Consumers’ categorization of food ingredients: Do consumers perceive them as ‘clean label’ producers expect? An exploration with projective mapping

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 71, Issue , 2019, Pages 117-128

  Aschemann Witzel, Jessica ^a   Varela, Paula ^b   Peschel, Anne Odile ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b NOFIMA   (Norway)

Author keywords

Clean label; Consumer perception; Framing; Potato protein; Projective mapping

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049356387     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Alting, A.C., van de Velde, F., Proteins as clean label ingredients in foods and beverages. Natural Food Additives, Ingredients and Flavourings: Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 2012, Woodhead Publishing, 197–211, 10.1533/9780857095725.1.197.
2. Amos, C., Pentina, I., Hawkins, T.G., Davis, N., “Natural” labeling and consumers’ sentimental pastoral notion. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23:4/5 (2014), 268–281, 10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0516.
3. Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., de Saldamando, L., Giménez, A., Ares, G., Comparison of consumer-based methodologies for sensory characterization: Case study with four sample sets of powdered drinks. Food Quality and Preference 56:Part A (2017), 149–163, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.013.
4. Aoki, K., Shen, J., Saijo, T., Consumer reaction to information on food additives: Evidence from an eating experiment and a field survey. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 73:3 (2010), 433–438, 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.11.007.
5. Ares, G., Methodological issues in cross-cultural sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 64:Supplement C (2018), 253–263, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.007.
6. Aschemann-Witzel, J., Consumer perception and trends about health and sustainability: Trade-offs and synergies of two pivotal issues. Current Opinion in Food Science 3 (2015), 6–10, 10.1016/j.cofs.2014.08.002.
7. Aschemann-Witzel, J., Grunert, K.G., Influence of 'soft’ versus 'scientific’ health information framing and contradictory information on consumers’ health inferences and attitudes towards a food supplement. Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015), 90–99, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.008.
8. Aschemann-Witzel, J., Maroscheck, N., Hamm, U., Are organic consumers preferring or avoiding foods with nutrition and health claims?. Food Quality and Preference 30:1 (2013), 68–76.
9. Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T., Varela, P., Making sense of the “clean label” trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International 99 (2017), 58–71, 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.022 Retrieved from.
10. Banović, M., Arvola, A., Pennanen, K., Duta, D.E., Brückner-Gühmann, M., Lähteenmäki, L., Grunert, K.G., Foods with increased protein content: A qualitative study on European consumer preferences and perceptions. Appetite 125 (2018), 233–243, 10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.034.
11. Banović, M., Krystallis, A., Guerrero, L., Reinders, M.J., Consumers as co-creators of new product ideas: An application of projective and creative research techniques. Food Research International 87:Supplement C (2016), 211–223, 10.1016/j.foodres.2016.07.010.
12. Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., Siegrist, M., The consumer's perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference 38:Supplement C (2014), 14–23, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.008.
13. Bech-Larsen, T., Mørk, T., Kolle, S., New Nordic Cuisine: Is there another back to the future? – An informed viewpoint on NNC value drivers and market scenarios. Trends in Food Science & Technology 50 (2016), 249–253, 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.020.
14. Bhattacharjee, A., Dana, J., Baron, J., Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113:5 (2017), 671–696, 10.1037/pspa0000093.
15. Boddy, C.R., Projective techniques in market research: Valueless subjectivity or insightful reality?. International Journal of Market Research 47:3 (2005), 239–254.
16. Burdock, G.A., Wang, W., Our unrequited love for natural ingredients. Food and Chemical Toxicology 107:Part A (2017), 37–46, 10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.006.
17. Busken, D.F., Cleaning it up—what is a clean label ingredient?. Cereals Foods Worlds 60:2 (2013), 112–113.
18. Carocho, M., Morales, P., Ferreira, I.C.F.R., Natural food additives: Quo vadis?. Trends in Food Science & Technology 45:2 (2015), 284–295, 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.06.007.
19. Catterall, M., Ibbotson, P., Using projective techniques in education research. British Educational Research Journal 26:2 (2000), 245–256, 10.1080/01411920050000971.
20. Chalamon, I., Nabec, L., Why do we read on-pack nutrition information so differently? A typology of reading heuristics based on food consumption goals. Journal of Consumer Affairs 50:2 (2016), 403–429, 10.1111/joca.12093.
21. Chen, M.-F., Modeling an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict intention to take precautions to avoid consuming food with additives. Food Quality and Preference 58:Supplement C (2017), 24–33, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.002.
22. Cheung, T.T.L., Junghans, A.F., Dijksterhuis, G.B., Kroese, F., Johansson, P., Hall, L., De Ridder, D.T.D., Consumers’ choice-blindness to ingredient information. Appetite 106:Supplement C (2016), 2–12, 10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.022.
23. Clarke, C., Best, T., Low-carbohydrate, high-fat dieters: Characteristic food choice motivations, health perceptions and behaviours. Food Quality and Preference 62:Supplement C (2017), 162–171, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.006.
24. Costa, A.I.A., Jongen, W.M.F., New insights into consumer-led food product development. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17:8 (2006), 457–465, 10.1016/j.tifs.2006.02.003.
25. De Barcellos, M.D., Kügler, J.O., Grunert, K.G., van Wezemael, L., Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A., Ueland, Ø., Verbeke, W., European consumers’ acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 11:4 (2010), 721–732, 10.1016/j.ifset.2010.05.003.
26. Dehlholm, C., Projective mapping and napping. Varela, P., Ares, G., (eds.) Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling, 2014, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 229–254.
27. Devcich, D.A., Pedersen, I.K., Petrie, K.J., You eat what you are: Modern health worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives in functional foods. Appetite 48:3 (2007), 333–337.
28. Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference 22:1 (2011), 149–156.
29. Euromonitor International. (2016). Report extract: Lifestyle 2016: New survey insights and system refresher. Retrieved from https://blog.euromonitor.com/2016/09/new-lifestyles-system-data-2016-global-consumer-trends-survey-results.html.
30. Euromonitor International. (2017). Megatrend analysis: putting the consumer at the heart of business. Retrieved from http://go.euromonitor.com/white-paper-2017-megatrend-analysis.html.
31. Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., Cox, D.N., Consumers ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite 54:3 (2010), 557–563.
32. Fiszman, S., Varela, P., Díaz, P., Linares, M.B., Garrido, M.D., What is satiating? Consumer perceptions of satiating foods and expected satiety of protein-based meals. Food Research International 62:Supplement C (2014), 551–560, 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.03.065.
33. Greenacre, L., Patrick, S., Yang, R., Jaeger, V., Martin, J., Correcting misperceptions about stigmatized ingredients: MSG. Food Quality and Preference 48:Part A (2016), 93–98, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.09.001.
34. Grunert, K.G., Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice. Trends in Food Science & Technology 13:8 (2002), 275–285, 10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00137-1.
35. Grunert, K.G., Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32:3 (2005), 369–391, 10.1093/eurrag/jbi011.
36. Grunert, K.G., Trends in food choice and nutrition. Klopčič, M., Kuipers, A., Hocquette, J.-.F., (eds.) Consumer Attitudes to Food Quality Products: Emphasis on Southern Europe, 2013, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, 23–30.
37. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., Sandøe, P., Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41:2 (2003), 111–121, 10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5.
38. Hemmerling, S., Asioli, D., Spiller, A., Core organic taste: Preferences for naturalness-related sensory attributes of organic food among European consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing 22:7 (2016), 824–850, 10.1080/10454446.2015.1121428.
39. Hung, Y., de Kok, T.M., Verbeke, W., Consumer attitude and purchase intention towards processed meat products with natural compounds and a reduced level of nitrite. Meat Science 121 (2016), 119–126, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.06.002.
40. Ingredion. (2014). The clean label guide in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.alimentatec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-Clean-Label-Guide-To-Europe.pdf.
41. Janssen, M., Determinants of organic food purchases: Evidence from household panel data. Food Quality and Preference 68 (2018), 19–28, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.02.002.
42. Ju, D., Mu, T.-H., Sun, H.-N., Sweet potato and potato residual flours as potential nutritional and healthy food material. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 16:11 (2017), 2632–2645, 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61601-5.
43. Lazzarini, G.A., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., Our own country is best: Factors influencing consumers’ sustainability perceptions of plant-based foods. Food Quality and Preference 60 (2017), 165–177, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.04.008.
44. Lazzarini, G.A., Zimmermann, J., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., Does environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers’ perception of protein products. Appetite 105:Supplement C (2016), 663–673, 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.038.
45. Lunardo, R., Saintives, C., The effect of naturalness claims on perceptions of food product naturalness in the point of purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20:6 (2013), 529–537, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.006.
46. Malling Schmidt, J., Damgaard, H., Greve-Poulsen, M., Larsen, L.B., Hammershøj, M., Foam and emulsion properties of potato protein isolate and purified fractions. Food Hydrocolloids 74 (2018), 367–378, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.07.032.
47. Micheelsen, A., Havn, L., Poulsen, S.K., Larsen, T.M., Holm, L., The acceptability of the New Nordic Diet by participants in a controlled six-month dietary intervention. Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014), 20–26, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.003.
48. Nordfalt, J., Learning and memory. Ekstrom, K.M., (eds.) Consumer behaviour: A Nordic perspective, 2010, Studentlitteratur AB, Lund, 250–268.
49. Oude Ophuis, P.A., van Trijp, H.C., Perceived quality: A market driven and consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference 6 (1995), 177–183.
50. Pagès, J., Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005), 642–649.
51. Reader, J., Potato: A history of the propitious esculent. 2011, Yale University Press; USA.
52. Risvik, E., McEwan, J.A., Colwill, J.S., Rogers, R., Lyon, D.H., Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 5:4 (1994), 263–269.
53. Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L.M., Siegrist, M., The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology 67:Supplement C (2017), 44–57, 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010.
54. Rozin, P., Royzman, E.B., Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5:4 (2001), 296–320, 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2.
55. Sautron, V., Péneau, S., Camilleri, G.M., Muller, L., Ruffieux, B., Hercberg, S., Méjean, C., Validity of a questionnaire measuring motives for choosing foods including sustainable concerns. Appetite 87 (2015), 90–97, 10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.205.
56. Scarborough, P., Matthews, A., Eyles, H., Kaur, A., Hodgkins, C., Raats, M.M., Rayner, M., Reds are more important than greens: How UK supermarket shoppers use the different information on a traffic light nutrition label in a choice experiment. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12, 2015, 151, 10.1186/s12966-015-0319-9.
57. Scheufele, B., Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique. Communications 29 (2004), 401–428.
58. Scott, S.E., Rozin, P., Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance. Judgment and Decision Making 12:6 (2017), 572–583.
59. Song, H., Schwarz, N., If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science 20:2 (2009), 135–138.
60. Stewart-Knox, B., Mitchell, P., What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development?. Trends in Food Science & Technology 14:1 (2003), 58–64, 10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00239-X.
61. Symoneaux, R., Galmarini, M.V., Mehinagic, E., Comment analysis of consumer's likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 24 (2012), 59–66.
62. Szucs, V., Szabó, E., Bánáti, D., Factors affecting the avoidance of food additives in Hungary. Journal of Hygienic Engineering and Design 8 (2014), 61–66.
63. Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelievre, M., Abdi, H., Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 47:8 (2012), 1563–1578.
64. van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H.C.M., Luning, P., Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference 16:3 (2005), 181–201, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012.
65. Vanga, S.K., Raghavan, V., How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow's milk?. Journal of Food Science and Technology 55:1 (2018), 10–20, 10.1007/s13197-017-2915-y.
66. Varela, P., Ares, G., Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 38:2 (2012), 893–908.
67. Varela, P., Ares, G., Fiszman, S., Texture and semantics: The conceptual structure in consumers’ minds. Journal of Sensory Studies 28:3 (2013), 194–204, 10.1111/joss.12035.
68. Varela, P., Fiszman, S.M., Exploring consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of hydrocolloids used as food additives and ingredients. Food Hydrocolloids 30:1 (2013), 477–484, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.07.001.
69. Verain, M.C.D., Sijtsema, S.J., Antonides, G., Consumer segmentation based on food-category attribute importance: The relation with healthiness and sustainability perceptions. Food Quality and Preference 48 (2016), 99–106, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.012.
70. Vidal, L., Ares, G., Giménez, A., Projective techniques to uncover consumer perception: Application of three methodologies to ready-to-eat salads. Food Quality and Preference 28:1 (2013), 1–7, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.005.
71. Vidal, L., Cadena, R.S., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Ares, G., Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: How many consumers are necessary?. Food Quality and Preference 34 (2014), 79–87.
72. Waglay, A., Karboune, S., Chapter 4 – Potato proteins: Functional food ingredients. Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology, Second Edition, 2016, Academic Press, San Diego, 75–104, 10.1016/B978-0-12-800002-1.00004-2.
73. Wood, K., Carragher, J., Davis, R., Australian consumers’ insights into potatoes – Nutritional knowledge, perceptions and beliefs. Appetite 114:Supplement C (2017), 169–174, 10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.038.