20pgs, This study aimed to better understand consumers’ perceptions toward superfoods, to reveal segments of consumers, and to describe their behavioral patterns and sociodemographic characteristics. Data were collected from a mail survey (n = 423). Consumer segmentation revealed six segments. The “superfoodies” (13%) showed a more positive attitude toward superfoods, believing in their health and sustainable benefits. Adventurous consumers (16%) showed less knowledge on superfoods, despite that, they believe in the benefits of those foods after receiving some information during the survey. Involved consumers (13%) presented high nutritional knowledge and believe in the future of superfoods. Indifferent consumers (23%) appear to have a neutral attitude toward superfoods. Skeptical consumers (21%) and rejectors (15%) seem to be more conservative and less interested and unconvinced about the benefits of consuming superfoods. These results help guide those producing, marketing, and selling superfoods, and serve as a basis to develop strategies for different target groups.
15 pgs, Biotechnology might contribute to solving food safety and security challenges. However, gene technology has been under public scrutiny, linked to the framing of the media and public discourse. The study aims to investigate people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology with focus on transgenic genetic modification versus genome editing. An online experiment was conducted with participants from the United Kingdom (n = 490) and Switzerland (n = 505). The participants were presented with the topic of food biotechnology and more specifically with experimentally varied vignettes on transgenic and genetic modification and genome editing (scientific uncertainty: high vs. low, media format: journalistic vs. user-generated blog). The results suggest that participants from both countries express higher levels of acceptance for genome editing compared to transgenic genetic modification. The general and personal acceptance of these technologies depend largely on whether the participants believe the application is beneficial, how they perceive scientific uncertainty, and the country they reside in. Our findings suggest that future communication about gene technology should focus more on discussing trade-offs between using an agricultural technologies and tangible and relevant benefits, instead of a unidimensional focus on risk and safety.
