Food technology innovation has the potential to deliver many benefits to society, although some technologies have been problematic in terms of public acceptance. In promoting the commercial success of innovative technological processes and resultant products it will be important to incorporate information relating to consumer preferences and concerns during their development. The barriers to the utilisation of consumer information during technological development was explored using a two round Delphi study involving 75 experts with an interest in new food technology (food technologists and consumer scientists). There was overall agreement that consumer information should be used in technology implementation and product design, and that good communication between key actors at pivotal stages during the development of new food technologies and products was important. However disciplinary differences were perceived to be a barrier to communication, as were difficulties associated with producing consumer information usable by food technologists. A strategy to improve inter-disciplinary communication is proposed, involving the creation of multi-disciplinary teams working together throughout the development project’s duration, including those with interdisciplinary experience. Deficiencies in the specification of the information required from consumer scientists need to be overcome. Consumer science results need to be concrete and presented as salient to and usable by food technologists.
Bettman J, Luce M, Payne J. Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research. 1998. p. 187–217.
2.
Bouchereau V, Rowlands H. Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment (QFD). Journal. 2000. p. 8–20.
3.
Chan L, Wu M. Quality function deployment: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research. 2002. p. 178–9.
4.
Costa A, Jongen W. New insights into consumer-led food product development. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2006. p. 457–65.
5.
Costa-Font M, Gil J, Traill W. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy. 2008. p. 99–111.
6.
David K, Thompson P. What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology?: Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press; 2011.
7.
Fao. Rome Declaration and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome. Retrieved from www. 1996. p. 1–10.
8.
Fischer A, Jong A, De Jonge R, Frewer L, Nauta M. Improving food safety in the domestic environment: the need for a transdisciplinary approach. Risk Analysis. 2005. p. 503–17.
9.
Frewer L, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, et al. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2011. p. 442–56.
10.
Frewer L, Fischer A, Wentholt M, Marvin H, Ooms B, Coles D, et al. The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: Some lessons learned. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011. p. 1514–25.
11.
Frewer L, Gupta N, George S, Fischer A, Giles E, Coles D. Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnolo-gies applied to food production. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2014. p. 211–25.
12.
Frewer L, Van Der Lans I, Fischer A, Reinders M, Menozzi D, Zhang X, et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification -a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2013. p. 142–52.
13.
Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J, et al. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis. 2004. p. 185–94.
14.
Gibson G, Probert H, Van Loo J, Rastall R, Roberfroid M. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: updating the concept of prebiotics. Nutrition Research Reviews. 2004. p. 259–75.
15.
Gordon T, Pease A. RT Delphi: an efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2006. p. 321–33.
16.
Gupta N, Fischer A, Frewer L. Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Understanding of Science. 2012. p. 782–95.
17.
Henson S. Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies -the case of food irradiation. Food Policy. 1995. p. 111–27.
18.
Jacobsen L, Grunert K, Sondergaard H, Steenbekkers B, Dekker M, Lahteenmaki L. Improving internal communication between marketing and technology functions for successful new food product development. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2014. p. 106–14.
19.
Kleijnen M, Lee N, Wetzels M. An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2009. p. 344–57.
20.
Linstone H, Turoff M. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley; 1975.
21.
Macnaghten P. In pursuit of nanoethics. Springer; 2014. p. 167–81.
22.
Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2004. p. 395–405.
23.
Mussatto S, Mancilha I. Nondigestible oligosaccharides: a review. Carbohydrate polymers. 2007. p. 587–97.
24.
Rendueles E, Omer M, Alvseike O, Alonso-Calleja C, Capita R, Prieto M. Microbiological food safety assessment of high hydrostatic pressure processing: a review. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2011. p. 1251–60.
25.
Ronteltap A, Van Trijp J, Renes R, Frewer L. Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite. 2007. p. 1–17.
26.
Schutz H, Bruhn C, Diazknauf K. Consumer attitude toward irradiated foods -effects of labeling and benefits information. Food Technology. 1989. p. 80–6.
27.
Shim SM, Seo S, Lee Y, Moon GI, Kim MS, Park JH. Consumers’ knowledge and safety perceptions of food additives: evaluation on the effectiveness of transmitting information on preservatives. Food Control. 2011. p. 1054–60.
28.
Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis. 2007. p. 59–69.
29.
Sijtsema S, Backus G, Linnemann A, Jongen W. Consumer orientation of product developers and their product perception compared to that of consumers. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2004. p. 489–97.
30.
Stewart-Knox B, Mitchell P. What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development? Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2003. p. 58–64.
31.
Thompson P. Food biotechnology’s challenge to cultural integrity and individual consent. Hastings Center Report. 1997. p. 34–8.
32.
Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort B. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011. p. 20260–4.
33.
Toepfl S, Mathys A, Heinz V, Knorr D. Review: potential of high hydrostatic pressure and pulsed electric fields for energy efficient and environmentally friendly food processing. Food Reviews International. 2006. p. 405–23.
34.
Torgersen H. Synthetic biology in society: learning from past experience? Systems and synthetic biology. 2009. p. 9–17.
35.
Turoff M. The design of a policy delphi. Technological forecasting and social change. 1970. p. 149–71.
36.
Uzogara S. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: a review. Biotechnology Advances. 2000. p. 179–206.
37.
Van Kleef E, Van Trijp H, Luning P. Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference. 2005. p. 181–201.
38.
Walls J, Rowe G, Frewer L. Stakeholder engagement in food risk management: evaluation of an iterated workshop approach. Public Understanding of Science. 2011. p. 241–60.
39.
Wentholt M, Rowe G, Koenig A, Marvin H, Frewer L. The views of key stakeholders on an evolving food risk governance framework: Results from a Delphi study. Food Policy. 2009. p. 539–48.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
