Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Processed Through Emerging Technologies

Chapter 7

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Processed Through Emerging Technologies Marı´a Lavilla1 and Elisa Gaya´n2 1

AZTI, Derio, Spain, 2KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

7.1 INTRODUCTION The main motivation of food engineers and food scientists in the last decades has been on finding alternative process and preservation technologies that are able to preserve the quality attributes of the food product, as well as environment friendly and low in cost. As a result, a number of novel and emerging technologies have been driven and have been thoroughly studied to give a solution to the consumer demand for convenience, freshness, safety, and more natural products with fewer additives and preservatives (Butz & Tauscher, 2002; Norton & Sun, 2008; Sen˜orans, Iba´n˜ez, & Cifuentes, 2003). Modern food technologies deal with further development of traditional methods (e.g., vacuum cooking, assisted thermal processing), and with procedures adapted to food processing from other industry-branches (e.g., high pressure, microwave (MW) technology, etc.). It is known that innovative technologies are able to better retain food quality attributes, nutritional content, and organoleptic (sensory) properties, offer the possibility for a science-based development of tailor-made foods (Knorr et al., 2011), and could help the food industry in its continuously developing of new products. They are useful not only for inactivation of bacteria or enzymes but also for the development of ingredients and finished products with novel characteristics. Final quality of such products is outstanding compared with traditional thermal methods of preservation (e.g., pasteurization and sterilization), while there are important savings in cost, energy, and processing times (Pereira & Vicente, 2010; Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Buckow, Koutchma, & Balasubramaniam, 2015).

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811031-7.00007-8 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

233

234

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

Despite these advantages, the success of a new technology and the success of a product in the market are not always guaranteed since they are highly dependent on consumers’ acceptance and consumers’ opinion (Lyndhurst, 2009). Consumers are particularly conservative when it comes to perception and acceptance of foods compared to other products: Conventional food processing procedures like cooking or freezing are familiar to the consumers and are thoroughly accepted. However, it is important to understand how consumers form opinions about what they considered “less known” and innovative technologies. As it has been seen, consumer’s opinion can lead to success or to failure a particular technology. For instance, some technologies like organic production are warmly welcomed by many consumers, whereas others like genetic modification and irradiation have been firmly rejected (Gaskell et al., 2000; Olsen, Grunert, & Sonne, 2010). Thus public opinion toward new food technologies is something that undoubtedly needs to be considered when introducing them in the market through a novel food product. In this chapter, we review the basis of the trends of acceptance of foods processed by emerging technologies. The evaluation of consumer acceptance of most commercial innovative technologies, as well as factors and trends in food choice related to novel technologies is also achieved.

7.2 GLOBAL TRENDS OF ACCEPTANCE AND TRADE IN FOODS PROCESSED THROUGH EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Except for punctual social alarms toward specific foods, consumers generally consider “traditional” foods to be safe (Wilcock, Pun, Khanona, & Aung, 2004). Moreover, consumers expect the food industry to supply products with great tasting, convenient, and healthy. However, when new foods are developed, people are often reticent or suspicious of these innovations (Evans, Foxall, & Jamal, 2009). Several criteria have been suggested useful for defining the expected acceptance of new food products (Evans et al., 2009; Popa & Popa, 2012). These factors do not depend solely on the intrinsic sensory characteristics of the product, but also comprise contextual, cognitive, social, cultural, and attitudinal variables (Cardello, 2003). Compatibility (the product is consistent with consumer current values, cognitions, and/or behaviors), relative advantage (sustainable, competitive, or differential advantage over other products), trialability (the degree to which a product can be tried on a limited basis for an inexpensive trial), observability (the degree to which a product or its effects can be sensed by other consumers), speed (how fast the benefits are experienced by the consumer), simplicity (easy to understand and use), perceived risk (low risk perceived), product symbolism

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

235

(what the product means to the consumer), and aesthetic and hedonistic innovations. In the case of food that has been processed by emerging technologies, also concerns about the nature of the processing technology turn into dominant considerations to be taken into account during the choice and purchase decision (Cardello, 2003). Many methods and variables can be used to investigate consumer acceptance of novel technologies. Experimental set-up, quantitative surveys, and qualitative focus groups are usually applied (Olsen et al., 2010). However, ultimately the acceptance of a technology depends on the consumers’ perception of benefits and risks and perceived costs (Bearth & Siegrist, 2016; Cardello, Schutz, & Lesher, 2007; Frewer, Scholderer, & Lambert, 2003; Ronteltap, van Trijp, Renes, & Frewer, 2007). Benefits risks balance comprises the impact of the technology on taste, convenience, and nutritional value, the perceived safety of the process, the magnitude of the risk the technology reduces, and the impact of the technology on the environment (Ueland et al., 2012). Consequently, consumer’s risk perception may differ from experts’ assessments (Wilkinson, Rowe, & Lambert, 2004). Technological modification of food and food production can evoke a negative response among consumers, especially in the absence of good communication on risk assessment efforts and cost-benefit evaluations. Accordingly, consumer’s attitudes to new process technologies should be taken into account at an early stage of product development. In order to favorably influence the public acceptation of a technology is crucial the perceived credibility of the data, rigor of regulatory policy, impartial action of regulators, and demonstrated responsibility of industry (Bruhn, 2010). Cox and Evans (2008) and successive works (Evans, Kermarrec, Sable, & Cox, 2010) established and validated the Food Technology Neophobia Scale (FTNS), a validated psychometric scale that enables researchers to establish the limits of acceptance of foods that may contain benefits. Subsequent results suggest that consumer’s degree of phobia regarding food technology is also important to explain consumer behavior in relation to new technologies (Barrena & Sa´nchez, 2013; Vidigal et al., 2015), but not exclusive. Anyway, communication is very important, being decisive for the consolidation of consumer perceptions, and consequently for the acceptance of these innovations on the market. In conclusion, people’s responses to different risks and their associated behaviors are affected by how they perceive potential hazard characteristics, and that people’s risk perceptions do not always align with technical risk estimates provided by experts. Overall, in addition to perceived benefits and risks, quality and price, perceived naturalness seems to be an important factor influencing acceptance of a given novel food technology (Cardello, 2003; Frewer et al., 2011; Popa & Popa, 2012; Siegrist, 2008).

236

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

7.3 PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF FOODS PROCESSED THROUGH EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 7.3.1 Brief Overview in Trends of Emerging Food Processing Technologies Innovative technologies have been driven and have been thoroughly studied to give a solution to the consumer demand for convenience, freshness, and more natural products with fewer additives and preservatives, and minimally processed, without renouncing to the safety and extended shelf-life expected in commercialized food products. Among these innovative technologies a wide number of thermal and nonthermal processing methods can be considered. These technologies utilize pulsed electric fields (PEFs), high pressure, irradiation, ohmic heating, MW processing, and radio-frequency heating, alone or in combination with other “hurdle” technologies to preserve foods and minimize quality losses (Ohlsson, 2002a, 2002b). Despite their advantages studied and advertised by food scientist the actual application in actual food products of novel food processing technologies creates high levels of consumer concerns (Cardello, 2003). These authors stated that perceived risks associated to the technologies were the most important factors influencing interest in use. For that reason, among the innovative or emerging technologies, irradiation and genetically modified organisms resulted in the greatest negative effect on likely use. Contrarily nonthermal technologies produced the most positive effect. Thus although emerging technologies are crucial for food industry innovations, food processed by novel and emerging technologies sets new challenges to researchers interested in the factors responsible for consumers’ choice and acceptance of these foods. Although decisive, optimal sensory quality of a product does not guarantee its success in market. That is why it is important to understand how consumers form opinions about these technologies before attempting large-scale introduction of a product on the market, and additional parameters and factors that not depend solely on the intrinsic sensory characteristics of the product must to be taken into account, as seen before. Among cited innovative technologies and according to North American and European food experts interviewed (Jermann, Koutchma, Margas, Leadley, & Ros-Polski, 2015), high-pressure processing (HPP) is the technology with most potential in 5 10 years, followed by MW pasteurization/ sterilization and PEFs or ultraviolet (UV) light/radiation processing. Still from researchers and food technologist point of view the main obstacle to use emerging and novel technologies was perceived cost for industry (Jermann et al., 2015). However, as deduced from the previous section, consumer acceptance is essential for the development of a successful food product in the market. Thus these technologies, with the most potential to

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

237

be used commercially, are those whose consumer acceptation is analyzed deeper in this chapter. Although a complete review of each emerging technology is available in previous chapters, a brief resume of their advantages and main industrial applications are also provided here.

7.3.2 Public Acceptance of Food Processed by High-Pressure Processing HPP is a method for food processing where the food is subject to elevate pressures (between 400 and 700 MPa in commercial systems), in order to achieve the required microbial inactivation and consumer-desired quality. Being an instantaneous and uniform process (hydrostatic pressure transmission), this kind of processing is independent from food shape and size, and consequently applicable to a wide variety of foods: In fact, HPP is industrially used for the treatment of vegetables, meat, fish and seafood, dairy products, sauces, and ready-to-eat meals (Campus, 2010; Stoika, Mihalcea, Borda, & Alexe, 2013; Welti-Chanes et al., 2005). As seen in previous chapters, HPP has many advantages used for food processing since this technology can improve shelf-life and kill vegetative bacteria, improving food safety, while minimizes loss of physico-chemical and nutritional quality of products (Barba, Esteve, & Frı´gola, 2012; Barba, Terefe, Buckow, Knorr, & Orlien, 2015; Kadam, Jadhav, Salve, & Machewad, 2012). Moreover, HPP may improve preservation and extraction of bioactive components (Barba et al., 2015) and change functional properties of foods (Butz et al., 2002; Christiaens et al., 2016; Knorr, Heinz, & Buckow, 2006). Also, HPP can be used for sterilization of food products if applied in combination to elevated temperatures and using the temperature increase due to adiabatic compression, consequently reducing the intensity of heat treatment and accordingly, improving the quality of high-pressure sterilized products in comparison to conventionally heat-sterilized products (Matser, Krebbers, van den Berg, & Bartels, 2004). Public acceptance to pressurized product is in general, very high, and HPP usually has a strong positive influence on consumer interest (Cardello et al., 2007). The main benefits perceived by consumers are naturalness, improved taste, and higher nutritional value when compared to conventional thermal processing (Mireaux, Cox, Cotton, & Evans, 2007; Nielsen et al., 2009). Also, a more environmental friendliness is seen as an advantage. Moreover, no published reports on toxicity have been published and consequently, public awareness about HPP is low (Frewer et al., 2011). However, the acceptance of products treated by HPP also depends on the products itself and social parameters. Longer shelf-life and higher price of products is perceived as a positive attribute in the case of baby food, for instance, but as a negative aspect in the case of other products such as juices (Nielsen et al., 2009). As for consumers, a high price indicates high quality,

238

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

results indicate that producers should concentrate on high-value products when applying HPP and other emerging technologies. However, in most cases, the more expensive products are considered as a potential problem. About additional negative aspects, a potential increase of allergenicity of some proteins has been also identified (Hugas, Garriga, & Monfort, 2002; Lavilla, Orcajo, Dı´az-Perales, & Gamboa, 2016; Nielsen et al., 2009; Oey, Van der Plancken, Van Loey, & Hendrickx, 2008). However, the main barrier to a comprehensive public acceptance of HPP-treated products is still a lack of information. Even though before the implementation of new preservation technologies, numerous issues need to be addressed concerning the mechanisms of microbial and enzyme inactivation, the identification of the most resistant and relevant microorganisms, potential microbial resistance and adaptation, the robustness of the technologies, etc., there is a general lack of trust in regulators and industry, that may contribute to a general skepticism about this technology (Frewer et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2009). Contrarily, consumers recognize and appreciate the benefits that food products treated by means of HPP have to offer when this information is presented in food labels, reducing concerns (Bruhn, 2016) and showing a higher intention to purchase the product (Deliza, Rosenthal, Abadio, Silva, & Castillo, 2005; Deliza, Rosenthal, & Silva, 2003). Thus appropriate labels and the information they contain become of great importance, and have to be used directing at fully informing consumer about the advantages and benefits that HPP can deliver.

7.3.3 Public Acceptance of Food Processed by Microwave Heating When a MW is applied to a food, dipoles in the water contained in the product attempt to orient themselves to the field. The basis of MW heating is the rapidly oscillating electric field changes from positive to negative and back again several million times per second. The water dipoles attempt to follow and these rapid reversals create frictional heat. The increase in temperature of water molecules heats surrounding components of the food by conduction and/or convection, resulting in a fast heating, which reduces the overall cooking time and a higher energy efficiency (Sumnu & Sahin, 2005). MWs used in the food industry for heating are the industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) frequencies 2450 MHz or 915 (896) MHz, corresponding to 12 or 34 cm in wavelength. The main advantages of MW heating are the following (Chandrasekaran, Ramanathan, & Basak, 2013; Sumnu & Sahin, 2005): G

G G

Fast and uniform temperature’s rise in the whole product, and reduced time for heating, tempering, and dehydration. Fast inactivation of spoilage enzymes (Devece et al., 1999). Accelerate baking, without loss of product quality, allowing appropriate degrees of crust formation and surface browning.

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7 G

G

239

MW can be applied at low air temperatures, thus reducing or even stopping microbial growth (e.g., during tempering and thawing). MW can be applied in combination and vacuum, leading to higher drying rates, which also allows retention of water-insoluble aromas and leads to less shrinkage (Devece et al., 1999; Erle & Schubert, 2001).

Accordingly to these advantages the industrial applications of MW heating are baking, cooking, tempering/thawing, reheating, drying, disinfestation, extraction, pasteurization of fresh juices, milk, cakes, pasta and other food products, and sterilization (Sumnu & Sahin, 2012). In fact, food manufacturers currently produce wide varieties of microwavable shelf-stable, refrigerated, and frozen meals for retail markets (Tang, 2015). MW heating has also been used in the food industry to reduce waste, increase throughputs, and improve food safety in various processing operations, including thawing frozen meat and fish blocks, precooking bacon for fast food chains, and pasteurizing prepackaged foods. MW is an example of technology that has faced and overtaken contrary attitudes, and nowadays, it is known and familiar to consumers. MW is a technology that has been widely applied by them at home for decades, being actually a popular domestic heating method (Rollin, Kennedy, & Wills, 2011; Tang, 2015). Consequently, in spite of the fact that MWs are indeed a “new thermal technologies” (Regier & Schubert, 2001), from a public acceptance point of view, they are “mature” technologies, and products processed by MW are considered as equivalent to those treated by conventional thermal processing. Moreover, apart from familiarity, MWs decidedly answer to the convenience wishes by consumers and it is a technology considered as noninvasive, as positive attributes. However, MWs have still to face several negative aspects, as they are thought as potentially “harmful” for consumers’ health and usually associated with radiation (de Barcellos et al., 2010). Furthermore, processed products by MWs are considered to be probably “tasteless” when compared to real barbecued or grilled meat products, and in some cases, consumers prefer to cook, looking at MWs as an option for (mostly others) consumers less skilled in culinary. Apart from these “negative” perceptions, given the public acceptance and industrial interests in microwaveable foods, and the intrinsic advantages of MW heating over conventional heating methods, the future use of MW heating devices will continue to grow (Jermann et al., 2015; Tang, 2015).

7.3.4 Public Acceptance of Food Processed by Pulsed Electric Field PEF is a nonthermal food preservation technology that is based on the use of electric fields, which cause a permeabilization of the cell membranes, to

240

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

eradicate foodborne pathogens and to control spoilage microorganisms in food (Garcı´a, Go´mez, Man˜as, Raso, & Paga´n, 2007; Wan, Coventry, Swiergon, Sanguansri, & Versteeg, 2009). Electric fields cause minimal or no detrimental effects on food quality attributes and their main advantages over other conventional heat treatments are: G

G

G

G

Better retention of flavor, color, and nutritional value and improved protein functionality (Stoika et al., 2013; Zhao, Tang, Lu, Chen, & Li, 2014). Increased shelf-life and reduced pathogen levels (Amiali, Ngadi, Smith, & Raghavan, 2007). Improvement of extractive processes and dehydration (Grimi, Mamouni, Lebovka, Vorobiev, & Vaxelaire, 2011; Pue´rtolas, Herna´ndez-Orte, ´ lvarez, & Raso, 2010; Pue´rtolas, Koubaa, & Barba, 2016). Sladan˜a, A Better energy efficiency than traditional thermal methods (Grimi et al., 2011; Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2015).

Consequently, PEFs are one of the most promising technologies with increasing interest from food industry for both American and European food experts (Jermann et al., 2015). PEFs are used in food industry to process and preserve liquid and semiliquid foods without air bubbles (Stoika et al., 2013). The firsts’ FDA-approved commercial application of PEF for preservation and extend the shelf-life (treatment of fruit juices) was launched in 2006 in the United States (Clark, 2006). Although the company unfortunately failed, market acceptance of PEF-processed juices was strong and growing (Kempkes & Toku¸so˘glu, 2014). In this sense, many works about consumer’s acceptance have been published studying public perception of PEF-treated products, usually comparing to HPP processing and other innovative technologies (Frewer et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2009; Olsen et al., 2010; Sonne et al., 2012). Attitude formation toward PEF is in line with general studies investigating other new technologies, and public acceptance of PEF-treated products is based on common socio-political factors, on risk/benefits tradeoffs and possibilities of product attributes evaluation (Olsen et al., 2010). In general, PEFs are accepted and considered to be safe since no dangerous chemical reactions have been reported (Soliva-Fortuny, Balasa, Knorr, & Martı´n-Belloso, 2009), and naturalness of the products compared to conventional treatments has been stated. Moreover, PEFs are perceived as an energy-saving and environmental-friendly technology (Frewer et al., 2011). Consequently, as for HPP, perceived risks are rare, and public awareness is low related to safety and allergenicity. However, consumers’ responses in the case of PEF vary from slightly positive to slightly negative (Cardello et al., 2007). This is due to a perception of relatively few benefits and more negative associations than HPP since many consumers associate the name of the technology with electricity and its negative consequences and, as a result,

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

241

they were skeptical about what the side effects of using electricity in food production may be (Nielsen et al., 2009). Thus, in the case of PEF, information given to consumers and how this information is provided appears to be especially important (Jaeger, Knorr, Szabo´, Ha´mori, & Ba´na´ti, 2015) in order to create better associations and attitudes toward the name of the technology.

7.3.5 Public Acceptance of Food Processed by Ultraviolet Technologies UV-C radiation (200 280 nm) has been traditionally used for disinfection of water supplies and food contact surfaces. In the last two decades of research, however, UV-based technologies have successfully demonstrated their potential as viable and safe processing methods for a range of foods. In fact, the use of UV-C radiation is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) since 2000 for juice and solid foods processing (USFDA, 2000). Since its adoption, further novel applications of UV-C processing have been tested in a variety of liquid foods, such as milk, liquid egg, syrup, wine, and beer. Nonetheless, the use of UV-C technology is restricted to clear and lowturbid foods (Koutchma, 2009) and in the case of solid foods, to a smoothness surface (Manzocco & Nicoli, 2015). Currently the application of PUV (pulsed UV) light is approved in the United States for food surfaces decontamination (USFDA, 1996). However, both UV-C and PUV treatment require authorization according to the European Commission novel food regulation (European Commission, 1997). As a preservation method, UV technologies have a positive consumer image because of their multiple advantages listed in Table 7.1, such as ´ lvarez, 2014; microbial inactivation, including spores (Gaya´n, Condo´n, & A Oms-Oliu, Martı´n-Belloso, & Soliva-Fortuny, 2010), and effective inactivation of spoilage enzymes of different food matrices (Aguilar, Ibarz, Garvı´n, & Ibarz, 2016; Janve, Yang, Marshall, Reyes-De-Corcuera, & Rababah, 2014) and mycotoxins (Zhu, Koutchma, Warriner, & Zhou, 2014). Continuous UV-C radiation stands out for the lower costs of equipment and energy consumption in comparison to high-temperature short-time, PEF and HPP treatment (Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2015). Furthermore, it neither generates toxic by-products or effects nor detrimental residues for the environment (Guerrero-Beltra´n & Barbosa-Ca´novas, 2004). However, only low pressure vapor mercury lamps are currently allowed for juice processing (USFDA, 2001), which poses the health risk of mercury exposure. Xenonpulsed lamps are free of mercury but the high investment costs and maintenance of equipment are currently limiting PUV application although it can be compensated with the low running expenses (Heinrich, Zunabovic, Varzakas, Bergmair, & Kneifel, 2016). Juice processing is one of the most popular and public accepted applications of UV technologies since they offer a safe product with extended

TABLE 7.1 Advantages and Limitations of UV Technologies (Continuous and Pulsed UV Light) That May Affect Its Public Acceptance and Application in the Food Industry Feature

Advantages

Limitations

Microbial and enzymatic inactivation

Inactivation of a wide range of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms, including sporulated forms

Possible reactivation (need to optimize postprocessing parameters)

Inactivation of some spoilage enzymes Synergistic inactivation with mild heat, γ-radiation, common sanitizers and natural antimicrobial compounds Application in food stuffs

Treatment of liquid and solid foods Disinfection of (reused) water and brines

Low penetration depth: In liquids, limited to clear and low-turbid foods In solids, limited to smooth surface decontamination

Decontamination of packaging materials and equipment Quality impact

Nutritional quality

No changes in soluble and suspended solids content, viscosity, acidity, and pH

High doses cause color changes and off-odor and -flavor in products rich in proteins and lipids

Low doses maintain flavor, color, and sensorial properties of fresh fruit, juice, and beverages

Excessive heating favors color changes and texture deterioration

Increase synthesis of vitamin D

Destruction of vitamin C, E, A, and B2

Increase antioxidant capacity and extractability of bioactive compounds

Possible production of furan and free radicals in foods rich in fructose (requires chemical and toxicological evaluation)

Destruction of allergens Industrial applicability

Low investment costs and maintenance for continuous UV-C equipment

High investment costs and maintenance for PUV equipment

Low operating costs

Lack of suitable installations for low UV penetrable foods

High energy efficiency

Difficult to standardize process parameters for each product

Operation in batch and continuous mode

(Continued )

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

243

TABLE 7.1 (Continued) Feature

Advantages

Limitations

Environmental impact

Lack of residual compounds, ionizing radiation and little solid and liquid wastes

Ozone formation

PUV lamps are free of mercury

Mercury exposure risk in low and medium pressure vapor lamps

Natural air cooling Low energy input Acceptance

Good consumer acceptance FDA-approved technology Good EFSA opinion

Technology per se not approved in the EU (need of approval according to the novel food regulation)

shelf-life and superior organoleptic and nutritional quality than thermally pasteurized juice. UV-based treatment does not affect physico-chemical properties of juice and preserves the sensorial attributes of the fresh product. However, high UV doses required by low UV transmittance juices to reach an acceptable microbial reduction can adversely change the flavor and color of juice, resulting in significant reduced consumer’s acceptability (Caminiti, Noci, Morgan, Cronin, & Lyng, 2012; Santhirasegaram, Razali, George, & Somasundram, 2015). Further benefits of UV technologies include the decrease of allergen levels in nuts (Zhao, Yang, et al., 2014) and improve plant microbial defenses (Shama & Alderson, 2005). Although UV-based techniques are very attractive for food preservation, serious marketing problems may arise due to the confusion of consumers of UV radiation with ionizing radiation, which promote the formation of radioactive by-products. Thus as explained in previous sections, efforts in consumer research are required to elaborate label statements that are understood by the final consumer (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, 2006). In conclusion the statements reviewed in this section indicate that consumers seem to be wary to accept innovative food technologies that are linked to potential risks without any unequivocal benefit. It is highlighted consequently, the importance of making it easy to consumers to understand the used technologies and get product experience in order to balance benefits/risks evaluations toward a positive attitude and better public acceptance of emerging technologies. Providing consumers with more information seems to be a key to achieve consumer acceptance of products treated by means of innovative food technologies. Moreover, it is essential that this

244

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

information is transmitted from a trustworthy source (Siegrist, Cousin, Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007). Hence, it is the responsibility of both food producers and food scientist to provide the evidence and arguments that will convince consumers to accept a technology for a successful commercialization of foods processed through innovative technologies.

7.4 MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF FOODS PROCESSED THROUGH EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Innovation represents an extremely important strategy for companies to pursue in order to meet consumers’ growing demand for new food products, and to remain competitive. Consumers judge food quality based on its sensory and nutritional characteristics (e.g., texture, flavor, aroma, shape and color, calorie content, vitamins, etc.), and alongside shelf-life, these now determine an individual’s preference for specific products. Good flavor, convenience, and health-enhancing properties are the key consumer benefits in today’s marketplace (Bruhn, 2016). Consequently, retailers are reporting up to a 30% growth in fresh, chilled, and healthy food sales (Hogan, Kelly, & Sun, 2005). Emerging and innovative technologies have recognized advantages for maintaining natural characteristics of food products. However, despite this potential to answer cited consumers’ demands, the market development of these technologies and successful actual application are difficult (Jermann et al., 2015; Yannakou, 2011). The challenge is to transfer emerging technologies, usually seen as disruptive, expensive and risky, into a “traditional,” competitive and low-margin food industry. Moreover, as previously seen, a positive consumer attitude toward them is necessary to guarantee the success of the product in today’s competitive global market, where the new food product innovation is required for survival. Also, before the implementation of new preservation technologies, several concerns need to be addressed (Norton & Sun, 2008). Among them the legislation needed to implement innovative food processing technologies is crucial. For instance, in European Union (EU) countries the application of the precautionary principle led to a community regulation for novel foods and ingredients (Regulation 258/97/EC). The rapid development of emerging technologies requires regulatory systems to respond quickly to ensure effective oversight and to facilitate their entry into the marketplace. Current status of international regulatory and legislative issues is reviewed in the next chapter. The commercial feasibility of innovative technologies depends ultimately on its business profitability. Hence, current limitations related with high investment costs (especially in the case of PEF and HPP) and full control of variables associated with the process operation have been delaying a wider implementation of these technologies at the industrial scale and limiting the commercialization of high-value food products (Norton & Sun, 2008; Stoika et al., 2013). However, food companies must be able to make a realistic

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

245

cost-benefit analysis of the potential rewards in investment in emerging technologies, which usually lead to advantageous driven innovations and launching successful new products. For instance, the growing markets for foods treated by innovative technologies and the commercially successful implementation of HPP by an increasing number of companies in food sector suggest that the initial investment costs may be sustainable. Tolling services for high-pressure pasteurization are also growing (Higgins, 2016), which allow processors to have access to industrial equipment without the need of directly investing capital. Consequently, this technology is becoming a mainstream process in food industry. The selection of the proper emerging technology is fundamental for the implementation of emerging technologies, regarding the kind of product to be treated and cost-benefit inquiries. For instance, UV-processing units are more affordable than heat pasteurizers (Basaran, Quintero-Ramos, Moake, Churey, & Worobo, 2004), reflecting that emerging technologies’ high cost image is not always true, and that they are not exclusive of big companies, but they can be used equally by small producers. Finally, it also appears that consumers are willing to pay extra for new products or products that have higher quality and are more convenient than the existing range (Corkindale, 2006). However, for a proper market development, marketing should then implement communication strategies to inform consumers about product benefits and emphasizing the technology used only when it had consumer benefits. Published studies suggest that giving information about the used technology for food production had a positive impact on the perception of the developed product by consumers (Deliza et al., 2003). Not only technology, but also external indications such as label and its content (brand, price, benefit claims, information, etc.) may generate expectation and alter new products perception and should be also considered in food product developments though emerging technologies. As anticipated in previous sections, the marketing industry linked to food industry and food scientist should to reinforces specially “naturalness” to promote commercialization and selling of innovative food products since, in the main, this characteristic seems to be an important factor influencing acceptance of novel technology by consumers.

7.5 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Main identified current challenges and opportunities for innovative food technologies are summarized in Fig. 7.1. In general, innovative food technologies must follow as priorities assuring food safety, providing transparency and trust between food sector and consumers, conforming changes in the sector’s environment and last but not least, complying society concerns for innovation purposes (Schiefer & Deiters, 2016).

246

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

FIGURE 7.1 Main global challenges and opportunities of innovative food technologies.

The analysis of the existing literature review reveals a changing food culture that reflects today lifestyles and the society interests on environment- and health-related issues in the world (Popa, Draghici, Popa, & Niculita, 2011) and there is an increasing interest in organic and functional foods (Kearney, 2010). Emerging technologies have a great prospective for the treatment of this kind of foods, maintaining its quality and bioactive compounds unaltered (Barba et al., 2015; Sorour, Tanaka, & Uchino, 2014). Nevertheless, the introduction of emerging technologies in the industry is still a major challenge. Although innovative treatment has shown wide potential to eliminate undesirable microorganisms in foods, today it is difficult to achieve full control of variables associated with innovative process operations. The food industry is also very interested in technologies that have minimum environmental footprint. However, novel research for understanding food/technology interactions, applications to a wider variety of products and advances in food engineering (optimization of system design and process conditions for best product quality, least energy uses, and minimal environmental impacts) are goals currently driving to a suitable industrial scaling-up and proper control and regulation for most processes. Linked to these constant advances, as the technologies mature, lower equipment and operations cost can also be anticipated (Ting & Marshall, 2002). Regarding food safety, consumer convenience demands make emerging technologies move to the development of new shelf-stable products. This is translated in required additional studies to assess bacterial spore inactivation, in addition to vegetative microorganisms, with minimal affection of the quality of the products. Thus studies about combinations of certain technologies to reduce thermal damage and definition of the proper processing conditions in order to improve microbial control are also essential. Furthermore, the generation of health threat compounds (i.e., furan and free radicals) should

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

247

be evaluated chemically and toxicologically to determine if they pose any safety concern (Koutchma, 2009). The effect of emerging technologies on the structure and functional properties of sensitive food components requires further studies in different groups of food. Systematic studies (including kinetic studies) are needed to evaluate the influence of innovative processing (specially combined thermal technologies) on retention of heat sensitive nutrients and quality (including sensory) attributes. This will assess to minimize quality loss and expand the commercialization of innovative technologies. Also, nonfood preservation purposes, such as degradation of allergens or increasing hormesis (favorable biological responses to low exposures to stressors) in vegetables (Johnson et al., 2010; Manzocco & Nicoli, 2015; Mills, Sancho, Rigby, Jenkins, & Mackie, 2009) are a valuable explored opportunity of some innovative technologies. Finally, it is necessary, in order to success in market, establish a relationship of trust with the consumer (Frewer et al., 2003). There was overall agreement that consumer information should be used in technology implementation and product design, and that good communication between key actors at essential stages during the development of new food technologies and products is important. However, disciplinary differences are still perceived to be a barrier to communication, and there have been found difficulties associated with producing consumer information usable by food technologists (Raley, Ragona, Sijtsema, Fischer, & Frewer, 2016). Consequently, lacks in the specification of the information required by consumer need to be also overcome in order to increase consumer friendliness and promote a gradual shift toward the responsive and complete acceptation of emerging food technologies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship (to EG) of the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen). ML acknowledges Basque Government (Department of Economic Development and Competitiveness) for research project “ALERTEC” funding.

REFERENCES Aguilar, K., Ibarz, R., Garvı´n, A., & Ibarz, A. (2016). Effect of UV Vis irradiation on enzymatic activities and the physicochemical properties of nectarine juices from different varieties. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 65, 969 977. Amiali, M., Ngadi, M. O., Smith, J. P., & Raghavan, G. S. V. (2007). Synergistic effect of temperature and pulsed electric field on inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enteritidis in liquid egg yolk. Journal of Food Engineering, 79(2), 689 694. Barba, F. J., Esteve, M. J., & Frı´gola, A. (2012). High pressure treatment effect on physicochemical and nutritional properties of fluid foods during storage: A review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 11(3), 307 322.

248

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

Barba, F. J., Terefe, N. S., Buckow, R., Knorr, D., & Orlien, V. (2015). New opportunities and perspectives of high pressure treatment to improve health and safety attributes of foods. A review. Food Research International, 77(Part 4), 725 742. Barrena, R., & Sa´nchez, M. (2013). Neophobia, personal consumer values and novel food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 72 84. Basaran, N., Quintero-Ramos, A., Moake, M. M., Churey, J. J., & Worobo, R. W. (2004). Influence of apple cultivars on inactivation of different strains of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in apple cider by UV irradiation. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70(10), 6061 6065. Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 49, 14 23. Bruhn, C. M. (2010). Consumer trends and perception of novel technologies. In H. Q. Zhang, G. V. Barbosa-Ca´novas, V. M. Balasubramaniam, C. P. Dunne, D. F. Farkas, & J. T. C. Yuan (Eds.), Nonthermal processing technologies for food (pp. 473 481). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Bruhn, C. M. (2016). Consumer acceptance of high-pressure processed products: American perspective. In V. M. Balasubramaniam, G. V. Barbosa-Ca´novas, & H. L. M. Lelieveld (Eds.), High pressure processing of food (pp. 733 742). New York: Springer. Butz, P., Edenharder, R., Garcı´a, A. F., Fister, H., Merkel, C., & Tauscher, B. (2002). Changes in functional properties of vegetables induced by high pressure treatment. Food Research International, 35(2 3), 295 300. Butz, P., & Tauscher, B. (2002). Emerging technologies: Chemical aspects. Food Research International, 35(2 3), 279 284. Caminiti, I. M., Noci, F., Morgan, D. J., Cronin, D. A., & Lyng, J. G. (2012). The effect of pulsed electric fields, ultraviolet light or high intensity light pulses in combination with manothermosonication on selected physico-chemical and sensory attributes of an orange and carrot juice blend. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 90(3), 442 448. Campus, M. (2010). High pressure processing of meat, meat products and seafood. Food Engineering Reviews, 2(4), 256 273. Cardello, A. V. (2003). Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: Effects on product liking. Appetite, 40(3), 217 233. Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 73 83. Chandrasekaran, S., Ramanathan, S., & Basak, T. (2013). Microwave food processing—A review. Food Research International, 52(1), 243 261. Christiaens, S., Van Buggenhout, S., Houben, K., Jamsazzadeh Kermani, Z., Moelants, K. R. N., Ngoue´mazong, E. D., . . . Hendrickx, M. E. G. (2016). Process-structure-function relations of pectin in food. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56(6), 1021 1042. Clark, J. P. (2006). Pulsed electric field processing. Food Technology, 60(1), 66 67. Corkindale, D. (2006). Technology too risky for major players. Food Technology and Ingredients, 31(2), 56 57. Cox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Quality and Preference, 19(8), 704 710. de Barcellos, M. D., Ku¨gler, J. O., Grunert, K. G., Van Wezemael, L., Pe´rez-Cueto, F. J. A., Ueland, Ø., & Verbeke, W. (2010). European consumers’ acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 11 (4), 721 732.

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

249

Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Abadio, F. B. D., Silva, C. H. O., & Castillo, C. (2005). Application of high pressure technology in the fruit juice processing: benefits perceived by consumers. Journal of Food Engineering, 67(1 2), 241 246. Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., & Silva, A. L. S. (2003). Consumer attitude towards information on non conventional technology. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14(1 2), 43 49. Devece, C., Rodrı´guez-Lo´pez, J. N., Fenoll, L. G., Tudela, J., Catala´, J. M., de los Reyes, E., & Garcı´a-Ca´novas, F. (1999). Enzyme inactivation analysis for industrial blanching applications: Comparison of microwave, conventional, and combination heat treatments on mushroom Polyphenoloxidase activity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 47(11), 4506 4511. Erle, U., & Schubert, H. (2001). Combined osmotic and microwave-vacuum dehydration of apples and strawberries. Journal of Food Engineering, 49(2 3), 193 199. European Commission. (1997). Regulation EC No 258/97 of the European Parliaments and the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (No. Official Journal L 043) (pp. 1 9). Evans, G., Kermarrec, C., Sable, T., & Cox, D. N. (2010). Reliability and predictive validity of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale. Appetite, 54(2), 390 393. Evans, M. M., Foxall, G., & Jamal, A. (2009). Consumer behaviour (2nd Ed.). Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., . . . Vereijken, C. (2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(8), 442 456. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003). Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Issues for the future. British Food Journal, 105(10), 714 731. Garcı´a, D., Go´mez, N., Man˜as, P., Raso, J., & Paga´n, R. (2007). Pulsed electric fields cause bacterial envelopes permeabilization depending on the treatment intensity, the treatment medium pH and the microorganism investigated. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 113(2), 219 227. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., . . . Wagner, W. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 935 938. ´ lvarez, I. (2014). Biological aspects in food preservation by ultravioGaya´n, E., Condo´n, S., & A let light: a review. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(1), 1 20. Grimi, N., Mamouni, F., Lebovka, N., Vorobiev, E., & Vaxelaire, J. (2011). Impact of apple processing modes on extracted juice quality: Pressing assisted by pulsed electric fields. Journal of Food Engineering, 103(1), 52 61. Guerrero-Beltra´n, J. A., & Barbosa-Ca´novas, G. V. (2004). Review: Advantages and limitations on processing foods by UV light. Food Science and Technology International, 10(3), 137 147. Heinrich, V., Zunabovic, M., Varzakas, T., Bergmair, J., & Kneifel, W. (2016). Pulsed light treatment of different food types with a special focus on meat: A critical review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56(4), 591 613. Higgins, K. T. (2016). Tolling services for high-pressure pasteurization are growing. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2016/tolling-services-hpp/. Hogan, E., Kelly, A. L., & Sun, D.-W. (2005). High pressure processing of foods: An overview. In D.-W. Sun (Ed.), Emerging technologies for food processing (pp. 3 32). London, UK: Elsevier. Hugas, M., Garriga, M., & Monfort, J. M. (2002). New mild technologies in meat processing: High pressure as a model technology. Meat Science, 62(3), 359 371.

250

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

Jaeger, H., Knorr, D., Szabo´, E., Ha´mori, J., & Ba´na´ti, D. (2015). Impact of terminology on consumer acceptance of emerging technologies through the example of PEF technology. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 29, 87 93. Janve, B. A., Yang, W., Marshall, M. R., Reyes-De-Corcuera, J. I., & Rababah, T. M. (2014). Nonthermal inactivation of soy (Glycine max sp.) lipoxygenase by pulsed ultraviolet light. Journal of Food Science, 79(1), C8 C18. Jermann, C., Koutchma, T., Margas, E., Leadley, C., & Ros-Polski, V. (2015). Mapping trends in novel and emerging food processing technologies around the world. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 31, 14 27. Johnson, P. E., Van der Plancken, I., Balasa, A., Husband, F. A., Grauwet, T., Hendrickx, M., . . . Mackie, A. R. (2010). High pressure, thermal and pulsed electric-field-induced structural changes in selected food allergens. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 54(12), 1701 1710. Kadam, P. S., Jadhav, B. A., Salve, R. V., & Machewad, G. M. (2012). Review on the high pressure technology (HPT) for food preservation. Journal of Food Processing & Technology, 3(1). Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-7110.1000135. Kearney, J. (2010). Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2793 2807. ¨ . (2014). PEF systems for industrial food processing and related Kempkes, M., & Toku¸so˘glu, O ¨ . Toku¸so˘glu, & B. G. Swanson (Eds.), Improving food quality with novel applications. In O food processing technologies (pp. 427 454). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Knorr, D., Froehling, A., Jaeger, H., Reineke, K., Schlueter, O., & Schoessler, K. (2011). Emerging technologies in food processing. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 2, 203 235. Knorr, D., Heinz, V., & Buckow, R. (2006). High pressure application for food biopolymers. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Proteins and Proteomics, 1764(3), 619 631. Koutchma, T. (2009). Advances in ultraviolet light technology for non-thermal processing of liquid foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2(2), 138 155. Lavilla, M., Orcajo, J., Dı´az-Perales, A., & Gamboa, P. (2016). Examining the effect of high pressure processing on the allergenic potential of the major allergen in peach (Pru p 3). Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 38(Part B), 334 341. Lyndhurst, B. (2009). An evidence review of public attitudes to emerging food technologies, food standards agency. Retrieved from https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/ emergingfoodtech.pdf. Manzocco, L., & Nicoli, M. C. (2015). Surface processing: Existing and potential applications of ultraviolet light. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55(4), 469 484. Matser, A. M., Krebbers, B., van den Berg, R. W., & Bartels, P. V. (2004). Advantages of high pressure sterilisation on quality of food products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(2), 79 85. Mills, E. N. C., Sancho, A. I., Rigby, N. M., Jenkins, J. A., & Mackie, A. R. (2009). Impact of food processing on the structural and allergenic properties of food allergens. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 53(8), 963 969. Mireaux, M., Cox, D. N., Cotton, A., & Evans, G. (2007). An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian consumers’ perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies. Food Quality and Preference, 18(6), 834 848. National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (2006). Requisite scientific parameters for establishing the equivalence of alternative methods of pasteurization. Journal of Food Protection, 69(5), 1190 1216.

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

251

Nielsen, H. B., Sonne, A.-M., Grunert, K. G., Banati, D., Polla´k-To´th, A., Lakner, Z., & Peterman, M. (2009). Consumer perception of the use of high-pressure processing and pulsed electric field technologies in food production. Appetite, 52(1), 115 126. Norton, T., & Sun, D.-W. (2008). Recent advances in the use of high pressure as an effective processing technique in the food industry. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 1(1), 2 34. Oey, I., Van der Plancken, I., Van Loey, A., & Hendrickx, M. (2008). Does high pressure processing influence nutritional aspects of plant based food systems? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(6), 300 308. Ohlsson, T. (2002a). Minimal processing of food with non-thermal methods. In T. Ohlsson, & N. Bengtsson (Eds.), Minimal processing technologies in the food industry (pp. 34 60). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Ohlsson, T. (2002b). Minimal processing of food with thermal methods. In T. Ohlsson, & N. Bengtsson (Eds.), Minimal processing technologies in the food industry (pp. 4 33). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Olsen, N. V., Grunert, K. G., & Sonne, A.-M. (2010). Consumer acceptance of high-pressure processing and pulsed-electric field: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21(9), 464 472. Oms-Oliu, G., Martı´n-Belloso, O., & Soliva-Fortuny, R. (2010). Pulsed light treatments for food preservation. A review. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 3(1), 13 23. Pereira, R. N., & Vicente, A. A. (2010). Environmental impact of novel thermal and nonthermal technologies in food processing. Food Research International, 43(7), 1936 1943. Popa, A., Draghici, M., Popa, M. E., & Niculita, P. (2011). Consumer choice and food policy. A literature review. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 12(2), 708 717. Popa, M. E., & Popa, A. (2012). Consumer behavior: Determinants and trends in novel food choice. In A. McElhatton, & P. Jd. A. Sobral (Eds.), Novel technologies in food science (pp. 137 156). New York: Springer. ´ lvarez, I., & Raso, J. (2010). Improvement of Pue´rtolas, E., Herna´ndez-Orte, P., Sladan˜a, G., A winemaking process using pulsed electric fields at pilot-plant scale. Evolution of chromatic parameters and phenolic content of Cabernet Sauvignon red wines. Food Research International, 43(3), 761 766. Pue´rtolas, E., Koubaa, M., & Barba, F. J. (2016). An overview of the impact of electrotechnologies for the recovery of oil and high-value compounds from vegetable oil industry: Energy and economic cost implications. Food Research International, 80, 19 26. Raley, M. E., Ragona, M., Sijtsema, S. J., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2016). Barriers to using consumer science information in food technology innovations: An exploratory study using Delphi methodology. International Journal of Food Studies, 5(1), 39 53. Regier, M., & Schubert, H. (2001). Microwave processing. In P. Richardson (Ed.), Thermal technologies in food processing (pp. 178 207). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, O., Buckow, R., Koutchma, T., & Balasubramaniam, V. M. (2015). Energy requirements for alternative food processing technologies—Principles, assumptions, and evaluation of efficiency. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(5), 536 554. Rollin, F., Kennedy, J., & Wills, J. (2011). Consumers and new food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(2 3), 99 111. Ronteltap, A., van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite, 49(1), 1 17.

252

Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation

Santhirasegaram, V., Razali, Z., George, D. S., & Somasundram, C. (2015). Comparison of UV-C treatment and thermal pasteurization on quality of Chokanan mango (Mangifera indica L.) juice. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 94, 313 321. Schiefer, G., & Deiters, J. (2016). Food innovation dynamics and network support. In C. M. Galanakis (Ed.), Innovation strategies in the food industry: Tolls and implementation (pp. 1 18). Amsterdam: Academic Press, Elsevier. Sen˜orans, J., Iba´n˜ez, E., & Cifuentes, A. (2003). New trends in food processing. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 43(5), 507 526. Shama, G., & Alderson, P. (2005). UV hormesis in fruits: A concept ripe for commercialisation. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 16(4), 128 136. Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 603 608. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459 466. Soliva-Fortuny, R., Balasa, A., Knorr, D., & Martı´n-Belloso, O. (2009). Effects of pulsed electric fields on bioactive compounds in foods: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20(11 12), 544 556. Sonne, A., Grunert, K. G., Olsen, N. V., Granli, B., Szabo´, E., & Banati, D. (2012). Consumers’ perceptions of HPP and PEF food products. British Food Journal, 114(1), 85 107. Sorour, H., Tanaka, F., & Uchino, T. (2014). Impact of non-thermal processing on the microbial and bioactive content of foods. Global Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health Sciences, 3(1), 153 167. Stoika, M., Mihalcea, L., Borda, D., & Alexe, P. (2013). Non-thermal novel food processing technologies. An overview. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 19(2), 212 217. Sumnu, G., & Sahin, S. (2005). Recent developments in microwave heating. In D. W. Sun (Ed.), Emerging technologies for food processing (pp. 419 444). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sumnu, G., & Sahin, S. (2012). Microwave heating. In D. W. Sun (Ed.), Thermal food processing: New technologies and quality issues (pp. 555 582). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Tang, J. (2015). Unlocking potential of microwaves for food safety and quality. Journal of Food Science, 80(8), E1776 1793. Ting, E. Y., & Marshall, R. G. (2002). Production issues related to UHP food. In J. WeltyChanes, G. V. Barbosa-Ca´novas, & J. M. Aguilera (Eds.), Engineering and food for the 21st century (pp. 727 738). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Ueland, Ø., Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Holm, F., Kalogeras, N., Leino, O., Luteijn, J. M., . . . Verhagen, H. (2012). State of the art in benefit risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(1), 67 76. USFDA. (1996). Irradiation in the production, processing and handling of food (No. 21 CFR Part 179.41). US Food and Drug Administration. USFDA. (2000). Ultraviolet radiation for processing and treatment of food (No. 21CFR201.327, section 179.39 and 179.41). US Food and Drug Administration. USFDA. (2001). Guidance for industry: The juice HACCP regulation—Questions & answers. US Food and Drug Administration. Vidigal, M. C. T. R., Minim, V. P. R., Simiqueli, A. A., Souza, P. H. P., Balbino, D. F., & Minim, L. A. (2015). Food technology neophobia and consumer attitudes toward foods produced by new and conventional technologies: A case study in Brazil. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 60(2, Part 1), 832 840.

Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Chapter | 7

253

Wan, J., Coventry, J., Swiergon, P., Sanguansri, P., & Versteeg, C. (2009). Advances in innovative processing technologies for microbial inactivation and enhancement of food safety—Pulsed electric field and low-temperature plasma. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20(9), 414 424. Welti-Chanes, J., Lo´pez-Malo, A., Palou, E., Bermu´dez, D., Guerrero-Beltra´n, J. A., & BarbosaCa´novas, G. V. (2005). Fundamentals and applications of high pressure processing to foods. In G. V. Barbosa-Ca´novas, M. S. Tapia, & M. P. Cano (Eds.), Novel food processing technologies (pp. 157 182). New York: CRC Press. Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004). Consumer attitudes, knowledge and behaviour: A review of food safety issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(2), 56 66. Wilkinson, S. B. T., Rowe, G., & Lambert, N. (2004). The risks of eating and drinking. EMBO Reports, 5(Suppl. 1), S27 S31. Yannakou, A. (2011). Transferring emerging food technologies into the market place. In H. Q. Zhang, G. V. Barbosa-Ca´novas, V. M. Balasubramaniam, C. P. Dunne, D. F. Farkas, & J. T. C. Yuan (Eds.), Nonthermal processing technologies for food (pp. 544 549). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Zhao, W., Tang, Y., Lu, L., Chen, X., & Li, C. (2014). Review: Pulsed electric fields processing of protein-based foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(1), 114 125. Zhao, X., Yang, W., Chung, S.-Y., Sims, C. A., Otwell, S. W., & Rababah, T. M. (2014). Reduction of IgE immunoreactivity of whole peanut (Arachis hypogaea l.) after pulsed light illumination. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(9), 2637 2645. Zhu, Y., Koutchma, T., Warriner, K., & Zhou, T. (2014). Reduction of patulin in apple juice products by UV light of different wavelengths in the UVC range. Journal of Food Protection, 77(6), 963 971.