Novel Food Case Study in the EU Exploring the Interplay Between Risk Assessment and Societal Insights for Communication
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3307-7384
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4552-2438
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6053-749X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6228-8116
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3553-8663
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5813-8788
Abstract
Recent advances in science and consumer demand for new or alternative food products boosted innovation in the food industry, stimulating the production of ever newer foodstuff. In the European Union (EU), when these lack a significant history of consumption, they may qualify as novel foods (NFs) and require a risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) before they can enter the EU market. In this context, risk communication is crucial in ensuring the public understands any associated risks and requires different approaches according to societal knowledge and risk perception. We identified effective risk communication options for different NFs, accounting for societal insights, media analytics, and technical features. We applied an adapted version of EFSA’s approach for planning risk communication of risk assessments’ incoming requests on cell culture-derived foods and previously assessed NFs. The study included: categorization according to NF’s nature, assessment of their mandates for their risk communication potential, identification of shared features across NF categories potentially triggering societal interest, and gathering of societal insights from literature and media analysis to map elements for risk communication. We recommend enhancing individuals’ knowledge of risks through awareness-raising for NFs derived from microorganisms, fungi, or algae, produced with precision fermentation, derived from insects, or plants. For cell culture-derived foods, where public knowledge is higher, communication approaches should instead aim to build trust and resolve differences in views. We further highlight the importance of continuous dialogue between EFSA and stakeholders to ensure tailored risk communication that considers both scientific and societal factors.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Novel Foods, Risk Communication, EFSA, Societal Insights, Risk Assessment
Banovic M and Grunert KG. (2023) Consumer acceptance of precision fermentation technology: A cross-cultural study. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 88.
Boehm, E., Borzekowski, D., Ververis, E., Lohmann, M., & Böl, G. F. (2021). Communicating food risk-benefit assessments: edible insects as red meat replacers. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 749696.
Broad GM, Zollman Thomas O, Dillard C, et al. (2022) Framing the futures of animal-free dairy: Using focus groups to explore early-adopter perceptions of the precision fermentation process. Frontiers in Nutrition 9.
Bryant C and Dillard C. (2019) The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Frontiers in Nutrition 6.
Bryant CJ and Barnett JC. (2019) What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite 137: 104-113.
Camarena DM, Sanjuán AI and Philippidis G. (2011) Influence of ethnocentrism and neo-phobia on ethnic food consumption in Spain. Appetite 57: 121-130.
Caparros Megido R, Gierts C, Blecker C, et al. (2016) Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference 52: 237-243.
Codex Alimentarius (2003) Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius - Section III. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Rome
de Koning W, Dean D, Vriesekoop F, et al. (2020) Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins. Foods 9.
Donadini G, Spigno G and Porretta S. (2021) Preschooler liking of meal components: The impact of familiarity, neophobia, and sensory characteristics. Journal of Sensory Studies 36.
EFSA. (2021). Technical assistance in the field of risk communication. EFSA Journal, 19(4), e06574.
EFSA NDA Panel (2019). Scientific Opinion on the safety of Yarrowia lipolytica yeast biomass as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 2019;17(2):5594, 12 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5594. EFSA Journal 17
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021a) Guidance on the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Revision 1)(2). EFSA Journal 19: e06555.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021b) Safety of a change in the conditions of use of galacto-oligosaccharides as a novel food ingredient in food supplements pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 19.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021c) Safety of dried yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 19.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021d) Safety of frozen and dried formulations from migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) as a Novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 19.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021e) Safety of frozen and dried formulations from whole house crickets (Acheta domesticus) as a Novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 19.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021f) Safety of frozen and dried formulations from whole yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 19.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2021g) Safety of mung bean protein as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA J 19: e06846.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2022a) Safety of the extension of use of 2’-fucosyllactose (2’-FL) and lacto-N-neotetraose (LNnT) as novel foods in food supplements for infants pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 20.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2022b) Safety of lacto-N-tetraose (LNT) produced by derivative strains of Escherichia coli BL21 (DE3) as a Novel Food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 20.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2022c) Safety of an extension of use of Yarrowia lipolytica yeast biomass as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 20.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2022d) Safety of pea and rice protein fermented by Shiitake (Lentinula edodes) mycelia as a Novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 20.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2022e) Safety of partially defatted house cricket (Acheta domesticus) powder as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 20.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2022f) Safety of frozen and freeze-dried formulations of the lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus larva) as a Novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal 20.
EFSA NDA Panel. (2023) Safety of whole seeds of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L emend. Metzg.) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA J 21: e07706.
EFSA Scientific Committee. (2022) Food safety in the EU. Special Eurobarometer.
Faber I, Henn K, Brugarolas M, et al. (2021) Relevant characteristics of food products based on alternative proteins according to European consumers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 102: 5034-5043.
Florin M and Bürkler MT. (2017) Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. EPFL International Risk Governance Center.
Florin M and Parker S. (2020) Involving Stakeholders in the Risk Governance Process. EPFL International Risk Governance Center.
Gmuer A, Nuessli Guth J, Hartmann C, et al. (2016) Effects of the degree of processing of insect ingredients in snacks on expected emotional experiences and willingness to eat. Food Quality and Preference 54: 117-127.
Hartmann C and Siegrist M. (2016) Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Quality and Preference 51: 118-122.
Marquis D, Oliveira D, Pantin-Sohier G, et al. (2023) The taste of cuteness: How claims and cute visuals affect consumers’ perception of insect-based foods. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 32.
Onwezen MC, Bouwman EP, Reinders MJ, et al. (2021) A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 159.
Pliner P and Salvy SJ. (2006) Food neophobia in humans. The psychology of food choice. 75-92.
Possidónio C, Prada M, Graça J, et al. (2021) Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite 156.
Renn O. (2009) Communication About Food Safety. Food Safety Governance. 121-141.
Rozin P and Vollmecke TA. (1986) Food Likes and Dislikes. Annual Review of Nutrition 6: 433-456.
Siddiqui SA, Zannou O, Karim I, et al. (2022) Avoiding Food Neophobia and Increasing Consumer Acceptance of New Food Trends—A Decade of Research. Sustainability 14.
Siegrist M and Hartmann C. (2020a) Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food 1: 343-350.
Siegrist M and Hartmann C. (2020b) Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite 155.
Siegrist M and Hartmann C. (2023) Why alternative proteins will not disrupt the meat industry. Meat Science 203.
Tan HSG, van den Berg E and Stieger M. (2016) The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Quality and Preference 52: 222-231.
Tomiyama AJ, Kawecki NS, Rosenfeld DL, et al. (2020) Bridging the gap between the science of cultured meat and public perceptions. Trends in Food Science & Technology 104: 144-152.
Tso R, Lim AJ and Forde CG. (2020) A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins. Foods 10.
Tuorila H and Hartmann C. (2020) Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Current Opinion in Food Science 33: 1-8.
Van der Stricht H, Profeta A, Hung Y, et al. (2023) Consumers’ willingness-to-buy pasta with microalgae proteins – Which label can promote sales? Food Quality and Preference 110.
Verbeke W. (2015) Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference 39: 147-155.
Verbeke W, Marcu A, Rutsaert P, et al. (2015a) ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science 102: 49-58.
Verbeke W, Sans P and Van Loo EJ. (2015b) Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14: 285-294.
Ververis, E., Ackerl, R., Azzollini, D., Colombo, P. A., de Sesmaisons, A., Dumas, C., et al. (2020). Novel foods in the European Union: Scientific requirements and challenges of the risk assessment process by the European Food Safety Authority. Food Research International, 137, 109515.
Vrbos D, Zamariola G, Maxim L, et al. (2023) Societal insights in risk communication planning – a structured approach. Journal of Risk Research 26: 841-854.
Wendin KME and Nyberg ME. (2021) Factors influencing consumer perception and acceptability of insect-based foods. Current Opinion in Food Science 40: 67-71.
Wilks M, Hornsey M and Bloom P. (2021) What does it mean to say that cultured meat is unnatural? Appetite 156.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.