Stakeholder reactions toward iodine biofortified foods. An application of protection motivation theory

Steur, Hans De; Mogendi, Joseph Birundu; Wesana, Joshua; Makokha, Anselimo; Gellynck, Xavier

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.038

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous investigations on the construct perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, ; Povey, Conner, Sparks, James, & Shepherd, ), self‐efficacy was more often significantly influencing consumers’ new food technology evaluation than controllability. A positive influence of self‐efficacy on consumers’ evaluation of new food technologies was demonstrated with respect to GM (Cox, Evans, & Lease, ), biofortification (De Steur, Mogendi, Wesana, Makokha, & Gellynck, ; Mogendi et al., ), and fortification (Cox et al., ; Henson et al., ; Henson et al., ; Tudoran, Scholderer, & Brunso, ). This was also highlighted in the context of Australian consumers’ intentions to consume conventional and novel sources of long‐chain mega‐3 fatty acids (for example, GM food), where self‐efficacy (confidence to consume) was the most important predictor (Cox et al., ).…”

Section: Results Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies

Kamrath

Wesana

Bröring

et al. 2019

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New food technologies, such as genetic modification, food fortification, and processing technologies, are of growing interest for future food security and safety. For ensuring successful implementation of such technologies, consumers and other food supply chain actors should embrace them. We present a systematic review to identify and compare key factors of supply chain actors’ evaluation of new food technologies. Evaluation encompasses indicators such as likelihood or intention to perform a behavior, perceived benefits/risks, willingness to pay, acceptance/adoption, and attitudes. Results from 183 studies showed several imbalances in research. Although studies mainly focused on (1) genetically modified foods, (2) by consumers, (3) in developed countries, only very few studies have targeted other food technologies, other supply chain actors such as farmers (13 studies) or processors (two studies), or developing countries (43 studies). With respect to consumers’ evaluation, key determinants were trust in institutions, information assessment, perceived risks and benefits, attitudes toward the product or technology, perceived behavioral control, quality perception of the product, and impact on health. Farmers’ evaluation of new food technologies was explained by the factors of perceived risk and benefits and of actual source of information. For the few processor evaluation studies, no convergence of factors could be reached. This systematic review contributes to a better understanding of consumers’ and farmers’ evaluation behavior and opens up avenues for future research on supply chain actors’ food technology evaluations. The differences in the conceptualization and measurement of extracted factors demonstrate the need for standardized approaches in future studies.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies

Kamrath

Wesana

Bröring

et al. 2019

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on stakeholder analysis, 79,80 regulatory and policy issues (e.g., intellectual property issues), 81,82 and trade impacts 83 is needed to identify and evaluate the most optimal way and platform to deliver biofortified foods. Moreover, building upon the challenges in terms of development (e.g., micronutrient stability, bioavailability, field trials), efficacy, and effectiveness studies will be needed to feed socioeconomic analysis and further underpin its importance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The socioeconomics of genetically modified biofortified crops: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Steur

Wesana

Blancquaert

et al. 2016

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building upon the growing interest and research on genetically modified (GM) biofortification, its socioeconomic potential has been increasingly examined. We conducted two systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide comprehensive evidence of consumers' willingness to pay (11 economic valuation studies, 64 estimates) and costeffectiveness/benefits (five economic evaluation studies, 30 estimates). Worldwide, consumers were willing to pay 23.9% more for GM biofortified food crops. Aside from crop and design-related differences, information provision was deemed crucial. Positive information (nutrition and GM benefits) is associated with the highest consumer willingness to pay, compared with negative, objective, and conflicting GM information, especially when negative information was mentioned last. This health intervention would reduce the aggregated micronutrient deficiency burden in Asia (15.6 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)) by 12.5-51.4%, at a low cost of USD 7.9-27.8 per DALY in a pessimistic and optimistic scenario, respectively. Given that GM biofortified crops could tackle hidden hunger in a cost-effective and well-accepted way, its implementation is worth pursuing. A case study on folate biofortification further elaborates on the importance of socioeconomic research and the determinants of their market potential.

show abstract

“…In a study on consumer behavior regarding ferric soy sauce, researchers determined that consumers purchased more of these products when their perceived susceptibility and perceived severity of iron-deficient anemia was higher [ 32 ]. Another study, on the behavioral intention of consuming iodized foods to prevent mental retardation, demonstrated that higher self-efficacy among parents enhanced the behavioral intention to improve their children’s iodine consumption; by contrast, higher response costs reduced the school administrator’s behavioral intention [ 33 ]. In a study on the use of dietary supplements to prevent intellectual deterioration, higher perceived severity, self-efficacy, and response efficacy levels were determined to increase the behavioral intention toward consuming supplements [ 34 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study of Personal Health Record User’s Behavioral Model Based on the PMT and UTAUT Integrative Perspective

Hsieh

Kuo

Wang

et al. 2016

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The personal health record (PHR) is a system that enables borderless medical care services by combining technological innovation and human consideration. This study explored factors affecting the adoption of PHR from technical, medical, and social perspectives according to the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. A survey using a structured questionnaire was subsequently conducted, which produced the following results: (1) The PMT and UTAUT were effective at predicting PHR usage behaviors; (2) Perceived ease-of-use was the most decisive factor influencing the use of PHR, followed by self-efficacy and perceived usefulness; and (3) Behavioral intention for PHR was significantly and positively correlated with usage behavior. From the obtained results, this study recommends that health authorities and medical institutions promote self-efficacy in the use of PHR to improve the levels of behavioral intention and usage behavior among the people. Additionally, medical care institutions are recommended to promote health management and preventive healthcare concepts to help improve public acceptance of the PHR system as a means to self-manage their health. Finally, community centers, medical institutions, and health authorities are urged to work together to enhance public medical knowledge and pool resources for the PHR system, both of which are essential for improving the popularity of the PHR, public quality of life, and the effectiveness of health management.

show abstract

Stakeholder reactions toward iodine biofortified foods. An application of protection motivation theory

Cited by 25 publications

References 65 publications

What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies

What Do We Know About Chain Actors’ Evaluation of New Food Technologies? A Systematic Review of Consumer and Farmer Studies

The socioeconomics of genetically modified biofortified crops: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

A Study of Personal Health Record User’s Behavioral Model Based on the PMT and UTAUT Integrative Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About