Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies

Nature Food volume 1, pages 343–350 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Novel food technologies are important for food security, safety and sustainability. Consumers, however, are often hesitant to accept them. In this narrative Review, we organize the research describing how heuristics and individual differences among consumers influence the acceptance of agri-food technologies. Associations evoked by a food technology, its perceived naturalness and trust in the industry using it influence consumer acceptance. Food neophobia, disgust sensitivity and cultural values are crucial personality factors for explaining individual differences. Using gene technology, nanotechnology, cultured meat and food irradiation as cases, we explore factors that may explain consumers’ acceptance or lack of acceptance. Climate change, food supply shocks caused by crises such as pandemics and population growth are imminent threats to the food system. Therefore, disruptive food technologies will be needed to progress towards a more resilient food system. Taking into account the factors influencing consumers’ perceptions of novel food technologies during the early stage of development and introduction will hopefully result in a higher acceptance of such technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Historical timeline of food technologies.

www.flaticon.com: Freepik (salt, refrigerator, Pasteurization, fast food, microwave, sous vide, molecular gastronomy); Smashicon (deep frying, canned food, molecular gastronomy); Darius Dan (pressure cooker); Photo3ideastudio (GMO food).

Fig. 2: Factors influencing the perception of food technologies.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frewer, L. J. et al. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22, 442–456 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Frewer, L. J. et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 30, 142–152 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bearth, A. & Siegrist, M. “As long as it is not irradiated” Influencing factors of US consumers’ acceptance of food irradiation. Food Qual. Preference 71, 141–148 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J. & Bieberstein, A. Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6, 381–405 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Attitudes Towards the Impact of Digitisation and Automation on Daily Life Special Eurobarometer 460 (European Commission, 2017).

  7. Gaskell, G. et al. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 113–114 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rozin, P. The meaning of “natural”. Psychol. Sci. 16, 652–658 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L. M. & Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 67, 44–57 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pliner, P. & Hobden, K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 19, 105–120 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cox, D. N. & Evans, G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: the food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual. Preference 19, 704–710 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dordevic, D. & Buchtova, H. Factors influencing sushi meal as representative of non-traditional meal: consumption among Czech consumers. Acta Alimentaria 46, 76–83 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Siegrist, M. & Hartmann, C. Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite 132, 196–202 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wardle, J., Parmenter, K. & Waller, J. Nutrition knowledge and food intake. Appetite 34, 269–275 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hartmann, C. & Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 61, 11–25 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Connor, M. & Siegrist, M. Factors influencing peoples’ acceptance of gene technology: the role of knowledge, health concerns, naturalness, and social trust. Sci. Commun. 32, 514–538 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24, 311–322 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 451–482 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982).

  20. Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (eds. Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, G.) 267–293 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  21. Montibeller, G. & von Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 35, 1230–1251 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group Simple Heuristics That Make us Smart (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

  23. Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C. & Sütterlin, B. Biased perception about gene technology: how perceived naturalness and affect distort benefit perception. Appetite 96, 509–516 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gigerenzer, G. Why heuristics work. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 20–29 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13, 1–17 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pachur, T., Hertwig, R. & Steinmann, F. How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 18, 314–330 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Townsend, E. & Campbell, S. Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Anal. 24, 1385–1393 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Connor, M. & Siegrist, M. The power of association: its impact on willingness to buy GM food. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 17, 1142–1155 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sokolowska, J. & Sleboda, P. The inverse relation between risks and benefits: the role of affect and expertise. Risk Anal. 35, 1252–1267 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Persp. Psychol. Sci. 11, 315–324 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Egolf, A., Hartmann, C. & Siegrist, M. When evolution works against the future: disgust's contributions to the acceptance of new food technologies. Risk Anal. 39, 1546–1559 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Earle, T. C. Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Anal. 30, 541–574 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Siegrist, M. Trust and risk perception: a critical review of the literature. Risk Anal. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325 (2019).

  36. Hobbs, J. E. Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems. Agribusiness 20, 397–415 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Freudenburg, W. R. Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Soc. Forces 71, 909–932 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Luhmann, N. Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (Enke, 1989).

  40. Roosen, J. et al. Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food. Food Policy 52, 75–83 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yue, C. Y., Zhao, S. L., Cummings, C. & Kuzma, J. Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J. Nanopart. Res. 17, 283 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bratanova, B., Morrison, G., Fife-Schaw, C., Chenoweth, J. & Mangold, M. Restoring drinking water acceptance following a waterborne disease outbreak: the role of trust, risk perception, and communication. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 43, 1761–1770 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Earle, T. C. & Cvetkovich, G. T. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society (Praeger, 1995).

  45. Allum, N. An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: the case of GM food. Risk Anal. 27, 935–946 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C. & Gutscher, H. (eds.) Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind (Earthscan, 2007).

  47. Rozin, P., Fischler, C. & Shields-Argeles, C. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59, 448–455 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Evans, G., de Challemaison, B. & Cox, D. N. Consumers’ ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite 54, 557–563 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rozin, P. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgment Decis. Making 1, 91–97 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rozin, P., Fischler, C. & Shields-Argeles, C. Additivity dominance: Additivites are more potent and more often lexicalized across languages than are “subtractives”. Judgment Decis. Making 4, 475–478 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Scott, S. E. & Rozin, P. Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance. Judgment Decis. Making 12, 572–583 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rozin, P. et al. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43, 147–154 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Li, M. & Chapman, G. B. Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 42, 2859–2878 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Siegrist, M., Hubner, P. & Hartmann, C. Risk prioritization in the food domain using deliberative and survey methods: differences between experts and laypeople. Risk Anal. 38, 504–524 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Aschemann-Witzel, J. & Grunert, K. G. Attitude towards resveratrol as a healthy botanical ingredient: The role of naturalness of product and message. Food Qual. Preference 57, 126–135 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Bryant, C. J., Anderson, J. E., Asher, K. E., Green, C. & Gasteratos, K. Strategies for overcoming aversion to unnaturalness: the case of clean meat. Meat Sci. 154, 37–45 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Runge, K. K., Chung, J. H., Su, L. Y. F., Brossard, D. & Scheufele, D. A. Pink slimed: media framing of novel food technologies and risk related to ground beef and processed foods in the US. Meat Sci. 143, 242–251 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Siegrist, M. & Sütterlin, B. Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 113, 320–326 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bryant, C. J. & Barnett, J. C. What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite 137, 104–113 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lin, W., Ortega, D. L., Caputo, V. & Lusk, J. L. Personality traits and consumer acceptance of controversial food technology: A cross-country investigation of genetically modified animal products. Food Qual. Preference 76, 10–19 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Evans, G., Kermarrec, C., Sable, T. & Cox, D. N. Reliability and predictive validity of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale. Appetite 54, 390–393 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schnettler, B. et al. Psychometric analysis of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale in a Chilean sample. Food Qual. Preference 49, 176–182 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cavaliere, A. & Ventura, V. Mismatch between food sustainability and consumer acceptance toward innovation technologies among Millenial students: the case of shelf life extension. J. Cleaner Prod. 175, 641–650 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. De Steur, H., Odongo, W. & Gellynck, X. Applying the food technology neophobia scale in a developing country context. A case-study on processed matooke (cooking banana) flour in Central Uganda. Appetite 96, 391–398 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lähteenmäki, L. et al. Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product alternative. Food Qual. Preference 13, 523–533 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Brunner, T. A., Delley, M. & Denkel, C. Consumers’ attitudes and change of attitude toward 3D-printed food. Food Qual. Preference 68, 389–396 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Aerni, P., Scholderer, J. & Ermen, D. How would Swiss consumers decide if they had freedom of choice? Evidence from a field study with organic, conventional and GM corn bread. Food Policy 36, 830–838 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Curtis, V. Why disgust matters. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 3478–3490 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hoefling, A. et al. When hunger finds no fault with moldy corn: food deprivation reduces food-related disgust. Emotion 9, 50–58 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Olatunji, B. O. et al. The disgust scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychol. Assess. 19, 281–297 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Hartmann, C. & Siegrist, M. Development and validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Qual. Preference 63, 38–50 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ammann, J., Siegrist, M. & Hartmann, C. The influence of disgust sensitivity on self-reported hygiene behaviour. Food Control 102, 131–138 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Curtis, V., de Barra, M. & Aunger, R. Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 389–401 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Egolf, A., Siegrist, M. & Hartmann, C. How people’s food disgust sensitivity shapes their eating and food behaviour. Appetite 127, 28–36 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., Wirz, C. D., Brossard, D. & Rozin, P. An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 38, 459–479 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Royzman, E., Cusimano, C. & Leeman, R. F. What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies. Judgment Decis. Making 12, 466–480 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. Risk and culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (Univ. California Press, 1982).

  79. Dake, K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 22, 61–82 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Peters, E. & Slovic, P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 26, 1427–1453 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Marris, C., Langford, I. H. & O’Riordan, T. A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Anal. 18, 635–647 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Schwartz, S. H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Social Psychol. 25, 1–65 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Sjöberg, L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 20, 1–11 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Fife-Schaw, C. & Rowe, G. Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risks: Some methodological considerations. J. Risk Res. 3, 167–179 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kirk, S. F. L., Greenwood, D., Cade, J. E. & Pearman, A. D. Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite 38, 189–197 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Frewer, L. J. Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 44, 683–704 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Food Safety in the EU Special Eurobarometer Wave EB91.3 (European Commission, 2019).

  91. Mielby, H., Sandoe, P. & Lassen, J. The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Understanding Sci. 22, 155–168 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L. & Zani, B. The prediction of intention to consume genetically modified food: Test of an integrated psychosocial model. Food Qual. Preference 25, 163–170 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Zhang, Y. Y. et al. Application of an integrated framework to examine Chinese consumers’ purchase intention toward genetically modified food. Food Qual. Preference 65, 118–128 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J. & Bredahl, L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal. 23, 1117–1133 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Gaskell, G. et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 935–938 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Connor, M. & Siegrist, M. Sorting biotechnology applications: Results of multidimensional scaling (MDS) and cluster analysis. Public Understanding Sci. 22, 128–136 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Kronberger, N., Wagner, W. & Nagata, M. How natural is “more natural”? The role of method, type of transfer, and familiarity for public perceptions of cisgenic and transgenic modification. Sci. Commun. 36, 106–130 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Peters, R. J. B. et al. Nanomaterials for products and application in agriculture, feed and food. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 54, 155–164 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Duncan, T. V. The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 683–688 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J. & Herr Harthorn, B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 752–758 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Siegrist, M. & Keller, C. Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal. 31, 1762–1769 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Post, M. J. Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Sci. 92, 297–301 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci. 143, 8–17 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Siegrist, M., Sutterlin, B. & Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Sci. 139, 213–219 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Marcu, A. et al. Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding Sci. 24, 547–562 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Verbeke, W. et al. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 102, 49–58 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Wilks, M. & Phillips, C. J. C. Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE 12, e0171904 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Rothgerber, H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol. Men Masculinity 14, 363–375 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Behrens, J. H., Barcellos, M. N., Frewer, L. J., Nunes, T. P. & Landgraf, M. Brazilian consumer views on food irradiation. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 10, 383–389 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Finten, G., Garrido, J. I., Aguero, M. V. & Jagus, R. J. Irradiated ready-to-eat spinach leaves: how information influences awareness towards irradiation treatment and consumer’s purchase intention. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 130, 247–251 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. MacRitchie, L. A., Hunter, C. J. & Strachan, N. J. C. Consumer acceptability of interventions to reduce Campylobacter in the poultry food chain. Food Control 35, 260–266 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. King, A. A. & Baatartogtokh, B. How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation? MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 57, 77–90 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Hartmann, C., Dohle, S. & Siegrist, M. Importance of cooking skills for balanced food choices. Appetite 65, 125–131 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Cohen, J. Fields of dreams: China bets big on genome editing of crops. Science 365, 422–425 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consumer Behavior, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Michael Siegrist & Christina Hartmann

Authors
  1. Michael Siegrist
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Hartmann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.S. and C.H. defined the structure of the Review. M.S. wrote the first draft and C.H. provided extensive feedback.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michael Siegrist or Christina Hartmann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat Food 1, 343–350 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing