When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies

New food technologies have a high potential to transform the current resource‐consuming food system to a more efficient and sustainable one, but public acceptance of new food technologies is rather low. Such an avoidance might be maintained by a deeply preserved risk avoidance system called disgust. In an online survey, participants (N = 313) received information about a variety of new food technology applications (i.e., genetically modified meat/fish, edible nanotechnology coating film, nanotechnology food box, artificial meat/milk, and a synthetic food additive). Every new food technology application was rated according to the respondent's willingness to eat (WTE) it (i.e., acceptance), risk, benefit, and disgust perceptions. Furthermore, food disgust sensitivity was measured using the Food Disgust Scale. Overall, the WTE both gene‐technology applications and meat coated with an edible nanotechnology film were low and disgust responses toward all three applications were high. In full mediation models, food disgust sensitivity predicted the disgust response toward each new food technology application, which in turn influenced WTE them. Effects of disgust responses on the WTE a synthetic food additive were highest for and lowest for the edible nanotechnology coating film compared to the other technologies. Results indicate that direct disgust responses influence acceptance and risk and benefit perceptions of new food technologies. Beyond the discussion of this study, implications for future research and strategies to increase acceptance of new food technologies are discussed.     

A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks

This study reviewed coverage of nanotechnology risks in 20 U.S. and 9 U.K. newspapers and 2 wire services from 2000 to 2009. It focused on information that citizens could come across in daily newspaper reading that could highlight the salience of these issues and alert readers to potential risks. Few articles about nanotechnology health, environmental, and societal risks were found in these publications during this period, averaging only 36.7 per year for both countries. The coverage emphasized three main narratives over time: runaway technology, science-based studies, and regulation. Health risks were covered most frequently, followed by environmental and societal risk issues. Regulation coverage was not as frequent but increased over time. The majority of the coverage focused on news events and 10 events drew modest media attention. Scientific uncertainty discussions appeared in about half of the articles, and scientists and engineers were the dominant information sources in both countries. Some significant differences between U.S. and U.K. coverage were found: U.K. coverage emphasized more societal concerns, while U.S. coverage paid more attention to environmental risks. Because the volume of coverage was not extensive and was counterbalanced by many more articles extolling nanotechnology's benefits, it is questionable whether this coverage alerted readers about potential nanotechnology risks. Coupled with citizens' minimal knowledge about nanotechnology, this type of coverage could create public distrust of nanotechnology applications should a dangerous risk event occur.