Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust

Acceptance of nanotechnology applications and satisfaction with food-related life in southern Chile

“…The groups differed significantly (Table 4) in terms of level of satisfaction with food-related life and self-declared lifestyle Partly, these results are consistent with the greater acceptance for packages with nanotechnology than for foods with nanotechnology in developed countries Stampfli et al, 2010;Bieberstein et al, 2013). However, the rejection of the alternative without nanotechnology in either the food or the package is noteworthy, in contrast to the results found in developed countries, which indicate that consumers prefer foods produced conventionally (Siegrist et al, 2007(Siegrist et al, , 2009Stampfli et al, 2010;Bieberstein et al, 2013). This behavior was only observed in one of the consumer segments identified in this study, Group 2 (44%).…”

“…Studies conducted in European countries indicate that consumers are still skeptical about buying foods produced using nanotechnology (Reisch et al, 2011;Siegrist et al, 2007Siegrist et al, , 2008Stampfli et al, 2010;Bieberstein et al, 2013;Rollin et al, 2011). The results of these studies show that consumers perceive nanotechnology applications differently, and those that involve the use of nanotechnology in food packaging are more accepted than those that involve the use of nanotechnology in food processing (Siegrist et al, 2007Stampfli et al, 2010;Bieberstein et al, 2013).…”

“…The results of these studies show that consumers perceive nanotechnology applications differently, and those that involve the use of nanotechnology in food packaging are more accepted than those that involve the use of nanotechnology in food processing (Siegrist et al, 2007Stampfli et al, 2010;Bieberstein et al, 2013). Among the factors that affect acceptance of nanotechnology are the perceived risks and benefits (Siegrist et al, 2007Stampfli et al, 2010), knowledge and information regarding nanotechnology (Frewer et al, 2011;Rollin et al, 2011;Roosen et al, 2011), trust in the food industry and government regulations (Frewer et al, 2011;Hosseini et al, 2012;Siegrist et al, 2007Siegrist et al, , 2008Siegrist et al, , 2009Stampfli et al, 2010), and consumer demographics (Siegrist et al, 2007Eurobarometer, 2006).…”

Fruit and vegetable consumption – the influence of aspects associated with trust in food and safety and quality of food

“…That is to say, to believe in, or act upon, health promotion messages individuals need to be aware of either levels of risk or levels of trust related to the desired behaviour change (10)(11)(12) . One of the main levels of trust in terms of trust in food is in the overall safety and quality of the food supplied (13,14) . This covers consumer trust in producers, the suppliers, the packaging and the content.…”

Naming is framing: the public understanding of scientific names

“…There are indications that GM is especially controversial when presented with the purpose of food production (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1997;Marris, Wynne, Simmons, & Weldon, 2001;Pardo, Midden, & Miller, 2002, for similar effects of the purpose of food production on the acceptability of nanotechnology see Gupta, Fischer, & Frewer, 2012;Siegrist, Cousin, Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007;Siegrist, Stampfli, Kastenholz, & Keller, 2008;Steenis & Fischer, 2016). That the majority of research on the acceptance of GM is in the domain of food production is such an indication.…”