IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/anr/reseco/v6y2014p381-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies

Author

Listed:
  • Jayson L. Lusk

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078)

  • Jutta Roosen

    (TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, 85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany)

  • Andrea Bieberstein

    (TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, 85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany)

Abstract

The literature abounds with evidence that consumers are critical of many new technologies used in modern food production. Influenced by the work on risk perception and technology acceptance in the 1980s, research has aimed to better understand the controversy around new food technologies. Whereas early contributions focused on risk perception and the lay-expert divide in objective and subjective risk perception, more recent research has turned to the role of emotions, moral judgments, and worldviews. This article takes stock of the theory and findings in this literature. In addition to providing an overview of the developments in the economic and sociopsychological literature, the review discusses selected topics related to consumer preferences for food technology and the determinants of food technology acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:anr:reseco:v:6:y:2014:p:381-405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735
    Download Restriction: Full text downloads are only available to subscribers. Visit the abstract page for more information.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zilberman, David & Graff, Gregory & Hochman, Gal & Kaplan, Scott, 2015. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    2. Rongting Zhou & Dong Wang & Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei & Muhammad Azfar Anwar & Ali Hammad & Fahad Asmi & Qing Ye & Muhammad Asim Nawaz, 2019. "GMO/GMF on Social Media in China: Jagged Landscape of Information Seeking and Sharing Behavior through a Valence View," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Garrett M. Broad & Wythe Marschall & Maya Ezzeddine, 2022. "Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 417-433, March.
    4. Dolores Garrido & Rosa Karina Gallardo, 2022. "Are improvements in convenience good enough for consumers to prefer new food processing technologies?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 73-92, January.
    5. Yang Hu & Lisa A. House & Brandon R. McFadden & Zhifeng Gao, 2021. "The Influence of Choice Context on Consumers’ Preference for GM Orange Juice," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 547-563, June.
    6. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    7. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    8. Gagnon, Mark A. & Broad, Garrett & Grandison, Kelia & Chiles, Robert M., 2022. "AgriTech investor and informant perspectives about cellular agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(1), September.
    9. Caixia Ivy Gan & Ruth Soukoutou & Denise Maria Conroy, 2022. "Sustainability Framing of Controlled Environment Agriculture and Consumer Perceptions: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Craig F. Berning & Brian E. Roe, 2017. "Assessing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Can Americans Access Electronic Disclosure Information?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, May.
    11. J. Ross Pruitt & Kaitlyn M. Melton & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Does Physical Activity Influence Consumer Acceptance of Gene Edited Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    12. David R. Just & Julie M. Goddard, 2023. "Behavioral framing and consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Factors influencing consumer demand for active packaging," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 3-27, January.
    13. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    14. Konstantinos Giannakas & Murray Fulton, 2020. "On the market for “Lemons”: quality provision in markets with asymmetric information," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.
    15. Massimiliano Borrello & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Stefano Pascucci & Luigi Cembalo, 2017. "Consumers’ Perspective on Circular Economy Strategy for Reducing Food Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Fiore, M. & Gaviglio, A. & Demartini, E. & La Sala, P., 2018. "Sugarcoating Food Technologies and consumers’ acceptance of long-life fish," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275971, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Sendhil Mullainathan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Market for News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1031-1053, September.
    18. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    19. Macready, Anna L. & Hieke, Sophie & Klimczuk-Kochańska, Magdalena & Szumiał, Szymon & Vranken, Liesbet & Grunert, Klaus G., 2020. "Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. Carlo Russo & Mariarosaria Simeone & Maria Angela Perito, 2020. "Educated Millennials and Credence Attributes of Food Products with Genetically Modified Organisms: Knowledge, Trust and Social Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    21. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    22. Elisa De Marchi & Alessia Cavaliere & Alessandro Banterle, 2021. "Consumers' Choice Behavior for Cisgenic Food: Exploring the Role of Time Preferences," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 866-891, June.
    23. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    food technology; food neophobia; heuristics; risk perception; technology acceptance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:anr:reseco:v:6:y:2014:p:381-405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: http://www.annualreviews.org (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.annualreviews.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.