Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

FOOD CONSUMPTION, RISK PERCEPTION AND ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

  • Chapter
An Ecological and Societal Approach to Biological Control

Part of the book series: Progress in Biological Control ((PIBC,volume 2))

Abstract

Biological control is one of a number of strategies, (including mechanical control, the use of conventional pesticides, and transgenic plants genetically modified to be resistant to specific predators) available for the management of pests. According to Kogan (1998), within the integrated pest management framework, the selection and use of pest control tactics should take into account the interest of and impact on producers, society and the environment. From a societal or consumer perspective, there is significant empirical research on consumer attitudes to the use of pesticides and genetic modification in food production, but very little in relation to biological control. This chapter is concerned with the potential impact of the behaviour of food consumers on the use of biological control technology in agricultural production.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • AEBC, (2003). GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvensleben, R. (2001). Beliefs Associated with Food Production Methods, in L.J. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H., Schifferstein, (Eds), Food People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers Food Choices. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, R.A. (1967). Consumer behaviour as risk taking, in D. F. Cox (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour. Boston: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, P. (1999). Understanding responses to risk: some basic findings. In Risk Communication and Public Health, P. Bennett & K. Calman (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite 33(3):343–360.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC), (2002). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Life Sciences and biotechnology – A strategy for Europe. COM(2002) 27, Brussels, 23.01.2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use (CEGMFU), (1993). Report on the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G.R. (1986). Perceived risk: The concept and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing 3 :193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, Y.S. (1994). Pesticide residue risk and food safety valuation: A random utility approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(4):760–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO/WHO, (1995). Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the twenty-first session. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged – 20 years of progress. Risk Analysis 15(2):137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J. (1999). Public perceptions and risk communication. P. Bennett & K. Caiman, (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1996). The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality and Preference 7(1):61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics, Science Technology & Human Values 22(1):98–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., & Miles, S. (2001.) Risk Perception, Communication and Trust. How might Consumer Confidence in the Food Supply be Maintained, in Frewer, L.J., Risvik, E. & Schifferstein, H. (Eds.), Food People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’ Food Choices. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J., Risvik, E. & Schifferstein, H. (Eds.) (1999). Food People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers’ Food Choice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). The Interrelationship between Perceived Knowledge, Control and Risk Associated with a Range of Food-Related Hazards Targeted at the Individual, Other People and Society. Journal of Food Safety 14(1):19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Eurobarometer 58.0. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, (2nd Edition). Brussels, European Commission Directorate General XII, Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Mayer, S., & Wynne, B., (1997). Uncertain World. Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K.G., Bech-Larsen, T., Lahteenmaki, Ueland, O., & Astrom, A. (2004). Attitudes towards the use of GMO’s in food production and their impact on buying intention: The role of positive sensory experience. Agribusiness, 20(1):95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K.G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N. A., Poulsen, J. B., Ueland, O., & Astrom, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification — results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries, Food Quality and Preference 12(8):527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, U., Gronefeld, F., & Haplin, D. (2003). Analysis of the European market for organic food, University of Wales: Aberystwyth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamstra, A.M. (1993). Consumer Acceptance of Food Biotechnology — The Relation between Product Evaluation and Acceptance. The Hague: SWOKA Institute for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C.L. (1993). Simultaneous equation model for estimating consumer risk perceptions, attitudes and willingness-to-pay for residue free produce, Journal of Consumer Affairs 27(2):377–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INRA (1993). Eurobarometer 39.1 Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans think about it in 1993. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General XII, Science Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • INRA, (1997). Eurobarometer 46.1 Europeans and Modern Biotechnology. Brussels: European Commission Directorate General XII, Science, Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • INRA, (2000). Eurobarometer 52.1 Europeans and Modern Biotechnology. Brussels: European Commission Directorate General XII, Science, Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated pest management: Historical perspectives and contemporary developments. Annual Review of Entomology, 43, 243–270.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, J. (2001). Is Food Safe? Public Lecture. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznesof, S. & Brennan, M. (2004). Perceived risk and product safety in the food supply chain, in M.A. Bourlakis & P.W.H. Weightman (Eds.), Food Supply Chain Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznesof, S. & Ritson, C. (1996). Consumer Acceptability of Genetically Modified Foods with Special Reference to Farmed Salmon. British Food Journal 95(4/5):39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampkin, N., & Measures, M., (2001). Organic Management Handbook, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlier, E. (1992). Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on Biotechnology, in (Ed.) J. Durant, Biotechnology in Public – A Review of Recent Research. Dublin, Loughlinstown House:52–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., Brennan, M, Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., Rison, C., & Frewer, L.J. (2003). Public Worry about Food Safety Issues British Food Journal, 106(1), 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, V.W. & Greatorex, M. (1990). Consumer perceived risk in the UK food market, British Food Journal 92(2):16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peto, R. et. al. (1994). Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000: indirect estimates from national vital statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, J. & Miller, D. (1997). Scaremonger or scapegoat? The role of the media in the emergence of food as a social issue, in Caplan, P. (Ed.) Food, Health and Identity. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritson, C., Gofton, L., McKenzie, J. (Eds.) (1986). The Food Consumer. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritson, C., & Hutchins, R. (1991.) The Consumption Revolution in Fifty years of the National Food Survey, J.M. Slater (Ed.). London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritson, C. & Hutchins, R. (1995). Food Choice and the Demand for Food, in Marshall, D.W., (Ed.), Food Choice and the Consumer. London: Blackie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritson, C. & Petrovici, D. (2001). The Economics of Food Choice in Frewer, L.J., Risvik, E. & Schifferstein, H. (Eds.), Food People and Society: A European Perspective of Consumers Food Choices. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer ranking of risk reduction methods, Journal of Marketing, 35(1):56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saba, A., Moles, A., et al. (1998). Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: A comparative study between the UK and Italy, Nutrition and Food Science 1(January/February):19–29.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6):675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (1997). The New European Food Safety Policy to Promote Good Health. Brussels, Club de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soler, F., Gil, J.M., & Sanchez M. (2002). Consumers’ Acceptability of Organic Food in Spain. British Food Journal, 104 (2):670–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14(5):799–806.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165:1232–1238.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. (1994). Public Opinion, (Letter to the Editor), Bio/Technology, 12, November, 1048.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, C., Tregear, A.E.J., & Allison, J. (2003). In search of the Concerned Consumer: UK Public Perceptions of Food, Farming and Buying Local. Journal of Rural Studies, 19:233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wier, M. & Calverly, C. (2002). Market Potential for Organic Foods in Europe British Food Journal, 4 (4):45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wier, M., Andersen, L.M. & Millock, K. (2004). Information Provision, Consumer Perceptions and Values – the Case of Organic Foods, in Russell, C. & Krarup, S. (Eds.), Environment, Information and Consumer Behaviour. New Horizonz in Environmental Economic Series, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, R.M.W. & Morris, J. (2001). Food safety risk. Consumer perception and purchase behaviour. British Food Journal, 103(3), 170–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Bio/Technology, 12, September, 870–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Christopher Ritson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharron Kuznesof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark

    J. EILENBERG

  2. University of Helsinki, Finland

    H.M.T. HOKKANEN

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ritson, C., Kuznesof, S. (2006). FOOD CONSUMPTION, RISK PERCEPTION AND ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES. In: EILENBERG, J., HOKKANEN, H. (eds) An Ecological and Societal Approach to Biological Control. Progress in Biological Control, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4401-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation