2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2010.12.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consumer response to food scandals and scares

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
85
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 139 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
85
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the conjoint analysis (Table 3) for the entire sample, the attribute of greatest importance during the purchase process was the production technology, followed by the price, brand, fat content, and finally the package. The signs of the utility values indicate preference for milk from a conventional animal in keeping with previous studies that have evaluated the acceptance of GM foods (International Food Information Council, 2014;Lähteenmäki et al, 2003;Mucci et al, 2004;Siegrist, 2008;Schnettler et al, 2010Schnettler et al, , 2012 in both developed and developing countries, and cloned (Aizaki et al, 2011;Creative Research, 2008;International Food Information Council, 2008;Brooks & Lusk, 2010, 2011Saeed et al, 2015) in developed countries. Nevertheless, in the case of GM foods, it contradicts the results of studies carried out both in developing (Costa et al, 2000;Kimenju & De Groote, 2008;De Steur et al, 2010) and developed countries (Cox et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to the conjoint analysis (Table 3) for the entire sample, the attribute of greatest importance during the purchase process was the production technology, followed by the price, brand, fat content, and finally the package. The signs of the utility values indicate preference for milk from a conventional animal in keeping with previous studies that have evaluated the acceptance of GM foods (International Food Information Council, 2014;Lähteenmäki et al, 2003;Mucci et al, 2004;Siegrist, 2008;Schnettler et al, 2010Schnettler et al, , 2012 in both developed and developing countries, and cloned (Aizaki et al, 2011;Creative Research, 2008;International Food Information Council, 2008;Brooks & Lusk, 2010, 2011Saeed et al, 2015) in developed countries. Nevertheless, in the case of GM foods, it contradicts the results of studies carried out both in developing (Costa et al, 2000;Kimenju & De Groote, 2008;De Steur et al, 2010) and developed countries (Cox et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Consumers may express concerns and fears about novel technologies such as genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs, nanotechnology and animal cloning, rejecting those technologies (Bánáti, 2011) which otherwise may provide useful solutions that are also in the consumers' interest (Bánáti, 2011;Mandaci et al, 2014;Ghazaei et al, 2015). This study compares acceptance of food obtained from genetically modified (GM), cloned and conventionally bred cows.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This disconnect may also be glossed as a loss of intimacy. Consumer confidence has plummeted while mistrust has proliferated, fueled by serial food scandals that shake the public faith in modern food production (Bánáti 2011;Berg 2004). These scandals highlight the vulnerability of consumers, who in turn have increasingly sought out information to educate themselves about the environmental, health, political and social implications of food production, distribution and consumption (Atkins and Bowler 2001;Nerlich 2004;Roos et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, species identification in dairy sector is important also to verify compliance with the Production Regulations of many typical dairy products (PDO/PGI) (Bánáti and Herman, 2011;Bottero et al, 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%