High pressure processing (HPP), pulsed electric field (PEF), ultrasonics, ultra high pressure homogenisation and cool plasma: they can all take their place among the exciting nonthermal food processing technologies currently in development.
HPP is already being used to process juices and meat products here in Australia, and guacamole in the US market is now largely processed by HPP. Fruit juices using PEF are also available on the shelves in Europe.
New technologies like these often have advantages over traditional thermal food processing. They may provide enhanced colour, flavour, texture, nutritional value or ‘fresh-like’ attributes like crispness, for example.
While these are all desirable attributes for consumers, their acceptance of emerging processing technologies as a means of delivering them is a must for market success, according to one global expert. Dr Amauri Rosenthal, a senior researcher at Embrapa, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, examined this issue at CSIRO’s recent International Nonthermal Food Processing Workshop.
Rosenthal researches safety and quality aspects of high pressure and thermally processed fruit, meat and dairy products. During the workshop, he described consumer perceptions of some emerging technologies as highlighted in consumer and sensory studies lead by Dr Rosires Deliza, also from Embrapa.
Perceptions count
Deliza found that in general, people consider sensory perceptions of food as the dominant factor influencing their choices in a supermarket or restaurant, and this tended to be less negotiable than other factors. That means that if a food is not perceived as positive in its appearance, smell, texture or taste, consumers are unlikely to buy it, eat it or drink it.
Of course, that’s not the end of the story. When asked about novel food-related technologies, a majority of consumers are likely to indicate some level of concern, and as we’ve seen in the past, negative consumer perception can still make or break an emerging technology. Take irradiation, for example. Consumer perception that irradiated food was unsafe demonstrates how safety concerns can limit a technology’s acceptance in the market and therefore its future.
Genetically modified foods, according to Rosenthal, also are also viewed by consumers as having a high perceived risk with low perceived benefits. GM carries perceptions of unnaturalness, raises ethical concerns, and increases the perception that benefits of this technology are inequitably distributed in favour of companies.
Food-related applications of nanotechnology are also viewed negatively, and the commercialisation trajectory has been frequently compared to that of GM foods.
Drilling even deeper
These studies partially concur with CSIRO’s own work in this area. CSIRO’s Food Futures Flagship conducts a periodic food and health survey, which examines, among other things, consumer attitudes towards novel technologies.
The surveys are led by Dr Phil Mohr, a behavioural scientist, and they also show that when asked about novel food-related technologies, most consumers will feel some level of concern. However, Mohr has also found that consumers register very similar ratings of concern when asked about some common and widely accepted aspects of food production, such as the use of preservatives, colourings and additives.
According to Mohr, this tells us that something that may look like a negative response to a new technology does not necessarily mean that the technology is seen by the public as something to be avoided. Instead, what many people may be telling us by these ratings is “in principle, it’s best to be cautious about these things”.
The other thing to note in the CSIRO studies is that people’s ratings of the acceptability of a technology are heavily influenced by the context, and most notably, what the technology is used for. For example, a technological food innovation designed to deliver health or medical benefits can attract strongly positive reactions, although the same technology might be negatively perceived in its own right.
Mohr thinks this is not so much due to a weighing of risks and benefits, but more about the tendency for something with a positive intended outcome to be favourably perceived. It’s worth noting, however, that where the beneficiary of the positive outcome is the manufacturer or grower rather than the general public, this may not apply.
Consumers rate HPP and PEF
While CSIRO’s consumer studies rate attitudes towards novel technologies in general, Rosenthal, Deliza and their team studied consumer acceptance of some specific emerging food processing technologies. They collected data on 18 organic HPP pineapple juice prototypes offered to a panel of Brazilian consumers, who evaluated them for factors such as aroma, flavour, fibre, consistency, price and their intention to purchase.
They were also asked to evaluate several label attributes including brand, presence or absence of production information (such as chemical additives) and presence or absence of information on the benefits of HPP (namely “pressurised, tasty and nutritious, retains flavours and preserves vitamins”).
Results showed that HPP was perceived as beneficial by consumers and that it even contributed to an increased intention to purchase.
Rosenthal said that interviews investigating the habits around fruit juice consumption in select groups showed that consumer perception of HPP is neutral or slightly positive. They see the benefits assisting them personally and the perceived risks do not play an important role, although it is associated with unknown consequences. The upshot of this is that HPP is seen as a healthy and environmentally friendly technology.
PEF was a little different. It does carry more negative associations for consumers than HPP, namely an association with electricity, irradiation and microwaves. However, the researchers found a low level of awareness, with consumers either slightly positive or slightly negative towards it. In other words, while there is a low level of concern, consumers also perceive few benefits to the technology.
Rosenthal concluded that it is very important to properly inform consumers about the meaning and benefits of new processing technologies to increase the probability of your product actually being consumed by the public.
For manufacturers using emerging food processing technologies, it looks like this task is in your hands, or rather, on your label.
Sensory perception
Consumer and sensory studies led by Dr Rosires Deliza from Embrapa, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, found the following factors, or values, can influence consumer attitudes towards novel food technologies:
- Awareness of the technology (often delivered by package labelling)
- Information sources about the technology (from a company versus from a research organisation)
- Perceived benefit versus perceived risk
- Terminology (e.g. ‘biotechnology’ is seen more positively than ‘GMO’)
- Environmental issues
- Confidence in companies and regulatory agents
About the author
Keith Cullen is
director of innovative processing at CSIRO Animal, Food and Health
Sciences at Werribee, Victoria. He can be contacted on 03 9731 3216
or Keith.Cullen@csiro.au.
Dr Amauri Rosenthal, food engineering scientist at Embrapa, can be contacted at amauri.rosenthal@embrapa.br.
