Comparing the Social Acceptance of Novel Agri-Food Technologies: A Randomized, Controlled Experiment to Investigate the Effects of Information Treatments Delivered via Voluntary Food Labels on Consumers' Acceptance

Abstract

The study sought to decode the social acceptance of three controversial technologies—nanotechnology, gene-editing, and food irradiation—and improve science communication surrounding the technologies. I developed a survey instrument, inclusive of a randomized, controlled experiment, and collected data from a national quota sample of U.S. consumers (N = 3,237). Purpose A sought to determine the effects of science communication information treatments delivered via voluntary food labels on consumers’ behavioral intentions toward technology-based ground beef. Results from mixed design ANOVAs suggest that, although the effects of all treatments were positive and significant, information about the technology’s contribution to food safety is most effective when communicating about ground beef processed using nanotechnology and ground beef from gene-edited cattle, and information about the technology’s contribution to sustainability is most effective when communicating about irradiated ground beef. Consumers may have used a combination of systematic and heuristic processing to determine their behavioral intentions after reading the information provided on the food labels. Purposes B and C sought to identify the variables, and the interrelationships between the variables, that explain consumers’ attitudes toward nanotechnology, gene-editing, and food irradiation and consumers’ behavioral intentions toward ground beef produced or processed using the technologies. Empirical research and existing theories informed the development of a theoretical model that I evaluated using multiple linear regression analyses and structure equation modeling in the three contexts. Across structural models, attitude had the largest direct effect on behavioral intention. Attitude also mediated the effects of subjective social norm, perceived benefit, perceived risk, and food technology neophobia on behavioral intention toward the three products. Objective knowledge had a direct, positive effect on attitude toward gene-editing and food irradiation but not toward nanotechnology, suggesting consumers’ response to nanotechnology is driven by affect and not cognition. Subjective social norm and perceived risk also had a direct effect on behavioral intention in the gene-editing and food irradiation models, but not in the nanotechnology model. Based on the results, I make practical recommendations relevant to food scientists, biotechnologists, agriculturalists, food manufacturers, Extension specialists, agricultural communications/marketing specialists, and policy makers while providing recommendations for science communication research.