, “supply” and
an acceleration of natural processes while “stock levels”.
others viewed them as unnatural.
Environmental and animal rights issues and • Familiarity with the technologies (or lack of
moral and ethical considerations also impacted evidence about associated dangers in the case
evaluations, depending on individuals’ priorities of the more established technologies, e.g.
and the technology in question. For example, irradiated and GM foods) contributed to a less
some voiced concerns about these anxious response. Where familiarity and
technologies (specifically nutrigenomics and perceived knowledge were lacking, this led to
GM foods) “playing God” and the adoption of a precautionary stance
interfering with divine law and natural order. by some whose evaluations were based on a
“sense of dread”. Furthermore, lack of
• Attitudes towards the role of science and familiarity led individuals to superimpose
technology in society were influential; those the technologies on pre-existing networks of
reacting positively often portrayed themselves meaning (e.g. nutrigenomics to “space age”
as techno-enthusiasts: “We have to go with and “designer babies”); sometimes resulting in
science”. Conversely, others displayed a the misinterpretation of information.
tendency to be “stuck with (…) set ideas” and
14Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
• Comparisons to other familiar technologies Theme 2: Individuals’ Perceived Power/Control
were often made in an effort to place the novel The second theme related to individuals’
technologies within a context (e.g. comparisons perceptions of power and control; specifically how
between thermal processing and microwave uncertainty and need for information, and also trust
ovens and between in vitro meat and stem cell and regulation impacted attitude formations.
research). In addition, more risk adverse
individuals made comparisons to risks now 2(a) Uncertainty and Need for Information
known to be associated with, for example, Addressing scientific uncertainty and providing
smoking, asbestos, excessive use of x-rays and adequate information were prerequisites to
some food colourants. In contrast, those consumers being receptive to the technologies.
portraying themselves as less risk sensitive
made positive comparisons to established food • Uncertainty about potential negative outcomes
technologies (e.g. pasteurisation). In fact, an among the scientific community negatively
internal tension was evident, with concern impacted the stability of emerging attitudes
about these NFTs being set against evidence of and resulted in resistance towards applications
the success and benefits of more well- of the technologies. Worry about uncertain
established food technologies. outcomes was closely related to general risk
sensitivity, perceptions of unfamiliarity and lack
• Word and image associations were also of personal control over potential hazards.
generated around the technologies which Consequently, the importance of openness and
influenced initial assessments to varying transparency were stressed in situations where
degrees, depending on the technology. For uncertainty persists about potential associated
example, “genetic modification” was associated risks.
with the “injection of substances into food” and
food irradiation was associated with • Information provision (such as label
“radiation”. These particular image information) was considered essential, across
associations acted as barriers to consumer the technologies, particularly by more risk
acceptance and resulted in negative sensitive individuals, in order to enable
evaluations and attitude formations. personal control and informed voluntary
choice. However, the demand for information
• Individuals took intuitive stances; relying on was not ubiquitous; some displayed a greater
emotive reactions and affective responses need for cognition, and were more proactive
when forming (negative) assessments, information seekers, while others relied
particularly when lacking (or perceiving predominately on heuristics (i.e. emotive
themselves to lack) the ability and/or reactions). These individuals were, in effect,
motivation to understand the information “cognitive misers” (Scheufele & Lewenstein,
presented. Individuals displayed both 2005: 660), exhibiting limited interest in
“emotional responses” and “logical” responses. acquiring or processing relevant information
For many, tensions emerged in terms of these when evaluating the technologies: “Ignorance
conflicting responses; some were anxious is bliss”. This highlights the presence of
about the technologies, while concurrently unstable attitudes.
viewing their applications as “reasonable” and
“rational”. 2(b) Trust, Regulation and Assurances of Safety
Trust in science and regulatory procedures and
assurances of safety contributed to increased
consumer openness to the technologies.
15Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
• Trust in science, and thereby scientists, was a the technologies that can enhance the health of
key determinant framing positive evaluations. the nation should be welcomed. In fact, if
societal benefits were perceived as being
• Trust in regulators to control and ensure substantive, personal reservations were set
protection against any potential technological aside and, while not necessarily willing to
risk was also considered important, purchase such products, consumers believed
particularly where knowledge and personal that such products should be made available.
control were perceived to be lacking. Therefore, any personal rejection of applying
the technologies did not result in the objection
• Concerns with safety were pervasive and of their use for the benefit of others.
resulted in some individuals stressing the need
for a precautionary approach. The need for • Those concerned about the impacts of human
adequate regulation, transparency and risk behaviour on the environment were open to
assessments was therefore stressed and applications offering environmental
“rigorous testing” and safety assurances benefits, and the suggestion of any associated
demanded. In fact, positive attitudes were environmental risks resulted in negative
based on the assumption that the technologies evaluations. Those holding a more lassiez-faire
would be adequately regulated. attitude towards the environment were less
excited about environmental benefits and also
Theme 3: Perceived Relevance less concerned about potential environmental
The “perceived relevance”, necessity of the risks.
technologies and trade-offs to the individual, their
family, society, the environment and other • Although the potential impacts of adopting
stakeholders also influenced overall assessments. these technologies on other stakeholders,
Foods produced using NFTs offering value on including food companies, employees and
dimensions considered important (primarily health, farmers (i.e. their practices and livelihoods and
taste, safety and shelf life characteristics) in given also local produce) were raised, such
contexts were welcomed. There was a general references were secondary to individual and
openness to products where current offerings on familial implications.
the market place were seen as sub-optimal, and the
technologies offered an alternative that eliminated • Not all applications were viewed as offering
perceived sacrifices between highly valued additional benefits and in these cases, their
attributes (particularly health and taste). necessity was questioned. In addition,
benefits viewed as not accruing to consumers
3 (a) Perceived Relevance and Necessity within received more muted responses.
Contexts
The perceived relevance of the product 3(b) Trade-offs
characteristics to the individual, their family, Deliberation over potential risk/benefit trade-offs,
society, the environment and other stakeholders particularly those associated with price, was central
and the perceived necessity of the technology to product and application specific evaluations.
applications impacted on receptivity to the Tensions were evident concerning some of the
technologies. trade-offs, particularly in terms of perceived health
benefits of such foods and concerns about
• From a societal perspective, some felt that, interfering with nature.
subject to any associated risks being
adequately addressed, foods produced using
16Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
2. Research and Analysis: Consumer Perspective
Beyond the three themes outlined, unique features approval” (Hallman, 2000: 15) in terms of their
were evident across the technologies which are assessments of the applications presented,
discussed in the following section. based on their personal beliefs and values. For
example, some were more open to the concept
Differences among Technologies and Consumers of “in vitro mince” in ready-made meals than
Evaluations were influenced by the technology (and they were to that of an “in vitro steak”, as the
applications) in question and also individuals’ former was already perceived as a “processed”
perspectives when assessing the technology. food.
• Although many of the factors framing • The “networks of meaning” formed to evaluate
consumers’ assessments were common across the technologies varied, with some considering
the technologies, factors specific to each the technologies via a broad lens, incorporating
technology were also apparent (outlined in their impact on society, the environment and
Table 2.1). other stakeholders, while others focused
predominately on the personal and/or familial
• How consumers “made sense of the relevance of the applications and hypothetical
technology” occurred through both reflective foods presented. Furthermore, for some,
and shallow processes, depending on personal assessments focused on product specific
characteristics (for example, need for characteristics, whereas the assessments of
cognition, i.e. information) and the specific others were more conceptual and abstract in
technology. Certain technologies (e.g., thermal nature.
and non-thermal processing and functional
foods) were considered more “benign” than • Finally, some consumers were stronger in their
others (e.g. in vitro meat). The findings indicate convictions and initial attitudes, while others
that attitudes may change as new information were more malleable in their assessments
is provided. (depending on the technology in question and
how it aligned to their personal goals and
• Evaluations of the technology applications, and priorities) and new information led to
associated risks and benefits, were not reassessments of the technologies. This
homogenous across the sample. For example, malleability may, in part, be due to shallow
some were more in favour of genetically information processing.
modifying animals using animal genes whereas
others preferred the concept of genetically
modifying animals using plant genes.
Furthermore, while older individuals tended to
be more risk adverse, their concern for their
health status contributed to their receptivity to
applications offering unique and significant
health benefits.
• Unique “rule books” of acceptance were
formed; a key component of which was
individuals’ classifications of the applications
and products and the associated “meanings”
they reflected upon to provide the framework
for their evaluations. As part of this “rule
book”, consumers displayed a “hierarchy of
17Table 2.1
Issues Impacting Consumer Acceptance
across the Specific Technologies
Issues impacting
consumer
acceptance Functional Foods Food Irradiation Genetic Modification
Specific consumer Life stage and health status A preference for natural foods, Familial connections with rural
characteristics framing (personal and familial) and health family status, experience with area
attitudes concerns foodborne illness and food safety
concerns
Consumer awareness of High - products are already on Low to medium - poor factual High due to media coverage
the technology the market - consumers were understanding and the availability of GM
more familiar with the concept products on the US market
than the term “functional foods”
Making sense of the Supplement foods, “food that The symbol for “radiation”, “Injection of substances into
technology: Cognitive has extra stuff in it that will radiation factories, cancer food” to make it bigger, “huge
associations (specifically, benefit you”, fortified milk, foods treatment and “zapping with x- big tomatoes or square
word and image consumed by astronauts and rays”. The name “irradiation” cucumbers”, human
associations) soldiers and healthy people was considered a major barrier intervention and individuals’
to consumer acceptance genetic make-up
Making sense of the Individuals adding healthy Risks associated with certain BSE (i.e. how this resulted
technology: Comparisons ingredients when baking and food colourants (an example of a from interfering with the
to other technologies and cooking in the home (+ unknown risk which is now food chain)
comparison) known) (-) (-)
risks
Making sense of the Mainly considered at the Considered at both logical and Considered primarily at the
technology: Main logical/practical level emotional levels emotional level
responses
18Non-thermal and Thermal Nutrigenomics and
Processing (Note: technologies are grouped Personalised Nutrition
together given similarity of findings) Products (PNPs)
In Vitro Meat Nanotechnology
A preference for natural Attitude towards technology and None Life stage, health status
foods, age and outlook on general risk sensitivity (personal and familial) and
tradition health concerns
Low - although some Low - although familiar with the Low - although very familiar with Low - although familiar with
were familiar with related concept of functional conventional alternatives (i.e. the related concepts of food
associated concepts (i.e. foods pasteurisation and microwave intolerance testing, genetic
stem cell research) ovens) testing and functional foods
Animal cloning, genetic “Tiny robots”, computers, mobile Some associated ultrasound with Nutrigenomics: nutrients and
technologies and science phones and “small or compact” its medical usage cells, other genetic
fiction items technologies, blood testing,
“designer babies”, space age,
conspiracy theories,
Aryanism and science fiction
PNPs: healthy people and
targeted nutrition
Medical research GM technologies and risks now Technologies that already Nutrigenomics: other
(including stem cell known to be associated with conventionally accepted (e.g. genetic technologies and
research), animal cloning, asbestos and smoking (-) pasteurisation and microwave allergy/food intolerance
Star Trek, vegetarian ovens) (+) testing (+/-)
meat substitutes and BSE PNPs: functional foods (+)
(+/-)
Considered at both logical Considered at both logical and Considered primarily at the Considered at both logical
and emotional levels emotional levels logical/practical level and emotional levels
19Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Irish Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
Issues impacting
consumer
acceptance Functional Foods Food Irradiation Genetic Modification
Perceived naturalness of Perceived overall to be relatively Perceived by some as interfering Viewed as interfering with
the technology natural However, judgements with the naturalness of the foods nature and natural order. Some
made based on product/process and traditional methods of food GM applications considered
in question (i.e. probiotic yogurts production/ processing more unnatural than others
versus CLA enriched meat) (e.g. GM animals)
Perceived ethical / moral Low (although some concerns Relatively low (based on a set of Medium to high (viewed, to a
concerns and / or voiced about the medicalisation assumptions with regard to certain extent, as tampering
implications associated of food and dosage issues) labelling, monitoring and safety with nature and divine law)
standards that are implemented)
with the technology
Perceived power and High levels of perceived control Through compulsory labelling of Through compulsory labelling
control over the due to trust in science and irradiated foods, medium levels of GM foods, medium levels of
technology (Note: regulation. Assumed products of perceived power/ control perceived control over the
labelling information was are safe. Technology also seen to were evident. technology were evident.
considered essential for support self-empowerment over Duration of application However lack of trust
all technologies) personal/familial health attenuated safety concerns undermined perceived control
Significant perceived Health benefits Varied (some valued increasing Varied (i.e. health benefits
personal benefits (and food safety/ extending shelf-life were perceived to be
relevance to the if these attributes aligned with associated with certain
personal/ familial goals) applications)
individual) associated
with the technology
Significant perceived Societal health benefits Increasing food safety, extending Potentially increasing food
societal and shelf-life, reducing food wastage supply and security and
environmental benefits and trade barriers and societal health in developing
standardising sanitation levels countries
associated with the
technology
Perceived benefits to Benefits primarily viewed from Some concerns voiced about Concerns voiced about
industry associated with the consumer’s perspective benefits accruing primarily to benefits accruing primarily to
the technology (i.e. industry industry
distribution of benefits)
Significant perceived Dosage (quantity/ monitoring) Affecting the naturalness or Uncertainty associated with
personal risks (and/or issues, concerns about the impairing the quality of food and scientific knowledge about GM
negative consequences) medicalisation of food and any causing the food to become technology, potentially leading
associated price premiums carcinogenic or have other to unforeseen consequences to
associated with the
detrimental impacts on individuals’ health
technology individuals’ health
Significant perceived Similar to perceived personal Traceability issues, insufficient Animal welfare issues, impacts
societal and risks/ negative consequences regulation and safety assurances on farmers’ livelihoods/
environmental risks (outlined above) for irradiation factory workers expertise, environmental (i.e.
and the environment surrounding biodiversity) implications,
(and/or negative
the factory threats to “natural order”,
consequences) scientific uncertainty and
associated with the general lack of control over the
technology technology
Conditions of consumer Taste not being compromised Assurances of safety and quality Assurances of safety and
acceptance of the and any price premiums not and taste not being benefits being extended to
technology being too high compromised consumers/ society (and not
just to industry)
Overall consumer Positive (due to perceived Depends on views regarding Relatively negative (however,
reactions towards the relevant health benefits to food safety/extending shelf life depends on views regarding
technology consumers and minimal and perceptions of the perceived benefits and risks)
associated risks) naturalness and necessity of the
technology
20Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Irish Research Highlights, Implications and Recommendations
Non-thermal and Thermal Nutrigenomics and
Processing (Note: technologies are grouped Personalised Nutrition
together given similarity of findings) Products (PNPs)
In Vitro Meat Nanotechnology
Considered potentially Viewed as interfering with Technologies were not Perceived naturalness did not
extremely unnatural nature/the naturalness of food. considered particularly unnatural emerge as a particular
Some applications were in comparison to conventional consideration of consumers
considered more unnatural than alternatives currently used when discussing this
others (i.e. nano-packaging due to its use technology
of in-organic nanoparticles)
Considered a potential
solution to the ethical Relatively low (once adequate Low (no specific ethical or moral Potentially high (concerns
dilemma inherent in labelling and regulations are concerns were raised) were raised about “genetic
slaughtering animals for implemented) privacy” and social equality
consumption. Also issues, fear of “playing God”
considered to “redefine” and whether young children
the concept of meat should undergo such testing)
It was felt that in vitro Medium levels of perceived Control and trust were not Nutrigenomics was considered
meat would have to be control over the technology considered particularly to support self-empowerment
strictly monitored and (through trust in regulatory important, given limited over one’s personal/familial
controlled to ensure no frameworks and scientists) were perceived associated risks health status (i.e. the ability to
unforeseen consequences evident take preventative action)
emerge
Applications offering improved
No clear personal benefits Benefits such as increased food Health benefits (particularly in
taste and increased food safety,
perceived safety/ quality and extended terms of disease prevention
shelf life and health
shelf life were recognised but not and prolonging life)
characteristics were perceived as
highly valued as they were
beneficial, if these attributes
perceived to be offered by
aligned with individual/ familial
conventional alternatives
goals
Potential environmental,
animal welfare/ food Societal health benefits and Environmental benefits from Societal health benefits
supply benefits. Process positive environmental impacts increased efficiencies (i.e. energy (considered to potentially be
also considered to (through reduced packaging and savings and waste reduction) extremely high)
potentially bring food wastage resulting from
standardisation (e.g. of fat increased food safety/ extended
content) and efficiency in
meat production shelf life)
Some voiced concerns Concerns voiced about benefits It was felt that the associated Some concerns voiced about
about benefits potentially accruing not just to consumers benefits accrue mainly to benefits accruing to industry,
accruing primarily to but also to industry industry. However, this was not a in addition to
industry particular concern, given limited consumers/society
perceived risks to consumers
The texture and quality of Acquiring information
in vitro meat being sub- Potential unknown negative No associated personal risks regarding disease susceptibility
optimal, the perceived consequences to human health perceived to exist. Some could negatively affect life
unnaturalness of the applications were not valued or choices and result in increased
process and potential considered particularly relevant risk aversion and mental
unforeseen consequences to consumers anguish. Also, concerns about
(given the novelty of the the practicalities of purchasing,
process) preparing and consuming PNPs
The technology’s Unknown consequences of No substantive risks were “Genetic privacy” and social
potential impact on adopting the technology on perceived to exist inequality issues. In particular,
traditional farming human health and the financial restrictions limiting
practices and the farming environment (i.e. the ecosystem) individuals’ access to such
landscape testing and dietary advice.
Concerns also voiced about
who should endorse such
services
Safety assurances, the taste The cost of the testing/ PNPs being
and quality of such products Assurances of safety, taste not Taste and quality not being affordable, “genetic privacy”/social
not being sub-optimal and being compromised and benefits compromised equality issues being adequately
their price not being being extended to consumers addressed and education about the
prohibitively expensive technology being provided
Unclear (depends on a Depends on views regarding Apathetic (based on perceived Unclear (potentially positive
variety of circumstances perceived benefits and risks of benign nature of the due to health benefits).
including the future However, reactions also
different applications of the technologies)
supply/price of traditional depend on how “genetic
technology
meat and relative price of privacy”/social equality issues
in vitro meat) are addressed
21You can also read
