Complexity and conundrums. Citizens’ evaluations of potentially contentious novel food technologies using a deliberative discourse approach

Highlights

• How citizens “make sense” of novel food technologies impacts their evaluations.

• Personal orientations, perceived control and relevance guide meanings around NFTs.

• Internal conflicting views about NFTs impact the stability of attitudes.

• Knowledge and understanding of and interest in NFTs vary.

• Acceptance of NFTs appears an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process.

Abstract

This research considers the processes involved in the formation of attitudes by citizens on potentially contentious novel food technologies (NFTs). Observations of one-to-one deliberative discourses between food scientists and citizens, during which they discussed these technologies, form the basis of this enquiry. This approach enables an exploration of how individuals construct meaning around as well as interpret information about the technologies. Thematic analysis identifies key features that provide the frameworks for citizens’ evaluations. How individuals make sense of these technologies is shaped by their beliefs, values and personal characteristics; their perceptions of power and control over the development and sale of NFT related products; and, the extent to which these products are relevant to their personal lives. Internal negotiations between these influences are evident, and evaluations are based on the relative importance of each influence to the individual. Internal conflicts and tensions are associated with citizens’ evolving evaluative processes, which may in turn present as attitude ambivalence and instability. Many challenges are linked with engaging with the general public about these technologies, as levels of knowledge, understanding and interest vary.

Introduction

Novel food technologies (NFTs) are scientific and technological developments that enhance the way food is produced or processed, which may or may not result in differentiated products for consumers. The public perceive and evaluate both technologies and food in numerous, and sometimes unexpected, ways based on associated meanings that are socially constructed and strongly embedded, i.e. shaped by prior beliefs and expectations. Given the wide array of influences that can intersect and interact in the evaluations of NFTs, it is not surprising that they are not all equally acceptable or homogeneously evaluated.

To date, these technologies have been met with mixed public responses. A review commissioned by the FSA, UK (Fell, Wilkins, Kivinen, Austin, & Fernandez, 2009) found that the majority of Europeans tend to be undecided in their opinions or feel inadequately informed to establish definitive opinions, while a minority are either strongly negative or positive. Negative reactions to irradiated and genetically modified (GM) foods highlight that acceptance cannot be assumed (Henson, 1995, Shaw, 2002) and lack of acceptance can result in significant financial and other losses (Macoubrie, 2006). Public wariness of NFTs is sometimes explained by the evaluative criteria applied, which Cardello, Schutz, and Lesher (2007) describes as involving perceived rather than actual risks. In fact, Shepherd (2008: 236) suggests that the public may have concerns about food related risks which are outside the “risk framings” imposed by scientists and regulators. Communication based on meaningful recognition of public concerns may enhance interaction and engagement between stakeholders, in turn facilitating more informed public decision making about NFTs (House of Lords, 2010). Many have argued the importance of identifying and incorporating the views of the public at an early stage of technological and product development (Siegrist, Stampfli, Kastenholz, & Keller, 2008), since their perspectives can directly (e.g. through outright rejection) and indirectly (e.g. through the imposition of stricter regulations) impact the progress of these technologies (Siegrist, 2010). Given the considerable scale of investment required to develop these technologies, which is frequently funded by the tax payer, it is important to determine the common features underpinning public attitudes towards them, prior to their development/commercialisation.

Public attitudes towards NFTs have been explored at length, predominately through quantitative methods (e.g., Bredahl, 2001, Gaskell et al., 2010, Grunert et al., 2003); which assume that the attitudes under investigation are stable. Several of these studies have presented models which offer a valuable point of departure for this research. These models suggest that attitudes to nature and technology, perceived knowledge of the technology, social trust and the affect heuristic, among other determinants, are significant predictors of risk and benefit perceptions, and in turn overall attitudes towards and willingness to purchase GM and nanofoods (e.g., Bredahl, 2001, Chen and Li, 2007, Siegrist et al., 2007).

A considerable body of work exists that considers the issue of acceptance of NFTs. This work suggests that citizen acceptance is influenced by factors such as knowledge of the technology (Cardello et al., 2007); heuristics, particularly trust and perceived control (Henson, 1995, López-Vázquez et al., 2012, Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000); individuals’ risk and benefit perceptions (Cardello, 2003); general attitudes and values; concepts and images associated with the technology (Siegrist, 2008); product characteristics including perceived taste, naturalness and price (Rozin, 2005); the specific technology, application and product in question; and individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics (Fell et al., 2009, Rollin et al., 2011).

These influences can be classed as either top-down or bottom-up (Bredahl, 2001, Grunert et al., 2003). Cultural and social norms (Ronteltap, van Trijp, Renes, & Frewer, 2007) and general attitudes and values, including attitudes towards science and technology, nature and the environment and ethical and moral concerns (Bredahl, 2001, Kahan et al., 2007, Rollin et al., 2011) are commonly cited top-down influences that can shape risk and benefit assessments and also directly shape evaluations of NFTs. Slovic (1987) notes that initial evaluations, framed by these top-down influences, become a core part of final positions taken on a technology, irrespective of any additional contra-evidence presented. That said, information and the sources of such information can impact citizens’ attitudes in a variety of ways (Gunes and Tekin, 2006, Rollin et al., 2011).

Focusing on attitude formations, this research explores citizens’ evaluations of NFTs in an effort to understand emerging attitudes. Ajzen and Fishbien (1977: 889) argue that “a person’s attitude represents his evaluation of the entity in question”; however, the operationalisation of information processing and formation of attitudes are topics of on-going debate. Broadly examining these issues, attitude formations are guided by the processing of accessible information (Bohner & Dickel, 2011). Previously held attitudes also influence how information on a new concept is processed and thus the formation of new attitudes (Conrey & Smith, 2007).

Many authors within the area of social psychology define “attitudes” as relatively stable entities formed based on associations and evaluations “stored in memory”, while others define them as relatively unstable entities and focus on the “temporary constructions” guiding attitude formations (see Bohner & Dickel, 2011). Cunningham, Zelazo, Packer, and van Bavel (2007) consider attitudes to be relatively stable entities, while Conrey and Smith (2007) stress the flexibility of attitude formations, supporting the “distributed, connectionist” perspective, which assumes that attitudes occur from the reconstruction of unique configurations of inputs (contextual cues) drawn upon within given contexts. They argue that attitudes are “time-dependent states of the system rather than as static ‘things’ that are ‘stored’ in memory”, thereby supporting the premise that attitude formations occur “on the spot” and are more open to change (Conrey & Smith, 2007: 718).

The provision of information is a key element in the formation of attitudes and thus information processing. Ortony, Norman, and Revelle (2005) outline how information processing can occur at reactive, routine and reflective levels. A cognitive component, an emotional component and a behavioural component can influence attitude formations at these different levels (Kazemifard, Ghasem-Aghaee, & Ören, 2012). Edwards (1990: 203) argues that as a result of this “diversity of attitudes’ origins (…) the process of changing an attitude presents a formidable challenge”.

Closely linked to the concepts of attitude formation and information processing, is that of information framing, which is traditionally referred to from the perspective of media (message) framing of an issue or topic (de Vreese, 2005), i.e. how information senders frame or code a communicated message (Gamson et al., 1992, Scheufele, 2000). Drawing on Reese’s (2001) position, that the framing concept should not be restricted in this way, this research focuses on how citizens decode information received and what other information and wider environmental influences they draw on, in order to “construct meaning” (Gamson et al., 1992: 373) and form, or change, attitudes. Gamson et al. (1992: 375) highlight the importance of understanding how information is decoded once received, as dominant meanings may not be “passively accepted by everybody”. Bearing in mind this context, this research explores the “mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals’ processing of information” (Entman, 1993: 53); in effect, the factors framing citizens’ evaluations of potentially contentious NFTs.

This research contributes to an understanding of how citizens’ evaluate (form attitudes around and accept/reject) NFTs by considering responses to information about irradiated foods, GM foods and nanofoods.¹ Factors such as novelty, moral and ethical concerns, stage of development and proximity to the market place, potential types and levels of risks and benefits and likelihood for public debate (Fell et al., 2009, Rollin et al., 2011) guided the selection of these technologies. These technologies form a natural grouping as each of them has the potential for contention and controversy from a public acceptance perspective. Recent studies suggest that while there are relatively high levels of public awareness of GM foods (Rollin et al., 2011), there are low levels of awareness of food irradiation (Frewer et al., 2011, Gunes and Tekin, 2006) and nanotechnology (Gaskell et al., 2010, Kahan et al., 2007). Although these technologies differ in terms of public awareness, techniques applied and their duration of application, they face many similar challenges in terms of gaining public (consumer) acceptance.

The primary aim of this research was to explore how citizens form evaluations on (formations of attitudes around) NFTs. Individuals’ construction of meanings around and interpretation of information about NFTs is explored, i.e. how attitudes form and change. This research therefore provides insights into how new information is used and assimilated and the implications of this on attitudes and acceptance.

In the following sections, the methodological approach is summarised and the research findings are presented. Drawing on these findings, the paper concludes with a discussion regarding public evaluations of NFTs and implications for communication strategies.