- Email: [email protected]
Perception and view of consumers on food irradiation and the Radura symbol
Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Radiation Physics and Chemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radphyschem
Perception and view of consumers on food irradiation and the Radura symbol Maria P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves a,n, Maria J. Galotto a, Ximena Valenzuela a, Carolina M. Dinten b, Paulina Aguirre c, Joseph Miltz d a ´gica, Departamento de Ciˆencia y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Obispo M. Uman ˜a 050, Ed. de Alimentos—Est. Central, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Facultad Tecnolo Santiago, Chile b ´gica, Departamento de Tecnologias Generales, Avenida Ecuador, 3769 Est. Central, Santiago, Chile Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Facultad Tecnolo c ´n Chilena de Energı´a Nuclear (CCHEN), Depto. Aplicaciones Nucleares, Seccio ´n Salud y Alimentos, Nueva Bilbao, 12501 Las Condes, Santiago, Chile Comisio d Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Department of Biotechnology and Food Engineering, Haifa 32000, Israel
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history: Received 4 June 2010 Accepted 1 August 2010
The present study was aimed at carrying out a survey on the knowledge and acceptance level of food irradiation. The work was carried out in Santiago, Chile. As an above-average level country in South and Central America, the results may give an indication about the situation in other countries. The survey could also provide an indication about the impression of the public regarding the international ‘‘Radura’’ symbol, indicating on a food product that has been irradiated. A total of 497 persons were interviewed. Among the interviewed people, 76.5% did not know that irradiation could be used as a method for food preservation; 46% expressed their belief that irradiated food means the same as radioactive food. Nevertheless, 91% claimed that they would become consumers of irradiated food if they knew that ‘‘irradiated’’ is not ‘‘radioactive’’ and that proper irradiation enhances food safety; 95.8% of the interviewed persons were not familiar with the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol. However, 55.8% expressed their opinion that they would buy irradiated food because of the symbol, affirming that the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol transmits the sensation of confidence and safety. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Irradiated foods Consumer’s attitude Food preservation Radura
1. Introduction In the last decade we witnessed an increasing demand for nutritious, fresh-like food products with high organoleptic attributes, improved safety and prolonged shelf-life. Non-thermal inactivation of microorganisms has been a major research topic on this subject. Some of the other investigated technologies are high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), pulsed electrical fields (PEF), ionizing irradiation and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation decontamination (Devlieghere et al., 2004). Food contamination is still an enormous public health problem. The irradiation technology is capable of improving food safety, prolonging food shelf life and reducing the level of food poisoning (Lacroix, 2005). This technology has gained interest worldwide, in recent years, by researchers in the field of food science as well as by food manufacturers and consumers (Sommers, 2004). Food irradiation was endorsed by several authorities (FDA, USDA, WHO, FAO, etc.) based on extensive research work. This technology was developed in the early part of the 20th century and was applied to a limited extent only. If applied properly,
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 718 4519; fax: + 56 2 776 4796. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves).
0969-806X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2010.08.001
irradiation can inactivate food spoilage microorganisms (bacteria, molds and yeasts) in raw and frozen foods in the food supply chain. It can also serve as an effective way for reducing the incidence of foodborne diseases (Morehouse, 2002). The Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency/ World Health Organization (FAO/IAEA/WHO) joint committee on the wholesomeness of irradiated food approved in 1981 the irradiation technology (JECFI, 1981). It was stated that irradiation of food at doses up to 10.0 kGy (overall average dose) is safe and introduces no special nutritional problem. The Joint FAO/IAEA/ WHO Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation (JSGHDI, 1997) concluded that food irradiated to any dose appropriate to achieve the intended technological objective is both safe to consume and nutritionally adequate. Food irradiation is currently approved for use in over 55 countries, and 68 food irradiation facilities registered worldwide, at least 25 of them being situated in Asia and Australia (Farkas and Moha´csi-Farkas, 2010). Over 30 of these countries are actually applying radiation in processing of semi-commercial products (Farkas, 2006). Kume et al. (2009) studied in 2005 the status of food irradiation worldwide using published data together with the response to a questionnaire survey during direct visits that they carried out. This publication contains the most recent available statistical data. The results showed that the amount of irradiated
120
M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
foods in the world was 405,000 tons in the year 2005. It has been reported that only in the United States, Canada and Brazil a total of 116,400 tons of irradiated foods was used. Data from other countries in Latin America such as Argentina, Chile and Mexico could not be obtained for this study. In 2007, a study was carried out in Korea with the aim of assessing the familiarity of Korean housewives with irradiated foods and of learning how to enhance purchasing intentions of such foods. About 600 Korean housewives participated in the survey on irradiated food. More than two-thirds of the participants in the survey had no knowledge about irradiated food. Moreover, many Koreans object using irradiated foods because of the ambiguous fear from any product related to irradiation technology and because of the confusion between irradiated and radioactively contaminated food. The women group that heard a lecture, by an expert, on irradiated food indicated a high intention to purchase such food (Byun et al., 2009). The application of novel food processing technologies to commercial foods often creates high levels of consumer concerns about the possible risks associated with consuming foods treated by these technologies. The consumer is normally not familiar with the processes applied and the ingredients involved in the manufacturing of foods. This is also true for food irradiation (Hayes et al., 2002; Gunes and Tekin, 2006). Therefore, they are concerned about possible short-term and long-term health effects (Cardello, 2003; Deliza et al., 2003; Cardello et al., 2007). Many researchers concluded that it is important to provide consumers much more information about the irradiation technology and its benefits and to point out that such an act may be useful in developing a more positive attitude towards irradiated food (Deliza et al., 2003; Ornellas et al., 2006; Gunes and Tekin, 2006). It has been reported that 72.0% of consumers in the USA have heard about irradiation, but 87.5% of them did not know much about it (Resurreccion et al., 1995). Crowley et al. (2002) found that there was a positive correlation between the level of knowledge about irradiation and the readiness and tendency to buy irradiated food. In a survey comprising of 115 participants, 85.0% have mentioned that they have heard about meat irradiation and 70.0% of them expressed their readiness to buy this product. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) expressed its opinion that food irradiation enhances the quality and safety of food and helps to protect consumers from foodborne illnesses. The ADA encouraged the government, food manufacturers, food commodity groups, and qualified food and nutrition professionals to work together to educate consumers on this food safety tool and to make this choice available in the marketplace (Bruhn and Wood, 2000). In spite of the benefits of food irradiation, this technology is underutilized worldwide (Cardello, 2003; Gunes and Tekin, 2006). The present work was aimed at learning about the level of knowledge and about the opinion of consumers on food irradiation and their readiness to accept products made using this technology. The work was done by carrying out a survey in Santiago de Chile. As an above-average level country in South and Central America, with a life style not much different from that in Europe, the results may give an indication about the situation in other countries. The survey could also provide an indication about the impression of the public regarding the international ‘‘Radura’’ symbol, indicating a food product that has been irradiated. Another aim of this study was to provide the interviewed persons and the readers informative material about the benefits of gamma irradiation as a process for food preservation. Although the work was carried out in Chile, from the literature review and the following discussion it is evident that a similar situation exists in many other countries around the globe. In Chile, the application of irradiation as a food preservation method started at the end of 1982, when the Health Ministry
´n Chilena de Energı´a Nuclear (CCHEN) to use authorized the Comisio ionizing energy as a preservation method. According to CCHEN, during the year of 2008, gamma irradiation was used in Chile to treat 982 m3 of medical materials, 2689 tons of foods and 333 tons of raw materials for the food, medical and cosmetic industries. In Chile, herbs for infusion and condiments are the packaged food products that declare in their labels the utilization of ionizing energy for preservation. Other Chilean foods that are treated by gamma irradiation (at the CCHEN) are potatoes, onions, asparagus and sea food. Very little information can be found in the literature on the consumer attitude to food irradiation in Chile. It is clear that the first step should be to acquaint the consumers and to increase their knowledge about the benefits and safety involved in this technology.
2. Material and methods The consumers’ profile in regard to the knowledge about irradiated foods was acquired by a one-page questionnaire answered by randomly selected people at supermarkets, metro stations, offices, malls and university campuses, in the city of Santiago de Chile. The questionnaire started with some general information like gender, age, education and neighborhood. Questions were asked about food preservation methods, and specifically about their attitude towards gamma irradiation as a commercial method used to sterilize food and medical materials, followed by questions about the ‘‘Radura’’ (irradiation symbol) and the impression from it. They were then asked about their views regarding food irradiation and effects on food quality, nutrients and about health and environmental issues and whether they would purchase irradiated food. Finally they were asked whether they believe that food irradiation may avoid or diminish diseases, improve food safety and whether the public should consume irradiated foods. Informative material about food irradiation was provided to ´n Chilena de Energı´a Nuclear the responders by the Comisio (CCHEN) after the interview. To avoid the possibility of distortions, the research was carried out without any previous explanation about food irradiation. In the analysis, incomplete questionnaires were discarded (around 3.0%). Data from 497 completed questionnaires were coded and the frequency percentage was obtained for each question.
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Profile of the responders As was mentioned earlier, the survey was conducted in Santiago, Chile, comprising about 35.0% of the Chilean population. It was assumed that being a good mixture of people, the responders in Santiago may represent well the population of this country and probably also that of the other Latin American countries. From the total of 497 responders participated in this survey, 51.1% were women and 48.9% men, from different neighborhoods and social levels. Most of the responders were in the age range 35–49 years, followed by the group in the age range 25–34 years (almost at the same proportion). The total responders in the age range 25–49 years summed up to around 61.0%. Only 16.9% were above 50 and 22.1%, under 24 years old. Most of the interviewed people had a good background.
M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
121
3.2. Chilean consumers’ view on food irradiation
3.3. The ‘‘Radura’’ symbol
76.5% of the responders did not know that gamma irradiation is a method for food preservation and they could not reply on the question whether they would or would not consume irradiated products. Consumer awareness on food irradiation in Chile (23.5%) is much lower than that in the USA (72.0%) as reported in a previous study (Resurreccion et al., 1995). A similar value (29.0%) was found for Turkish consumers (Gunes and Tekin, 2006). 45.9% of the responders indicated that according to their understanding, irradiated food means the same as radioactive food. The latter perception is an evidence for the lack of information and understanding about food irradiation. Resurreccion et al. (1995) found in a similar study that 33.0% of the responders in the city of Atlanta, GA, United States, and its surroundings thought that irradiated food has the same meaning as radioactive food. Ornellas et al. (2006) found a similar result for 16.0% of the interviewed people in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Gunes and Tekin (2006) found in a study that was carried out in Istanbul, Turkey, that the majority of responders (80.0%) were uncertain about the safety of irradiated foods. Only 11.0% of responders replied that food irradiation is safe. Another evidence of the lack of information and knowledge about food irradiation is that 57.1% of the Chileans people interviewed in the present study replied that they do not know if food irradiation can cause damage to consumer’s health and/or to the environment. Ornellas et al. (2006) found that 62.0% of the 218 Brazilians interviewed had a similar opinion. Resurreccion et al. (1995) also mention the lack of knowledge about food irradiation after almost half of the responders answered ‘‘do not know’’, in spite of the fact that the options ‘‘true’’ and ‘‘false’’ were presented in the questionnaire. Thus, it is apparent that potential consumers of irradiated foods would decide whether or whether not to consume such products, only if they would have enough information and knowledge on the subject. When asked, in the present survey, about the purchase intention of irradiated food, 55.8% of the consumers affirmed, that they would not buy irradiated foods. However, 90.7% of the people interviewed replied that they might become consumers of irradiated products if they would know that irradiation increases food safety and does not cause short-term and/or long-term health problems. This fact demonstrates again the lack of information and knowledge about food irradiation. After becoming familiar with its benefits, consumers would buy irradiated foods. As was expected, irradiation was perceived as a high-risk technology at the beginning of the questionnaire, when most of the participants had never heard about this technology before. Similar results were observed by Behrens et al. (2009) in Brazil. Marketing trials showed that an increasing number of consumers are willing to purchase irradiated food if they are informed properly about the process and its effects on food (Eustice and Bruhn, 2006). The present research showed that lack of information is the major factor in limiting a more widespread use of the irradiation technology in Chile. Similar conclusions were reached by researchers elsewhere (Gunes and Tekin, 2006). Therefore, a successful market for irradiated foods can be achieved in Chile and other countries by educating consumers with the benefit and uses of irradiation process. Consumer acceptance is a matter of education and proper communication in order to eliminate/diminish the confusing opinion that food irradiation is a nuclear technology (Teisi et al., 2009).
The word ‘‘Radura’’ is derived from radurization, a term composed of the initial letters of the word ‘‘radiation’’ and the term ‘‘durus’’, which is the Latin word for ‘‘hard’’ or ‘‘lasting’’. This symbol has been used for foods processed by ionizing radiation. The ‘‘Radura’’ is usually green in color and resembles a plant in a circle. The upper half of the circle is dashed. The symbol (Fig. 1) may be interpreted in the following way: the central dot represents the radiation source and the two segments (‘leaves’) represent the biological shield provided in order to protect the workers and the environment (Ehlermann, 2009). The use of the RADURA-logo is voluntary according to the Codex Alimentarius standard (Anon, 2005). However, a few countries (like the USA) make this logo use compulsory, a few countries allow its optional use, while other countries, in particular the European Union, do not provide provisions for the use of this international logo. In the Codex standard, the symbol is in green with all elements filled; some countries allow for different designs and even varying colors. In Chile the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol is not frequently present on food labels. The irradiation treatment is normally identified by the statement ‘‘tratado por energı´a ionizante’’ (treated by ionizing energy); 95.8% of the responders in the present study were not familiar with this symbol for irradiated food. However, 55.8% said that they would buy irradiated food because of the symbol, affirming that the ‘‘Radura’’ transmits the sensation of confidence and safety. The US FDA requires, since 1986, that irradiated foods include labeling with either the statement ‘‘treated with radiation’’ or ‘‘treated by irradiation,’’ along with the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol.
4. Conclusions Consumers are interested in new technologies but they need much information and knowledge about these technologies before deciding to accept them. A greater effort is required in order to provide consumers with scientific and acreditated information about food irradiation. The present work revealed a low level of knowledge among consumers about the food irradiation technology. In Chile, a representative country in Latin America, based on its social and economic level, the percentage of familiarity is low (23.5%) when compared to developed countries, like the United States, for example. The association of the symbol ‘‘Radura’’ with the statement ‘‘treated by ionizing energy’’ might facilitate the consumer’s acceptance of irradiated food in Chile since most of the
Fig. 1. The ‘‘Radura’’ symbol (in general it is presented in green color).
122
M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
interviewed persons affirmed that the symbol means confidence and safety. A similar situation exists probably in many other countries. The present study demonstrates the necessity of education programs in order to familiarize the consumers with the principles, aims and benefits of irradiated food products. Such programs could open the market to irradiated foods since the lack of information and understanding is the main obstacle for spreading the utilization of this technology.
References Anon, 2005. CODEX-STAN—1 2005 labelling of prepacked food. /http://www. codexalimentarius.net//download/standards/32/CXS_001e.pdfS. Behrens, J.H., Barcellos, M.N., Frewer, L.J., Nunes, T.P., Landgraf, M., 2009. Brazilian consumer views on food irradiation. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 10, 383–389. Bruhn, C.M., Wood, O.B., 2000. Position of the American Dietetic Association: food irradiation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 100 (2), 246–253. Byun, M.W., Oh, S.H., Kim, J.H., Yoon, Y., Park, S.C., Kim, H.S., Kim, S.B., Han, S.B., Lee, J.W., 2009. Information channel effects on women intention to purchase irradiated food in Korea. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 78, 675–677. Cardello, A.V., 2003. Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking. Appetite 40, 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 and Emerging Technologies 8, 73–83. Crowley, M.L., Gaboury, D.J., Witt, D., 2002. Chef’s attitudes in North-Eastern US toward irradiation beef, Olestra, rBST and genetically engineered tomatoes. Food Service Technology 2, 173–181. Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Silva, A.L.S., 2003. Consumer attitude towards information on non conventional technology. Trends in Food Science and Technology 14, 43–49.
Devlieghere, F., Vermeiren, L., Debevere, J., 2004. New preservation technologies: possibilities and limitations—review. International Dairy Journal 14, 273–285. Ehlermann, D.A.E., 2009. The RADURA-terminology and food irradiation. Food Control 20, 526–528. Eustice, R.E., Bruhn, C.M., 2006. Consumer acceptance and marketing of irradiated foods. In: Sommers, C.H., Fan, X. (Eds.), Food Irradiation Research and Technology. Blackwell Publications, Ltd, Oxford, pp. 63–83. Farkas, J., 2006. Irradiation for better foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17, 148–152. Farkas, J., Moha´csi-Farkas, C. (2010). History and future of food irradiation. Trends in Food Science and Technology, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.002, in press. Gunes, G., Tekin, M.D., 2006. Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods: results of a survey conducted on Turkish consumers. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie 39, 443–447. Hayes, D.L., Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., 2002. Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation. Food Policy 27, 185–193. JECFI, 1981. Wholesomeness of irradiated food. Report of a Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee, WHO Technical Report Series 659, WHO, Geneva. JSGHDI, 1997. Wholesomeness of food Irradiated with doses above 10 kGy. Report of Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation, WHO Technical Report Series 890, WHO, Geneva. Kume, T., Furuta, M., Todoriki, S., Uenoyama, N., Kobayashi, Y., 2009. Status of food irradiation in the world. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 78, 222–226. Lacroix, M. (2005). Personal interview. In-cites. /http://www.in-cites.com/ scientists/MoniqueLacroix.htmlS (accessed on 18/05/2010). Morehouse, K.M., 2002. Food Irradiation—US regulatory considerations. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 63, 281–284. Ornellas, C.B.D., Gonc-alves, M.P.J., Silva, P.R., Martins, R., 2006. Atitude do consumidor frente a irradiac- a~ o de alimentos. Ciˆencia e Tecnologia de Alimentos 26 (1), 211–213. Resurreccion, A.V.A., Galvez, F.C.F., Fletcher, S.M., Misra, S.K., 1995. Consumer attitudes toward irradiated food: results of a new study. Journal of Food Protection 58, 193–196. Sommers, C., 2004. Food irradiation is already here. Food Technology 58 (11), 22. Teisi, M.F., Fein, S.B., Levy, A.S., 2009. Information effects on consumer attitudes toward three food technologies: organic production, biotechnology, and irradiation. Food Quality and Preference 20, 586–596.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Radiation Physics and Chemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radphyschem
Perception and view of consumers on food irradiation and the Radura symbol Maria P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves a,n, Maria J. Galotto a, Ximena Valenzuela a, Carolina M. Dinten b, Paulina Aguirre c, Joseph Miltz d a ´gica, Departamento de Ciˆencia y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Obispo M. Uman ˜a 050, Ed. de Alimentos—Est. Central, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Facultad Tecnolo Santiago, Chile b ´gica, Departamento de Tecnologias Generales, Avenida Ecuador, 3769 Est. Central, Santiago, Chile Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), Facultad Tecnolo c ´n Chilena de Energı´a Nuclear (CCHEN), Depto. Aplicaciones Nucleares, Seccio ´n Salud y Alimentos, Nueva Bilbao, 12501 Las Condes, Santiago, Chile Comisio d Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Department of Biotechnology and Food Engineering, Haifa 32000, Israel
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history: Received 4 June 2010 Accepted 1 August 2010
The present study was aimed at carrying out a survey on the knowledge and acceptance level of food irradiation. The work was carried out in Santiago, Chile. As an above-average level country in South and Central America, the results may give an indication about the situation in other countries. The survey could also provide an indication about the impression of the public regarding the international ‘‘Radura’’ symbol, indicating on a food product that has been irradiated. A total of 497 persons were interviewed. Among the interviewed people, 76.5% did not know that irradiation could be used as a method for food preservation; 46% expressed their belief that irradiated food means the same as radioactive food. Nevertheless, 91% claimed that they would become consumers of irradiated food if they knew that ‘‘irradiated’’ is not ‘‘radioactive’’ and that proper irradiation enhances food safety; 95.8% of the interviewed persons were not familiar with the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol. However, 55.8% expressed their opinion that they would buy irradiated food because of the symbol, affirming that the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol transmits the sensation of confidence and safety. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Irradiated foods Consumer’s attitude Food preservation Radura
1. Introduction In the last decade we witnessed an increasing demand for nutritious, fresh-like food products with high organoleptic attributes, improved safety and prolonged shelf-life. Non-thermal inactivation of microorganisms has been a major research topic on this subject. Some of the other investigated technologies are high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), pulsed electrical fields (PEF), ionizing irradiation and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation decontamination (Devlieghere et al., 2004). Food contamination is still an enormous public health problem. The irradiation technology is capable of improving food safety, prolonging food shelf life and reducing the level of food poisoning (Lacroix, 2005). This technology has gained interest worldwide, in recent years, by researchers in the field of food science as well as by food manufacturers and consumers (Sommers, 2004). Food irradiation was endorsed by several authorities (FDA, USDA, WHO, FAO, etc.) based on extensive research work. This technology was developed in the early part of the 20th century and was applied to a limited extent only. If applied properly,
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 718 4519; fax: + 56 2 776 4796. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves).
0969-806X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2010.08.001
irradiation can inactivate food spoilage microorganisms (bacteria, molds and yeasts) in raw and frozen foods in the food supply chain. It can also serve as an effective way for reducing the incidence of foodborne diseases (Morehouse, 2002). The Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency/ World Health Organization (FAO/IAEA/WHO) joint committee on the wholesomeness of irradiated food approved in 1981 the irradiation technology (JECFI, 1981). It was stated that irradiation of food at doses up to 10.0 kGy (overall average dose) is safe and introduces no special nutritional problem. The Joint FAO/IAEA/ WHO Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation (JSGHDI, 1997) concluded that food irradiated to any dose appropriate to achieve the intended technological objective is both safe to consume and nutritionally adequate. Food irradiation is currently approved for use in over 55 countries, and 68 food irradiation facilities registered worldwide, at least 25 of them being situated in Asia and Australia (Farkas and Moha´csi-Farkas, 2010). Over 30 of these countries are actually applying radiation in processing of semi-commercial products (Farkas, 2006). Kume et al. (2009) studied in 2005 the status of food irradiation worldwide using published data together with the response to a questionnaire survey during direct visits that they carried out. This publication contains the most recent available statistical data. The results showed that the amount of irradiated
120
M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
foods in the world was 405,000 tons in the year 2005. It has been reported that only in the United States, Canada and Brazil a total of 116,400 tons of irradiated foods was used. Data from other countries in Latin America such as Argentina, Chile and Mexico could not be obtained for this study. In 2007, a study was carried out in Korea with the aim of assessing the familiarity of Korean housewives with irradiated foods and of learning how to enhance purchasing intentions of such foods. About 600 Korean housewives participated in the survey on irradiated food. More than two-thirds of the participants in the survey had no knowledge about irradiated food. Moreover, many Koreans object using irradiated foods because of the ambiguous fear from any product related to irradiation technology and because of the confusion between irradiated and radioactively contaminated food. The women group that heard a lecture, by an expert, on irradiated food indicated a high intention to purchase such food (Byun et al., 2009). The application of novel food processing technologies to commercial foods often creates high levels of consumer concerns about the possible risks associated with consuming foods treated by these technologies. The consumer is normally not familiar with the processes applied and the ingredients involved in the manufacturing of foods. This is also true for food irradiation (Hayes et al., 2002; Gunes and Tekin, 2006). Therefore, they are concerned about possible short-term and long-term health effects (Cardello, 2003; Deliza et al., 2003; Cardello et al., 2007). Many researchers concluded that it is important to provide consumers much more information about the irradiation technology and its benefits and to point out that such an act may be useful in developing a more positive attitude towards irradiated food (Deliza et al., 2003; Ornellas et al., 2006; Gunes and Tekin, 2006). It has been reported that 72.0% of consumers in the USA have heard about irradiation, but 87.5% of them did not know much about it (Resurreccion et al., 1995). Crowley et al. (2002) found that there was a positive correlation between the level of knowledge about irradiation and the readiness and tendency to buy irradiated food. In a survey comprising of 115 participants, 85.0% have mentioned that they have heard about meat irradiation and 70.0% of them expressed their readiness to buy this product. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) expressed its opinion that food irradiation enhances the quality and safety of food and helps to protect consumers from foodborne illnesses. The ADA encouraged the government, food manufacturers, food commodity groups, and qualified food and nutrition professionals to work together to educate consumers on this food safety tool and to make this choice available in the marketplace (Bruhn and Wood, 2000). In spite of the benefits of food irradiation, this technology is underutilized worldwide (Cardello, 2003; Gunes and Tekin, 2006). The present work was aimed at learning about the level of knowledge and about the opinion of consumers on food irradiation and their readiness to accept products made using this technology. The work was done by carrying out a survey in Santiago de Chile. As an above-average level country in South and Central America, with a life style not much different from that in Europe, the results may give an indication about the situation in other countries. The survey could also provide an indication about the impression of the public regarding the international ‘‘Radura’’ symbol, indicating a food product that has been irradiated. Another aim of this study was to provide the interviewed persons and the readers informative material about the benefits of gamma irradiation as a process for food preservation. Although the work was carried out in Chile, from the literature review and the following discussion it is evident that a similar situation exists in many other countries around the globe. In Chile, the application of irradiation as a food preservation method started at the end of 1982, when the Health Ministry
´n Chilena de Energı´a Nuclear (CCHEN) to use authorized the Comisio ionizing energy as a preservation method. According to CCHEN, during the year of 2008, gamma irradiation was used in Chile to treat 982 m3 of medical materials, 2689 tons of foods and 333 tons of raw materials for the food, medical and cosmetic industries. In Chile, herbs for infusion and condiments are the packaged food products that declare in their labels the utilization of ionizing energy for preservation. Other Chilean foods that are treated by gamma irradiation (at the CCHEN) are potatoes, onions, asparagus and sea food. Very little information can be found in the literature on the consumer attitude to food irradiation in Chile. It is clear that the first step should be to acquaint the consumers and to increase their knowledge about the benefits and safety involved in this technology.
2. Material and methods The consumers’ profile in regard to the knowledge about irradiated foods was acquired by a one-page questionnaire answered by randomly selected people at supermarkets, metro stations, offices, malls and university campuses, in the city of Santiago de Chile. The questionnaire started with some general information like gender, age, education and neighborhood. Questions were asked about food preservation methods, and specifically about their attitude towards gamma irradiation as a commercial method used to sterilize food and medical materials, followed by questions about the ‘‘Radura’’ (irradiation symbol) and the impression from it. They were then asked about their views regarding food irradiation and effects on food quality, nutrients and about health and environmental issues and whether they would purchase irradiated food. Finally they were asked whether they believe that food irradiation may avoid or diminish diseases, improve food safety and whether the public should consume irradiated foods. Informative material about food irradiation was provided to ´n Chilena de Energı´a Nuclear the responders by the Comisio (CCHEN) after the interview. To avoid the possibility of distortions, the research was carried out without any previous explanation about food irradiation. In the analysis, incomplete questionnaires were discarded (around 3.0%). Data from 497 completed questionnaires were coded and the frequency percentage was obtained for each question.
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Profile of the responders As was mentioned earlier, the survey was conducted in Santiago, Chile, comprising about 35.0% of the Chilean population. It was assumed that being a good mixture of people, the responders in Santiago may represent well the population of this country and probably also that of the other Latin American countries. From the total of 497 responders participated in this survey, 51.1% were women and 48.9% men, from different neighborhoods and social levels. Most of the responders were in the age range 35–49 years, followed by the group in the age range 25–34 years (almost at the same proportion). The total responders in the age range 25–49 years summed up to around 61.0%. Only 16.9% were above 50 and 22.1%, under 24 years old. Most of the interviewed people had a good background.
M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
121
3.2. Chilean consumers’ view on food irradiation
3.3. The ‘‘Radura’’ symbol
76.5% of the responders did not know that gamma irradiation is a method for food preservation and they could not reply on the question whether they would or would not consume irradiated products. Consumer awareness on food irradiation in Chile (23.5%) is much lower than that in the USA (72.0%) as reported in a previous study (Resurreccion et al., 1995). A similar value (29.0%) was found for Turkish consumers (Gunes and Tekin, 2006). 45.9% of the responders indicated that according to their understanding, irradiated food means the same as radioactive food. The latter perception is an evidence for the lack of information and understanding about food irradiation. Resurreccion et al. (1995) found in a similar study that 33.0% of the responders in the city of Atlanta, GA, United States, and its surroundings thought that irradiated food has the same meaning as radioactive food. Ornellas et al. (2006) found a similar result for 16.0% of the interviewed people in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Gunes and Tekin (2006) found in a study that was carried out in Istanbul, Turkey, that the majority of responders (80.0%) were uncertain about the safety of irradiated foods. Only 11.0% of responders replied that food irradiation is safe. Another evidence of the lack of information and knowledge about food irradiation is that 57.1% of the Chileans people interviewed in the present study replied that they do not know if food irradiation can cause damage to consumer’s health and/or to the environment. Ornellas et al. (2006) found that 62.0% of the 218 Brazilians interviewed had a similar opinion. Resurreccion et al. (1995) also mention the lack of knowledge about food irradiation after almost half of the responders answered ‘‘do not know’’, in spite of the fact that the options ‘‘true’’ and ‘‘false’’ were presented in the questionnaire. Thus, it is apparent that potential consumers of irradiated foods would decide whether or whether not to consume such products, only if they would have enough information and knowledge on the subject. When asked, in the present survey, about the purchase intention of irradiated food, 55.8% of the consumers affirmed, that they would not buy irradiated foods. However, 90.7% of the people interviewed replied that they might become consumers of irradiated products if they would know that irradiation increases food safety and does not cause short-term and/or long-term health problems. This fact demonstrates again the lack of information and knowledge about food irradiation. After becoming familiar with its benefits, consumers would buy irradiated foods. As was expected, irradiation was perceived as a high-risk technology at the beginning of the questionnaire, when most of the participants had never heard about this technology before. Similar results were observed by Behrens et al. (2009) in Brazil. Marketing trials showed that an increasing number of consumers are willing to purchase irradiated food if they are informed properly about the process and its effects on food (Eustice and Bruhn, 2006). The present research showed that lack of information is the major factor in limiting a more widespread use of the irradiation technology in Chile. Similar conclusions were reached by researchers elsewhere (Gunes and Tekin, 2006). Therefore, a successful market for irradiated foods can be achieved in Chile and other countries by educating consumers with the benefit and uses of irradiation process. Consumer acceptance is a matter of education and proper communication in order to eliminate/diminish the confusing opinion that food irradiation is a nuclear technology (Teisi et al., 2009).
The word ‘‘Radura’’ is derived from radurization, a term composed of the initial letters of the word ‘‘radiation’’ and the term ‘‘durus’’, which is the Latin word for ‘‘hard’’ or ‘‘lasting’’. This symbol has been used for foods processed by ionizing radiation. The ‘‘Radura’’ is usually green in color and resembles a plant in a circle. The upper half of the circle is dashed. The symbol (Fig. 1) may be interpreted in the following way: the central dot represents the radiation source and the two segments (‘leaves’) represent the biological shield provided in order to protect the workers and the environment (Ehlermann, 2009). The use of the RADURA-logo is voluntary according to the Codex Alimentarius standard (Anon, 2005). However, a few countries (like the USA) make this logo use compulsory, a few countries allow its optional use, while other countries, in particular the European Union, do not provide provisions for the use of this international logo. In the Codex standard, the symbol is in green with all elements filled; some countries allow for different designs and even varying colors. In Chile the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol is not frequently present on food labels. The irradiation treatment is normally identified by the statement ‘‘tratado por energı´a ionizante’’ (treated by ionizing energy); 95.8% of the responders in the present study were not familiar with this symbol for irradiated food. However, 55.8% said that they would buy irradiated food because of the symbol, affirming that the ‘‘Radura’’ transmits the sensation of confidence and safety. The US FDA requires, since 1986, that irradiated foods include labeling with either the statement ‘‘treated with radiation’’ or ‘‘treated by irradiation,’’ along with the ‘‘Radura’’ symbol.
4. Conclusions Consumers are interested in new technologies but they need much information and knowledge about these technologies before deciding to accept them. A greater effort is required in order to provide consumers with scientific and acreditated information about food irradiation. The present work revealed a low level of knowledge among consumers about the food irradiation technology. In Chile, a representative country in Latin America, based on its social and economic level, the percentage of familiarity is low (23.5%) when compared to developed countries, like the United States, for example. The association of the symbol ‘‘Radura’’ with the statement ‘‘treated by ionizing energy’’ might facilitate the consumer’s acceptance of irradiated food in Chile since most of the
Fig. 1. The ‘‘Radura’’ symbol (in general it is presented in green color).
122
M.P. Junqueira-Gonc- alves et al. / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 80 (2011) 119–122
interviewed persons affirmed that the symbol means confidence and safety. A similar situation exists probably in many other countries. The present study demonstrates the necessity of education programs in order to familiarize the consumers with the principles, aims and benefits of irradiated food products. Such programs could open the market to irradiated foods since the lack of information and understanding is the main obstacle for spreading the utilization of this technology.
References Anon, 2005. CODEX-STAN—1 2005 labelling of prepacked food. /http://www. codexalimentarius.net//download/standards/32/CXS_001e.pdfS. Behrens, J.H., Barcellos, M.N., Frewer, L.J., Nunes, T.P., Landgraf, M., 2009. Brazilian consumer views on food irradiation. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 10, 383–389. Bruhn, C.M., Wood, O.B., 2000. Position of the American Dietetic Association: food irradiation. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 100 (2), 246–253. Byun, M.W., Oh, S.H., Kim, J.H., Yoon, Y., Park, S.C., Kim, H.S., Kim, S.B., Han, S.B., Lee, J.W., 2009. Information channel effects on women intention to purchase irradiated food in Korea. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 78, 675–677. Cardello, A.V., 2003. Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking. Appetite 40, 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 and Emerging Technologies 8, 73–83. Crowley, M.L., Gaboury, D.J., Witt, D., 2002. Chef’s attitudes in North-Eastern US toward irradiation beef, Olestra, rBST and genetically engineered tomatoes. Food Service Technology 2, 173–181. Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Silva, A.L.S., 2003. Consumer attitude towards information on non conventional technology. Trends in Food Science and Technology 14, 43–49.
Devlieghere, F., Vermeiren, L., Debevere, J., 2004. New preservation technologies: possibilities and limitations—review. International Dairy Journal 14, 273–285. Ehlermann, D.A.E., 2009. The RADURA-terminology and food irradiation. Food Control 20, 526–528. Eustice, R.E., Bruhn, C.M., 2006. Consumer acceptance and marketing of irradiated foods. In: Sommers, C.H., Fan, X. (Eds.), Food Irradiation Research and Technology. Blackwell Publications, Ltd, Oxford, pp. 63–83. Farkas, J., 2006. Irradiation for better foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17, 148–152. Farkas, J., Moha´csi-Farkas, C. (2010). History and future of food irradiation. Trends in Food Science and Technology, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.002, in press. Gunes, G., Tekin, M.D., 2006. Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods: results of a survey conducted on Turkish consumers. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie 39, 443–447. Hayes, D.L., Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., 2002. Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation. Food Policy 27, 185–193. JECFI, 1981. Wholesomeness of irradiated food. Report of a Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee, WHO Technical Report Series 659, WHO, Geneva. JSGHDI, 1997. Wholesomeness of food Irradiated with doses above 10 kGy. Report of Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation, WHO Technical Report Series 890, WHO, Geneva. Kume, T., Furuta, M., Todoriki, S., Uenoyama, N., Kobayashi, Y., 2009. Status of food irradiation in the world. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 78, 222–226. Lacroix, M. (2005). Personal interview. In-cites. /http://www.in-cites.com/ scientists/MoniqueLacroix.htmlS (accessed on 18/05/2010). Morehouse, K.M., 2002. Food Irradiation—US regulatory considerations. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 63, 281–284. Ornellas, C.B.D., Gonc-alves, M.P.J., Silva, P.R., Martins, R., 2006. Atitude do consumidor frente a irradiac- a~ o de alimentos. Ciˆencia e Tecnologia de Alimentos 26 (1), 211–213. Resurreccion, A.V.A., Galvez, F.C.F., Fletcher, S.M., Misra, S.K., 1995. Consumer attitudes toward irradiated food: results of a new study. Journal of Food Protection 58, 193–196. Sommers, C., 2004. Food irradiation is already here. Food Technology 58 (11), 22. Teisi, M.F., Fein, S.B., Levy, A.S., 2009. Information effects on consumer attitudes toward three food technologies: organic production, biotechnology, and irradiation. Food Quality and Preference 20, 586–596.