Consumer Acceptance of Genetic-based Personalized Nutrition in Hungary

Overview

Journal Genes Nutr

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2021 Mar 2

PMID 33648454

Citations 2

Authors

Zoltan Szakaly

Bence Kovacs

Mark Szakaly

Dorka T Nagy-Peto

Peter Popovics

Marietta Kiss

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Despite the increasing number of personalized nutrition services available on the market, nutrigenomics-based level of personalization is still the exception rather than a mainstream activity. This can be partly explained by various factors of consumer acceptance of the new technology. While consumer attitudes toward genetic tests aiming to reveal the risks of a predisposition to various illnesses have already been examined by several research studies worldwide; consumer acceptance of nutrigenomics-based personalized nutrition has only been examined by a significantly lower number of papers, especially in the Central and Eastern European region.

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer acceptance of genetic-based personalized nutrition in Hungary. Therefore a national representative survey was conducted involving 1000 individuals. The starting point of the model used is the assumption that the consumer acceptance of personalized nutrition is influenced by its consumer perceptions, which are affected by psychological processes that, in a more general sense, determine acceptance of food innovations.

Results: The results show that 23.5% of respondents accept genetic test-based personalized nutrition. Women were found to reject the new technology in a significantly smaller proportion than men. The relationship between other demographic variables (i.e. age groups, education and subjective income level) and the perception of genetic-based personalized nutrition is also significant. Our results indicate that it is perceived cost/benefit that is most strongly related to genetically based personalized dietary preferences, followed by perceived risk and subjective norms. Perceived uncertainty and perceived behavioural control, however, have only a weak relationship with genetic-based personalized dietary preferences.

Conclusions: Compared with the magnitude of the effect of socio-demographic criteria, it can be concluded that, on the whole, psychological processes in the individual have a greater influence on the development of preferences for genetic-based personalized nutrition than any socio-demographic factor. This also confirms the trend that there are more and more value-added products or value propositions (where a significant part of the value added is to be found in product innovation), for which psychological characteristics are/should be given more emphasis among the segmentation criteria.

Citing Articles

Emerging Perspectives on the Set of Conditions That Lead to the Emergence of Metabolic Syndrome.

Tarcau B, Vicas L, Filip L, Maghiar F, Sandor M, Pallag A J Pers Med. 2024; 14(1).

PMID: 38248733 PMC: 10820431. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14010032.

Sex and age differences in attitudes and intention to adopt personalised nutrition in a UK sample.

Stewart-Knox B, Poinhos R, Fischer A, Chaudhrey M, Rankin A, Davison J Z Gesundh Wiss. 2021; :1-7.

PMID: 34926128 PMC: 8670611. DOI: 10.1007/s10389-021-01676-x.

References

Ronteltap A, van Trijp H, Berezowska A, Goossens J . Nutrigenomics-based personalised nutritional advice: in search of a business model?. Genes Nutr. 2012; 8(2):153-63. PMC: 3575884. DOI: 10.1007/s12263-012-0308-4. View

Fallaize R, Macready A, Butler L, Ellis J, Lovegrove J . An insight into the public acceptance of nutrigenomic-based personalised nutrition. Nutr Res Rev. 2013; 26(1):39-48. DOI: 10.1017/S0954422413000024. View

Streicher S, Sanderson S, Jabs E, Diefenbach M, Smirnoff M, Peter I . Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study. J Community Genet. 2011; 2(3):153-63. PMC: 3186034. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-011-0052-2. View

Berezowska A, Fischer A, Ronteltap A, van der Lans I, van Trijp H . Consumer adoption of personalised nutrition services from the perspective of a risk-benefit trade-off. Genes Nutr. 2015; 10(6):42. PMC: 4583554. DOI: 10.1007/s12263-015-0478-y. View

Gaskell G, Bauer M, Durant J, Allum N . Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science. 1999; 285(5426):384-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5426.384. View

Kerath S, Klein G, Kern M, Shapira I, Witthuhn J, Norohna N . Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research - a population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13:114. PMC: 3568732. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-114. View

Makeeva O, Markova V, Puzyrev V . Public interest and expectations concerning commercial genotyping and genetic risk assessment. Per Med. 2018; 6(3):329-341. DOI: 10.2217/pme.09.14. View

Henneman L, Timmermans D, van der Wal G . Public attitudes toward genetic testing: perceived benefits and objections. Genet Test. 2006; 10(2):139-45. DOI: 10.1089/gte.2006.10.139. View

Berezowska A, Fischer A, Ronteltap A, Kuznesof S, Macready A, Fallaize R . Understanding consumer evaluations of personalised nutrition services in terms of the privacy calculus: a qualitative study. Public Health Genomics. 2014; 17(3):127-40. DOI: 10.1159/000358851. View

10.

McGowan M, Fishman J, Lambrix M . Personal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early users. New Genet Soc. 2010; 29(3):261-290. PMC: 2976061. DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2010.507485. View

11.

Thompson H, Valdimarsdottir H, Jandorf L, Redd W . Perceived disadvantages and concerns about abuses of genetic testing for cancer risk: differences across African American, Latina and Caucasian women. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 51(3):217-27. DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00219-7. View

12.

Bouwman L, Molder H, Hiddink G . Patients, evidence and genes: an exploration of GPs' perspectives on gene-based personalized nutrition advice. Fam Pract. 2008; 25 Suppl 1:i116-22. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmn067. View

13.

Cohen A, Rai M, Rehkopf D, Abrams B . Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2013; 14(12):989-1005. PMC: 3902051. DOI: 10.1111/obr.12062. View

14.

Kang J . The coming of age of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics. 2012; 5(1):I-II. DOI: 10.1159/000339375. View

15.

Ronteltap A, Van Trijp J, Renes R, Frewer L . Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite. 2007; 49(1):1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.002. View

16.

Einsiedel E . Cloning and its discontents-a Canadian perspective. Nat Biotechnol. 2000; 18(9):943-4. DOI: 10.1038/79419. View

17.

Fischer A, Berezowska A, van der Lans I, Ronteltap A, Rankin A, Kuznesof S . Willingness to pay for personalised nutrition across Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2016; 26(4):640-4. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckw045. View

18.

Cherkas L, Harris J, Levinson E, Spector T, Prainsack B . A survey of UK public interest in internet-based personal genome testing. PLoS One. 2010; 5(10):e13473. PMC: 2957412. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013473. View

19.

Wendel S, Dellaert B, Ronteltap A, van Trijp H . Consumers' intention to use health recommendation systems to receive personalized nutrition advice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13:126. PMC: 3623628. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-126. View

20.

Hughes C, Gomez-Caminero A, Benkendorf J, Kerner J, Isaacs C, Barter J . Ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about BRCA1 testing in women at increased risk. Patient Educ Couns. 1997; 32(1-2):51-62. DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(97)00064-5. View