Contents
Executive Summary
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Acronyms
1. Introduction
1.1 Defining Functional Foods
1.2 Previous Studies
1.3 Risk perception
1.4 Nature of concern
1.5 Level of concern
1.6 Acceptability of GM functional foods
1.7 Critique
2. Laddering Approach
3. Design of the Study
3.1 The Laddering Process
3.2 The Product Descriptions
3.3 Selection of Participants
3.4 Eliciting Attributes
3.5 The Laddering Technique
3.6 Data Collection
3.7 Coding
3.8 Analysis and Laddermap
4. Analysis of Product Ranks
4.1 Elicitation of Ranking Data
4.2 Analysis of Ranking Data
4.3 Multi-dimensional Scaling of Ranking Data
5. Laddermap Results
5.1 The Majority Segment
5.2 The Minority Segment
6. Conclusion
7. References
Executive Summary
Among the reasons given for the rejection of genetically modified (GM) food products is that they did not have any benefit for consumers, yet presented a perceived level of risk. An often stated, but untested, hypotheses is that if the next generation of GM foods provides discernable benefits for consumers, acceptance will be much higher. This study explicitly tests that hypothesis.
The study analyzes the consumer acceptance of functional food products resulting from the use of different applications of genetic modification. Eight yoghurt product profiles were used as stimuli to elicit attributes, consequences and values using the laddering interview technique. Three levels of presence of the genetically modified material in the final product were investigated: not present, present but non-active, present and active. Consumer reaction to three types of genetically modified organisms were investigated: plant (animal feed), microorganism (culture used to produce yoghurt) and animal (dairy cow).
The results from 60 laddering interviews in the United Kingdom reveal two clear segments of consumers. The majority segment (48/60) is remarkably homogeneous and ranks the 8 products consistently from non-GM as the most acceptable to GM animal as the least acceptable. The minority segment (9/60) is heterogeneous, employing different ranking strategies, and so made trade-offs between the perceived benefits (such as lower price and improved health) and the perceived risks associated with GM. They ranked some GM foods higher than the non-GM foods. Three ranked the non-GM products but rejected all GM products and so could not rank them.
For the majority segment, there is a basic dichotomy of GM and non-GM products. Being non-GM is perceived as a major benefit in itself. When the yoghurt involves genetic modification, these consumers make associations with 'unnatural' and unknown and, therefore, 'unsafe' and 'unhealthy'. Level of presence of the GM component affects acceptability, with non-GM products being most acceptable and present and active GM products being least acceptable. Conversely, the minority segment associates present and active GM material with being healthy, as well as with being unknown and unsafe.
For the majority segment, the type of organism, which is genetically modified, affects consumer acceptance. Genetic modification of plants (feed) and microorganisms (culture) is ranked as more acceptable than genetically modified animal (dairy cow). Type of GM organism does not affect acceptability for the minority segment.
Overall, GM food is more associated with perceived risks than benefits. The key associations are unnaturalness, lack of information, lack of safety and unhealthiness, which prevent attainment of life values, such as healthy life and good quality of life, and social values, such as responsibility for family, nature and animal welfare. The results reveal that, although the majority of respondents rank the two non-GM yoghurt products as most acceptable, there was a minority group of consumers who valued the perceived benefits, notably lower price and improved health, of the various GM products above the perceived risks of the technology. This identification of two consumer segments contradicts previous research, which suggests that, for consumers, GM benefits do not compensate for perceived risks.
The next generation of GM foods even if presenting discernable consumer benefits may not receive widespread acceptance. The nature of the GM and the benefit will have a significant impact on consumer acceptance. An interesting finding was that enhancing the organoleptic characteristics of the product might lead to greater consumer acceptance than would a imparting a health benefit.
Conclusion
Previous qualitative research into consumer attitudes and genetic modification has identified various issues associated with GM, including the main human health risk resulting from unsafe food, the impact on the quality of the food, the impact on the environment/nature, the impact on animal welfare, and the necessity of such technology. Other key factors included the 'dread' factor, associated with perceived GM risks and the non-risk ethical issues.
Moreover, quantitative evidence demonstrates that consumers perceive the effects of GM applications to food adversely (e.g. Hamstra, 1991, 1993, 1995). GM is perceived overall as risky (e.g. Sparks et al., 1994; Saba et al., 2000). In their discussion of moral obligation, Sparks et al., 1995, concluded that 'perceptions of uncertainty' dominated consumer attitudes. Indeed, food neophobia has been cited (e.g. Bredahl, 1999) to explain lack of consumer acceptance of GM. This means that lack of familiarity leads to lack of knowledge, which leads to lack of trust. A neophobic reaction to GM informs attitudes to particular products and these attitudes inform acceptability. Moreover, Heijs and Midden (1995) argue that this lack of knowledge leads to emotionally (not rationally) informed attitudes. Lack of knowledge (e.g. McKechnie, 1997; Brown, 1997) results in consumer suspicion of science, which informs fear of the unknown. This has the simplistic, yet powerful, effect of polarizing science and nature. This polarization is reflected in Frewer et al's. (1997) correlation of increasing concerns for the environment and decreasing acceptability of GM.
Against this background of concern, the functional food market has arisen in response to increased life expectancy, improved health (and concern about health), and developments in food technology. Consumer research (e.g. Young, 1998; Poulsen, 1999) has demonstrated that consumers perceive functional food to be associated with health, convenience, (un)naturalness, changes in quality, increased price and some levels of suspicion over credibility of health claims.
Sheehy and Morrison (1998) have identified the role of functional food as that type of food which has a possible impact on health. Such health benefits exceed basic nutrition (NINC, 2000; IFIC, 2002) and may be both preventative and therapeutic (Roberfroid, 1999). This study has proposed that functional food derived by GM (e.g. Winkler, 1998) will contribute significantly to the debate about the perceived benefits of functional food (e.g. Germov and Williams, 2000) compared to the perceived costs, for example to human health or the environment (e.g. Hoban, 1995). Following Hamstra (1993), the study was designed to evaluate consumer acceptance using products with associated sets of perceived product characteristics. Previous work (e.g. Grunert et al., 2000) has examined levels of presence of the GM component, type of organism which is GM and the trade-off between perceived risks and benefits. This study is a contribution to this line of work.
The results of this study support Kuznesof and Ritson's (1996) conclusion that consumers desire what they perceive to be 'natural' food. Furthermore, they support the contention that GM is associated with increased risk (e.g. Shepherd, 1994; Hoban, 1995; Lemkov, 1993) and that these risks outweigh potential benefits (e.g. Lex, 1997) for the majority. It also supports the finding that consumers perceive the GM of animals less favorably than GM microorganisms and GM plants (e.g. Hoban et al., 1992; Hamstra, 1993; Shannon, 1997; Grunert et al., 2000). In terms of the trade-offs between risks and benefits, there is some support here for the acceptance of GM with clear environmental benefit. This is evident in the relatively high ranking of product C (3rd out of 8 products, and 1st amongst the 6 GM products), which reduces pesticide use and therefore favors a trade-off between GM and agrochemical technology, which is perceived to have harmful effects on the environment.
The analysis of the ranking data demonstrates that the type of organism which is GM and the level of presence of the GM material in the food both affect consumer acceptance of GM functional food and, therefore, supports previous research findings (e.g. Grunert et al., 2000). Amongst the type of GM applications, GM plant (feed) and microorganism (culture) are rated more acceptable than GM animal (cow). In terms of level of presence, non-GM is clearly the most acceptable, followed by GM present and non-active, with the least acceptable being GM present and active.
For the majority segment, there is a clear dichotomy between non-GM and GM food, reflected in the consequences natural versus unnatural, safe versus unsafe, and healthy versus unhealthy. For these consumers, being non-GM is a benefit in itself. There are two key issues affecting consumer rejection of GM functional food. GM material generally, and more specifically GM culture and GM cow, are associated with being unnatural and, in the case of GM cow, with animal suffering. Being unnatural is strongly linked to lack of information. Here, this association may be interpreted as a form of food neophobia, where being unnatural is not only about the perceived natural order of things, but also significantly about what is unfamiliar and unknown and, therefore, considered unsafe.
This relation between what is unknown and unsafe is mirrored in the robust association between GM feed and the impact on the food chain, which in turn leads to lack of information and being unsafe. This association is clearly influenced by British consumers' experience and perception of the BSE food safety crisis, which was caused by animal feed. Consumers perceived the fact that herbivores were fed animal-derived feed as 'unnatural' and, indeed, cannibalistic. The association between unnatural feed and the impact on food safety (leading to human death by CJD) forms the basis for this resolute relation between GM feed and food safety, via the food chain. This conspicuous chain from GM feed, through the food chain to lack of information, being unsafe and unhealthy and, therefore, preventing attainment of good health and good quality of life, is absent from the minority segment map. In the minority segment, good quality of life, from good health, is a visible link, but it is supported by positive health associations with active GM components, reduced cholesterol, improved digestion, being low fat and increased protein content. Positive links are present in the majority segment, with health being associated with decreased cholesterol, improved digestion, active culture (non-GM) and low fat, but here the GM associations are greatly reduced.
The HVMs illustrate certain MEC patterns, which support the role of the two dimensions of 'type' and 'presence' in consumer acceptability of GM functional food. In the majority segment, the effect of type of organism that is GM is discernible as the GM Cow is associated, in addition to being unnatural with causing animal suffering, which prevents attainment of the social value of responsibility for animal welfare. Here, too, the impact of GM Feed is isolated, resulting in the impact on the food chain, which explains in part why one of the GM feed products, product D, was ranked below the two GM culture products. Although GM plant may typically be expected to be ranked more acceptable than GM microorganisms, this is clearly dependent on previous food safety problems involving animal feed. For the minority segment, although GM is mentioned and related to lack of information and being unsafe, key GM attributes such as GM Feed, GM Culture and GM Cow are absent. For the minority segment, the type of organism that is GM does not appear to have an impact on acceptability.
For level of presence of the GM component, it is clear from the majority segment HVM that non-GM is favored over and above GM products. Where GM is present, the map shows GM non-active being associated with safe food, whereas GM active is strongly linked to being unsafe. The map demonstrates that the present and active GM product is least acceptable because it is perceived as the least safe. In the minority segment map, GM and non-GM products are not dichotomous. In fact GM active is associated with both lack of information and with being healthy.
Overall, GM food is more associated with perceived risks than benefits. The key associations are unnaturalness, lack of information, lack of safety and unhealthiness, which prevent attainment of life values, such as healthy life and quality of life, and social values, such as responsibility for family, nature and animal welfare. The results reveal that, although the majority of respondents rank the two non-GM yoghurt products as most acceptable, there was a minority group of consumers who valued the perceived benefits, notably lower price and improved health, of the various GM products above the perceived risks of the technology. This identification of two consumer segments contradicts previous research, which suggests that GM benefits do not compensate for perceived risks.
Further research should build on the identification of three consumer profiles: a) consumers who reject GM food, whatever the associated benefit, b) consumers who find GM less acceptable than non-GM food, but are able to rank benefits associated with GM, and c) consumers who rank the benefits of GM food above non-GM food. This last consumer segment requires further investigation to determine the strength of particular ranking strategies, and the significance of different benefits (e.g. price, health, environment, organoleptic) against the perceived risks associated with GM.
References
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Hills.
Audenaert and Streenkamp (1999)
Bech-Larsen, Nielsen, Grunert and Sørensen (1996)
Bech-Larsen, Tino; Klaus G. Grunert, and Jacob Poulsen. (2001). The Acceptance of Functional Foods in Denmark, Finland and the United States - a Study of Consumers' Conjoint Evaluations of the Qualities of Functional Foods and Perceptions of General Health Factors and Cultural Values. MAPP Working Paper; no. 73, 2001.
Bredahl, L. (1998). Consumers' Cognitions with Regard to Genetically Modified Foods n Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries. MAPP Working Paper; no. 59, 1998.
Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions with Regard to Genetically Modified Foods - Results of a Cross-national Survey. Journal of Consumer Policy. 2001, 24, s. 23-61.
Bredahl, L., Grunert, G. and Frewer, L.J. (1998). Consumer Attitudes and Decision Making with Regard to Genetically Engineered Food Products - a Review of the Literature and a Presentation of Models for Future Research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21, 251-277
Bredahl, Lone; Grunert, Klaus G. an Analysis of National and Cross-national Consumer Segments Using the Food-related Lifestyle Instrument in Denmark, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Advances in Asia-pacific Consumer Research. Ed. by R. Belle & R. Groves, 1997.
Brown (1997)
Cathro and Morris (1995)
European Commission (1997). The Europeans and modern biotechnology - Eurobarometer 46.1. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Fischhoff, Watson and Hope (1984)
Food Standards Agency (2000). Consumer attitudes to food standards. Food Standards Agency, UK.
Frewer, L.J. (1999) Public perceptions of genetically modified foods - Europe and the UK. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 6 108-115
Frewer, L.J. (1998) Consumer Perceptions and Novel Food Acceptance. Outlook in Agriculture, 27(3) 178-180
Frewer (1994)
Frewer L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1995). Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values, 12 (1), 48-57.
Frewer L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1994). Attributing information to different sources: effects on the perceived qualities of information on the perceived relevance of information and on attitude formation. Public Understanding Science, 3, 385 - 401.
Frewer, L.J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C., and Shepherd, R. (1997). 'Objection' mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values, 14, 67-79.
Frewer, L.J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C., and Shepherd, R. (1997). Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - the influence of consumer benefit.
Food Quality and Preference, 8, 271-280.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1998). Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated with food related hazards. Risk Analysis, 18(1) 95-102
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1999). Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source credibility, perceived risk immediacy and persuasive content. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 35-50
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1998). Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 221-237
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. and Shepherd, R. (1998). The importance of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values, 15, 15-30
Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., Downs, C., and Bredahl, L. (2000). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: Effects of different information strategies. MAPP working paper; no. 71, 2000.
Gengler (1993)
Germov and Williams (2000)
Grunert, K.G. (2000)
Grunert (1998)
Grunert, Klaus G. (1995). Food Quality: A Means-End Perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 171-176.
Bredahl, Lone - Future foods: Consumers' hopes and fears. I: Biotechnology in the food chain in New tools and applications for future foods, K. Poutanen. Espoo: Technical Research Centre of Finland, 1998. s. 13-20.
Grunert, Klaus G.; Lahteenmaki, L.; Nielsen, Niels Asger; Poulsen, Jacob B.; Ueland, O. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification - Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. I: Food Quality and Preference. 2001, 12, 8, s. 527-542.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60-72.
Hamstra, A.M. (1991). Biotechnology in foodstuffs - towards a model of consumer acceptance. The SWOKA Institute, The Hague.
Hamstra, A.M. (1993). Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology - the relation between product evaluation and acceptance. The SWOKA Institute, The Hague.
Hamstra, A.M. (1995). Consumer acceptance model for food biotechnology - final report. The SWOKA Institute, The Hague.
Harper, G.C. and Henson, S.J. (1998). Consumer concern about animal welfare and the impact on food choice - the comparative report. EU FAIR CT98-3678. The University of Reading, UK.
Heijs (1993)
Heijs, W.J.M. and Midden, C.J.H. (1995). Biotechnology: attitudes and influencing factors, third survey. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
Hilliam, M. (1990)
Hoban (1992)
Hoban (1995)
Hoban, T.J. and Kendall, P.A. (1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
INRA (1993). Eurobarometer 39.1. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: what the Europeans think about it in 1993. Written for the European Commission.
Jones, Clarke-Hill, Hillier and Shears (2000).
Kuznesof, S. and Ritson, C. (1996). Consumer acceptability of genetically modified foods with special reference to farmed salmon. British Food Journal, 98, 39-47.
Lawrence and Germov (2000)
Lemkov, L. (1993). Public attitudes to genetic engineering: some European perspectives. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.
Lewin (1990)
Lex (1995)
Lobstein (1996)
Marlier, E. (1992). Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions on biotechnology. In J. Durant (ed.) Biotechnology in public - review of recent research, pp. 52-108. Loughlinstown House, Dublin.
Meiri, H. and Altman, A. (1997). “Agriculture and Agricultural Biotechnology: Development Trends Toward the 21st Century.’ In: Altman, A. (ed). Agricultural Biotechnology. Marcel Dekker, New York.
McKechnie (1997)
McNutt (1994)
Neilsen, N.A., Bech-Larsen, T. and Grunert, K.G. (1998). Consumer purchase motives and product perceptions: a laddering study on vegetable oil in three countries. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 455-466.
NIN RAPPORT (2000). Functional foods: consumer, health and marketplace perspectives. NIN RAPPORT, 15 (2). National Institute of Nutrition, Canada.
Ovesen (1999)
Pariza (1999)
Philipsen (1998)
Poulsen, J. (1999). Danish consumers' attitudes towards functional foods. MAPP working paper; no. 62.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gengler, C.E. (1987). Laddermap. University of Texas and Clarkson University, Potsdam.
Roberfroid, M. B. (1999). What is beneficial for health? The concept of functional food. Food Chem Toxicol. Sep-Oct; 37 (9-10):1039-41
Roberts (1989)
Saba, A., Moles, A. and Frewer, L.J. (1998) Public concerns about general and specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: A Comparative Study between the UK and Italy. Journal of Nutrition and Food Science, 28(1) 19-29
Saba, Rosati and Vassallo (2000)
Sandman (1987)
Scholderer, J., Balderjahn, I. and Will, S. (1998). Communicating the risks and benefits of genetically engineered food products to the public: The view of experts from four European countries. MAPP working paper; no. 57, 1998.
Scholderer, J., Bech-Larsen, T. and Grunert, K. G. (2000). Changing public perceptions of genetically modified foods: Effects of consumer information and direct product experience. Appetite. 2001, 37, s. 162.
Shannon (1997)
Sheehy and Morrison (1998)
Slovic (1980)
Sørensen Sparks and Shepherd (1994)
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. (1995). Assessing and structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: the role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16 (3), 267-285.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. (1994). Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11, 19-28.
Stenholm and Waggoner (1992)
Verbeke, W. and Viane, J. (2001). Consumer attitude towards functional foods: exploring knowledge, perception and acceptance. EurSafe 2001 Preprints.
Walker, B.A. and Olson, J.C. (1991). Means-end chains: connecting products with self. Journal of Business Research, 22, 111-119.
Winkler (1998)
de Winter (1998). Does the consumer accept genetically modified foods? BEUC, Belgium.
Young (1998)
Zeitham (1998)
