Advertisement

Acceptance of Natural and Genetically Modified Hypoallergenic Apples by Consumers with an Oral Allergy Syndrome (OAS)

  • I. M. van der Meer
  • M. F. Schenk
  • A. R. H. Fischer
  • L. J. Frewer
  • M. P. van der Maas
  • M. J. M. Smulders
  • L. J. W. J. Gilissen
Part of the Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China book series (ATSTC)

Abstract

Plant Research International, together with UMC-Utrecht, screened a wide collection of existing apple varieties for allergenicity, and identified the Santana as a hypoallergenic variety. This variety was introduced on the market in 2006 as “suitable for consumption by consumers with a mild apple allergy”. Its packaging included a background information leaflet, a protocol regarding how to eat it (in relation to “testing” for allergic reactions) and a link to a consumer questionnaire. The results of this questionnaire showed that a high percentage of consumers had no, or very slight, complaints after eating this hypoallergenic cultivar Santana. The questionnaire also included some questions on the appreciation of hypoallergenic apple varieties if they were to be produced by genetic modification. This chapter elaborates on the acceptance by Dutch consumers of hypoallergenic apples, developed either by breeding or by genetic modification.

Keywords

Oral Allergy Syndrome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bolhaar, S.T.H.P., et al. (2005). In vivo assessment with prick-to-prick testing and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of allergenicity of apple cultivars. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 116(5), 1080–1086.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiteneder, H., Ebner, C. (2000). Molecular and biochemical classification of plant-derived food allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 106(1), 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornelisse-Vermaat, J.R., Voordouw, J., Yiakoumaki, V., et al. (2008). Food-allergic consumers’ labelling preferences: A cross-cultural comparison. Eur J Public Health, 18, 115–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Hedderley, D., et al. (1999). The importance of brand, product information and manufacturing process in the development of novel environmentally friendly vegetable oils. J Int Food Agribusiness Marketing, 10, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dodo, H.W., Konan, K.N., Chen, F.C., et al. (2008). Alleviating peanut allergy using genetic engineering: The silencing of the immunodominant allergen Ara h 2 leads to its significant reduction and a decrease in peanut allergenicity. Plant Biotechnol J, 6, 135–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frewer, L., Howard, C., Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frewer, L. (2003). Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends In Food Science and Technology, 14, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao, Z.S., van de Weg, W. E., Schaart, J. G., et al. (2005). Genomic characterization and linkage mapping of the apple allergen genes Mal d 2 (thaumatin-like protein) and Mal d 4 (profilin). Theor Appl Genet, 111, 1087–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gao, Z. S., van de Weg, W. E., Schaart, J. G., et al. (2008). Assessment of allelic diversity in intron-containing Mal d 1 genes and their association to apple allergenicity. BMC Plant Biology, 8, 116. Open access: http://www. biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/8/116/.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaskell, G., et al. (2006). Eurobarometer 64.3: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends (INRA).Google Scholar
  11. Gilissen, L.J.W.J., et al. (2005). Silencing the major apple allergen Mal d 1 by using the RNA interference approach. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 115, 364–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marzban, G., et al. (2005). Localisation and distribution of the major allergens in apple fruits. Plant Sci., 169, 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miles, S., Frewer, L.J. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Nutri Food Sci, 12, 47–61.Google Scholar
  14. Mills, E.N.C., et al. (2004). Information provision for allergic consumers-where are we going with food allergen labelling? Allergy, 59, 1262–1268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miles, S., et al. (2005). Attitudes towards low-allergen food in food allergic consumers. Nutrition and Food Science, 35, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schenk, M.F., et al. (2008). The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health, Risk and Society, 10, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sancho, A.I., et al. (2008). Measurement of lipid transfer protein in 88 apple cultivars. Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 146, 19–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wickstrom, G., Bendix, T. (2000). The “Hawthorne effect” —what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scandinavian J Work Environ Health, 26, 363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology—better than synthetic food but worse than organ-transplantation—a survey of opinion polls. Biotechnology, 12, 870–875.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. M. van der Meer
    • 1
  • M. F. Schenk
    • 1
  • A. R. H. Fischer
    • 2
  • L. J. Frewer
    • 2
  • M. P. van der Maas
    • 1
  • M. J. M. Smulders
    • 1
  • L. J. W. J. Gilissen
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Research InternationalWageningen University and Research CenterWageningenthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Marketing and Consumer BehaviourWageningen Universitythe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations