Research reportComplexity and conundrums. Citizens’ evaluations of potentially contentious novel food technologies using a deliberative discourse approach☆
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.
Section snippets
Methodology
This research applies a qualitative approach, which offers “a multilayered view of the nuances of social reality” (Hesse-Biber, 2010: 456), to delve more deeply, and thus provide greater insights into evaluative processes and reactionary responses towards potentially contentious NFTs as information is presented to citizens. It thereby illustrates the complexity and conundrums associated with these evaluative processes.
To appreciate the significance of the different features framing citizens’
Findings6
Key themes, summarised in Fig. 1, emerged in terms of the common features influencing and directing evaluations across the NFTs. The first theme relates to the personal orientations that provide the basic framework for individuals’ interpretation of information about and, in turn, evaluations of the technologies. The second theme relates to individuals’ perceptions of power and control; specifically how uncertainty, information requirements, trust and regulation impact evaluations. The third
Discussion and conclusion
In this paper, we focused on how the processes involved in citizens’ evaluations of NFTs occur as information is assimilated. We contend that “making sense of technologies” involves the use of interpretative schemas (Goffman, 1974), including both existing schemas, drawn upon from long-term memory (Peter, Olsen, & Grunert, 1999), and newly formed schemas that are created to provide the framework for individuals’ contextualisation of information (Gamson et al., 1992). Personal orientations
Funding
This research has been undertaken as part of a FIRM (Food Institutional Research Measure) project funded through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Ireland) under the National Development Plan 2007–2013.
References (60)
- et al.
Attitude-behavior relations. A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research
Psychological Bulletin
(1977) From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice
- et al.
Attitudes and attitude change
Annual Review of Psychology
(2011) - et al.
Nanotechnology risk communication past and prologue
Risk Analysis
(2010) - et al.
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qualitative Research in Psychology
(2006) Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a cross-national survey
Journal of Consumer Policy
(2001)Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies
(2007)Coping with uncertainty. Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland
Public Understanding of Science
(2009)Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies. Effects on product liking
Appetite
(2003)- et al.
Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies. A conjoint analytic study
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies
(2007)
The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan
Food Quality and Preference
Attitude representation. Attitudes as patterns in a distributed, connectionist representational system
Social Cognition
The iterative reprocessing model. A multilevel framework for attitudes and evaluation
Social Cognition
Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision
American Journal of Psychology
News framing. Theory and typology
Information Design Journal & Document Design
Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade
Appetite
The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change
Personality and Social Psychology
Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
Framing. Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm
Journal of Communication
An evidence review of public attitudes to emerging food technologies
Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies. Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies
Trends in Food Science and Technology
Food choice. A conceptual model of the process
Appetite
Media images and the social construction of reality
Annual Review of Sociology
Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience
Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies
How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability
Field Methods
Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods. Results of a survey conducted on Turkish consumers
LWT
Hot potato. Expert-consumer differences in the perception of a second-generation novel food
Risk Analysis
Cited by (16)
Overcoming barriers to consumer acceptance of 3D-printed foods in the food service sector
2022, Food Quality and PreferenceCitation Excerpt :Perceived relevance is defined as the extent of which a person thinks something will contribute positively to their life (Celsi, Chow, Olson, & Walker, 1992; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). According to Greehy, McCarthy, Henchion, Dillon, and McCarthy (2013), individuals evaluate and prioritise products produced by novel food technologies according to their personal orientations and values, and perceived relevance of benefits offered by that product. As each individual has a unique life path and set of circumstances, personal values and benefits associated with technologies relevant to them personally can vary immensely (Henchion, McCarthy, Dillon, McCarthy, Greehy, Kavanagh, & Williams, 2013).
Comparing early hemp food consumers to non-hemp food consumers to determine attributes of early adopters of a novel food using the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) and the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS).
2021, Future FoodsCitation Excerpt :Where preference for foods is largely developed early in life, much of it in the first five years, food choice is a dynamic phenomenon which can change along with situational and personal changes (Vabo and Hansen, 2014). Additionally, socially constructed associations based on previous experience and beliefs can influence consumers’ evaluation of food in the marketplace (Greehy et al., 2013). These dynamics of food choice may apply to hemp foods where, for example, an association with hemp's illegal cousin, marijuana, might negatively impact acceptance.
Big issues for a small technology: Consumer trade-offs in acceptance of nanotechnology in food
2019, Innovative Food Science and Emerging TechnologiesFacilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts
2019, Sustainable Meat Production and ProcessingConsumers’ attitudes and change of attitude toward 3D-printed food
2018, Food Quality and PreferenceCitation Excerpt :In Europe, consumer organisations, health professionals and independent scientists belong to the most trusted sources and therefore should be involved in the debate (Rollin et al., 2011; Siegrist, 2008). Taking all this into consideration, the best communication strategy might still fail to change the public’s view about a novel food when its content does not match pre-existing knowledge and values (Greehy et al., 2013; Lyndhurst, 2009). Finally, studies on the impact of socio-demographic determinants have yielded contradictory results (Lyndhurst, 2009); moreover, the explanatory power of these factors has been shown to disappear when competing with cognitive and attitudinal determinants (Verbeke, 2005).
Facilitators and barriers for foods containing meat coproducts
2018, Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
- ☆
Acknowledgements: We wish to thank the research advisory committee and the participating citizens and scientists for their contributions to this work.