4.6 Article

The consumer's perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions

期刊

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 14-23

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.008

关键词

Food additives; Knowledge; Acceptance; Risk perception; Benefit perception; Communication

资金

  1. Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food additives, such as food colours or sweeteners, play an important part in food supply. For a variety of reasons, some consumers might regard the use of food additives, especially artificial ones, with suspicion; food additives are considered unnatural, unhealthy or even a public health risk. The goal of this study was to investigate consumers' perceptions and the most essential variables related to the acceptance of food additives. Two versions of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, one investigating artificial food colours and the other investigating artificial sweeteners, were distributed to a large sample of Swiss German households. The final samples for artificial food colours and artificial sweeteners comprised 506 and 487 participants respectively. The questionnaires contained items on consumers' acceptance, risk and benefit perception, trust in regulators, knowledge of regulation and their preference for natural products. The relationships between variables were investigated in a path model, which was constructed based on a review of previous literature. The path coefficients suggested that risk and benefit perceptions significantly influence the acceptance of the two selected food additives. The risk and benefit perceptions were influenced by consumers' knowledge of regulation, their trust in regulators, and their preference for natural products. In the discussion, the study's findings are examined in terms of their implications for further research and for the development of concrete communication materials. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据