Results of a survey among participants in a conference of the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART).
Ronteltap, Amber (author), Reinders, Machiel, J. (author), Van Dijk, Suzanne M. (author), Heijting, Sanne (author), Van der Lans, Ivo A. (author), and Lotz, Lambertus A. P. (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016-08
Published:
Springer
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10266
30 pages., Via online journal., New agrifood technologies are often difficult to grasp for the public, which may lead to resistance or even rejection. Insight into which technology features determine public acceptability of the technology could offer guidelines for responsible technology development. This paper systematically assesses the relative importance of specific technology features for consumer response in the agrifood domain in two consecutive studies. Prominent technology features were selected from expert judgment and literature. The effects of these features on consumer evaluation were tested in a consumer study (n = 745). Fictitious technologies were used to avoid any uncontrollable contextual influences that existing new technologies may evoke. Results show that technologies that were seen as more natural and newer were perceived less risky, more beneficial, and were evaluated more positively. Technologies applied to food were judged to be more beneficial, but also more risky than those applied to non-food. Technologies used in the production process were perceived to be less risky and evaluated more positively than those used in the product. Technologies owned by the market leader were perceived to be more beneficial, and evaluated more positively than those that were freely available. In a next study (n = 440), effects of the technology features on consumer response were tested for existing new agrifood technologies. This study replicated the results for perceived naturalness, perceived newness, and place in the production process where the technology is applied. However, in contrast to the first study, we did not find an effect of application area (food versus non-food) and technology ownership.
21 pages., Credibility is particularly important in organic food systems because there are only marginal visual and sensorial differences between organic and conventionally produced products, requiring consumers to trust in producers’ quality claims. In this article I explore what challenges the credibility of organic food systems and I explore how credibility of organic food systems can be maintained, using the Danish organic food system as a case study. The question is increasingly relevant as the sale of organic food is growing in Denmark as well as globally, and consumers’ expectations of organics continuously evolve. The inquiry is threefold, first I outline a conceptual framework for understanding trust and credibility in the food system, secondly I explore the developments in Danish organic food systems and thirdly discuss the challenges and opportunities for maintaining trust in the Danish organic food system. In the analysis I indicate eight key challenges: (1) unrealistic expectations, (2) blind trust and little motivation for extending their knowledge, (3) consumers assess the overall credibility of organic products, (4) ambitious ethical principles, (5) new consumer groups introduce new expectations, (6) frozen requirements in a changing world, (7) growing imports and labelling and (8) multiple versions of organics and the diversity is growing, as well as four aspects which may maintain the credibility of organics if implemented: (1) coordinate expectations, (2) communicate requested information, (3) institutional reform and (4) open communication of pros and cons of organic production.
