This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gaivoronskaia, G. Articles by Hvinden, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Consumers with Allergic Reaction to Food

Perception of and Response to Food Risk in General and Genetically Modified Food in Particular

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Bjørn Hvinden

NOVA—Social Research Norway

This article examines perceptions of and response to food risk by consumers who are allergic to or intolerant of certain food types. Food risk in general and risk related to genetically modified (GM) food are discussed, as well as issues of responsibility and judgment regarding food labeling. Eight hundred individuals were recruited for a postal questionnaire study. The response rate was 63% for allergic people and 59% for nonallergic. The results suggest that the experience of personal harm from food in the form of allergic or intolerant reactions can influence how people evaluate food risk. For example, the ranking of food risks demonstrated a difference of perception with respect to naturally occurring food allergens. The allergic group was more disposed to buy genetically modified products that had been engineered not to contain allergens. Allergic consumers also were inclined to take more individual responsibility for risk avoidance than consumers without allergies.

Key Words: allergic consumers • food risk • GM product without allergen • individual responsibility • food labeling

References

• Almås, R., and B. Nygård. 1995. New biotechnologies: Attitudes, social movements and regulation. Paper n 2/95. Trondheim: Center for Rural Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
• Beck, U. 1992. Risk society. London: Sage.
• Berg, L. 2001. Praxis, preferences and trust related to food among Russian and Norwegian consumers. Working paper n.3-2001. Oslo, Norway: Statens Institutt for Forbruksforskning.
• Bocock, R. 1993. Consumption. London: Routledge.
• Byrd, D., and R. Cothern. 2000. Introduction to risk analysis: A systematic approach to science-based decision making. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, a division of ABS Group Inc.
• Codex Alimentarius. 1985. Codex general standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods. Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2770E/y2770e02.htm.
• De Antoni, F., G. Manfredi, and V. Santaniello. 2003. A multidimensional statistical analysis of perception of GM foods in a population of students and their parents. Paper presented to the 7th ICABR International Conference on Public Policy for Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy, June-July.
• Douglas, M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• DuPuis, E. 2000. Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3): 285-295.[CrossRef]
• Durant, J., M. Bauer, G. Gaskell, C. Midden, M. Liakopoulos, and L. Scholten. 2000. Two cultures of public understanding of science and technology in Europe. In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. Grote, 131-156. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
• Eurobarometer 52.1. 2000. The Europeans and Biotechnology. Report by INRA (Europe)—ECOSA, managed and organized by Directorate General for Education and Culture Citizens’ Centre (Public Opinion Analysis Unit). Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/pdf/eurobarometer-en.pdf.
• European Commission. 2003. Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union. Available at http://www.mattilsynet.no/multimedia/archive/00005/direktivendring_25__5891a.pdf.
• FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. Special issues: Allergenicity. Available at http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinf/economic/esn/biotech/six.htm.
• FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization). 1997. Risk management and food safety. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper n. 65. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation, Rome, January.
• Fife-Schaw, C., and G. Rowe. 1996. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psycho-metric study. Risk Analysis 16(4): 487-500.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Flynn, A., M. Harrison, and T. Marsden. 1998. Regulation, rights and the structuring of food choice. In The Nation’s Diet, edited by A. Murcot, 152-167. Harlow, Essex: Addison-Wesley Longman.
• Frewer, L., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1994. The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality and Preference 7(1): 61-67.
• Frewer, L., R. Shepherd, and P. Sparks. 1993. The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety 14(1): 19-41.
• Gaivoronskaia, G., and K. E. Solem. 1999. Science, consumers and safety evaluation of food produced by biotechnology. Sosiologisk Tidsskrift 7(4): 323-343.
• Galbraith, J. K. 1958. The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• German, J. B. 2003. Delivering individualized health through food: Role of agriculture and genomics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Institute of Food Technology, Chicago, July.
• Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• GM Science Review Report. 2004. An open review of the science relevant to GM crops and food based on interests and concerns of the public. 2nd report. Prepared by the GM Science Review Panel, UK. Available at http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm%23second.
• Hallman, W., W. Hebden, H. Aquino, C. Cuite, and J. Lang. 2003. Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey: Food Policy Institute. Available at http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/.
• Hamstra, A. 2000. Studying public perception of biotechnology: Helicopter and microscope? In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes and C. Grote, 179-202. Amsterdam: Harwood.
• Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. Frewer, P. Robinson, and P. Sandøe. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Review research. Appetite 41(2): 111-121.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Hansen, M. 2002. Dr. Michael Hansen on detecting likely allergenicity of GE foods. Consumers Union. Available at http://www.OrganicConsumers.org/gefood/hansen081402.cfm.
• Institute of Science in Society. 2004. Allergic GM papaya scandal. Available at http://www.isis.org.uk/PapayaAllergy.php.
• Jacobsen, E., and U. Kjarnes. 2003. Sikker mat til forbrukerne—Et privat eller offentlig ansvar? In Den Politiserte Maten, edited by E. Jacobsen, R. Almås, and J. Johnsen, 248-288. Oslo, Norway: Abstract Forlag AS.
• Jain, K. K. 2004. Role of pharmacoproteomics in the development of personalized medicine. Pharmacogenomics 5(3): 331-336.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kauffmann, L. A. 1991. New age meets new right: Tofu politics in Berkeley. Nation 253(8): 294-297.
• Krebs, A. 2003. New poll—94% of Americans want labels on GE foods. Available at http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/newspol102303.cfm.
• Krimsky, S. 1992. The role of theory in risk studies. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 3-23. New York: Praeger.
• Kuiper, H., G. A. Kleter, H. P. Noteborn, and E. Kok. 2001. Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. The Plant Journal 27(6): 503-528.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Luhmann, N. 1990. Technology, environment and social risk: A system perspective. Industrial Crisis Quarterly 4(3): 223-231.
• Lupton, D. 1999. Risk. London: Routledge. Markowitz, J. 1991. Kommunikation Über Risiken: Eine Problemskizze. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bielefeld.
• Maziak, W., T. Behrens, T. M. Brasky, H. Duhme, P. Rzehak, S. Weiland, and U. Keil. 2003. Are asthma and allergies in children and adolescents increasing? Results from ISAAC phase I and phase III surveys in Münster, Germany. Allergy 58(7): 572-572.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• McGarry Wolf, M., P. Bertolini, and J. Parker-Garcia. 2004. A comparison of consumer attitudes towards GM food in Italy and the USA. In Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food, edited by R. Evinson and V. Santaniello, 131-143. Cambridge, MA: CABI.
• McIntosh, W., L. Cristinsen, and G. Acuff. 1994. Perception of eating undercooked meat and willingness to change cooking practices. Appetite 22(1): 83-96.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Mehta, M. 2003. Public perception of food safety: Assessing the risks posed by genetic modification, irradiation, pesticides, microbiological contamination and high fat/high calorie foods. Pierce Law Review 1(12): 69-84.
• Metcalfe, D., J. Astwood, R. Townsend, H. Sampson, S. Taylor, and R. Fuchs. 1996. Assessment of the allergenicity of food derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Critical Review Food Science Nutrition 36: 165-186.
• MMI. 2003. Market and Media Institute, Flere positive til landbruk. Available at http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/innenriks/2737913.html.
• MT (Mattilsynet). 2004. Høring Vedrørende Endring av Merkeforskriften. Available at http://www.mattilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=34,31801&_dad=portal92&_schema=PORTAL92&articleId=8531&artSectionId=213.
• NAAF. 2002. Norges Astma og Allergiforbund. All mat i en og same butikk. Available at http://www.naaf.no/site_main/aktuelt/tryggematvarer.html.
• Nielsen, T., Ø. Seippel, and T. Haug. 2002. Hva mener og vet nordmenn om bioteknologi? Noen resultater fra Eurobarometer 58.0. Oslo, Norway: Senter for teknologi, innovasjon og kultur, Universitet i Oslo.
• NRC (National Research Council Committee on Institutional Means for Assessment of Risk to Public Health). 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
• Nygård, B. 1997. Consumers’ attitudes regarding genetically engineered foods—Market power and powerlessness. Paper n.197. Trondheim, Norway: Centre for Rural Research.
• Nygård, B. 1999. Den moderne forbruker-reflexive vurderinger og tillitsforhold i endring. Sosiologisk tidskrift 7(4): 305-323.
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1999. OECD consultation with non-governmental organizations on biotechnology and other aspects in food safety. November, C(2000)86/ADD4. Available at http://www.oecd.org.home.
• Pusztai, A. 1998. SOAEFD flexible fund project RQ 818. Report of project coordinator on data produced at the Rowett Research Institute. 22.10.1998. Available at http://www.rri.sari.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm.
• Renn, O. 1992. Concepts of risk: A classification. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 53-79. New York: Praeger.
• Rosenstock, I. M, V. J. Strecher, and M. H. Becker. 1988. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly 15(2): 175-183.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Sampson, H. A., L. Mendelson, and J. P. Rosen. 1992. Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in children and adolescents. The New England Journal of Medicine 324(6): 380-384.
• Siegrist, M. 2003. Perception of gene technology and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research 6(1): 45-60.
• Sjoberg, L., and B.-M. Drottz-Sjoberg. 1994. Risk perception of nuclear waste: Experts and the public. Rhizikon: Risk Research Report n. 66. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, School of Ecnomics.
• Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1981. Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 376: 17-34.
• Sparks, P., and R. Shepherd. 1994. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food-production and food-consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 14(5): 799-806.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Starr, C. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk: What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science 165(899): 1232-1238.[Free Full Text]
• Stern, P., and V. Fineberg, eds. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Storstad, O. 2000. Forbrukerskepsis til genmodifisert mat. Kun et sporsmål om manglende kunnskap? Rapport 11/00. Trondheim: Senter for Bygdeforskning.
• Suszkiw, J. 2002. Modified beans may be less allergenic. Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2002/020903.htm?pf=1.
• Taylor, S. 1987. Allergic and sensitivity reactions to food components. In Nutritional Toxicology, 173-198. Orlando, Fl, USA: Academic Press.
• Taylor, S. 2003. Emerging problems with food allergens. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture 26. Available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X7133M/x7133m03.htm.
• Townsend, M. 1999. Why soya is a hidden destroyer. Daily Express, March 12. Available at http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990312.htm.
• Tuttenberg, H. W. 1999. Matvare allergi. Spis Riktig og Unngå Allergiske Reaksjoner. Oslo: J.M. Stenersens Forlag A.S.
• Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124-1131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• UK Consumers Association. 2002. Victory for consumers on GM labelling. Available at http://www.which.net/media/pr/jul02/general/gmvictory.html.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1994. Food allergies: Rare but risky. Information document. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Edms/wh-alrg1.html.
• Vidal, J. 2004. Scientists suspect health threat from GM maize. The Guardian, February 27. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1157210,00.html.
• Weinstein, N. 1988. The precaution adoption process. Review. Health Psychology 7(4): 355-386.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Wolt, J., and R. Peterson. 2000. Agricultural biotechnology and societal decision-making: The role of risk analysis. AgBioforum 3(1): 291-298.
• World Health Organization. 1995. Application of the principle of substantial equivalence to the safety evaluation of foods or food components derived by modern biotechnology. Report of WHO workshop.

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gaivoronskaia, G. Articles by Hvinden, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?