**6. GMOs: Friends or Foes?**

GMOs are widely considered to be the future of food. As such, they have been the focus of public debate about their perceived risks, ranging from the reduction of biodiversity to long-term health consequences, such as toxicity or allergies [116,117]. Genetically Modified (GM) foods are derived from plants, animals or microorganisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been artificially modified, e.g., by introducing a gene from other organisms (viruses, bacteria, other plants and animals and even humans). Currently, such modifications are mostly applied in plants to improve their resistance to disease and/or tolerance to herbicides [118]. Because of the controversies both within the scientific community and in public discourse [118–122], many European countries have not yet formally authorized GM crops. According to Boccia [123], Europeans remain for the most part wary of GMOs, with wide regional variations. The highest percentages of opponents of GM foods are in Austria, Norway, Hungary (70%), Cyprus (76%), Italy (77%) and Greece (81%), followed by France and Denmark (65%). The lowest proportions are in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Finland [124]. These tendencies, however, are not stable over time, and the data is probably heavily influenced by the research design [125–131].

Popek et al. [132] published a study in 2017 on consumer opinions of genetically modified foods conducted in London and Warsaw. The study sought to determine whether there are cultural differences between the two countries, whose history in terms of GMO acceptance is quite dissimilar. Poland, which banned GMO crops in 2015, also restricts trade in genetically modified organisms. England is among the leaders in biotechnology, and GMOs boast the full support of the government, which sees them as an important economic resource. Contrary to expectations, the study's results were very homogeneous, suggesting that since all European consumers have access to global information sources, their attitudes towards certain phenomenon tend to converge. In both countries, city dwellers were similar in their attitudes and were more favorable to GMOs than their warier rural compatriots. This might merit further investigation. Most respondents agreed that longer shelf-life and resistance to extreme weather conditions are the main advantages of GMOs, while the most feared disadvantages were the unpredictable consequences of genetic modification, the production of species-specific toxins and food allergenicity. Other studies [133] found different concerns, including the fear of carcinogenic effects, environmental damage and the disappearance of natural products from the market. Overall, as many as 27.69% of respondents surveyed by Popek et al. had a negative attitude towards GM foods, while only 19.83% believed that GMOs would bring tangible benefits. The other respondents expressed no definite opinion.

The literature presents conflicting evidence about the role of information in changing attitudes towards GMOs. According to Scholderer and Frewer [53], none of the information strategies implemented in different European countries has succeeded in changing attitudes; indeed, it seems that they have negatively influenced the choice of products. Attitudes towards GMOs do not improve even when the mechanisms underlying the genetic modification are understood. It is clear that this is a particularly complex topic, and that consumer attitudes are probably also constructed on the basis of dimensions that research has not considered, which could involve social dynamics and values (i.e., in rural areas) that cannot be changed merely by providing cognitively relevant information. Yuan provides some innovative thoughts about using communication styles tailored to the audience to maximize the effectiveness of a positive message about GMOs. Focusing on the main trends of thought that are reinforced at the cultural and community level could provide more insight into the meanings underlying this generalized hostility. If this is indeed where the answer lies, measures intended to change individuals' opinions simply by providing information could be much less effective than hoped, as meanings are also socially constructed [134].

#### **7. Discussion**

It is clear from the studies analyzed here that the relationship between neophobia and technological innovation in the agri-food industry is much more complex and nuanced than it might seem. Using the concept of neophobia outside of its original clinical context to explain the motivation for consumer choices has many limitations. Consumer choices stem from systems of values that are rich in moral implications, often linked to sociopolitical and ecological-environmental considerations. Such judgments go far beyond what is thought to be the original adaptive value of neophobia. They cannot be reduced to the "picky eating" typical of children, given that food is also closely linked to identity and has a profound social and cultural meaning. The items in the Food Neophobia Scale [63,81,82] investigate the consumption or avoidance of certain foods, referring in particular to new, ethnic or unusual foods. They do not attempt to tap aspects relating to attitude or emotional reaction. This makes it impossible to gain even a superficial grasp of the rationale behind the choice of avoidance, which could hinge on a wide range of reasons. Unconventional diets, such as the vegan diet, could result in high neophobia scores but are not situations to which the term neophobia applies, since they are choices based on ethical values and not simply on disgust toward specific foods. Moreover, what constitutes "novel foods" is poorly specified, as the term novel is used indiscriminately in the literature to denote food that is new compared to traditional cuisine and thus exotic or ethnic; new compared to what the individual habitually eats; or new in the sense of being offered by a different brand, similar in basic ingredients, but produced by other suppliers. We then examined some recent data on potential "novel foods", presenting several points that may be of interest in scrutinizing the meanings and motivations behind certain food choices.

Insects, which could provide an alternative source of nutritious proteins with a lower environmental cost than traditional animal protein sources, are a novelty to the European food scene. They are also particularly likely to elicit neophobic feelings, as they are considered exotic, "disgusting" and foreign to European food culture. In studies of the attitudes towards insect consumption of people with different eating styles (omnivores, vegans and non-vegan vegetarians), vegans were found to have the highest neophobia scores, not because they express disgust with insects, but out of consistency with their ethical objections to eating animals or animal derivatives. Much more favorable attitudes were held by non-vegan vegetarians, who are more concerned with environmental sustainability than with animal rights, and seem to feel that insects are not "proper" animals and can thus be eaten.

Lastly, consumers are divided between acceptance and rejection of synthetic meat. Though still utopian, synthetic meat is a solution that would address some of the most pressing problems associated with meat eating by eliminating animal exploitation and reducing the amount of energy and land needed to produce meat. Though cultivated meat's environmental benefits could be the key to swaying potential consumers' attitudes in its favor, this clashes with a general distrust of its "unnaturalness" and the potential consequences of the new technologies on health. It seems that the consumers with the greatest interest in buying are young, well-educated and knowledgeable about cultivated meat. In an apparent paradox, it has been found that vegetarians who were not interested in sampling cultivated meat had higher expectations about its taste than meat eaters who were in fact interested in buying. Future research could profitably address the motivations behind food choices, which prevent a positive perception from being transformed into an intention to buy, complicating the scene surrounding this novel food.

GMOs, long at the center of a series of controversies in the public discourse and in its legislative repercussions, still inspire conflicting opinions, some of which are uncompromisingly negative. A significant proportion of consumers in European capitals state that they are worried about GMOs' impact on health, biodiversity and the environment, though a majority has no firm opinion on the matter. This suggests that the information strategies implemented in previous decades have not had appreciable effects. It is doubtful that providing information can change attitudes to GMOs, and it may even be counterproductive. This may be because scholars often over-compartmentalize the motivations that then become attitudes: rather than being considered as part of an organic complex

that also involves values and social dimensions, motivations are reduced to single affective or cognitive components. For example, it seems that where one lives could be a major predictor of GMO acceptance. Addressing this topic in future research would provide information whereby strategic marketing can be tailored to specific targets. Conceivably, this could improve the efficiency of a persuasion process aimed at increasing the acceptance of GMO technology.
