View source for State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception

{{nugget
|authors=Ø. Ueland, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, F. Holm, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, J.M. Luteijn, S.H. Magnússon, G. Odekerken, [[User:Mikko|M.V. Pohjola]], M.J. Tijhuis, [[User:Jouni|Jouni T. Tuomisto]], B.C. White, H. Verhagen
|reference=  
|urn=  
|ethics=  
|journal=
|moderator= Essi Vuorinen
|stub=}}

This page (including the files available for download at the bottom of this page) contains a draft version of a manuscript, whose '''final version is published and is available in the [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869151100250X Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 67–76]'''. If referring to this text in scientific or other official papers, please refer to the published final version as: Ø. Ueland, H. Gunnlaugsdottir, F. Holm, N. Kalogeras, O. Leino, J.M. Luteijn, S.H. Magnússon, G. Odekerken, M.V. Pohjola, M.J. Tijhuis, J.T. Tuomisto, B.C. White, H. Verhagen: State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 67–76 {{doi|10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.006}}'''.

==Title==

Editing State of the art in benefit–risk analysis: Consumer perception

==Authors and contact information==

:Ø. Ueland, correspondence author
:(Tel.: +47 649 70494; fax: +47 649 70333. E-mail address: oydis.ueland@nofima.no)
:(Nofima, Osloveien 1, N-1430 Ås, Norway)

:H. Gunnlaugsdottir
:(Matís, Icelandic Food and Biotech R & D, Vínlandsleið 12, 113 Reykjavík, Iceland)

:F. Holm
:(FoodGroup Denmark and Nordic NutriScience, Rugaardsvej 14, A2, Rugaard, DK-8400 Ebeltoft, Denmark)

:N. Kalogeras
:(Maastricht University, School of Business and Economics, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands)

:O. Leino
:(National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), P.O. Box 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland)

:J.M. Luteijn
:(University of Ulster, School of Nursing, Shore Road, Newtownabbey (Jordanstown), BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom)

:S.H. Magnússon
:(Matís, Icelandic Food and Biotech R & D, Vínlandsleið 12, 113 Reykjavík, Iceland)

:G. Odekerken
:(Maastricht University, School of Business and Economics, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands)

:M.V. Pohjola
:(National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), P.O. Box 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland)

:M.J. Tijhuis
:(Maastricht University, School of Business and Economics, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands)
:(National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)

:J.T. Tuomisto
:(National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), P.O. Box 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland)

:B.C. White
:(University of Ulster, Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, Cromore Road, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom)

:H. Verhagen i,j
:(National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands)
:(Maastricht University, NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands)
:(University of Ulster, Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health (NICHE), Cromore Road, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom)

==Article info==

Article history:
Available online 12 June 2011

==Abstract==

Benefit and risk perception with respect to food consumption, have been a part of human daily life from
beginning of time. In today’s society the food chain is long with many different types of actors and low
degree of transparency. Making informed food choices where knowledge of benefits and risks is part of
the decision making process are therefore complicated for consumers. Thus, to understand how consumers
perceive benefits and risks of foods, their importance in relation to quality evaluations are aspects
that need to be addressed. The objective of this paper is to discuss state of the art in understanding consumer
perceptions of benefits and risks of foods in order to improve understanding of consumer behaviour
in the food domain.

Risks may be associated with both acute and long term consequences, some of which may have serious
effects. Perceived risks are connected to morbidity and mortality along two dimensions relating to
unknown risk, and to which extent the risk is dreaded by the consumer. Unfamiliar, uncertain, unknown,
uncontrollable, and severe consequences are some factors associated with risk perception. Novel food
processing techniques, for instance, score high on several of these parameters and are consequently
regarded with suspicion and perceived as risky by consumers.

On a daily basis, benefits of foods and food consumption are more important in most consumers’ minds
than risks. Benefits are often associated with food’s ability to assuage hunger, and to provide pleasure
through eating and socialising. In addition, two main categories of benefits that are important for acceptance
of product innovations are health and environmental benefits.

Benefit and risk perception of foods seem to be inversely correlated, so when something is perceived as
being highly beneficial, it is correspondingly perceived as having low risk. However, slightly different
paths are used in the formation of these perceptions; benefit perception is based on heuristics and experience,
while risk perception is to a larger extent the result of cognitive information processing.

Consumers are particularly conservative when it comes to perception and acceptance of foods compared
to other products. Benefit-risk evaluations tend to be skewed towards acceptance of all that is traditional
and well-known (benefits), and rejection or suspicion towards anything that is novel or highly
processed (risks) regardless of actual risk. Knowledge of how consumers perceive benefits and risks of
foods, may contribute to understanding benefit-risk perception in other areas related to personal, societal
or environmental perspectives.

==Keywords==

Consumer behaviour,
Risk perception,
Benefit perception

==Introduction==

Every day is filled with choices for the consumer; from getting up
in the morning having to decide what to wear, eat, and do, to making
major decisions with far-reaching consequences. When a choice is
made it is a result of weighing of alternatives, and many choices
are results of trade-offs between perceived benefits and risks.

Consumers’ benefit perception of food products has to do with
all attributes that make the product attractive to the consumer
for one reason or another. The benefits may be both unconsciously
and consciously perceived. Risk perception of foods, on the other
hand, is associated with adverse consequences of food consumption
and is most commonly influenced by cognitive processing of
information provided by third parties and deliberations related to
one’s own situation. Cognitive processing of information implies
using conscious deliberations of known aspects of the risks
(Bettman et al., 1998).

Historically, food acquisition and survival has been the most
important activity for human beings and an activity of extreme
benefits and risks. The most obvious benefit from eating was continued
survival of the individual and the community, while the
food gathering process of hunting and sampling of edible growths
were fraught with dangers and possibly death. Still, the benefits for
all outweighed the risks for the individual. As food provisioning
improved the major and severe risks were reduced, and in today’s
food stores there is no risk of food fighting back. Thus, today the
primary drivers in a food choice situation are normally associated
with liking and context; which food product is best liked and suited
to the occasion, while risk evaluation is not usually foremost in
consumers’ minds (European Commission, 2006; Grunert, 2002).
Food choices are made with a minimum of effort on the consumers’
part and are mostly based on heuristics, strategies for
problem solving associated often with consumers’ expertise,
search costs, and previous experience with the product (Cardello
et al., 2000; Dimara and Kalogeras, 2001; Grunert, 2002). Once
the consumer starts thinking about what he or she is doing in a
food choice situation, perceived benefits and risks as well as the
imprecise concept of food quality take on major importance. Food
quality may be expressed by food technologists using precise measurements
and definitions. However, in consumers’ minds food
quality is a relative concept involving characteristics of the product
ranging from sensory properties, food technology, food safety,
application, price and brand to other value-adding attributes
(Grunert, 2002). Value-adding attributes may relate to benefits
achieved from consuming the product such as absence of sickness
and/or better health. Following the reasoning that attributes associated
with food quality are preferred by consumers, one could expect
that all risk factors are detrimental to perceived quality.

However, risk factors can be present irrespective of perceived food
quality. For example, confectionary may have exquisite quality
attributes, but there is a risk of obesity if the product is consumed
in excessive amounts. Thus, to understand how consumers perceive
benefits and risks of foods, their importance in relation to
quality evaluations are aspects that need to be addressed.

As conscious benefit and risk evaluations have less impact in
food choice situations where eating quality is mostly considered,
their importance to consumers become more evident in situations
where food consumption is set in a larger perspective. Overall, benefits
and risks of foods have impact on consumers’ health and wellbeing
(Sigman-Grant, 2008; Tijhuis et al., In press). However, these
effects may be unknown to the consumers, or the consumers may
choose to pay them no attention. Being unaware of benefits and
risks of foods has both short- and long-term consequences for
the consumer. In the short run for instance, lack of knowledge of
food risks may cause food poisoning. In the long run, lack of
knowledge about food or diet composition can lead to obesity
and food-related diseases, or reduce the food’s health potential.
Furthermore, it is easier for the consumer not to pay attention to
knowledge relating to benefits and risks when there are no immediate
tangible effects of food choice and consumption. In addition,
food production has environmental, ethical and societal consequences
which influence consumers’ perceptions of benefits and
risks of foods (Finucane and Holup, 2005; Frewer, 1998; Saba
and Messina, 2003; Siegrist et al., 2008). Understanding consumers’
knowledge and perception of benefits and risks of foods is of
major importance to promote better health and avoid undesirable
consequences (Korzen et al., 2011).

The aim of this paper is to discuss state of the art in understanding
consumer perceptions of benefits and risks of foods in order to
improve understanding of consumer behaviour in the food domain.

The paper will first discuss consumer perception of food risks
followed by benefit perception and trade-offs between the two.
Food products and production methods that are particularly subject
to benefit-risk evaluations are discussed.

[[Image:Consumer1.JPG|thumb|center|600px|'''Fig. 1.''' Dimensions of risk perception: Technology and dread. Adapted from Finucane and Holup, 2005; Fischhoff et al., 1978; Gaskell et al., 2004.]]

==Risk perception==

In order to avoid undesirable consequences and effects of food
intake for consumers, understanding food risk and safety is central
to all food production. Focus in these investigations has particularly
been on technical and analytical aspects of risks and hazards
(Renwick et al., 2003). However, part of successful benefit-risk
analysis of foods also includes understanding of consumers’ behaviour
and, hence, their perception of risks and benefits (Cope et al.,
2010; Miles and Frewer, 2001; van Dijk et al., 2008; van Kleef et al.,
2006). Investigations have mostly been focused on understanding
consumer perception of risks, and these investigations have increased
in the later decades as food has been involved and focused
in many food crises (e.g., mad cow disease, avian influenza, swine
flu) and negative contexts such as food poisoning or events with
deadly outcomes (Knox, 2000).

===Dimensions of risk perception===

In essence, perceived risks are connected to morbidity and mortality.
Two main dimensions have been shown to drive risk perception;
relating to a technology axis and a severity of consequence or
outcome axis (Fig. 1) (Finucane and Holup, 2005; Fischhoff et al.,
1978; Gaskell et al., 2004). The technology factor relates to unknown
risk that can be described to be new or unfamiliar, unobservable,
unknown and with delayed consequences. The other
factor measures risk perception along a ‘‘dread’’, or severity, axis;
to which extent the risk is dreaded by the consumer by being fatal,
uncontrollable, high risk to future generations, not easily reduced,
involuntary and potentially catastrophic (Finucane and Holup,
2005; Fischhoff et al., 1978).

Exposure to a perceived risk will normally reduce impact of
unfamiliarity on the technology axis, but it has been found that
in addition to the unknown and severity dimensions, a third
dimension relating to number of people being exposed has been
shown to contribute independently to the public perception of
risks (Sparks and Shepherd, 1994) although to a lesser extent
(Fife-Schaw and Rowe, 1996).

Thus, risks can be placed in hierarchies depending on how severe
or important they are perceived to be by consumers. In such
hierarchies, food related risks have not scored very high compared
to other risks (Fischhoff et al., 1978). Although use of pesticides,
which belongs to the food production chain, is dreaded by consumers
(Fischhoff et al., 1978; Slovic and Robert, 2010).

===Factors influencing risk perception===

Risk perception is most commonly influenced by cognitive processing
of information provided by third parties and deliberations
related to one’s own situation. In this process there may be both a
rational evaluation of risk as well as an affective and irrational, or
noncognitive, evaluation of risk (Leikas et al., 2007; Slovic et al.,
2004). Consumers’ reactions to food crises such as the Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), the Belgian dioxin scandal,
and the Avian flu are examples of how irrational elements can contribute
to risk perception. For instance, although the probability to
contract Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, the human variation of BSE, is
extremely small, concerned reactions of consumers occurred globally.
These were driven by the consumers’ perceptions, in particular,
in the incipient phases of the BSE crisis. In these cases
consumers’ risk awareness soared, independent of personal risk,
and was followed by a marked decline in consumption of foods
perceived to be in the danger zone (European Commission, 2006;
Knox, 2000; Verbeke, 2001; Verbeke et al., 2007a; Verbeke and
Viaene, 1999). A totally different type of risk incidents are bad personal
experiences caused by sensory or emotional input, such as a
bad taste incident, which are less important in the formation of a
risk perception library (Kubberød, 2005).

Consumers’ perceptions of risk are often not consistent with actual
risk of exposure or sustaining harm. Indeed, factors important
to consumers may be totally irrelevant to the hazard, and exposure
to these factors may be negligible, while on the other hand, some
real hazards are not perceived as threatening at all (Verbeke et al., 2007a). In a study by Verbeke et al. (2007b), consumers inferred
that wild salmon were healthier to eat than farmed salmon
because they were free, while there are indications that wild fish
are more susceptible to heavy metal contamination due to higher
exposure to contaminants in the seas than there are for farmed salmon
(Verbeke et al., 2007b). Risks connected to one’s own lifestyle
are often downplayed compared to risks connected to society; the
control aspect plays an important role in the formation of optimistic
bias among consumers (Leikas et al., 2009). A risk which is perceived
to be under your own control is more acceptable and less
uncertain, and a higher danger level may be acknowledged. For instance,
driving a car is not perceived as risky in the same way as
flying is. Likewise, consumers consider the home a safe place to
be partly because of familiarity, because of own control of surroundings,
and because people normally do not make their homes
intentionally hazardous. Consequently, a halo effect may be that
the perceived safe feeling is transferred to all aspects and activities
of the home. Statistics show that home is the most dangerous place
to be for sustaining injuries (Ueland, 2001) and, similarly, food
safety and handling practices are perceived as more safe at home
than in other food handling areas although a majority of food poisoning
incidents are the results of food preparation at home
(Fischer and Frewer, 2009; Worsfold and Griffith, 1995).

Experts and consumers have different ways of dealing with
risks; experts being more focused on factual information and
technical specifications, while consumers include emotional and
personal perspectives as well as contextual and relevance evaluations
(Bruhn, 2005; Hagemann and Scholderer, 2009; Macfarlane,
2002; Verbeke et al., 2007a). This difference in risk perception
between experts and lay people poses challenges in risk communication,
particularly if what the expert communicates triggers risk
perception instead of addressing the issue the expert think the
consumer is worried about (Frewer et al., 1996a; Frewer et al.,
2003b; Gaskell et al., 2004; Hagemann and Scholderer, 2009;
Scholderer and Frewer, 2003; Verbeke et al., 2005). For instance,
communicating about a new production technique may raise
new questions whether the production process is necessary instead
of relieving consumers’ uncertainty and lack of knowledge
about the process itself. Many studies show that consumers are
sceptical to food industry in general, and to highly processed food
products in particular (Leikas et al., 2009; Verbeke et al., 2010a;
Verbeke et al., 2010b).

===Measuring risk perception===

It has been said about risk perception that it ‘‘cannot be reduced
to a single subjective correlate of a particular mathematical model
of risk, such as the product of probabilities and consequences, because
this imposes unduly restrictive assumptions about what is
an essentially human and social phenomenon’’ (Royal Society,
1992). In addition to knowledge of risk probabilities and outcomes,
people also take into account their beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions
towards hazards as well as contextual, social and cultural
variables in their perception of risks (Cardello, 2003). Thus, in
much of the research on risk perception, measurements have been
based on a psychometric approach anchored in cognitive psychology
and other social sciences (Cardello, 2003; Fife-Schaw and
Rowe, 1996; Fischhoff et al., 1978; Leikas et al., 2007; Sparks and
Shepherd, 1994). Theoretical frameworks are the basis for development
of models that describe the desired attitudinal and behavioural
outputs (Bredahl, 2001; Bredahl et al., 1998; Cardello,
2003; Grunert, 2002). In most studies on risk perception, this is
measured by asking respondents to score written statements that
have theoretical bearings on risk-related topics. There are a number
of semantic scales measuring attitudes that can predict risk
perception (Bredahl, 2001; Bredahl et al., 1998). Some of these
instruments measuring levels of consumers’ attitudes consonant
with risk perception are presented in Table 1 (Allison, 1978;
Bredahl, 2001; Frewer et al., 1997a; Frewer et al., 1996b; Pliner
and Hobden, 1992; Roininen et al., 2001; Sparks et al., 1994; Urala
and Lähteenmäki, 2007; van Dijk et al., 2008).

In many cases, it is easier to acquire understanding about consumers’
attitudes, perceptions and, thus, risk behaviours, when the
measurements and instruments are context-specific. For instance,
based on extensive research a methodology to investigate consumer
risk perception towards different types of risks such as
use of pesticides, mycotoxins in organic foods as well as genetically
modified (GM) foods has been developed (van Dijk et al., 2008; van
Kleef et al., 2006) (Table 1). Adaptations of the wording in product
or context specific scales can provide more precise understanding
of consumers’ risk perceptions of particular topics but must be
undertaken with care (Bredahl, 2001).

Many of the instruments used for measuring risk perception
also provide information on benefit perception in that if low levels
of risk are perceived this may be taken as a benefit (Grunert, 2002).

{|{{prettytable}}
|+'''Table 1.''' Attitude scales that can be used in measuring consumer risk perception.
|-
!Instrument
!Description
!Source
|-----
|Alienation from the marketplace
|Indicates (dis)trust in the marketplace and that its actors are functioning to one’s advantage. High scores indicate high risk perception
|Allison (1978)
|-----
|Attitude towards functional foods
|Consists of four dimensions measuring perception of risks and benefits of functional foods. High scores may indicate low risk perception in some contexts.
|Urala and Lähteenmäki (2007)
|-----
|Attitude towards genetic engineering
|Four-factor scale assessing attitudes related to risk, benefit, personal control and knowledge.
|Frewer et al. (1996b)
|-----
|Attitude towards genetic modification in food production
|Uses global measures for overall risk – benefit perception. Scale indicate risk on the one side and benefits on the other, i.e. bad-good.
|Bredahl (2001) Frewer et al. (1997a)
|-----
|Attitude to nature
|Covers a belief that humans are part of and should live in harmony with nature. High scores can indicate high risk perception.
|Bredahl (2001); Frewer et al. (1997a)
|-----
|Attitude towards science andtechnology
|Measures attitudes towards technology and is opposite to attitude to nature.
|Sparks et al. (1994)
|-----
|Food neophobia
|Measures consumers’ attitudes to new or unfamiliar foods. High scores can indicate high risk perception.
|Pliner and Hobden (1992)
|-----
|General health interest
|Measures an interest in eating healthily and is relevant in combination with health risk topics.
|Roininen et al. (2001)
|-----
|Food risk management quality
|Measures how information about risks and management practices are perceived by consumer.
|Van Dijk et al. (2008)
|}

==Benefit perception==

Consumers’ benefit perception of foods is more emotionally driven
than is risk perception of foods (Fischer and Frewer, 2009). An
emotion can be interpreted as a complex physiopsychological
experience in a person’s mind in response to stimuli such as food
(Averill, 1980). Thus, some of the most important benefits of foods
derive from affective factors associated with intrinsic product attributes related to sensory properties and liking. Benefits are also related
to extrinsic product attributes giving a food product added
value through, for instance, convenience, healthiness aspects, value
for money, or that it is produced in an ethically and environmentally
friendly way (van Kleef et al., 2005). Often, a benefit is
thought of when it is accompanied by a risk issue; as an attribute
that can offset an undesirable consequence.

===Product attributes perceived as benefits===

When benefits of foods are associated with factors such as taste,
context, or emotional aspects, this is often the result of own experience
with the products (Cardello, 2003; Fischer and Frewer,
2009). In studies where consumers are asked which product attribute
is the most important for food choice, the first answer will
usually be good taste or, in some instances, taste attributes that
are linked to product liking. Following this, the consumers may
rank a number of other attributes, such as health, price or appropriateness
for a specific context, in different order depending on
the individual and the situation (Tepper and Trail, 1998).

Sometimes, different benefits may be in competition with each
other in the same product category. For instance, a product with a
health benefit, i.e. yoghurt with zero fat and reduced sugar content,
may compete with a similar product that has a taste benefit, i.e. full
fat yoghurt with added sugars (Johansen et al., 2010; Rapp et al.,
2009). Studies on consumer choice of products with health benefits,
such as lower energy content, show that consumers invariably
choose the version with the taste benefit and not the health benefit
(Tepper and Trail, 1998; Urala and Lähteenmäki, 2006; Verbeke,
2006). Consumers with special health interest may accord health
benefits higher importance than taste benefits (Zandstra et al.,
2001). However, what consumers actually do in a real buying situation,
may not correspond with their intentions or perceptions of
the product, as is described by Kalogeras et al. (Kalogeras et al.,
In press).

Real product experience has been found to increase consumer
acceptance of products that consumers otherwise have negative
perceptions about (Cardello, 2003). In a study on acceptance of
cheese supposedly produced with GM ingredients, consumers’
acceptance increased after tasting (Lähteenmäki et al., 2002). Thus,
benefits perceived through tasting and handling of a food product
may, at least momentarily, change prejudiced perceptions of the
product.

In general, the importance of benefits other than taste benefits
for consumers’ food choice will depend to a large extent on the
consumer or consumer group’s particular interest. Consumers
according high importance and interest in foods are more likely
to also pay attention to benefits other than taste benefits of the
products.

===The dual aspect of benefits===

An interesting feature of benefit attributes is the way in which
they can be turned into risks depending on the context. For example,
a chocolate bar can have beneficial attributes in that it provides
energy, if that is needed, or tastes good, if the consumer
desires a treat. Opposite, consumption of a chocolate bar can be
a risk for weight gain or caries. For consumers this duality of benefits
can be quite desirable, as the consumers can defend their
choices using different arguments depending on the occasion.

Often, however, the risk aspect of a perceived benefit is unknown
to the consumer. Wansink (2004) described in his review
how environmental cues unknown to the consumer could influence
consumption practices with unintended effects such as higher
than desirable caloric intake (Wansink, 2004). Consumers were
easily misled to believe that they had control and knowledge of
the amount of food consumed, whereas simple manipulations of
environmental cues showed that this was not the case. For instance,
in a consumption situation, more food was consumed in
company with other people, when presentation of portion sizes
were distorted, or when other distractions were evident. Even consumers
who were aware of the possibility of being influenced by
external cues to eat more than they should, did not have control
of their actual behaviour (Wansink, 2004).

In order to accept products and product innovations, consumers
have to perceive and be persuaded by benefits (Ronteltap et al.,
2007). Benefits to producers and industry vs. benefits as perceived
by consumers may not coincide; e.g. irradiation which is seen as a
benefit by industry in that it may replace use of pesticides and food
additives is not considered a benefit by consumers (Macfarlane,
2002). Similarly other practices that are perceived by consumers
to increase profits of food producers and food industry such as
use of biotechnology to improve healthiness of food products or
to provide environmental benefits in food production, are regarded
as risks rather than benefits (Bruhn, 2005, 2007).

===Health and environmental benefits===

Ronteltap et al. (2007) described two main categories of benefits
that are important for acceptance of product innovations;
namely, health benefits and environmental benefits. Most consumers
know about health benefits through information provided by
different sources. Normally, health benefits are connected to something
that is going to happen or not going to happen in the future,
although feelings of comfort and well-being during or right after a
meal may also influence perception of benefits (Grunert, 2002).
Products with health benefits are often related to functional foods
that are defined as ‘‘Food similar in appearance to conventional
food that is intended to be consumed as part of a normal diet,
but has been modified to subserve physiological roles beyond the
provision of simple nutrient requirements’’ (Bech-Larsen and
Grunert, 2003). Consumers’ acceptance of such products varies between
countries, often depending on products consumers are used
to from the marketplace (Bech-Larsen and Grunert, 2003; Frewer
et al., 2003a; Lähteenmäki et al., 2010). However, a product that
is perceived to be enhanced, for instance by addition of vitamins,
or substitution of fatty acids, may also be perceived to be meddled
with, and the unnaturalness thus inferred can override consumers’
perception of health benefits (Lähteenmäki et al., 2010).

The environmental aspect in consumers’ benefit perception can
best be seen in their preference for naturalness in products (Rozin
et al., 2004; Siegrist, 2008), and the deep scepticism towards food
production technologies (Bruhn, 2007). A product perceived to be
natural is thought to be minimally processed, produced by traditional
methods, and it also seems that naturalness is associated
with desirable sensory attributes (Siegrist, 2008). Increasing environmental
concern among consumers is also evident in demand
for ethically and environmentally friendly produced foods
(Poelman et al., 2008). Among consumer segments with different
socio-economic profiles based on their expertise and experience,
and particularly those segments that score high on natural interest,
organically produced foods are more desirable and expected to
taste better and be more healthy compared to conventionally produced
products (Grunert, 2002; Poelman et al., 2008). Despite the
importance that consumers attach to the perceived nutritional and
health-related attributes of organic food products, the higher
priced premiums and the limited availability in retail outlets of
these products in comparison to their conventional analogues,
are the main two reversals in consumer purchase intentions and,
hence, the ‘‘organic consumer’’ segments are still relatively small
world-wide (Kalogeras et al., 2008). Whether organically or conventionally
produced products have different taste properties are difficult to ascertain, as often different varieties are used in production
of fruits and vegetables. However, it may seem that there is
greater variability in taste of organically produced products providing
both better and worse tasting samples from the same crop.

===Measuring benefits===

Perceived benefits of products can be tested using a number of
different methods (Lawless and Heymann, 1999; van Kleef et al.,
2005). The most widely used method for measuring the taste benefit
is a nine point labelled hedonic category scale introduced by
Peryam and Pilgrim, 1957 and variations of this method (Lawless
and Heymann, 1999; Peryam and Pilgrim, 1957). Other scales measuring
liking or preference are labelled magnitude scales and visual
analogue scales with labelled endpoints (Green et al., 1993; Schutz
and Cardello, 2001). Using these types of scales with different
anchoring labels depending on the benefit to be measured, enables
comparisons between products, and it is possible to determine if
consumers perceive benefits or a relative magnitude of perceived
benefits based on the consumers’ evaluations.

Other ways of measuring effect of benefits are through the use
of, for example, Health and Taste Attitude semantic scales
(Roininen et al., 2001), different types of choice experiments, or
methods which measure consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) or
willingness-to-accept (WTA) a price premium in order to purchase,
for instance, a food product of higher quality (e.g., organic) rather
than a conventional one (Kalogeras et al., In press). In some of
the scales presented in Table 1, perception of benefits is also an
outcome measure. Methods, such as experimental auctions (Alfnes
et al., 2008), encode the probability to accept a certain level of the
risk involved in the consumption of a specific food item, as the
process of extracting and quantifying consumer judgements about
uncertain quantities (Pennings and Kalogeras, 2006). These
consumer judgments are probably more or less vague, fuzzy and
variable and are identified through the use of elicitation techniques,
mostly originating from psychology, in order to measure
the outcome of cognitive processes that operate when consumers
evaluate risk and uncertainty (Smidts, 1990).

==Risks versus benefits==

Although both benefits and risks of foods can be measured and
studied separately, such as is the case with benefits related to taste
or risks related to contamination, the concepts are frequently mentioned
in the same breath as parts, or opposites, of the same
phenomenon.

Research show that benefits may modify perception of risks, or
vice versa (Grunert, 2002). Fischhoff et al. (1978) found that higher
risk was accepted for a product with a benefit if the risk was
voluntary, immediate, known precisely, controllable and familiar
(Fischhoff et al., 1978). Furthermore, importance of risks and
benefits to consumers are dependent on type of incident, who is
affected, type of product and the context in which the situation
occurs (Siegrist, 2008). For instance, caregivers may react more
strongly towards risks or benefits that are perceived to concern
those they have a responsibility towards, than otherwise might
be the case. Studies on consumption of fresh produce in the US
showed that women were particularly concerned about risks of
pesticide residues in foods and, conversely, benefits of organic
products when they had children in the household (Bruhn, 2005;
Macfarlane, 2002). In this instance, children and young people
created higher involvement among the decision makers; risks
became more risky and benefits more beneficial (Bruhn, 2005;
Macfarlane, 2002).

Locus of control is another important factor leading to overestimation
of risks. Consumers are more liable to perceive higher
risk in situations which they experience as being out of their
control (Verbeke et al., 2007a). Often lack of own control can be
substituted by control exercised of trusted others. Thus, another
factor triggering benefit and risk perception is level of trust in
the different stakeholders involved with the product or product
incident. Benefits are more easily perceived when products come
from trusted sources or with messages from trusted sources (Finucane
and Holup, 2005; Frewer et al., 1999; Siegrist, 2008). Similarly,
risk information has higher impact if the sources of
information are considered untrustworthy. Even though there is
evidence of consumer distrust in the food domain, an interesting
finding shows that consumers are optimistic about food safety
and that risk perception is not in itself sufficient to explain trust
or distrust in foods (Kjærnes, 2008).

However, benefit and risk perception still seem to be inversely
correlated in many cases, so that when something is perceived as
being highly beneficial, it is correspondingly perceived as having
low risk (Fischer and Frewer, 2009). It seems that if there is a greater
benefit associated with a product, more risk can be accepted.
Thus, a certain trade-off between benefits and risks is present
(Bredahl et al., 1998). Some measurement methods can be used
in a bi-modal way and can thus measure both risks and benefits
by looking at scores. For instance, high scores on the Food
Neophobia scale (Pliner and Hobden, 1992) may indicate high risk
perception associated with new or unfamiliar foods, while low
scores may be an indication that consumers are comfortable with
these types of food and perceive some benefit from consuming
them. Interpretation of results from such instruments must always
take into account the context in which they are used. However,
some instruments or methods only measure one outcome, either
risk or benefit, as for instance, low hedonic score implies no taste
benefit, but this has nothing to do with risk perception. An
overview of measurement methods and whether they can be used
for either risk or benefit perception or both, is provided in Table 2.
Fischer and Frewer (2009) showed that consumers’ perception of
benefits and risks use slightly different paths in their formation;
benefit perception is based on heuristics, which are simple, general
and often intuitive strategies used in decision processes
(Kahneman et al., 1982), and concrete experience, while risk
perception is to a larger extent the result of cognitive information
processing (Kalogeras et al., In press). Familiarity has been found to
be particularly important for benefit perception (Fischer and
Frewer, 2009). Familiarity reduces the feelings of uncertainty and
increases perceived control, which lay the basis for the consumer
to be more appreciative of beneficial aspects of the food product.

===The particular case of fish===

For some types of foods consumers’ general perception is that
consumption of the product is beneficial; it is both healthy and
tastes good, and that there is little or no risk associated with consumption.
Fish is one such product (Verbeke et al., 2005). The perception
of fish as a healthy product has been strongly advocated by
health authorities and organisations in their dissemination activities
on dietary guidelines (USDA, 2011). This dissemination has
been going on for decades, and the message has been accepted
by consumers as sound advice coming from trusted sources, promoting
benefits, and based on research (WHO, 2007).

However, disseminating information only about benefits for a
food product may be risky, since new knowledge that introduce
an aspect of risk may cause distrust and feelings of uncertainty
among consumers (Verbeke et al., 2008). When new information
on healthiness of fish was presented giving a differentiated picture
of the healthiness by introducing potential health adverse factors
such as impact of feeding regimes or pollution (Cohen et al.,
2005; Foran et al., 2006), consumer opinions were severely affected
(Verbeke et al., 2005; Verbeke et al., 2008). Consumers who were
given information about risks of fish consumption, showed a large
increase in risk perception (Verbeke et al., 2008). Although the
large increase in risk perception did not affect intention to eat to
the same degree, possibly because the new information did not
align with existing beliefs about healthiness, research show that
negative effects of disconfirmed expectations on consumer perceptions
are considerable (Cardello and Sawyer, 1992). In the case of
fish, level of risk perception that is higher than reasonable can be
an outcome due to the unexpectedness of the new knowledge.
Unexpected information about risk issues can also lead to suspicions
about lack of transparency and that not all the truth is yet
told (Verbeke et al., 2008).

A particular difficulty for consumers with regard to benefit-risk
perception of fish consumption is that the benefits and risks are
not equally distributed on all consumer segments. On the one
hand, general advice for increasing consumption of fish is based
on, among others, improving health and reducing risk for cardiovascular
diseases, while on the other hand stricter recommendations
and restrictions are placed on fish intake for pregnant women
and children (FDA, 2004; USDA, 2011). The restrictions are based
on findings that fish may be contaminated by heavy metals and
other pollutants that can be detrimental for the development of
the foetus and young children (Mahaffey, 2004). Research concludes,
however, that increasing fish intake is beneficial and that
the nutritional aspect of fish consumption outweighs the possible
toxicological effects of contaminated fish (Sioen et al., 2009; Sioen
et al., 2008). For consumers this is difficult to understand because
different consumer groups are targeted for the benefits and risks,
and because the benefits and risks vary with fish species (Mahaffey,
2004). The difficulties in benefit-risk perception arise because
consumers must know which risk group they are in, what are their
nutritional needs and weigh the benefits and risks accordingly.
Consumers quite often make use of information in ways that are
most beneficial for oneself. Thus, risk perception can be downplayed
if the consumer wants the benefit, by, for instance, attributing the
risk to other consumer segments, or consumers who don’t like fish
may also use the risk argument to reduce their fish consumption.

==Benefit and risk perception in relation to products and processes==

Consumers’ perception of benefits or risks is heavily dependent
on both types of products and of the production processes associated
with the products, as well as on the consumers themselves.
Some types of foods that have connotations on levels other than
mere consumption are subject to higher involvement and, consequently,
benefit-risk evaluations by consumers. Likewise, production
processes high on the technology axis about which
consumers are uncertain will promote higher interest and more
risk–benefit evaluations.

===The particular case of meat===

Meat is the food product that has the highest involvement
among consumers, and which is particularly sensitive to risk perception
(Verbeke et al., 2007a). Meat consumption has large cultural
and religious implications, it is a food placed on the top of
the food hierarchy with strong traditional and historical meanings
(Bourdieu, 1984), and animals can be both friend and food. As a result
of this, meat evokes dualistic attitudes among consumers. On
the one hand meat is the preferred and best liked food, while on
the other hand, meat consumption of, particularly, red meat or processed
meat products is reputed to increase risk of cardio-vascular
disease, cancers and overweight (Daviglus et al., 2008; Murtaugh
et al., 2007; Schönfeldt and Gibson, 2008), as well as being both
ethically and environmentally questionable. Effects of food scares
on consumer risk perception are more enduring when meat is involved
than for other types of foods (Verbeke et al., 2007a). One
reason for this can be media coverage showing sick animals,
slaughter and destruction procedures which have larger impact
on consumers’ attention than vegetables with mould.

Consumers are particularly concerned with the aspect of naturalness
as a benefit with respect to meat (Barcellos et al., 2010;
Gellynck et al., 2006; Lähteenmäki et al., 2010; Verbeke et al.,
2010a). This means that meat should be minimally processed,
since as much of the production as possible should be evident to
the consumer, while most of the preparation should be done at
home (Barcellos et al., 2010). In addition, benefits that are particularly
relevant for meat are related to taste, social setting, feelings of
well-being, and, in the case of lean meat, health. Risks perceived
with meat are related to health and production issues.

===Acceptance of innovative production techniques and Novel Foods===

In a regulatory definition, Novel Foods are foods or food ingredients
which have not so far been used for human consumption
to a significant degree (Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning novel foods and novel
food ingredients) (Verhagen et al., 2009). Genetic modification of
foods and feed are regulated through a separate decree (Regulation
(EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
on genetically modified food and feed.).

On the outset, technology is not important for consumers’ food
choice, rather taste and convenience as well as the health benefits
are drivers for choice (Bruhn, 2007). All these factors may be improved
by food technology to make more desirable products for
the consumer. However, use of technology may then be subject
to separate evaluations by consumers which again may influence
product acceptance. Studies indicate that provision of targeted
information for specific consumer groups may improve acceptance
of novel foods with specific benefits (Frewer et al., 2003a; Frewer
et al., 1997b). Consumer acceptance of novel technologies are often
perceived as positive in that there are obvious and well communicated
benefits associated with the technology and the outcome or
product resulting from the technology. This is particularly true for
technologies and products from other domains than food
(Ronteltap et al., 2007). In the food domain, however, novelty is often
unappreciated by consumers (Cardello, 2003). A main factor
that may contribute to the adverse behaviour of consumers concerning
risk–benefit perception of novel foods and food production technologies can be attributed to the problem that these products
are ingested and thus become part of oneself (Rozin et al., 2004).
Uncertainty among consumers is also associated with novel food
production technologies and this factor contributes to consumers’
scepticism to novel food products (Siegrist, 2008).

Nanotechnology is currently the most expanding novel technology
in many domains, also in the food domain, while consumer
knowledge of the technology and its uses is at best minimal (Siegrist
et al., 2008). Consumers use heuristics to a large extent to
evaluate risks and benefits as their factual knowledge is very limited.
Thus, Siegrist et al. (2008) found that products that were evaluated
as particularly risky were connected to children and
consumption, while use of nanotechnology for packaging was
more accepted.

Hagemann and Scholderer (2009) found that consumers considered
genetically modified foods to be the prototype of novel foods,
irrespectively of whether the food could be defined as novel or not,
and not taking into account other products or processes that are
novel by definition (Hagemann and Scholderer, 2009).

===The particular case of genetically modified (GM) foods===

Application of gene technology opens up many possibilities and
avenues for research. Uses of gene technology can be found in medicine
and pharmacy, for identification purposes, and in many other
scientific disciplines bringing knowledge a great step forward. For
many of these purposes, the public are optimistic, curious, or only
indifferent. For use of gene technology in food production, however,
totally different consumer attitudes are evoked.

The area of genetic engineering and food is the most extensively
studied area with regard to consumer perception of risk (Bredahl,
2001; Bredahl et al., 1998; Finucane and Holup, 2005; Frewer,
1997; Frewer et al., 1995, 1999, 1996b, 2003b; Gaskell et al.,
2004; Hagemann and Scholderer, 2009). To most consumers any
mention of genes trigger associations to the most personal, intimate
and inviolable aspects of life. Consequently, when genes
are, from a consumer point of view, tampered with, this is met
with extreme disquiet and distrust. In the discourse on genetic
engineering, benefits that may arise from GM foods and ingredients
have not reached the target population in a way that leads
to acceptance in the public opinion (Frewer et al., 1995; Gaskell
et al., 2004; Scholderer and Frewer, 2003). Gaskell et al. have postulated
that it is the absence of benefits as perceived by consumers
that is the major problem in the case of consumer perception of
GM foods (Gaskell et al., 2004).

Perception of risks and benefits of GM foods is strongly linked to
both risk dimensions of technology and severity (See Fig. 1) (Fischhoff
et al., 1978). There is little experience-based knowledge in the
European population concerning products or effects, as the use of
GM ingredients in foods has been very strictly regulated (Gaskell
et al., 2004). Thus, opinions are based to a large extent on extrapolations
of own attitudes and values. Benefits listed for GM foods
can be associated with sustainability issues or health effects such
as improved fatty acid composition (Cox et al., 2008), but these
benefits cannot be directly assessed by the public. Lack of tangible
experience with GM foods means that consumers have to base perceptions
on credence characteristics meaning that other considerations
are taking the place of concrete product experience
(Scholderer and Frewer, 2003). In general, it is a strong rejection
of GM foods among consumers (Bredahl, 2001; Lähteenmäki
et al., 2002; Scholderer and Frewer, 2003), this is particularly
strong in Europe but it is also becoming more evident in North
America (Finucane and Holup, 2005). There are some nuances
among consumers in what and how GM foods are perceived, and
characteristics of the group of consumers with less rejection of
GM foods are associated with more positive attitudes towards
technology and marketplace (Bredahl, 2001).

Although the overlying scepticism to GM foods is large, differentiation
of risk perception of GM foods can be seen when more
details about product or process is presented to the consumer
(Frewer, 1997; Grunert, 2002; Lähteenmäki et al., 2002). In essence,
the GM factor is more acceptable, or less risky, when the
product is not perceived as natural, or if the product is perceived
to be far from the consumer in a psychological sense (Costa-Font
et al., 2008).

Price of a product has always been a major driver for choice,
usually overriding most other attributes of the product. For GM
products perceived risk has been found to reduce willingness to
pay (Costa-Font et al., 2008). Similarly, willingness to pay for the
benefit of obtaining foods that are non-GM has been found to be
as much as 100% higher than the price of the GM product (Batte
et al., 2007). Price is a moderator of the importance of perceived
risk for choice and studies show that for some consumer segments
the importance of risk as a driver for food choice may be reduced
when there is a price benefit (Costa-Font et al., 2008; Dannenberg,
2009). The importance of price in benefit-risk analysis is discussed
more in-depth by Kalogeras et al. this issue (Kalogeras et al., in
press).

==Conclusion and recommendation==

Consumers are particularly conservative when it comes to perception
and acceptance of foods. Benefit-risk evaluations tend to be
skewed to towards acceptance of all that is traditional and wellknown
(benefits), and rejection or suspicion towards anything that
is novel or highly processed (risks) regardless of actual risk. However,
benefit and risk perception are to some extent inversely correlated,
so that when something is perceived as being highly
beneficial, it is correspondingly perceived as having low risk. It
seems that if there is a greater benefit associated with a product,
more risk can be accepted, thus, a certain trade-off between benefits
and risks are present.

The literature shows that perception of benefits and risks vary
greatly between different products and between factors related
to the products. Fish, for instance, scores high on perception of
health benefits, while meat scores high on taste benefits. In most
cases, research is conducted within product categories to increase
understanding of benefit-risk perceptions of that particular food or
production technology in order to improve products or communication.
However, benefit-risk evaluations that are identified as
important for the consumers may not impact on actual choice, or
might be accorded different weights in different situations. More
research is needed to understand the role of benefit-risk perception
in perspectives such as a trade-off mechanism in different food
choice contexts, or how changes in consumers’ life situation impact
on benefit-risk perceptions. Knowledge of how consumers perceive
benefits and risks of foods, may impact on understanding benefitrisk
perception in other areas related to personal, societal or environmental
perspectives. Furthermore, in the course of performing
benefit-risk analysis an important aspect is communicating relevant
information to consumers. For such communication to be
effective it is necessary to understand how consumers interpret
and use information, and how this impacts on benefit and risk
perception.

==Conflict of Interest==

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

==Acknowledgements==

The preparation of this manuscript was funded through Safefoodera
project BEPRARIBEAN (project ID 08192) by the Dutch
Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA), the Research
Council of Norway (RCN) and the Nordic Council of Ministers
(NCM) and supported by Matís, The National Institute for Health
and Welfare (THL), the University of Ulster and the National Institute
for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).

==References==

Alfnes, F., Rickertsen, K., Ueland, Ø., 2008. Consumer attitudes towards low stake
risk in food markets. Appl. Econ. 40, 3039–3049.

Allison, N.K., 1978. Development of a test for consumer alienation from the marketplace.
J. Mark. Res. 15, 565–575.

Averill, J.R., 1980. A constructivist view of emotion. In: Plutchik, R., Kellerman, H.
(Eds.), Theories of Emotion. Academic Press, New York, pp. 306–329.

Barcellos, M.D., Kügler, J.O., Grunert, K.G., Van Wezemael, L., Pothoulaki, M.,
Ueland, Ø., Verbeke, W., 2010. European consumers’ acceptance of beef
processing technologies: a focus group study. Inn. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol.
11, 721–732.

Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C., Beaverson, J., 2007. Putting their money where
their mouths are: consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed
organic food products. Food Pol. 32, 145–159.

Bech-Larsen, T., Grunert, K.G., 2003. The perceived healthiness of functional foods: a
conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and American consumers’ perception of
functional foods. Appetite 40, 9–14.

Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., Payne, J.W., 1998. Constructive consumer choice processes.
J. Cons. Res. 25, 187–217.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London.

Bredahl, L., 2001. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with
regard to genetically modified food – results of a cross-national survey. J. Cons.
Pol. 24, 23–61.

Bredahl, L., Grunert, K.G., Frewer, L., 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. J. Cons. Pol. 21, 251–277.

Bruhn, C.M., 2005. Explaining the concept of health risk versus hazards to
consumers. Food Control 16, 487–490.

Bruhn, C.M., 2007. Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies.
Inn. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 8, 555–558.

Cardello, A.V., 2003. Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food
processing technologies: effects on product liking. Appetite 40, 217–233.

Cardello, A.V., Sawyer, F.M., 1992. Effect of disconfirmed consumer expectations on
food acceptability. J. Sens. Studies 7, 253–277.

Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H., Snow, C., Lesher, L.L., 2000. Predictors of food acceptance,
consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Qual. Pref. 11,
201–216.

Cohen, J.T., Bellinger, D.C., Connor, W.E., Kris-Etherton, P.M., Lawrence, R.S., Savitz,
D.A., Shaywitz, B.A., Teutsch, S.M., Gray, G.M., 2005. A quantitative risk–benefit
analysis of changes in population fish consumption. Am. J. Prev. Med. 29, 325.

Cope, S., Frewer, L.J., Houghton, J., Rowe, G., Fischer, A.R.H., de Jonge, J., 2010.

Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and
management: Implications for risk analysis policy. Food Pol. 35, 349–357.

Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M., Traill, W.B., 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and
attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food
policy. Food Pol. 33, 99–111.

Cox, D.N., Evans, G., Lease, H.J., 2008. Australian consumers’ preferences for
conventional and novel sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids: a conjoint
study. Food Qual. Pref. 19, 306–314.

Dannenberg, A., 2009. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for
genetically modified food – a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2182–2192.

Daviglus, M.L., Pirzada, A., He, K., Kris, H., 2008. Meat Consumption and
Cardiovascular Disease, International Encyclopedia of Public Health. Academic
Press, Oxford, pp. 281–308.

Dimara, E., Kalogeras, N., 2001. Consumer preferences for extrinsic versus intrinsic
quality cues for image products: the case of Greek Quality wine. In: Zopounidis,
C., Pardalos, P., Baourakis, G. (Eds.), Fuzzy Sets Systems in Management
Economics and Marketing. World Scientific Publications, MA-USA, pp. 83–98.

European Commission, 2006. Special EUROBAROMETER 238 ‘‘Risk Issues’’. Office of
Official Publicatons of the European Communties, Luxembourg.

FDA, 2004. What you need to know about mercury in fish and shellfish., http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm110591.htm. US Food and
Drug Administration, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Fife-Schaw, C., Rowe, G., 1996. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a
psychometric study. Risk Anal. 16, 487–500.

Finucane, M.L., Holup, J.L., 2005. Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting
perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature. Soc.
Sci. Med. 60, 1603–1612.

Fischer, A.R.H., Frewer, L.J., 2009. Consumer familiarity with foods and the
perception of risks and benefits. Food Qual. Pref. 20, 576–585.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B., 1978. How safe is safe
enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and
benefits. Pol. Sci. 9, 127–152.

Foran, J.A., Carpenter, D.O., Good, D.H., Hamilton, M.C., Hites, R.A., Knuth, B.A.,
Schwager, S.J., 2006. Letters to the editor: risks and benefits of seafood
consumption. Am. J. Prev. Med. 30, 438–439.

Frewer, L., 1997. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific
applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci. Technol.
Human Val. 22, 98–124.

Frewer, L., 1998. Consumer perceptions and novel food acceptance. Outlook on
Agriculture 27 (3), 153–156.

Frewer, L., Howard, C., Shepherd, R., 1995. Genetic engineering and food: what
determines consumer acceptance? B Food J. 97, 31–36.

Frewer, L., Howard, C., Shepherd, R., 1996a. Effective communication about genetic
engineering and food. B Food J. 98, 48–52.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Shepherd, R., 1996b. The influence of realistic product
exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Qual. Pref. 7,
61–67.

Frewer, L.J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C., Shepherd, R., 1997a. ‘Objection’ mapping in
determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agri.
Human Val. 14, 667–679.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R., 1997b. Consumer attitudes
towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production – the
influence of consumer benefit. Food Qual. Pref. 8, 271–280.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R., 1999. Reactions to information
about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal
relevance, and persuasiveness. Publ. Und. Sci. 8, 35–50.

Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., Lambert, N., 2003a. Consumer acceptance of functional
foods: issues for the future. B Food J. 105, 714–731.

Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., Bredahl, L., 2003b. Communicating about the risks and
benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal. 23,
1117–1133.

Gaskell, G., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., Bardes, J., 2004.
GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal. 24, 185–194.

Gellynck, X., Verbeke, W., Vermeire, B., 2006. Pathways to increase consumer trust
in meat as a safe and wholesome food. Meat Sci. 74, 161–171.

Green, B.G., Shaffer, G.S., Gilmore, M.M., 1993. Derivation and evaluation of a
semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties.
Chem. Sens. 18, 683–702.

Grunert, K.G., 2002. Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 13, 275–285.

Hagemann, K.S., Scholderer, J., 2009. Hot potato: expert-consumer differences in the
perception of a second-generation novel food. Risk Anal. 29, 1041–1055.

Johansen, S.B., Næs, T., Øyaas, J., Hersleth, M., 2010. Acceptance of calorie-reduced
yoghurt: effects of sensory characteristics and product information. Food Qual.
Pref. 21, 13–21.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A., 1982. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kalogeras, N., Valchovska, S., Baourakis, G., Kalaitzis, P., 2008. Dutch consumers’
willingness to pay for organic olive-oil. J. Int. Food Agribusiness Marketing 21,
286–311.

Kalogeras, N., Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Holm, F., Leino, O., Luteijn, J.M., Magnússon, S.H.,
Odekerken, G., Pohjola, M.V., Tijhuis, M., Tuomisto, J.T., Ueland, Ø., White, B.,
Verhagen, H., in press. State of the art in Benefit-Risk perception: Economics
and Marketing-Finance. Food Chem. Tox.

Kjærnes, U., 2008. Regulating Food Consumption. Studies of change and variation in
Europe, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Science, University of
Helsinki, Helsinki.

Knox, B., 2000. Consumer perception and understanding of risk from food. B Med.
Bull. 56, 97–109.

Korzen, S., Sandøe, P., Lassen, J., 2011. Pure meat – public perceptions of risk
reduction strategies in meat production. Food Pol. 36, 158–165.

Kubberød, E., 2005. Not just a matter of taste – disgust in the food domain,
Department of Marketing. BI Norwegian School of Management, Sandvika, pp.
1–143.

Lähteenmäki, L., Grunert, K.G., Ueland, Ø., Åström, A., Arvola, A., Bech-Larsen, T.,
2002. Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product
alternative. Food Qual. Pref. 13, 523–533.

Lähteenmäki, L., Lampila, P., Grunert, K.G., Boztug, Y., Ueland, Ø., Aström, A.,
Martinsdóttir, E., 2010. Impact of health-related claims on the perception of
other product attributes. Food Pol. 35, 230–239.

Lawless, H.T., Heymann, H., 1999. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York.

Leikas, S., Lindeman, M., Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., 2007. Food risk
perceptions, gender, and individual differences in avoidance and approach
motivation, intuitive and analytic thinking styles, and anxiety. Appetite 48,
232–240.

Leikas, S., Lindeman, M., Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., 2009. Who is responsible for
food risks? The influence of risk type and risk characteristics. Appetite 53, 123–
126.

Macfarlane, R., 2002. Integrating the consumer interest in food safety: the role of
science and other factors. Food Pol. 27, 65–80.

Mahaffey, K.R., 2004. Fish and shellfish as dietary sources of methylmercury and the
[omega]-3 fatty acids, eicosahexaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid: risks
and benefits. Environ. Res. 95, 414–428.

Miles, S., Frewer, L.J., 2001. Investigating specific concerns about different food
hazards. Food Qual. Pref. 12, 47–61.

Murtaugh, M.A., Herrick, J.S., Sweeney, C., Baumgartner, K.B., Guiliano, A.R., Byers, T.,
Slattery, M.L., 2007. Diet composition and risk of overweight and obesity in
women living in the Southwestern United States. JADA 107, 1311–1321.

Pennings, J.M.E., Kalogeras, N., 2006. Risk perception and risk attitude in transition
towards sustainability in small- and medium-size enterprises. In: van Trijp,
H.C.M. (Ed.), Mobilization of Sustainable Consumption. Drukkerij A-Twee, The
Netherlands, pp. 47–76.

Peryam, D.R., Pilgrim, F.J., 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food
preferences. Food Tech. 9, 14.

Pliner, P., Hobden, K., 1992. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food
neophobia in humans. Appetite 19, 105–120.

Poelman, A., Mojet, J., Lyon, D., Sefa-Dedeh, S., 2008. The influence of information
about organic production and fair trade on preferences for and perception of
pineapple. Food Qual. Pref. 19, 114–121.

Rapp, E., Öström, Å., Osika, W., Englund, A., Annett, J., Gustafsson, I.-B., 2009.
Preference for full-fat over low-fat foods among individuals suffering from
coronary heart disease and healthy controls. Physiol. Beh. 98, 489–497.

Renwick, A.G., Barlow, S.M., Hertz-Picciotto, I., Boobis, A.R., Dybing, E., Edler, L.,
Eisenbrand, G., Greig, J.B., Kleiner, J., Lambe, J., Müller, D.J.G., Smith, M.R.,
Tritscher, A., Tuijtelaars, S., Brandt, P.A.v.d., Walker, R., Kroes, R., 2003. Risk
characterisation of chemicals in food and diet. Food Chem. Tox. 41, 1211–1271.

Roininen, K., Tuorila, H., Zandstra, E.H., de Graaf, C., Vehkalahti, K., Stubenitsky, K.,
Mela, D.J., 2001. Differences in health and taste attitudes and reported
behaviour among Finnish, Dutch and British consumers: a cross-national
validation of the Health and Taste Attitude Scales (HTAS). Appetite 37, 33–45.

Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J.C.M., Renes, R.J., Frewer, L.J., 2007. Consumer acceptance of
technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics.
Appetite 49, 1–17.

Royal Society, 1992. Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, The Royal Society,
London, p. 89.

Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., Wood, K.,
2004. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations,
and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43, 147–154.

Saba, A., Messina, F., 2003. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit
perception associated with pesticides. Food Qual. Pref. 14, 637–645.

Scholderer, J., Frewer, L., 2003. The biotechnology communication paradox:
experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. J. Cons. Pol. 26, 125–
157.

Schönfeldt, H.C., Gibson, N., 2008. Changes in the nutrient quality of meat in an
obesity context. Meat Sci. 80, 20–27.

Schutz, H., Cardello, A.V., 2001. A labelled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for
assessing food liking/disliking. J. Sens. Studies 16, 117–159.

Siegrist, M., 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food
technologies and products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19, 603–608.

Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., Keller, C., 2008. Perceived risks and
perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food
packaging. Appetite 51, 283–290.

Sigman-Grant, M.J., 2008. Food choice: balancing benefits and risks. JADA 108, 778–
780.

Sioen, I., Van Camp, J., Verdonck, F., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Willems, J., De
Henauw, S., 2008. Probabilistic intake assessment of multiple compounds as a
tool to quantify the nutritional-toxicological conflict related to seafood
consumption. Chemosphere 71, 1056–1066.

Sioen, I., De Henauw, S., Van Camp, J., Volatier, J.-L., Leblanc, J.-C., 2009. Comparison
of the nutritional-toxicological conflict related to seafood consumption in
different regions worldwide. Regul. Tox. Pharm. 55, 219–228.

Slovic, P., Robert, K., 2010. Perceptions of Pesticides as Risks to Human Health
Hayes’ Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, third ed. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 1381–1391.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as
feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24,
311–322.

Smidts, A., 1990. Decision Making Under Risk: A Study of Models and Measurement
Behavior with Special References to the Farmer’s Marketing Behavior. Academic
Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 94–95.

Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., 1994. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated
with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 14,
799–806.

Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., Frewer, L., 1994. Gene technology, food production, and
public opinion: a UK study. Agri. Hum. Val. 11, 19–28.

Tepper, B.J., Trail, A.C., 1998. Taste or health: a study on consumer acceptance of
corn chips. Food Qual. Pref. 9, 267–272.

Tijhuis, M.J., Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Holm, F., Kalogeras, N., Leino, O., Luteijn, J.M.,
Magnússon, S.H., Odekerken, G., Pohjola, M.V., Tuomisto, J.T., Ueland, Ø., White,
B.C., Verhagen, H., in press. State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: food and
nutrition. Food Chem. Tox.

Ueland, Ø., 2001. Product-related injuries in Norway. Occurrence, Risk factors and
safety measures, Department of General Practice and Community Medicine,
University of Oslo, Oslo.

Urala, N., Lähteenmäki, L., 2006. Hedonic ratings and perceived healthiness in
experimental functional food choices. Appetite 47, 302–314.

Urala, N., Lähteenmäki, L., 2007. Consumers’ changing attitudes towards functional
foods. Food Qual. Pref. 18, 1–12.

USDA, 2011. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. United States Department of
Agriculture.

van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., van der Lans, I., Rowe, G., Frewer, L., 2008.
Consumer responses to communication about food risk management. Appetite
50, 340–352.

van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H.C.M., Luning, P., 2005. Consumer research in the early
stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and
techniques. Food Qual. Pref. 16, 181–201.

van Kleef, E., Frewer, L.J., Chryssochoidis, G.M., Houghton, J.R., Korzen-Bohr, S.,
Krystallis, T., Lassen, J., Pfenning, U., Rowe, G., 2006. Perceptions of food risk
management among key stakeholders: results from a cross-European study.
Appetite 47, 46–63.

Verbeke, W., 2001. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited
after the Belgian dioxin crisis. Food Qual. Pref. 12, 489–498.

Verbeke, W., 2006. Functional foods: consumer willingness to compromise on taste
for health? Food Qual. Pref. 17, 126–131.

Verbeke, W., Viaene, J., 1999. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat
consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food
Qual. Pref. 10, 437–445.

Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., Van Camp, J., De Henauw, S., 2005. Consumer
perception versus scientific evidence about health benefits and safety risks from
fish consumption. Pub. Health Nutr. 8, 422–429.

Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Brunsø, K., De Henauw, S., Van Camp, J., 2007a. Consumer
perception versus scientific evidence of farmed and wild fish: exploratory
insights from Belgium. Aquacult. Int. 15, 121–136.

Verbeke, W., Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., De Brabander, H.F., 2007b. Why consumers
behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Anal. Chim.
Acta 586, 2–7.

Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Frewer, L.J., Sioen, I., De Henauw, S., Van Camp, J.,
2008. Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: impact on
belgian consumers’ perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Anal. 28, 951–967.

Verbeke, W., Van Wezemael, L., de Barcellos, M.D., Kügler, J.O., Hocquette, J.-F.,
Ueland, Ø., Grünert, K.G., 2010a. European beef consumers’ interest in a beef
eating-quality guarantee: insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries.
Appetite 54, 289–296.

Verbeke, W., Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A., de Barcellos, M.D., Krystallis, A., Grunert, K.G.,
2010b. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef
and pork. Meat Sci. 84, 284–292.

Verhagen, H., te Boekhorst, J., Kamps, L., van Lieshout, M.J., Ploeger, H., Verreth, D.,
Salminen, S., van Loveren, H., 2009. Novel foods: an explorative study into their
grey area. B J. Nutr. 101, 1270–1277.

Wansink, B., 2004. Environmental factors that increase the food intake and
consumption value of unknowing consumers. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 24, 455–479.

WHO, 2007. Safety evaluations of certain food additives and contaminants/Prepared
by the Fifty Seventh Meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food
Additives, WHO food additives series 48, World Health Organisation.

Worsfold, D., Griffith, C., 1995. A generic model for evaluating consumer food safety
behaviour. Food Control 6, 357–363.

Zandstra, E.H., de Graaf, C., Van Staveren, W.A., 2001. Influence of health and taste
attitudes on consumption of low- and high-fat foods. Food Qual. Pref. 12, 75–82.