4.6 Article

Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 45-57

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.01.001

Keywords

functional foods; consumer acceptance; attitude; knowledge; health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the forecast of a bright future for functional foods, which constitute the single fastest growing segment in the food market, critiques arise as to whether this food category will deliver upon its promises. One of the key success factors pertains to consumer acceptance of the concept of functional foods, which is covered in this study. Data collected from a consumer sample (n = 215) in Belgium during March 2001 are analysed with the aim to gain a better understanding of consumer acceptance of functional foods. Functional food acceptance is defined as giving a score of minimum 3 on a 5-point scale, simultaneously for acceptance if the food tastes good, and if the food tastes somewhat worse as compared to its conventional counterpart. With this specification, 46.5% of the sample claimed to accept the concept of functional foods. A multivariate probit model is specified and estimated to test the simultaneous impact of socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal factors. Belief in the health benefits of functional foods is the main positive determinant of acceptance. The likelihood of functional food acceptance also increases with the presence of an ill family member, though decreases with a high level of claimed knowledge or awareness of the concept. This adverse impact of high awareness decreases with increasing consumer age. Belief, knowledge and presence of an ill family member outweigh socio-demographics as potential determinants, contrary to previous reports profiling functional food users. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available