State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception

Ueland, Øydis; Gunnlaugsdóttir, Helga; Holm, F.; Kalogeras, N.; Leino, O.; Luteijn, Michiel; Magnússon, S.H.; Odekerken, G.; Pohjola, Mikko; Tijhuis, Marja; Tuomisto, Jouko; White, B.C.; Verhagen, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.006

Cited by 89 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1986). Concerns about potential unknown risks have often been attached to novel foods and technologies (Grunert et al, 2011;Ueland et al, 2012), and cultured meat was no exception (Box 2K).…”

Section: Fearing Personal Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oCultured meat has evolved from an idea and concept into a reality with the August 2013 cultured hamburger tasting in London. Still, how consumers conceive cultured meat is largely an open question. This study addresses consumers' reactions and attitude formation towards cultured meat through analyzing focus group discussions and online deliberations with 179 meat consumers from Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Initial reactions when learning about cultured meat were underpinned by feelings of disgust and considerations of unnaturalness. Consumers saw few direct personal benefits but they were more open to perceiving global societal benefits relating to the environment and global food security. Both personal and societal risks were framed in terms of uncertainties about safety and health, and possible adverse societal consequences dealing with loss of farming and eating traditions and rural livelihoods. Further reflection pertained to skepticism about 'the inevitable' scientific progress, concern about risk governance and control, and need for regulation and proper labeling.

show abstract

Section: Fearing Personal Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also important to note that consumers are particularly conservative when it comes to perception and acceptance of foods compared to other products. Benefit-risk evaluations tend to be skewed towards acceptance of all that is traditional and well-known (benefits), and rejection or suspicion towards anything that is novel or highly processed (risks) regardless of actual risk (Ueland et al, 2012).…”

Section: Research Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latvian consumers’ knowledge about genetically modified organisms

Aleksejeva¹

2014

MOSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this investigation is to present the results obtained during the survey of Latvian consumers in order to elicit subjective and objective knowledge about genetically modified organisms and genetic modification. The main task was to develop the core questions so that to elicit the objective knowledge of Latvian consumers on genetically modified organisms. The questions were elaborated in cooperation with Latvian scientists in the field of biology and further will be incorporated in the survey on Latvian consumers' attitude regarding the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and other industries where also relationship between the level of the consumers' knowledge and attitude to acceptance of genetically modified products will be evaluated. Keywords: consumer attitude, knowledge, genetically modified.Šio tyrimo tikslas yra pristatyti rezultatus, kurie buvo gauti apklausus Latvijos vartotojus, siekiant išsiaiškinti jų subjektyvias ir objektyvias žinias apie genetiškai modifikuotus organizmus bei genetinę modifikaciją. Pagrindinė užduotis buvo suformuluoti esminius klausimus, kurie leistų išsiaiškinti Latvijos vartotojų objektyvias žinias apie genetiškai modifikuotus organizmus. Klausimai apklausoje pasirinkti bendradarbiaujant su Latvijos biologijos srities mokslininkas ir šie klausimai taip pat bus įtraukti į apklausą tiriant Latvijos vartotojų požiūrį į modifikuotų organizmų panaudojimą maisto gamyboje ir kitose pramonės šakose, kuris irgi siekia įver-tinti ryšį tarp vartotojų žinių ir požiūrio į genetiškai modifikuotus produktus. Raktiniai žodžiai: vartotojų požiūris, žinios, genetiškai modifikuotas.

show abstract

“…Respondents with a positive perception of the benefits gained often had a low health hazard perception (Ueland et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Health Hazards of Low-Quality Irrigation Water in Vegetable Production in Morogoro, Tanzania

Mayilla¹,

Magayane²,

Keraita³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the perceptions of vegetable farmers, traders, consumers and key informants on the health hazards of using low-quality water in irrigation vegetable production in Morogoro, Tanzania. Methods used to collect data were a survey involving all farmers in Changarawe village and Fungafunga area using low-quality water for irrigation vegetable production (n=60), consumers of low-quality water irrigated vegetables (n=70) and vegetable traders selling low-quality water irrigated vegetables (n=60), focus group discussions (n=7) and key informant interviews (n=25). The study employed cross sectional research design. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate mean, frequencies and percentages while Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test assessed the association between social-demographic variables and respondents score on the health hazard perception scale of using low-quality water in vegetable production. Results showed skin itching, fungal diseases, bilharzias and worm infestation as among the perceived health hazards in using low-quality irrigation water. Health hazard perception differed among groups of farmers, consumers and vegetable traders (p<0.001). The mean ranks of the groups indicated that farmers perceive less health hazards in using low-quality water (mean rank = 147.98) compared to consumers (mean rank = 72.68) and vegetable traders (mean rank 69.64). More health hazards were perceived by Fungafunga farmers compared to farmers from the Changarawe village (p<0.001) while female farmers perceived less hazards in using low-quality water than male farmers (p < 0.05). Consumers with formal education perceived more health hazards than consumers with no formal education (p < 0.001) while vegetable traders from Fungafunga area perceived more health hazards in selling low-quality water irrigated vegetable than vegetable traders from the Changarawe village (p<0.001). These findings demonstrate the need to design health hazards minimization interventions for specific target group.

show abstract

State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception

Cited by 89 publications

References 88 publications

‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom

‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom

Latvian consumers’ knowledge about genetically modified organisms

Perceived Health Hazards of Low-Quality Irrigation Water in Vegetable Production in Morogoro, Tanzania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About