Consumer Perception of Food Technologies

In a greenhouse of the ARS Vegetable Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, plant physiologist Autar Mattoo examines tomato plants genetically engineered to enhance phytonutrient content and longevity of the fruit. (Photo by Scott Bauer.)

If it is shown to improve the quality, safety, or nutritional benefits of a food, then the use of plant biotechnology, animal biotechnology, or nanotechnology in food production is more likely to be accepted by consumers. Thus were the findings of a 2012 Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology Survey, commissioned by the International Food Information Council (IFIC).

Similar findings were the result of another study published in 2009 by Brook Lyndhurst for the Foods Standards Agency (FSA) of the United Kingdom. The study included worldwide research of English language reports on consumer perception of food technologies since 1999. It too, found that the main determinant in shaping public attitudes tended to be a consumer’s personal evaluation of perceived benefits and risks.

Although the FSA study found that the overall tone of public attitude toward novel food technologies is that of “wariness, unease, uncertainty, and sometime outright negativity,” it also found that, while there were those at each end of the spectrum with strong positive or negative opinions toward food technologies, the majority were undecided or believed they did not know enough to form an opinion.

Both studies found that the overall level of awareness of food technologies is generally low, with the majority of consumers from both the U.K. and the U.S. unfamiliar with nanotechnology, and the FSA report noting the understanding of the science of food technologies is low.

However, the FSA report also stated that attitudes of U.S. consumers are generally more positive than those of Europeans across most food technologies. Additionally, the IFIC study found that the more consumers know about a technology and its benefits, the more comfortable they tend to be with purchase of a product on which the technology was used.

Specific IFIC findings on consumer perceptions of biotechnology/genetically modified plant and animal foods include:

Genetically Modified Foods
Plant Biotechnology: Food products developed with the help of scientific techniques, including tools such as genetic engineering and improvement of crop plants.

• 74% have read or heard at least a little about food biotechnology; only 10% have read or heard a lot.
• 38% are somewhat or very favorable toward plant biotechnology.
  • 26% neither favor nor disfavor it
  • 20% are somewhat or very unfavorable.
• 49% favor farm use of biotechnology to increase crop production to help meet demand.
• Consumers are most likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology if it:
  • reduces pesticide use—77%
  • provides more healthful fats (such as Omega-3s)—71%
  • improves taste or freshness—69%
  • avoids saturated fat—68%.

Animal Biotechnology: The science of improving the health and quality of farm animals through the use of scientific techniques and technologies in breeding and processing.

• 33% are somewhat or very favorable toward animal biotechnology
  • 25% neither favor nor disfavor it.
  • 26% are somewhat or very unfavorable.
• Of those not in favor, 55% said they did not have enough information, 42% did not understand the benefits.
• 50% are very or somewhat in favor of genomics.
• 44% are very or somewhat in favor or genetic engineering.
• 71% would buy genetically engineered animal products, and 67% such fish products, given FDA’s determination of their safety.

General Food Biotechnology. The FSA report combined responses into perceptions of genetically modified foods as a whole. Its findings include:

• A technology’s perceived “naturalness” is important to acceptance.
• Consumers are more willing to accept novel technologies for plant-based products than for animal-based products.
• People are more likely to accept technologies in food that they don’t expect to be healthy, such as snack foods.
• Perceptions on animal cloning for food tends to be emotional rather than reasoned.

Nanotechnology: The science that involves the design and application of structures, devices and systems on an extremely small scale, including uses to improve food safety, quality, and nutrient and ingredient profiles.

The IFIC survey found:

• 61% knew nothing at all about nanotechnology prior to the survey.
• 47% said they would favor the technology—after being provided with its definition.

The FSA report found that:

• Awareness of nanotechnologies is low, but in general people are skeptical about its development primarily because they don’t see the potential benefits.
• Use in packaging may be seen more positively than in food.

Conclusion and Communication
Gaining the trust of consumers is an important key to acceptance of the products in which a food technology is used. However, that trust is not easy to attain, and there is a divergence of opinion as to whom to trust for information. For example, the FSA report notes that the media, government, and industry are the least trusted sources of information, trumped only by the information coming from the biotechnology companies themselves. North Americans tend to have more trust in government information than do Europeans, the report adds, but overall, the most trusted sources tend to be universities and educational establishments, as well as friends and family.

As to overall consumer acceptance, the IFIC survey indicates that the willingness to eat products on which new technologies have been used increases with knowledge and understanding, indicating that education on new and emerging technologies is important to acceptance.

As the FSA report concludes, “As a rule of thumb, the less familiar a technology, the more skeptical people are about it.” However, the more a technology is linked to a health benefit, the more likely it is to be seen a favorable. Following the same line of thought, then, the more a technology is seen as potentially posing a health risk, the more negatively it will be perceived.

The two studies are available online at www.foodinsight.org/foodandhealth2012.aspx and www.food.gov.uk/science/socsci/ssres/crosscutss/emerge

The author is Editor of QA magazine. She can be reached at llupo@gie.net.