Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systems Mapping of Consumer Acceptance of Agrifood Nanotechnology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Application of nanotechnology in the agrifood system and the rising number of nanofood products on the market are creating concerns among consumers and other stakeholders. These concerns and other potential barriers to the commercialization of agrifood nanotechnology products may limit the ability to capture its full potential. Understanding the emerging trends and the links between underlying values, expressed attitudes, and actual behaviors involving consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology is important for governance, risk regulation, and the achievement of the full potential of agrifood nanotechnology. The purpose of the study was to use systems mapping to examine and analyze critical links between consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology and factors such as trust, stakeholders, institutions, knowledge, and human environmental health risks. The study used a meta-analysis of the risk perception literature and solicited the opinions of experts to develop the systems map. Factors affecting consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology are dynamic, complex, interactive, and interdependent, and consumer decisions to accept agrifood nanotechnology were found to be the results of complex feedback structure. This study suggests several consumer policy and programmatic levels in the system toward enhancing consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology products where warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Appendix 2 for the list of experts and their affiliations/expertise.

  2. Please see Appendix 1 for survey questions.

References

  • Andersen, D., Cappelli, D. M., Gonzalez, J. J., Mojtahedzadeh, M., Moore, A. P., Rich, E., et al. (2004). Preliminary System dynamics maps of the insider cyber-threat problem. System dynamics modeling for information security: An invitational group modeling workshop. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. February 2004

  • Boecker, A., & Nzuma, J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) foods in Europe: What's trust in government and industry got to do with it? Canada: FARE, University of Guelph. Available at: http://www.inferg.ca/presentations/boecker07a.shtml.

  • Bronfman, N. C., Vázquez, E. L., & Dorantes, G. (2009). An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 47, 686–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. (2003). Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: Effects on product liking. Appetite, 40(3), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, Q., Scotter, M., Blackburn, J., Ross, B., Boxall, A., Castle, L., et al. (2008). Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 25(3), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloutier, L. M., & Boehlje, M. D. (2001). Value cycle and innovation management under uncertainty: A system dynamics perspective on R&D investments in biotechnology. Paper prepared for presentation at the 10th annual meeting of the International Association for the Management of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. 8–10 March 2001

  • Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. N., Evans, G., & Lease, H. J. (2007). The influence of information and beliefs about technology on the acceptance of novel food technologies: A conjoint study of farmed prawn concepts. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 813–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C. (2009). New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2008). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Volume 1, presenting futures (pp. 109–116). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., van der Lans, I. A., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2008). How trust in institutions and organizations builds general consumer confidence in the safety of food: A decomposition of effects. Appetite, 51(2), 311–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, A. (2001). Business planning for network services: A systems thinking approach. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 260–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, A., & Roy, R. (2002). System dynamics. OR/MS Today, 29(3), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T. C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2007). Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle, & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and skepticism in the public mind (pp. 1–49). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, M. (2008). The role of the humanities and social sciences in nanotechnology research and development. Nanoethics, 2, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, A. A., & Cavana, R. Y. (2005). Stakeholder analysis for systems thinking and modeling. New Zealand: School of Business and Public Management, Victoria University of Wellington. Available at: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/BobCavana.pdf.

  • Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R&D project management. R&D Management, 32(4), 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU (2004) EU Policy for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, the European Union.

  • FAO. (1999). The application of risk communication to food standards and safety matters. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 70. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. K., Norvell, J., Sonka, S., & Nelson, M. J. (2000). Understanding technology adoption through system dynamics modeling: Implications for agribusiness management. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(3), 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Food Chemical News. (2007). Food industry accused of secretly using nanotechnology. Food Chemical News, 2, 13–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1958). Industrial dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Business Review, 36(4), 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Waltham: Pegasus Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1999). Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003). Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Issues for the future. British Food Journal, 105, 714–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M., & Schiefer, G. (2008a). Innovation and system dynamics in food networks. Agribusiness, 24(4), 301–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M., & Schiefer, G. (2008b). Food chain management for sustainable food system development: An European research agenda. Agribusiness, 24(4), 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2004). Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3(8), 496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischle, C., et al. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64.3. A report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research.

  • Georgiadis, P., Vlachos, D., & Iakovou, E. (2005). A system dynamics modeling framework for the strategic supply chain management of food chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 70(3), 351–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L., & Scholderer, J. (2003). Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 4, 435–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GSS (2006) Responses to: How much have you heard about nanotechnology? Have you heard a lot, some, just a little, or nothing at all? University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, General Social Survey (GSS). In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. National Science Board, Washington DC.

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 23(4), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandoe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2008). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults conducted on behalf of the project on emerging nanotechnologies. Washington: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • IOM. (2009). Nanotechnology in food products: Workshop summary. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM). Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Cultural Cognition Working Paper No. 22. Connecticut: Yale Law School.

  • Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. L., & Kysar, D. (2008). Biased assimilation, polarization and cultural credibility: an experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Brief No. 3. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsh, B.-T., & Alper, S. J. (2005). Work system analysis: The key to understanding health care systems. Advances in Patient Safety, 2, 337–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., Larson, J., & Najmaie, P. (2009). Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: A case study of genetically engineered organisms. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(4), 546–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., & Kokotovich, A. (2008). Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case studies approach. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1081–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie, J. (2005a). Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie, J. (2005b). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantovani, E., Porcari, A., Meili, C., & Widmer, M. (2009). Mapping study on regulatory and governance of nanotechnologies. Report prepared by AIRI/Nanotec IT, and the Innovation Society. Published under the FramingNano project as deliverable D1.1 for Work Package 1.

  • Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddock, L. C. (2006). Keeping pace with nanotechnology: A proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. ELR News and Analysis, 36 No. 10943.

  • Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 95–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. (2006). The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 563–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as functions of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite, 49, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4. doi:10.1038/NNANO.2009.265.

  • Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes towards nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholderer, J., & Frewer, L. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2093–2106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 603–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007b). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007a). Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis, 26, 657–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stave, K. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(1), 8–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tague, N. R. (2004). The quality toolbox (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: Amer Society of Quality, Quality Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbult, P., de Vries, N. K., Dreezens, E., & Martijn, C. (2005). Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite, 45, 47–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Scoones, I., Ely, A., Marshall, F., Shah, E., et al. (2007). Agrifood system dynamics: Pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty. Brighton, UK: STEPS Centre. STEPS Working Paper 4.

  • Vensim® (2008). Vensim simulation software, Ventana Systems, Inc. See: http://www.vensim.com/software.html

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2008). Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: A review of the literature. Risk Management, 10, 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C., Evans, G., Leppard, P., & Syrette, J. (2004). Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. Risk Analysis, 24, 1311–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was funded in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant No. 0608791 (PI, S. M. Wolf; Co-PIs, E. Kokkoli, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran). The paper's contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301-19th Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Robert M. Yawson & Jennifer Kuzma

Authors
  1. Robert M. Yawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Kuzma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Yawson.

Appendices

Appendix 1

figure afigure a

Appendix 2

Table 5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yawson, R.M., Kuzma, J. Systems Mapping of Consumer Acceptance of Agrifood Nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33, 299–322 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-010-9134-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-010-9134-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation