Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information

Verbeke, Wim; Frewer, Lynn J.; Scholderer, Joachim; Brabander, H.F. De

doi:10.1016/j.aca.2006.07.065

Cited by 292 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

193

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They explicitly referred to the role of media, the content of media reporting and the quantity of media coverage as determinants of consumer acceptance or rejection. An interesting remark is the fact that even positive intended information can fuel consumer resistance because it can increase awareness of previously unknown risks (Verbeke et al 2007). Driessen and Korthals (2012) mentioned the fact that the development of cultured meat had already given rise to heightened media attention in the Netherlands, for example, and this prior to the highly publicized tasting of the first cultured meat burger in August 2013 in London (Hopkins 2015).…”

Section: Criteria Shaping Consumer Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat

Verbeke

Sans

Loo

2015

Journal of Integrative Agriculture

Self Cite

260

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible. This is an author-deposited version published in : http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/ Eprints ID : 15560 AbstractConsumer acceptance of cultured meat is expected to depend on a wide diversity of determinants ranging from technologyrelated perceptions to product-specific expectations, and including wider contextual factors like media coverage, public involvement, and trust in science, policy and society. This paper discusses the case of cultured meat against this multitude of possible determinants shaping future consumer acceptance or rejection. The paper also presents insights from a primary exploratory study performed in April 2013 with consumers from Flanders (Belgium) (n=180). The concept of cultured meat was only known (unaided) by 13% of the study participants. After receiving basic information about what cultured meat is, participants expressed favorable expectations about the concept. Only 9% rejected the idea of trying cultured meat, while two thirds hesitated and about quarter indicated to be willing to try it. The provision of additional information about the environmental benefits of cultured meat compared to traditional meat resulted in 43% of the participants indicating to be willing to try this novel food, while another 51% indicated to be 'maybe' willing to do so. Price and sensory expectations emerged as major obstacles. Consumers eating mostly vegetarian meals were less convinced that cultured meat might be healthy, suggesting that vegetarians may not be the ideal primary target group for this novel meat substitute. Although exploratory rather than conclusive, the findings generally underscore doubts among consumers about trying this product when it would become available, and therefore also the challenge for cultured meat to mimic traditional meat in terms of sensory quality at an affordable price in order to become acceptable for future consumers.

show abstract

Section: Criteria Shaping Consumer Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat

Verbeke

Sans

Loo

2015

Journal of Integrative Agriculture

Self Cite

260

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The risks of chemicals to human health and the environment have been often found to be of great concern to people also in the EU [3,4]. The purpose of REACH is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on internal market while enhancing competitiveness and innovation [5].…”

Section: Use Of Production Process By-productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of REACH and LCA System’s to the Materials Formed in the Production of Mineral Wool

Adamczyk

Harat

Grmela

2016

Chemistry-Didactics-Ecology-Metrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The article analyses the application of two management systems -REACH directive and ISO 14040 (Life Cycle Assessment -LCA) with reference to the technological process as well as by-products of mineral wool production. It characterizes basic differences between the norms discussed, i.e. the strict formalization of REACH, which results in the analysis being conducted according to a precisely defined scheme, or the subjective character of LCA, which makes it possible to take into account the most important environmental aspects pertaining to the entire life cycle of a particular product. The discussion provides a basis for formulating the general conclusion that the classification criteria encompassed by REACH regulations do not allow for a complex analysis of the negative environmental impact of a particular substance (preparation, product) and should be complemented with elements of LCA analysis.

show abstract

“…3,4 One outcome of this situation is the demand for traceability and certification of origin, 5,6 which subordinates productivity and economic viability to good practice in food production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%