IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v44y2017i4p683-704..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications

Author

Listed:
  • Lynn J. Frewer

Abstract

Food insecurity represents a major global challenge. The development and application of agrifood technologies as routes to ‘sustainable intensification’ of agrifood production may improve local and national food security. This paper will consider societal responses to various agrifood technologies. Consumer non-acceptance of enabling agrifood technologies, and their products, is an important barrier to their commercialisation. Case studies (pesticides, genetic modification of plants and animals, nanotechnology in agriculture, nutrigenomics in nutrition security and synthetic biology) are considered along a temporal axis (from the 1950s to the present). Experts and regulators have increasingly recognised the importance of the role of risk and benefit perceptions. The normative assumption that consumers are ‘anti-agrifood technology’ is rejected.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:683-704.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbx007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    3. Lang, John T., 2013. "Elements of public trust in the American food system: Experts, organizations, and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 145-154.
    4. Shirley Leitch & Sally Davenport, 2007. "Corporate Brands and Social Brands: Co-Branding GM-Free and UK Supermarkets," International Studies of Management & Organization, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 45-63, January.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    6. Robert Yawson & Jennifer Kuzma, 2010. "Systems Mapping of Consumer Acceptance of Agrifood Nanotechnology," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 299-322, December.
    7. Finucane, Melissa L. & Holup, Joan L., 2005. "Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1603-1612, April.
    8. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    9. Stewart-Knox, B.J. & Markovina, J. & Rankin, A. & Bunting, B.P. & Kuznesof, S. & Fischer, A.R.H. & van der Lans, I.A. & Poínhos, R. & de Almeida, M.D.V. & Panzone, L. & Gibney, M. & Frewer, L.J., 2016. "Making personalised nutrition the easy choice: Creating policies to break down the barriers and reap the benefits," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 134-144.
    10. Dae-Kyun Ro & Eric M. Paradise & Mario Ouellet & Karl J. Fisher & Karyn L. Newman & John M. Ndungu & Kimberly A. Ho & Rachel A. Eachus & Timothy S. Ham & James Kirby & Michelle C. Y. Chang & Sydnor T., 2006. "Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7086), pages 940-943, April.
    11. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenjing Zhang & Jianhong Xue & Henk Folmer & Khadim Hussain, 2019. "Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Foods Among Residents in Xi’an, China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Viscecchia, Rosaria & De Devitiis, Biagia & Carlucci, Domenico & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio, 2018. "On Consumers' Acceptance of Nanotechnologies: An Italian Case Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    3. Antonella Cammarelle & Rosaria Viscecchia & Francesco Bimbo, 2021. "Intention to Purchase Active and Intelligent Packaging to Reduce Household Food Waste: Evidence from Italian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Caterina Contini & Fabio Boncinelli & Giovanna Piracci & Gabriele Scozzafava & Leonardo Casini, 2023. "Can blockchain technology strengthen consumer preferences for credence attributes?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Muhammad Adzran Che Mustapa & Latifah Amin & Ahmad Firdhaus Arham, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Intention to Adopt Gene Therapy in Malaysia: Effects of Age, Education, and Religion," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, November.
    6. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain, 2022. "Consumer preferences for chlorine-washed chicken, attitudes to Brexit and implications for future trade agreements," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Gesa Busch & Erin Ryan & Marina A. G. Keyserlingk & Daniel M. Weary, 2022. "Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 151-164, March.
    8. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    9. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    10. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    11. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucy Mallinson & Jean Russell & Duncan D. Cameron & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Horton & Margo E. Barker, 2018. "Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1145-1161, October.
    2. Frewer, L.J. & Coles, D. & Dijkstra, A.M. & Kuznesof, S. & Kendall, H. & Kaptan, G, 2016. "Synthetic Biology Applied In The Agrifood Sector: Societal Priorities And Pitfalls," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 10(2-3), pages 1-8, October.
    3. Carlo Russo & Mariarosaria Simeone & Maria Angela Perito, 2020. "Educated Millennials and Credence Attributes of Food Products with Genetically Modified Organisms: Knowledge, Trust and Social Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    5. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    6. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    7. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    10. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    11. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    12. Jaap Sok & Egil A J Fischer, 2020. "Farmers' heterogeneous motives, voluntary vaccination and disease spread: an agent-based model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1201-1222.
    13. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    14. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    15. Fiore, M. & Gaviglio, A. & Demartini, E. & La Sala, P., 2018. "Sugarcoating Food Technologies and consumers’ acceptance of long-life fish," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275971, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Clark, Ephraim & Lahiani, Amine & Mefteh-Wali, Salma, 2023. "Cryptocurrency return predictability: What is the role of the environment?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    17. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    18. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    19. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    20. Savadori, Lucia & Mittone, Luigi, 2015. "Temporal distance reduces the attractiveness of p-bets compared to $-bets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 26-38.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agrifood technology; consumer acceptance; risk perception; benefit perception; attitude;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:44:y:2017:i:4:p:683-704.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.