Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Alhakami, P. Slovic (1994)
A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 14 6
P. Slovic (1987)
Perception of risk.Science, 236 4799
A. Chiancone, R. Chimuris, L. Garrido
La Nanotecnología en Uruguay
Tatiana Faixa, J. Castro, S. Izquierdo (2000)
Análisis de la influencia de la conducta en la ilusión de controlAnales De Psicologia, 16
J.M. Cozar de
Nanotecnologías: promesas dudosas y control social, Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología
G. Gaskell, T. Eyck, J. Jackson, G. Veltri (2005)
Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United StatesPublic Understanding of Science, 14
EC
Eurobarometer Survey on Europeans, Science and Technology
Dietram Scheufele, B. Lewenstein (2005)
The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging TechnologiesJournal of Nanoparticle Research, 7
C. Baun, M. Kunze, Jens Nimis, S. Tai (2011)
Opportunities and Risks
J. Weiss, P. Takhistov, D. Mcclements (2006)
Functional Materials in Food NanotechnologyJournal of Food Science, 71
G. Foladori (2005)
Nanotechnology and the developing world: will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities?
M.D. Cobb, J. Macoubrie
Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust
Allianz and OECD
Opportunities and Risks of Nanotechnology
M. Siegrist, C. Keller, H. Kastenholz, Silvia Frey, Arnim Wiek (2007)
Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology HazardsRisk Analysis, 27
M. Siegrist (2008)
Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and productsTrends in Food Science and Technology, 19
Baruch Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, Barbara Combs (1978)
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefitsPolicy Sciences, 9
M. Siegrist, N. Stampfli, H. Kastenholz, C. Keller (2008)
Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packagingAppetite, 51
S. Mousavi, M. Rezaei (2011)
Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production
P. Sanguansri, M. Augustin (2006)
Nanoscale materials development - a food industry perspectiveTrends in Food Science and Technology, 17
P. Rozin (2005)
The Meaning of “Natural”Psychological Science, 16
G. Gaskell, T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, G. Veltri
Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States
G. Gaskell, T. Eyck, J. Jackson, G. Veltri (2004)
Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United StatesNature Materials, 3
P. Rozin (2006)
Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalnessJudgment and Decision Making
A. Sorrentino, G. Gorrasi, V. Vittoria (2007)
Potential perspectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applicationsTrends in Food Science and Technology, 18
Chul-joo Lee, Dietram Scheufele, B. Lewenstein (2005)
Public Attitudes toward Emerging TechnologiesScience Communication, 27
Purpose – Nanotechnology has great potential in the food industry. The goal of this study is to identify food applications that are more likely and food applications that are less likely to be accepted by the public. Design/methodology/approach – The study was conducted in México and was a replica of a study conducted in Switzerland. Another goal is to compare the acceptance ratings of citizens from a highly developed European country to the ratings of citizens from a less developed country. Face‐to‐face interviews were conducted in three different places in México, which yielded N =378 datasets. Findings – Affect and perceived control are important factors influencing risk and benefit perceptions. Applications that can be consumed are perceived as more controllable than applications related to the packaging or external use. The results are similar but not identical to the findings from Switzerland. Research limitations/implications – A convenience sample was used that was clearly more highly educated than the average population. One should be cautious when generalizing the findings. Practical implications – It is important to pay attention to public views regarding new technologies in the food business during the product development stage to avoid some of the pitfalls that GM technology had. Originality/value – This is the first study to analyze perceptions of nanotechnology applications in a less developed country. Emerging countries often do not have regulations that are as strong as those of developed countries; therefore, analyzing these markets is important, too.
British Food Journal – Emerald Publishing
Published: Feb 10, 2012
Keywords: Nanotechnology; Perceived risk; Perceived benefit; Food; Packaging; Mexico
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.