scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review

TL;DR: In this paper, a systematic review identified 72 studies conducted in 32 countries involving 85,348 consumers and found that the items used to measure the importance of naturalness can be classified into three categories: 1) the way the food has been grown (food origin), 2) how the food have been produced (what technology and ingredients have been used), and 3) the properties of the final product.
Abstract: Background Consumers’ perceptions of naturalness are important for the acceptance of foods and food technologies. Thus, several studies have examined the significance of naturalness among consumers. Nonetheless, the aspects that are considered essential in perceiving a food item as natural may vary across consumers and different stakeholder groups. Scope and approach This systematic review identified 72 studies conducted in 32 countries involving 85,348 consumers. We aimed to answer the following questions: 1) How has the perceived importance of naturalness for consumers been defined and measured? 2) To what extent is perceived naturalness important to consumers? 3) Are there individual differences regarding the importance given to food naturalness that can be explained by consumers' characteristics? 4) Do consumers’ attitudes toward food naturalness influence their intentions and behavior? Key findings and conclusions The review clearly shows that for the majority of consumers, food naturalness is crucial. This finding could be observed across countries and in the different years when the studies were conducted. Therefore, neglecting the aspect of naturalness in the food industry may be very costly in the end. Our review also reveals differences across studies in how naturalness has been defined and measured. Based on a content analysis of the measurement scales, the items used to measure the importance of naturalness can be classified into three categories: 1) the way the food has been grown (food origin), 2) how the food has been produced (what technology and ingredients have been used), and 3) the properties of the final product.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Apr 2021-Appetite
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that acceptance of the alternative proteins included here is relatively low (compared to that of meat); acceptance of insects is lowest, followed by acceptance of cultured meat, and pulses and plant-based alternative proteins have the highest acceptance level.

292 citations


Cites background from "The importance of food naturalness ..."

  • ...…regarding the consumer accept nce of innovative food (Siegrist, 2008); 85 novel food technologies (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020); food naturalness (Roman et al., 2017); 86 meat consumption (Sanchez-Sabate & Sabaté, 2019); and specific meat alternatives like 87 cultured meat (Bryant & Barnett,…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature is presented, and the most important objections and benefits to consumers are evaluated, as well as highlighting areas for future research.

259 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
19 May 2020
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify technologies, assess their readiness and propose eight action points that could accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable food system and argue that the speed of innovation could be significantly increased with the appropriate incentives, regulations and social licence.
Abstract: Future technologies and systemic innovation are critical for the profound transformation the food system needs. These innovations range from food production, land use and emissions, all the way to improved diets and waste management. Here, we identify these technologies, assess their readiness and propose eight action points that could accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable food system. We argue that the speed of innovation could be significantly increased with the appropriate incentives, regulations and social licence. These, in turn, require constructive stakeholder dialogue and clear transition pathways.

229 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jun 2020
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors organize the research describing how heuristics and individual differences among consumers influence the acceptance of agri-food technologies and explore factors that may explain consumers' acceptance or lack of acceptance.
Abstract: Novel food technologies are important for food security, safety and sustainability Consumers, however, are often hesitant to accept them In this narrative Review, we organize the research describing how heuristics and individual differences among consumers influence the acceptance of agri-food technologies Associations evoked by a food technology, its perceived naturalness and trust in the industry using it influence consumer acceptance Food neophobia, disgust sensitivity and cultural values are crucial personality factors for explaining individual differences Using gene technology, nanotechnology, cultured meat and food irradiation as cases, we explore factors that may explain consumers’ acceptance or lack of acceptance Climate change, food supply shocks caused by crises such as pandemics and population growth are imminent threats to the food system Therefore, disruptive food technologies will be needed to progress towards a more resilient food system Taking into account the factors influencing consumers’ perceptions of novel food technologies during the early stage of development and introduction will hopefully result in a higher acceptance of such technologies Consumer acceptance of novel and disruptive technologies is key to their implementation and to building capacity for transforming food systems Using gene technology, nanotechnology, cultured meat and food irradiation as cases, this Review explores consumer acceptance through the frames of food neophobia, disgust sensitivity and cultural values

229 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is important to explain cultured meat in a nontechnical way that emphasizes the final product, not the production method, to increase acceptance of this novel food.

176 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

62,157 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

46,935 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a general formula (α) of which a special case is the Kuder-Richardson coefficient of equivalence is shown to be the mean of all split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings of a test, therefore an estimate of the correlation between two random samples of items from a universe of items like those in the test.
Abstract: A general formula (α) of which a special case is the Kuder-Richardson coefficient of equivalence is shown to be the mean of all split-half coefficients resulting from different splittings of a test. α is therefore an estimate of the correlation between two random samples of items from a universe of items like those in the test. α is found to be an appropriate index of equivalence and, except for very short tests, of the first-factor concentration in the test. Tests divisible into distinct subtests should be so divided before using the formula. The index $$\bar r_{ij} $$ , derived from α, is shown to be an index of inter-item homogeneity. Comparison is made to the Guttman and Loevinger approaches. Parallel split coefficients are shown to be unnecessary for tests of common types. In designing tests, maximum interpretability of scores is obtained by increasing the first-factor concentration in any separately-scored subtest and avoiding substantial group-factor clusters within a subtest. Scalability is not a requisite.

37,235 citations


"The importance of food naturalness ..." refers background in this paper

  • ...2 are substantially correlated and have good internal consistency (i.e., the degree to which the items measure a single unidimensional construct, Cronbach, 1951)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.

31,379 citations

Trending Questions (1)
Does naturalness increase food adoption?

The paper states that consumers perceive food naturalness as crucial, but it does not explicitly mention whether naturalness increases food adoption.