Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Food neophobia is related to factors associated with functional food

consumption in older adults
Laura M. Stratton a, Meagan N. Vella a, Judy Sheeshka b, Alison M. Duncan a,
a
Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
b
Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An abundance of functional food products with specic bioactive ingredients have emerged to target pre-
Received 3 March 2014 vention and management of diet-related chronic disease. Older adults can particularly benet from func-
Received in revised form 9 November 2014 tional foods due to their multiple health concerns and growing proportion of the Canadian population.
Accepted 9 November 2014
However, little is known about older adults acceptance of and willingness to consume functional foods.
Available online 18 November 2014
The purpose of this study was to relate the degree of food neophobia to factors associated with functional
food consumption in older adults. A total of 200 community dwelling older adults (70.8 7.17 years old)
Keywords:
completed a researcher-administered questionnaire exploring functional food consumption, attitudes
Functional foods
Food neophobia
towards functional foods, general health, medical and demographic data, and degree of food neophobia,
Older adults which was assessed through completion of the 10-question Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden,
Questionnaire 1992). Cronbachs alpha for the Food Neophobia Scale was 0.85, indicating a high degree of internal reli-
ability. Participants were divided into food neophobia score groups according to tertiles (low 1023
(n = 68), medium 2431 (n = 67), high 3263 (n = 65) degrees of food neophobia). Participants with a
higher degree of food neophobia were less willing to try a new functional food (p = 0.05) and those in
the high food neophobia group reported the greatest number of barriers to consuming functional foods
(p < 0.05). Among the barriers to functional food consumption, availability was more frequently identied
by participants within the high food neophobia group (p = 0.05). The high food neophobia group also had
a greater number of participants who reported taking prescription medications regularly (p = 0.04) and
worried about functional foods interacting with their medications (p = 0.05). There were no other differ-
ences in factors related to consumption of functional foods or demographics among food neophobia
groups. This research demonstrates that food neophobia is related to factors associated with functional
food consumption and rationalizes the consideration of food neophobia in the advance of functional
foods.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction are chronic diet-related diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular

The older adult population is rapidly growing, with estimates
that the proportion of Canadians 65 years of age and older will
nearly double from 13.2% in 2005 to 24.5% in 2036 (Turcotte &
Schellenberg, 2007). The United Nations projects similar growth
rates for the global older adult population, indicating that this
trend is not unique to Canada (Martins, Yusuf, & Swanson, 2012).
This changing population distribution has important implications
in terms of both individual health and associated healthcare. With
an increase in age come increased health concerns, many of which
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 824 4120x53416; fax: +1 519 763 5902.
E-mail addresses: laura.m.stratton@gmail.com (L.M. Stratton), mvella@uoguelph.
ca (M.N. Vella), jsheeshk@uoguelph.ca (J. Sheeshka), amduncan@uoguelph.ca
(A.M. Duncan).
disease, and type 2 diabetes (Turcotte & Schellenberg, 2007).
Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey found that
81% of community-dwelling adults 65 years of age or older had
at least one diagnosed chronic condition and 33% had three or
more, with the average number of conditions increasing with age
(Gilmour & Park, 2006). Altogether, chronic diseases account for
67% of total direct costs in healthcare and 60% of indirect costs
(Pubic Health Agency of Canada, 2006), representing a huge eco-
nomic burden and contributing to the increased per capita health
expenditure observed in the older adult demographic (Hogan &
Hogan, 2002). This places impetus on developing preventative
strategies to decrease related risk factors.
Functional foods are evolving as a potential chronic disease
preventative strategy as they are purported to have physiological

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.008
0950-3293/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
134 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140
benets and/or reduce the risk of chronic disease beyond basic
nutritional functions (Hasler & Brown, 2009). A plethora of func-
tional food products have emerged in recent years (Vergari,
Tibuzzi, & Basile, 2010) that have specic bioactives added for their
health benets, contain an increased density of nutrients, and pro-
vide convenience to consumers (Klimas, Brethour, & Bucknell,
2008). This is particularly important given the many changes that
accompany aging, including medical, psychological, social and
environmental, that all have the potential to impact nutritional
status (Keller, 2007; Roberts, Wolfson, & Payette, 2007). Further-
more, the health benets of functional foods have also been
studied specically in older adults. Examples include phytos-
terol-containing functional foods which have been shown to
reduce LDL-cholesterol to relate to a reduced cardiovascular
disease risk (Rudkowska, 2010) and probiotic-containing func-
tional foods which have been shown to modulate the intestinal
microbiota in the elderly (Rampelli et al., 2013).
Like the older adult demographic, the functional food industry
is growing immensely, with annual growth rates of 814% and
global market estimates as high as $167 billion (Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, 2009). Unfortunately, research into consumer
attitudes towards, and acceptance of, functional foods has not kept
pace with industry growth, and this has particularly been noted for
the older adult demographic (Paulionis, 2008).
Assessment of attitudes towards functional foods and under-
standing the barriers to their consumption can inform the develop-
ment of strategies to increase acceptance and incorporation of
functional foods by older adults (Frewer, Scholderer, & Lambert,
2003). Related to the idea of acceptance of new foods is the concept
of food neophobia, which is described as the reluctance to eat
and/or avoidance of novel foods (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). Since
functional foods are a novel category of food, food neophobia
may negatively inuence consumption of functional foods. Previ-
ous research in European populations has indicated that older
adults may have a greater degree of food neophobia than younger
age groups (Bckstrm, Pirttil-Backman, & Tuorila, 2003; Tuorila,
Lhteenmki, Pohjalainen, & Lotti, 2001). Bckstrm et al. (2003)
suggest that this may be due to a reluctance to seek change and
accept technological developments, such as those utilized in the
production of functional foods. Related to new food technologies,
perceived risks may also act as barriers to functional food con-
sumption (Frewer et al., 2003). Finnish focus group participants
expressed a duality between the disease risks that functional foods
are posed to reduce and risks related to the unknown effects and
safety of new functional foods (Niva, 2007). By identifying the risks
and safety concerns older adults have with respect to functional
foods, appropriate communication strategies can be established
to distinguish real versus perceived risks. This can help to ensure
appropriate incorporation of functional foods into older adults
diets.
Since consumers are not homogenous in terms of purchase
intentions and attitudes towards functional foods, it is imperative
to conduct research within specic population groups. Research on
food neophobia and older adults is minimal and is primarily lim-
ited to European populations, indicating a need for research in
other populations such as Canadians. The purpose of this study
was to explore the role of food neophobia in the context of func-
tional foods in older adults in Canada. To assess food neophobia,
the previously validated 10-question food neophobia scale (FNS)
developed by Pliner and Hobden (1992) was used. The objectives
of this study were to assess the degree of food neophobia in a sam-
ple of older adults and to compare food neophobia scores among
factors related to functional food consumption. Specically, it
was hypothesized that those with a higher degree of food neopho-
bia would (1) be less likely to consume functional foods, (2) be less
willing to try a new functional food, (3) perceive more barriers to
functional food consumption and (4) perceive more risks to func-
tional food consumption.
Materials and methods
Participants
A total of 200 community-dwelling adults P60 years old who
were not using any meal-assisted services (e.g. Meals on Wheels)
and who were cognitively able to provide informed consent and
complete the questionnaire were recruited to participate in the
study. Participants were recruited from Guelph, Ontario, Canada
and surrounding communities at events for seniors (26% of partic-
ipants); retirement communities and senior centers (24.5%);
through friends, family, and word of mouth (18.5%); newspaper
and newsletter advertisements (11%); emails to University of
Guelph campus colleges (8%); recruitment yers (10%); and undis-
closed locations (2%). The study was advertised as a Food Survey
Study to minimize recruitment bias towards functional foods. Par-
ticipants were screened via phone, email, or in person, depending
on initial contact method to ensure that all eligibility requirements
were met. The research protocol received approval from the Uni-
versity of Guelph Research Ethics Board (REB#10SE012).
Data collection
Data was collected by means of a researcher-administered
questionnaire completed at the Human Nutraceutical Research
Unit (HNRU) at the University of Guelph. One-hour appointments
were booked to allow for extensive interaction with participants
and written consent was obtained from all study participants prior
to completing the questionnaire.
The study questionnaire was part of a larger, comprehensive
questionnaire designed to explore factors related to functional food
consumption among older adults. A combination of open- and
close-ended questions gathered qualitative and quantitative data
regarding consumption of functional foods (current consumption,
willingness to try a new functional food), barriers to functional
food consumption (yes or no to specic barriers and a tally of the
yes responses), and perceived risks (condence in the safety of
functional foods, perception of risks involved, specic risks) as they
relate to functional foods. Food neophobia was assessed with
completion of the FNS (Table 1) (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), which
contains 10 statements rated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questionnaire
also collected information about participant medical, lifestyle and
demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, income).
Laminated colored information sheets were provided to assist
participants in completing the questionnaire. The information
sheets included the denition of a functional food, and pictures
and descriptions of 50 different functional food examples, which
encompassed various food forms (beverage, breads, cereal, cheese,
cookies, crackers, eggs, granola bars, margarine, pasta, salad dress-
ing, yogurts) and common bioactive ingredients (antioxidants, die-
tary ber, omega-3 fatty acids, plant sterols, prebiotics, probiotics).
A functional food was dened in partial accordance with the
Health Canada denition as a food that is similar in appearance
to, or may be, a conventional food, is consumed as part of a usual
diet, and is demonstrated to have physiological benets and/or
reduce the risk of chronic disease beyond basic nutritional func-
tions (Health Canada, 1998). However, the current study excluded
conventional foods to limit the denition of a functional food to
foods that had undergone processing or manipulation to add or
increase the level of a bioactive.
 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140 135

Table 1
Food neophobia scale statements (n = 200).a

Item Statement Mean SD Factor 1 Factor 2

b c
1R I am constantly sampling new and different foods 3.35 1.51 0.57 0.17
2 I do not trust new foods 2.73 1.47 0.48 0.41
3 If I do not know what is in a food, I will not try it 4.07 2.09 0.20 0.68
4R I like foods from different countries 2.00 1.22 0.78 0.12
5 Ethnic food looks too weird to eat 2.21 1.50 0.63 0.22
6R At dinner parties, I will try a new food 2.04 1.28 0.41 0.42
7 I am afraid to eat things I have never had before 2.30 1.54 0.54 0.35
8 I am very particular about the foods I will eat 4.10 1.99 0.08 0.59
9R I will eat almost anything 3.19 1.95 0.30 0.62
10 R I like to try new ethnic restaurants 2.70 1.74 0.79 0.23
% of variance explained 29.3 18.9
a
Food neophobia scale was used from Pliner and Hobden (1992). Each statement was rated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree.
b
Items marked with an R are negative items to food neophobia and were reversed prior to analyses.
c
Loadings that are higher on either factor are bolded.

Data and statistical analysis
Food neophobia scores were calculated based on the sum of
responses for the 10 FNS statements with a possible score range
of 1070 and a higher score indicating a greater degree of food
neophobia. Cronbachs alpha was used to assess the internal valid-
ity of the FNS, followed by factor analysis (maximum likelihood
with varimax rotation) to determine whether the scale loaded on
multiple factors.
Based on the food neophobia scores, participants were divided
into tertiles to create three food neophobia groups that were
termed low, medium and high in the context of the study sample.
This method of grouping is consistent with previous studies utiliz-
ing the FNS (Arvola, Lhteenmki, & Tuorila, 1999; Flight, Leppard,
& Cox, 2003).
Participant characteristics and factors related to functional food
consumption were compared among food neophobia groups using
the Chi squared test for categorical variables (participant charac-
teristics, factors related to consumption of functional foods, fre-
quency of barriers) and ANOVA followed by the Tukeys test for
quantitative variables (total number of medications, number of
participants willing to try a new functional food, total number of
barriers). Barrier frequencies were also compared among food neo-
phobia groups using the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.
The potential for participant characteristics to confound the
comparisons of factors related to functional foods among food neo-
phobia groups was examined using Spearman Rank correlational
analysis and for those that were signicant, the comparison was
performed on the continuous food neophobia score to allow the
confounding variable to be a covariate in an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA).
Mean food neophobia scores were compared among participant
demographics (gender, age group, education level, annual house-
hold income level) using ANOVA followed by the Tukeys test.
All statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical
Analysis System, version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) with
p  0.05 considered signicant.
Results
FNS validity
The FNS had a Cronbach alpha value of 0.85, indicating a high
degree of internal validity. Factor analysis revealed that the FNS
loaded on 2 factors, with statements 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10 loading
on one factor, and statements 3, 6, 8, and 9 loading on the other
factor to account for 29.3% and 18.9% of the variance, respectively
(Table 1). The statements loaded on the rst factor appear to relate
to enjoyment in trying, and desire to try new, unfamiliar and eth-
nic foods, whereas the statements loading on the second factor
appear to relate more so to the unknown aspects of foods and hav-
ing control over what one eats. These factor loadings are similar to
results obtained by Tuorila et al. (2001) and Choe and Cho (2011),
with the exception of statements 6 and 7, which differed among all
three studies.
Statements 3, 8 and 9, which loaded higher on the second fac-
tor, have the potential to be answered based on specic dietary
requirements that a participant may have (e.g. being a vegetarian
or gluten intolerant), and therefore may not be completely
reective of an unwillingness to try new foods. Removing these 3
statements resulted in a Cronbach alpha of 0.84 and a uni-dimen-
sional scale. Although statement 6 originally loaded higher on the
second factor, this was only by a margin of 0.01, which is why a
uni-dimensional scale resulted. However, this modied 7-question
scale correlated strongly with the full 10-question FNS (r = 0.92,
p < 0.0001), which indicated that removing statements 3, 8, and 9
would not have signicantly changed the validity of the FNS.
Therefore, the original 10-question FNS was used in all subsequent
analyses.
Food neophobia score distribution
Food neophobia scores were normally distributed among
participants with a mean of 28.7 (SD = 10.6), a median of 28 and
range of 1063 (possible range of 1070). Based on tertile cut-offs,
food neophobia groups included low (1023, n = 68), medium (24
31, n = 67) and high (3263, n = 65) groups.
Participant characteristics
A total of 200 (140 female, 60 males) community dwelling older
adults (M = 70.8, SD = 7.17 years) completed the researcher-admin-
istered questionnaire. Participants were predominately female
(70%), Caucasian (95%), had a College/University degree (67%),
and an annual household income of >$50,000 Canadian (60.8%).
Participant characteristic distributions among food neophobia
groups did not signicantly differ for gender, age group or educa-
tion level but did for household income (v2, p = 0.03) (Table 2).
Food neophobia scores decreased with increased income (main
effect of income, p = 0.04). Further comparison of food neophobia
score among annual household income levels showed that it was
signicantly higher among participants with an income <$25,000
(M = 34.4, SD = 12.2) compared to those with an income
>$100,000 Canadian (M = 25.6, SD = 9.75).
136 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140

Table 2
Participant characteristics according to food neophobia group (n = 200).

Overall (n = 200) Low FN group (n = 68) Medium FN group (n = 67) High FN group (n = 65) pa
Gender 0.23
Male 60 (30.0) 22 (32.4) 15 (22.4) 23 (35.4)
Female 140 (70.0) 46 (67.6) 52 (77.6) 42 (64.6)
Age group (years) 0.14
6064 52 (26.0) 19 (27.9) 15 (22.4) 18 (27.7)
6569 42 (21.0) 16 (23.5) 16 (23.9) 10 (15.4)
7074 43 (21.5) 20 (29.4) 11 (16.4) 12 (18.5)
7579 37 (18.5) 9 (13.2) 16 (23.9) 12 (18.5)
80+ 26 (13.0) 4 (5.88) 9 (13.4) 13 (20.0)
Education level 0.41
Some high school 8 (4.00) 4 (5.90) 0 (0.00) 4 (6.20)
High school graduate 20 (10.0) 5 (7.40) 7 (10.4) 8 (12.3)
Some college/university 38 (19.0) 11 (16.2) 12 (17.9) 15 (23.1)
College/university graduate 84 (42.0) 27 (39.7) 31 (46.3) 26 (40.0)
Post-graduate degree 50 (25.0) 21 (30.9) 17 (25.4) 12 (18.5)
Annual household income (Canadian)b 0.03
<$25,000 27 (15.3) 6 (10.5) 8 (13.8) 13 (21.3)
$25,00049,999 42 (23.9) 11 (19.3) 21 (36.2) 10 (16.4)
$50,00074,999 50 (28.4) 18 (31.6) 10 (17.2) 22 (36.1)
$75,000100,000 28 (15.9) 8 (14.0) 12 (20.7) 8 (13.1)
>$100,000 29 (16.5) 14 (24.6) 7 (12.1) 8 (13.1)

Data presented as n (%).

a
p values for Chi square analyses based on food neophobia group.
b
n = 176 due to 24 non-responders.

Prescription medication use was reported by 69.1%, 86.6% and

81.5% of participants within the low, medium and high food
neophobia groups, respectively (v2, p = 0.04). The number of pre-
scription medications used by each food neophobia group was
not signicantly different (p = 0.08), with mean values of 2.0
(SD = 2.27), 2.64 (SD = 2.01) and 2.82 (SD = 2.26) for the low,
medium and high food neophobia groups, respectively. Related to
medications, participants within the high and medium food neo-
phobia groups more frequently reported worrying about functional
foods interacting with their medications (7.58%, 21.5% and 21.0% of
participants in the low, medium and high food neophobia groups,
respectively, v2, p = 0.05).

Consumption and willingness to try functional foods

Overall, 93% of participants reported that they currently con-

sume functional foods, of which 93.6% consumed a functional food
at least once per week. Neither of these results signicantly dif-
fered among food neophobia groups, which does not support the Fig. 1. Willingness to try a new functional food by food neophobia group. Chi
rst study hypothesis. square analysis showed that those with a lower degree of food neophobia were
The majority of all participants (89% of 200 participants) more willing to try a new functional food (v2, p = 0.05).
reported that they were either very or somewhat willing to try a
new functional food; however, those with a higher degree of food
The specic barrier of availability was more frequently identied
neophobia were less willing to try a new functional food
by participants within the high food neophobia group (p = 0.05),
(v2, p = 0.05) (Fig. 1), which supports the second study hypothesis.
but this was not signicant for the barriers of risk of an adverse
Furthermore, the mean food neophobia score was signicantly
effect (p = 0.06) or taste (p = 0.09) (Fig. 3). The barrier of cost was
higher for participants somewhat unwilling (M = 38.5, SD = 17.1)
signicantly correlated with FN score (p = 0.01) and therefore
or somewhat willing (M = 31.3, SD = 9.83) to try a new functional
included as a covariate in an ANOVA with FN score which was
food compared to those who were willing to try a new functional
not signicant (p = 0.10).
food (M = 26.2, SD = 10.6) (p = 0.003), which also supports the sec-
ond study hypothesis.
Perceived risk of functional foods
Barriers to functional food consumption
A total of 85.3%, 82.1% and 69.2% of participants within the low,
Barriers to functional food consumption were signicantly medium and high food neophobia groups reported that they had
greater in frequency for participants within the high (M = 2.88, condence in the safety of functional foods (v2, p = 0.06). Among
SD = 1.71) compared to the low (M = 2.0, SD = 1.63) food neophobia those participants that indicated there were risks involved with
group (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2), which supports the third study hypothesis. the consumption of functional foods (n = 82 out of 200
 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140
Fig. 2. Number of barriers to functional food consumption by food neophobia
group. Bars with different letters are signicantly different (p < 0.05).
Fig. 3. Percent of participants stating that availability (p = 0.05), cost/price
(p = 0.10), risk of an adverse effect (p = 0.06) and taste (p = 0.09) act as barriers to
them consuming functional foods, by food neophobia group.
participants), the responses to an open-ended question of what
those risks would be included risk of bioactive overconsumption
(31.7% of the 82 participants), lack of research into side effects
(22.0%), lack of naturalness (15.9%), lack of trust in the claimed
effects (12.2%), and processing concerns related to incorporation
of the bioactive (6.1%). None of these reported risks were signi-
cantly related to food neophobia group, which does not support
the fourth study hypothesis.
Discussion
This study assessed the degree of food neophobia in a sample of
200 community-dwelling older adults and explored the relation-
ships between food neophobia and factors related to functional
food consumption. The results of this study supported its second
and third hypotheses that a higher degree of food neophobia was
related to less willingness to try new functional foods and more
barriers to functional food consumption, and did not support its
rst and fourth hypotheses that a higher degree of food neophobia
would be related to less functional food consumption and more
perceived risk associated with consumption of functional foods.
This study adds to the current literature with its focus on older
adults since previous research on food neophobia has studied
137
samples of adults of a wider age range (Arvola et al., 1999;
Bckstrm, Pirttil-Backman, & Tuorila, 2004; Bckstrm et al.,
2003; Choe & Cho, 2011; Hoek et al., 2011; Schickenberg, van
Assema, Brug, & de Vries, 2007; Tuorila et al., 2001), university stu-
dents (Hobden & Pliner, 1995; Olabi, Najm, Baghdadi, & Morton,
2009; Pliner & Hobden, 1992; Schickenberg, van Assema, Brug, &
de Vries, 2011), children or adolescents (Dovey et al., 2011;
Flight et al., 2003; Hursti & Sjdn, 1997; Rigal et al., 2006;
Tuorila & Mustonen, 2010).
Consumption and willingness to try functional foods
Reported consumption of at least one functional food was high
(93%) and did not differ among food neophobia groups, which does
not support the rst study hypothesis. This high overall percentage
suggests participants are not opposed to consuming functional
foods; however, the connection with food neophobia is more spe-
cically examined in relation to willingness to try a new functional
food, as exemplied by previous studies (Flight et al., 2003; Tuorila
et al., 2001; Urala & Lhteenmki, 2004). Results of the current
study showed that participants with a higher degree of food
neophobia were less willing to try a new functional food which
supports the second study hypothesis. The mean FN score was also
signicantly higher for participants who were somewhat unwilling
or were only somewhat willing to try a new functional food
compared to those who stated that they were willing to try a
new functional food, which also provides support for the second
study hypothesis. Previous studies have focused more on specic
functional food products (not examined in the current study) and
participant groups which differed from the current study. Flight
et al. (2003) reported a negative correlation between willingness
to try 11 unfamiliar foods including one functional food (margarine
with plant sterols), and food neophobia in Australian adolescents;
Urala and Lhteenmki (2004) also reported negative correlations
between food neophobia scores and willingness to try functional
foods among Finnish participants, using a list of 8 examples of
functional food products. Other studies have not found relation-
ships between willingness to try new functional foods and food
neophobia including Tuorila et al. (2001) who focused on a marga-
rine product with plant sterols in Finnish adults, although this food
neophobia assessment could have been inuenced by the market
presence of the margarine with plant sterols in Finland since
1995. Overall, willingness to try functional foods is of relevance
to their advance in the market place and the current study identi-
es that food neophobia may be a factor in the market success of
functional foods.
Barriers to functional food consumption
A greater number of barriers to functional food consumption
was reported among those with a greater degree of food neophobia
in the current study, which supports the third study hypothesis.
Availability was the only specic barrier that was signicantly
more likely to be reported within the high food neophobia group,
while cost, risk of an adverse effect and taste were not signicant.
Availability and cost
One of the most frequent barriers to functional food consump-
tion identied by participants with a high degree of food neopho-
bia was availability. However, this is surprising given the growth of
the functional food marketplace and growing abundance of new
functional food products. It is possible that although there may
be a large number of functional food products in the marketplace,
older adults may be unaware that these products could benet
them. Additionally, cost may also contribute to the explanation
of availability as a barrier. The increased cost, whether real or
138 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140
perceived, may lead to functional foods being unavailable to a sub-
set of the population that is unable to afford them. Therefore, it
may not be the physical availability that is a barrier, but rather a
lack of awareness and/or a factor of cost that is making them
unavailable. Ultimately, this is an area that the functional food sec-
tor should assess in greater detail to better understand why func-
tional foods are perceived as being unavailable by older adults.
Cost as a barrier to functional food consumption was
confounded by income in the current study which precluded any
signicant relationship with food neophobia. Although some stud-
ies have not associated food neophobia and income (Choe & Cho,
2011; Flight et al., 2003; Olabi et al., 2009), Bckstrm et al.
(2004) found that Finnish participants with a lower income pre-
ferred familiar foods and were more suspicious of new foods. Func-
tional foods can be 3050% (Menrad, 2003) or even 500%
(Kotilainen, Rajalahti, Ragasa, & Pehu, 2006) more expensive than
their conventional counterparts and since the two are often com-
pared at point of purchase, their price differential is an important
factor in purchase decisions (Landstrm, Hursti, & Magnusson,
2009; Vergari et al., 2010). In relation to older adults, many are
faced with reduced incomes (Bernard & Li, 2006) and although
food neophobia scores were relatively low and reported income
was relatively high in the current study, the results do show that
participants with a lower income were more likely to have a
greater degree of food neophobia, highlighting the idea that cost
as a barrier and income cannot be separated and the importance
of addressing cost to increase acceptance and consumption of func-
tional foods in the older adult demographic.
Risk of an adverse effect
Risk of an adverse effect as a barrier to functional food con-
sumption did not signicantly differ among food neophobia groups
in the current study, which does not support the fourth study
hypothesis. Similarly, the nding that participants within the high
food neophobia group were not signicantly more likely to have
less condence in the safety of functional foods did not support
the fourth study hypothesis, although participants within the high
and medium food neophobia groups more frequently reported
worrying about functional foods interacting with their medica-
tions. Perception of food safety may be related to familiarity with
a specic food category, which is shown in a focus group study
by Bckstrm et al. (2003). Despite expressing preferences to not
try certain ethnic foods, Finnish participants still described ethnic
foods in a positive light, owing to the fact that these foods have
been widely consumed in other cultures and therefore already
deemed as safe (Bckstrm et al., 2003). Since functional foods
are a new food category for all cultures and have not had the lux-
ury of time to establish long-term safety, this poses an added ele-
ment of concern for some consumers, particularly those with a
higher degree of food neophobia. Further to this, participants in
the Finnish focus group characterized new foods as being unsafe,
with themes of overdose, poisoning and hysteria (Bckstrm
et al., 2003). Additionally, a study of Canadian students found that
unfamiliar foods were perceived as being slightly, yet signicantly,
more dangerous than familiar foods, and the degree to which par-
ticipants found a food to be dangerous was related to their willing-
ness to consume novel, but not familiar, foods (Pliner, Pelchat, &
Grabski, 1993). These ndings support the qualitative responses
in the current study, where a lack of research into side effects,
was identied as being a risk associated with functional food
consumption, as well as risk of overconsumption, although these
were not related to food neophobia. Overall, this highlights the
importance of ensuring that consumers, including older adults,
are convinced of the safety of functional foods to assuage any fears
associated with new foods.
Related to this, lack of trust in the claimed effects was also iden-
tied in the current study as a risk of functional food consumption,
however not by a lot of participants and this was not related to
food neophobia. In a mailed survey of Swiss participants, Siegrist,
Stampi, and Kastenholz (2008) found that participants who
trusted the food industry were more likely to buy functional foods.
In order to believe what is claimed on functional food labeling and
to be convinced that functional foods are safe, consumers need
trust the companies that are producing these foods.
Additional risks reported by participants in the current study,
but not related to food neophobia, were lack of naturalness, and
processing/manufacturing concerns. Naturalness, or the lack
thereof, is a theme that frequently appears in research involving
consumer attitudes towards functional foods (Bckstrm et al.,
2003; Frewer et al., 2003; Jonas & Beckmann, 1998; Popa & Popa,
2012). With respect to food neophobia, Bckstrm et al. (2004)
found a small, yet signicant, positive correlation between ones
adherence to naturalness and their food neophobia scores, indicat-
ing that naturalness is something more important to individuals
who are more neophobic and therefore warrants continued
attention.
Taste
The current study did not identify taste as a barrier to functional
food consumption that signicantly related to food neophobia. Evi-
dence is conicting as to whether or not neophobics differ in terms
of actual liking (Arvola et al., 1999) or reported likings (Pliner &
Hobden, 1992; Raudenbush & Frank, 1999) of foods.
Food neophobia scores
The current studys mean food neophobia score of 28.7 is low
relative to previous studies which have reported scores from 29.4
to 38.0 (Bckstrm et al., 2003, 2004; Choe & Cho, 2011; Flight
et al., 2003; Hobden & Pliner, 1995; Knaapila et al., 2011; Olabi
et al., 2009; Pliner & Hobden, 1992; Schickenberg et al., 2007;
Tuorila & Mustonen, 2010; Tuorila et al., 2001). On the other hand,
Arvola et al. (1999) and Schickenberg et al. (2011) reported lower
scores of 25.5 in Finnish females, and 27.5 in Dutch students. None
of these studies focused on older adults and only three included
participants P65 years old (Bckstrm et al., 2003, 2004; Tuorila
et al., 2001). The FNS in the current study had a Cronbach alpha
value of 0.85, indicating a high degree of internal validity.
Participant characteristics
In addition to examination of food neophobia in relation to the
specic study hypotheses, the current study collected exploratory
information on participant characteristics that warrant discussion.
Although the current study did not nd a relationship between
food neophobia and age, Tuorila et al. (2001) found that food neo-
phobia scores increased with age in Finnish adults, particularly for
those 6680 years old. Other studies, which differed from the cur-
rent study in terms of demographics, found that food neophobia
scores decreased with age in Canadian students (Pliner &
Hobden, 1992) and Swedish families (Hursti & Sjdn, 1997), or
did not relate in Dutch (Schickenberg et al., 2007) and Korean par-
ticipants (Choe & Cho, 2011). The current studys relatively low
mean food neophobia score and absence of any participants with
upper extreme scores suggests that Canadian older adults with
similar demographics as the current sample (female Caucasians
with high education and income) may be less food neophobic.
Among other demographics, no differences between food neo-
phobia groups and gender or education level were revealed in
the current study. Previous studies have also found no differences
in food neophobia scores for gender in Dutch adults (Schickenberg
 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140
et al., 2007), American and Lebanese students (Olabi et al., 2009)
and Canadian students Pliner & Hobden, 1992) or education levels
in Australian adolescents (Flight et al., 2003). However, Scandina-
vian studies have observed lower food neophobia scores among
women (Bckstrm et al., 2003; Hursti & Sjdn, 1997; Tuorila
et al., 2001) and those with more education (Schickenberg et al.,
2007; Tuorila et al., 2001).
Food neophobia scores and prescription medication use
Prescription medication use was prevalent in the current study
yet the number of prescription medication used did not differ
between food neophobia groups. Food neophobia groups had signif-
icantly different percentages of participants who used prescription
medications and food neophobia group was related to the likeli-
hood of participants worrying about their medications interacting
with functional foods. Interestingly, 87% of Greek dyslipidemic par-
ticipants surveyed by Alevizos, Mihas, and Mariolis (2007) were
willing to consume sterol-enriched foods to lower their cholesterol
instead of taking statins, and although 48.3% believed statins had
adverse effects, only 0.5% believed sterol-enriched foods had
adverse effects. Given that there is a real potential for adverse
fooddrug interactions to occur, with greater medication use
increasing this risk (Eussen et al., 2011), food neophobia may be
protective, as being concerned and aware of these interactions
can potentially prevent them. However, there is also great potential
for functional foods to act as an adjunctive therapy to decrease the
dose or number of medications a patient is taking. If food neopho-
bics are more likely to be taking a greater number of medications,
this reinforces that older adults could benet from functional foods
if appropriately used in combination with their medications and
any risks are claried with their healthcare provider.
Limitations
The data in the current study is self-reported and therefore sub-
ject to discrepancy between actual and reported information.
Although the study was advertised as a food survey, and there-
fore was not specic to functional foods, those who are not inclined
towards food in general, and arguably those with a higher degree
of food neophobia, may not have volunteered to participate in
the study which would limit generalizability of the study results.
Although we included information sheets in the data collection
process, it could not be determined whether or not participants
completely understood the biological plausibility of the role of
functional foods in chronic disease. External validity is also limited
by the studys biased sample toward female Caucasians with rela-
tively high levels of education and household income. Finally it is
important to note the potential of many variables that would con-
found the relationship between food neophobia and factors related
to functional food consumption, such as was observed with income
level and cost as a barrier to functional food consumption.
Conclusions
The results of the current study supported its second and third
hypotheses that in a sample of older adults, a higher degree of food
neophobia would be related to less willingness to try new func-
tional foods and more barriers to functional food consumption. In
contrast, the results did not support its rst and fourth hypotheses
that a higher degree of food neophobia would be related to less
functional food consumption and more perceived risk associated
with functional foods. Although food neophobia alone may not
determine whether or not an individual chooses to consume a
functional food, the results of this study justify the relevance of
139
considering food neophobia in the advance of functional foods,
particularly for older adults.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Canadian Founda-
tion for Dietetic Research (CFDR) for funding support, the older
adults who participated in the study and Jenna Campbell for her
help in construction of the study questionnaire.
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). (2009). Consumer trends: Functional foods.
Market analysis report No. 11061E. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Alevizos, A., Mihas, C., & Mariolis, A. (2007). Advertising campaigns of sterol-
enriched food. An often neglected cause of reduced compliance to lipid
lowering drug therapy. Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, 21(2), 133134.
Arvola, A., Lhteenmki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Predicting the intent to purchase
unfamiliar and familiar cheeses: The effects of attitudes, expected liking and
food neophobia. Appetite, 32(1), 113126.
Bckstrm, A., Pirttil-Backman, A.-M., & Tuorila, H. (2003). Dimensions of novelty:
A social representation approach to new foods. Appetite, 40(3), 299307.
Bckstrm, A., Pirttil-Backman, A.-M., & Tuorila, H. (2004). Willingness to try new
foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales.
Appetite, 43(1), 7583.
Bernard, A., & Li, C. (2006). Death of a spouse: The impact on income for senior men and
women. Statistics Canada catalogue No. 11-621-MIE2006046. Ottawa: Small
Areas and Administrative Data Division and Income Statistics Division,
Statistics Canada.
Choe, J. Y., & Cho, M. S. (2011). Food neophobia and willingness to try non-
traditional foods for Koreans. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), 671677.
Dovey, T. M., Aldridge, V. K., Dignan, W., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, C. G.
(2011). Developmental differences in sensory decision making involved in
deciding to try a novel fruit. British Journal of Health Psychology, 17(2), 258272.
Eussen, S. R. B. M., Verhagen, H., Klungel, O. H., Garssen, J., van Loveren, H., van
Kranen, H. J., et al. (2011). Functional foods and dietary supplements: Products
at the interface between pharma and nutrition. European Journal of
Pharmacology, 668, S2S9.
Flight, I., Leppard, P., & Cox, D. N. (2003). Food neophobia and associations with
cultural diversity and socio-economic status amongst rural and urban
Australian adolescents. Appetite, 41(1), 5159.
Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003). Consumer acceptance of functional
foods: Issues for the future. British Food Journal, 105(10), 714731.
Gilmour, H., & Park, J. (2006). Dependency, chronic conditions and pain in seniors.
Health Reports Supplement, 8, 3345. Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-003.
Hasler, C. M., & Brown, A. C. (2009). Position of the American dietetic association:
Functional foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(4), 735746.
Health Canada. Therapeutic Products Programme and the Food Directorate from the
Health Protection Branch. (1998). Nutraceuticals/functional foods and health
claims on foods. Retrieved from <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/
hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/label-etiquet/nutra-funct_foods-nutra-fonct_aliment-eng.pdf/
>.
Hobden, K., & Pliner, P. (1995). Effects of a model on food neophobia in humans.
Appetite, 25(2), 101114.
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2011).
Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-
related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662673.
Hogan, S., & Hogan, S. (2002). How will the ageing of the population affect health care
needs and costs in the foreseeable future? Discussion paper No. 25. Ottawa:
Commission on the future of health care in Canada, Health Canada.
Hursti, U.-K. K., & Sjdn, P.-O. (1997). Food and general neophobia and their
relationship with self-reported food choice: Familial resemblance in Swedish
families with children of ages 717 years. Appetite, 29(1), 89103.
Jonas, M., & Beckmann, S. C. (1998). Functional foods: Consumer perception in
Denmark and England. Working paper No. 55. Aarhus: MAPP Centre for
Marketing Surveillance Research and Strategy for the Food Sector, The Aarhus
School of Business.
Keller, H. H. (2007). Promoting food intake in older adults living in the community:
A review. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 32(6), 9911000.
Klimas, M., Brethour, C., & Bucknell, D. (2008). International market trends analysis
for the functional foods and natural health products industry in the United States,
Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan: Final report. Guelph: George Morris
Centre.
Knaapila, A., Silventoinen, K., Broms, U., Rose, R. J., Perola, M., Kaprio, J., et al. (2011).
Food neophobia in young adults: Genetic architecture and relation to
personality, pleasantness and use frequency of foods, and body mass index
A twin study. Behavior Genetics, 41(4), 512521.
Kotilainen, L., Rajalahti, R., Ragasa, C., & Pehu, E. (2006). Health enhancing foods:
Opportunities for strengthening the sector in developing countries. Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion Paper 30. Washington: The World Bank.
Landstrm, E., Hursti, U.-K. K., & Magnusson, M. (2009). Functional foods
compensate for an unhealthy lifestyle. Some Swedish consumers
impressions and perceived need of functional foods. Appetite, 53(1), 3443.
140 L.M. Stratton et al. / Food Quality and Preference 41 (2015) 133140
Martins, J. M., Yusuf, F., & Swanson, D. A. (2012). Population growth in global
markets. Consumer Demographics and Behaviour, 5570. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-007-1855-5_4.
Menrad, K. (2003). Market and marketing of functional food in Europe. Journal of
Food Engineering, 56(23), 181188.
Niva, M. (2007). All foods affect health: Understandings of functional foods and
healthy eating among health-oriented Finns. Appetite, 48(3), 384393.
Olabi, A., Najm, N. E. O., Baghdadi, O. K., & Morton, J. M. (2009). Food neophobia
levels of Lebanese and American college students. Food Quality and Preference,
20(5), 353362.
Paulionis, L. (2008). The changing face of food and nutrition in Canada and the
United States: Opportunities and challenges for older adults. Journal of Nutrition
for the Elderly, 27(3), 277295.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food
neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105120.
Pliner, P., Pelchat, M., & Grabski, M. (1993). Reduction of neophobia in humans by
exposure to novel foods. Appetite, 20(2), 111123.
Popa, M. E., & Popa, A. (2012). Consumer behavior: Determinants and trends in
novel food choice. In A. McElhatton & P. J. J. do Amaral Sobral (Eds.), Novel
technologies in food science (pp. 137156). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-7880-6_6.
Rampelli, S1, Candela, M., Severgnini, M., Biagi, E., Turroni, S., Roselli, M., et al.
(2013). A probiotics-containing biscuit modulates the intestinal microbiota in
the elderly. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, 17(2), 166172.
Raudenbush, B., & Frank, R. A. (1999). Assessing food neophobia: The role of
stimulus familiarity. Appetite, 32(2), 261271.
Rigal, N., Frelut, M., Monneuse, M., Hladik, C., Simmen, B., & Pasquet, P. (2006). Food
neophobia in the context of a varied diet induced by a weight reduction
program in massively obese adolescents. Appetite, 46(2), 207214.
Roberts, K. C., Wolfson, C., & Payette, H. (2007). Predictors of nutritional risk in
community-dwelling seniors. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 331336.
Rudkowska, I. (2010). Plant sterols and stanols for healthy ageing. Maturitas, 66(2),
158162.
Schickenberg, B., van Assema, P., Brug, J., & de Vries, N. K. (2007). Are the Dutch
acquainted with and willing to try healthful food products? The role of food
neophobia. Public Health Nutrition, 11(5), 493500.
Schickenberg, B., van Assema, P., Brug, J., & de Vries, N. K. (2011). Information about
the taste stimulates choice of unfamiliar healthful food products. Journal of
Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 24(6), 603611.
Siegrist, M., Stampi, N., & Kastenholz, H. (2008). Consumers willingness to buy
functional foods. The inuence of carrier, benet and trust. Appetite, 51(3),
526529.
Tuorila, H., Lhteenmki, L., Pohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001). Food neophobia
among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food
Quality and Preference, 12(1), 2937.
Tuorila, H., & Mustonen, S. (2010). Reluctant trying of an unfamiliar food induces
negative affection for the food. Appetite, 54(2), 418421.
Turcotte, M., & Schellenberg, G. (2007). A portrait of seniors in Canada. Statistics
Canada catalogue No. 89-519-XIE. Ottawa: Social and Aboriginal Statistics
Division, Statistics Canada.
Urala, N., & Lhteenmki, L. (2004). Attitudes behind consumers willingness to use
functional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15(78), 793803.
Vergari, F., Tibuzzi, A., & Basile, G. (2010). An overview of the functional food
market: From marketing issues and commercial players to future demand from
life in space. In M. T. Giardi, G. Rea, & B. Berra (Eds.), Bio-farms for nutraceuticals
(pp. 308321). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7347-4_23.