4.7 Article

Food technology neophobia and consumer attitudes toward foods produced by new and conventional technologies: A case study in Brazil

Journal

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 832-840

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.10.058

Keywords

Food technology; Nanotechnology; Consumer perception; Familiarity; Willingness to try

Funding

  1. CAPES agency
  2. CNPq agency
  3. FAPEMIG agency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

New food technologies are promoting innovations in the food sector. However, not all technologies are accepted and understood by consumers; some cause resistance. The present work sought to study the behavior of Brazilian consumers in relation to different food technologies. A questionnaire was administered to a representative sample of 389 respondents in Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil. Questionnaire collected information on consumer perceptions regarding new technologies by means of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale (FTNS), translated and validated into Portuguese, in addition to familiarity and willingness to try yogurts labeled such as traditional, pasteurized, organic, genetically modified, enriched with bioactive proteins and nanotechnology. Results suggested that neophobia regarding food technology is important to explain consumer behavior in relation to new technologies, especially for nanotechnology. Participants were less familiar with foods labeled as GM and nanotechnology, and willingness to try these products was lower. Consumers are still wary of GM and nanotechnology, possibly due to lack of assurance that these foods are safe for human health and the environment. For new food technologies (such as nanotechnology) that are still recent, communication is very important, being decisive for the consolidation of consumer perceptions, and consequently for the acceptance of these innovations on the market. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available