Is It Really Ready to Eat? Consumer Perceptions About HPP Foods

Is it Really Ready - to - Eat? Consumer Perceptions about HPP Foods By Doris Hicks, Seafood Technology Specialist, Delaware Sea Grant College Program Lori Pivarnik, Coordinator, Food Safety Education/Research Program, University of Rhode Island Kirstin Wakefield, Delaware Sea Grant College Program

T

echnological advances in food processing, coupled with consumer demand for fresh and quick meal and snack food products have created a burgeoning market for ready-to-eat (RTE) foods. While consumers have embraced organic foods, vacuum packed fruits, and packaged salads, concerns about food-borne illnesses remain, especially given the recent media coverage of E. coli in bagged spinach and salmonella in fresh tomatoes. Although the benefits of high pressure processing (HPP) for reducing bacterial contaminants and pathogens are well documented in the scientific literature, a nationwide survey conducted by the University of Delaware found that consumers are not well informed about the safety and quality of HPP RTE foods.

Nationwide Survey In 2006, the University of Delaware conducted an online nationwide consumer survey to assess awareness about HPP technologies, knowledge about HPP’s role in enhancing food safety, general attitudes about new processing techniques, and consumer willingness to pay for HPP-processed products. The consumer survey was administered by Zoomerang™, an online survey clearinghouse. A total of 1,204 adults completed the survey. Frequencies and cross tabulations were calculated on Zoomerang™ and one-way ANOVAs and chi-square analyses were completed using SPSS Statistics. Respondent demographics reflected the U.S. census population for age and gender. Income and level of education completed were slightly higher than the national average.

Are consumers aware of HPP or other food-processing technologies? Survey respondents were very familiar with traditional food processing technologies, but were less aware of alternative technologies, such as irradiation, UV light, and ozone. Initially, only 8 percent of survey respondents reported awareness of high pressure processing (data not shown); however, following an explanation of the technology in the survey questions, 37 percent of respondents came to understand that they were familiar with the technology, but perhaps not the exact terminology (Table 1). Traditional Technology

Percent Alternative Percent Aware Technology Aware (n=1,204) (n=1,204) Canning 95 UV Light 45 Freezing 94 Radio 10 Frequency Cooking 92 Pulsed Electric 3 (Heating) Field Microwaving 80 Irradiation 54 Drying 78 Pulsed Light 3 Pasteurizing 94 Ozone 11 Freeze-drying 88 Ohmic Heating 2 Concentrating 73 Electromagnetic 6 Smoking 89 High-Pressure 37 Table 1. Consumer awareness of traditional versus alternative food-processing technologies.

While the majority of respondents knew that heat is not necessary to make food safe to eat, only about one-third of consumers were aware that non-thermal methods are under development and can enhance food safety (Table 2). Consumers appear to be very interested in learning more about how their foods are processed; however, almost three-fourths of survey respondents are uncertain about whether the food they are consuming has in fact been

treated with new technologies. Industry should consider ways to increase consumer awareness of HPP foods through food packaging or targeted advertising. Attitudes about Food Safety and Alternative Technologies In order to make food safe to eat, heat must be used. I am currently consuming foods that have been treated with new or alternative processing technologies. To minimize changes in flavor or texture in certain food products, the food industry is developing "nonthermal" processing methods — methods used to process food without heat. These methods could also keep food safe. I would like to know more about how the foods I eat are processed.

Percent of Respondents (n=1,204) Yes No Unsure 19

62

19

9

17

74

29

3

68

73

14

13

would be useful/very useful for learning about alternative processing technologies. Eighty-four percent of respondents felt that the Internet would be a useful vehicle for learning about advances in food safety. Food and Food Safety Sources of Information Internet Magazines/newspapers TV/Radio Family/Friends Information at the store Brochures Physician Government Publications Nutritionist/Dietitian Books University/Extension Educator In Classroom Video/CD/DVD

58 57 55 41 36 24 22 20

Percent Who Agree Source is Useful or Very Useful 84 75 78 N/A 72 69 72 63

18 17 7

67 62 46

6 3

53 45

Percent Who Use Source

Table 3. Current and future sources of information consumers are most likely to use for learning about food and food safety (n=1,204).

Table 2. Consumer attitudes about alternative processing technologies.

Where do consumers get their information about food safety? According to survey respondents, the top five resources consumers are most likely to use for learning about food and food safety are the Internet, TV/radio, magazines and newspapers, families and friends, and information provided at the store (Table 3). Younger consumers (under 24) prefer to find information on the Internet or by word of mouth from friends and family (Fig. 1). Elderly consumers (over 65) rely more strongly on traditional media, including TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines. It is interesting to note that among the top five sources, point of purchase (information found at the store) is used least frequently across all age groups. Only 36 percent of respondents reported point of purchase as an information source they were most likely to use; however, 72 percent of survey respondents felt that point of purchase information

Figure 1. Consumers’ top five sources of information for food and food safety according to age group. Bars represent the percent of respondents most likely to use these sources of information (n=1,204).

Who do consumers trust to keep their food supply safe? Consumers are skeptical of the role the food industry and government play in protecting their food supply from bacterial contaminants and other pathogens. They do not appear to strongly trust any single group — industry, government, or consumer advocacy organization — to fully protect the public with regard to food technology developments. •

• •

an HPP treated salad, consumers were willing to pay up to $1.00 more for a better product. However, the majority of consumers indicated they would pay $0.25 to $0.50 more for the same product if it was prepared using HPP (Figure 2). Since most consumers depend on the media and Internet for their information about food and food safety, these resources should be targeted to explain both the mechanics and the benefits of new food processing technologies.

Fewer than half of survey respondents trust the food industry to manufacture safe food or develop new technologies to keep food safe. Only 35 percent of consumers surveyed trust consumer advocacy groups to provide accurate information about food safety. Less than one-third of consumers trust the government to ensure a safe food supply or ensure that new technologies result in safe food.

How much more are consumers willing to pay for a fresher, safer product? Although trust in the ability of the government and food industry to keep food safe for consumers is somewhat low, almost 70 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Foods that are convenient and easy to prepare are important to me.” Nearly 60 percent also agreed that new processing technologies are needed to make our food fresher. While new technologies improve the safety, taste, and freshness of RTE foods, these benefits frequently come at an added cost to consumers. Forty percent of consumers indicated that they would be willing to pay more for an HPP product when asked the following question: “The food industry has begun to use HPP, instead of heat, to process foods. This HPP destroys bacteria in food that may cause spoilage and/or illness. If food products treated with HPP had the same or better quality (taste and texture), lasted longer, and were safer, would you buy them at an additional cost in your supermarket?” When offered the choice between a 16-ounce container of fresh salsa ($3.79) versus an HPP treated salsa, or a fresh seafood salad ($5.99) versus

Figure 2. Consumer willingness-to-pay for a safer, HPP food product. Green represents percent of respondents willing to pay more for a 16-ounce container of salsa valued at $3.79 (n=476). Pink represents percent of respondents willing to pay more for a 16-ounce container of seafood salad valued at $5.99 (n=476).

Sensory Testing Compared to freezing or pasteurization, HPP keeps food tasting fresh while protecting consumers from bacteria and other pathogens. But for the added cost, can consumers taste the difference between HPP and non-HPP treated food products? Food scientists at the University of Florida asked 100 panelists to answer this question after sampling fresh salsa and seafood salad. In the sensory triangle test administered in 2008, two ounces of each product (salsa or seafood salad) were placed in plastic cups coded with a three-digit random number. Samples were either untreated or HPP processed at 25°C for five minutes at 450 megapascals (65,000 psi). No differences in color were observed among the samples.

Three samples of salsa and three samples of seafood salad were given to each panelist. For each test, two samples were the same and one was different, allowing HPP and non-HPP treated samples to be tested in a triangle test with six possible combinations (AAB, ABA, ABB, BBA, BAB, BAA). The six orders were repeated approximately an equal number of times. Salsa samples were tasted using Tostitos ScoopsTM chips; seafood salad samples were tasted using a plastic fork. After trying each of the three samples, panelists were asked to choose which samples of salsa and seafood salad tasted different. If they identified the “different” sample correctly, then panelists were asked which sample they preferred. The total number of responses (panelists) and the number of panelists who correctly identified the odd/different sample was recorded. Results of the sensory tests were summarized with CompusenseTM. The number of correct responses for each test was compared to the minimum number of correct responses needed for the results to be statistically different from random choice. If the number of correct responses exceeded the minimum number (42, p=0.05), then there was a statistically significant difference between the non-HPP and HPP treated samples. Survey Results More than half of the panelists correctly identified the “different” sample of fresh salsa (Figure 3). Results were statistically significant (42, p=0.05). Of those panelists, about one-third preferred the non-HPP treated salsa to the HPP treated salsa. Results were statistically significant (34, p=0.05), indicating panelists had a slight preference for the non-HPP treated salsa. Less than one-third of panelists correctly identified the different sample of seafood salad (Figure 3). Results were not statistically significant (42, p=0.05) and preferences for non-HPP versus HPP treated seafood salad were not calculated. The triangle test illustrates that consumers can detect differences in some HPP and non-HPP treated foods when they are presented at the same time. Preferences in taste are likely to depend on the individual ingredients. Fresh fruits or vegetables that compress under pressure may have a more subtle change in texture and may be less pleasing to

Figure 3. Can consumers taste a difference in HPP and nonHPP treated foods? Bars represent percent of panelists correctly identifying the different sample of salsa or seafood salad (n=100).

the palate, whereas a more homogeneous salad or spread may undergo less detectable changes in consistency. Efforts should be made to ensure that texture and taste are not compromised during the processing procedures. A product that looks, tastes, and feels like the original may encourage consumers to pay a little more for the enhanced safety benefits.

Summary Consumers are willing to pay up to $1.00 more for the convenience of HPP foods, especially if the risk of food-borne illnesses can be reduced without radically changing taste or texture. However, consumers’ limited knowledge of high pressure processing combined with low confidence in the food industry and/or government to provide safe food creates a challenge for industry to successfully market RTE foods. Targeted outreach via the internet and mass media about the benefits and impacts of alternative processing technologies should enhance consumer acceptance of foods produced by HPP or other non-traditional methods.

References Hicks, D.T., L.F. Pivarnik, R. McDermott, N. Richards, D. Hoover, and K. Kniel. “Consumer Awareness And Willingness To Pay For High Pressure Processing Of Ready To Eat Food.” Journal of Food Science Education. (submitted) Sims, C.A., D.T. Hicks, and L.F. Pivarnik. Sensory Testing of HPP Processed Foods. (in press) Project funded by USDA/CSREES No. 2004-51110-02159. This handout was produced using 100 percent post-consumer recycled content.