Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73 – 83

www.elsevier.com/locate/ifset

Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging

technologies: A conjoint analytic study
Armand V. Cardello a,⁎, Howard G. Schutz b , Larry L. Lesher c
a
Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center, Natick, MA 01760 USA
b
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA USA
c
SAIC, Natick, MA 01760 USA
Received 12 July 2005; accepted 12 July 2006

Abstract

Conjoint analytic surveys were administered to 225 potential consumers of foods processed by innovative and emerging food technologies in
order to assess the factors contributing to their interest in using such products. Respondents included 1) a consumer panel of civilian lab
employees, 2) shoppers in a mall in the northeastern U.S., and 3) U.S. military troops on training exercises. Respondents rated their interest in 49
different food product concepts that varied in food type, processing or production technology, costs, benefits, risks, endorsing agencies, and
product information. Results showed that the relative importance of factors did not vary greatly among the consumer groups. Perceived risks
associated with the technologies were the most important factors influencing interest in use. Among the emerging technologies assessed,
irradiation and genetic modification resulted in the greatest negative effect on likely use, while high pressure processing produced the most
positive effect. The term “cold preservation” had positive associations for all groups, but “minimally processed” had negative associations.
Implications of the data for the marketing of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies are discussed.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Industrial relevance: The food industry is currently interested in a variety of novel production and processing technologies that may result in
economical and improved quality products. However, consumer attitudes toward and conceptions of these new technologies can greatly influence
their success in the marketplace. The results of this study show that “perceived risks” of the technologies are the most important determinant of
interest in their use by consumers. This and other data uncovered in this study suggest that industry must be vigilant in their knowledge of
consumer attitudes toward these processes in order to avoid unexpected failure of these products upon market introduction.

1. Introduction to commercial foods (Dunne, 1999). The ultimate goal of these

The U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center has the mission
responsibility to conduct research related to the development of
a wide range of new and innovative food technologies in order to
improve the shelf life and quality of military rations (Taub, 1999).
Among the technologies that Natick has investigated are food
irradiation, pulsed electric field processing, high pressure
processing, ohmic heating, microwave processing, and radio-
frequency heating. Many of these technologies are and have been
investigated in collaboration with academic and industry partners
with the “dual-use” goal of applying these emerging technologies
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 508 233 4720; fax: +1 508 233 5991.
E-mail address: armand.cardello@natick.army.mil (A.V. Cardello).
1466-8564/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2006.07.002
development efforts is to produce foods and rations that have high
sensory quality and consumer acceptance while meeting the rigid
logistical and shelf-life standards for military combat use.
A critical focus of current research on innovative and emerging
food technologies concerns their likely acceptance by consumers
(both military and civilian). Foods produced or processed by many
of these technologies pose challenging problems for researchers
interested in the factors responsible for consumer choice, accep-
tance and purchase behavior. Like most food products, optimizing
the sensory quality of these foods is critical to their success in the
marketplace. However, optimal sensory quality, on its own, will
not guarantee success. Consumer perceptions about the safety,
cost, and risk/benefits associated with novel technologies can
negatively influence consumer choice and purchase decisions.
74 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83
Over the past several years, investigators have assessed the
concerns of consumers toward a variety of novel food technologies
and other food-related safety issues. Much of this research has been
undertaken using a normative/value model of perceived risk and
has resulted in the identification of a variety of factors that in-
fluence consumer perceptions of risk. Among these are whether the
risk is voluntary or involuntary, immediate or delayed, observable
or unseen, fatal or non-fatal, the degree to which the risk is known
or unknown to science, and the degree of control that consumers
have over the risk (Oser, 1978; Slovic, 1987; Sparks & Shepherd,
1994). Within this context, the application of novel food pro-
cessing technologies to commercial foods often creates high levels
of consumer concern, because the risks associated with these
technologies possess many of the characteristics that engender
greatest concern — they are often involuntary risks, because the
consumer is frequently unaware of the processes that are applied to
purchased foods; they are out of the control of the consumer,
because the consumer is not involved in the processing, and once
applied, the processes cannot be reversed; they are typically un-
observable, having been applied to the food or its ingredients at an
early stage of production; and they often have unknown, delayed,
or potentially fatal (in the eyes of some consumers) health effects.
Over the past several years, much research has been devoted to
the assessment of the perceived risks and concerns of consumers
toward such specific food safety issues as irradiated foods, bio-
engineered foods, foods containing pesticides, foods processed
using laser light sources, and microbially contaminated foods
(Bord & Conner, 1990; Bredahl, 1999; Bruhn, 1995a; Bruhn
et al., 1996; Bruhn, Schutz, & Sommer, 1987; Dunlap & Beus,
1992; Frewer, Howard, & Shepherd 1997a; Frewer & Shepherd,
1995; Frewer, Shepherd, & Sparks, 1994; Grunert et al., 2001;
Miles & Frewer, 2001; Moseley, 1990; Mucci & Hough, 2004;
Mucci, Hough, & Ziliani, 2004; Saba & Vassallo, 2002; Schutz,
Bruhn, & Diaz-Knauf, 1989; Schutz & Cardello, 1997; Sparks &
Shepherd, 1991; Wilcock, Pun, Khanona, & Aung, 2004; Wolf,
1992). Relatively few studies have provided direct comparative
data on consumer concerns related to a broader range of novel or
emerging food production and processing techniques.
In a recent study (Cardello, 2003), concern levels for 20 diffe-
rent traditional and novel food technologies and treatments were
obtained from a group of U.S. consumers who were employees of
an R&D laboratory. Among the food technologies/treatments that
evoked the greatest concern were genetic engineering (rank = 1),
the addition of bacteriocins (2), irradiation (3) and pulsed X-rays
(4). Of somewhat lesser concern were such technologies/treat-
ments as UV-light (6), pulsed electric fields (8), and oscillating
magnetic fields (11). Other innovative and emerging technologies
evoked still lower concern, e.g. hydrostatic pressure (14), radio-
frequency heating (15) and electrical resistance heating (17), while
those evoking the least concern were the traditional processes of
“thermal energy” (19) and “heat pasteurization” (20). In a survey
conducted in 1999, concern levels for 26 different food processing
technologies were obtained from approximately 200 U.S. military
troops (Cardello, 2000). As in the case of the civilian laboratory
personnel, genetic engineering, food irradiation, and the addition
of bacteriocins to foods evoked the greatest concern levels among
the military, while thermal processes and freeze drying evoked the
least concern. However, concern levels for other food processing
technologies differed from those of the laboratory respondents.
These differences could be attributable to a) demographic diffe-
rences among the two consumer samples (the military population
was younger. less well educated and of lower income, and pre-
dominantly male), b) differences in the contextual range of tech-
nologies that were presented for evaluation, or c) differences in the
rating scales that were used. However, the evidence from both
studies was that even seemingly innocuous food processes can
produce relatively high levels of concern among consumers. For
example, 20% of soldiers in the survey by Cardello (2000)
reported that they were either “very concerned” or “extremely
concerned” about high pressure processing of their food. While
perhaps surprising to knowledgeable experts, this finding is
consistent with the findings of Deliza, Rosenthal and Silva (2003),
who reported that one of four consumer groups who tested high
pressure processed pineapple juice lacked the knowledge of what
“high pressure processing” meant, and this lack of knowledge
resulted in negative effects on the acceptance of the product and
low purchase intent.
Lack of knowledge among consumers regarding innovative
and emerging food technologies can serve as a major impediment
to their acceptance. Thus, effective communication regarding
details of the technologies and their benefits become essential for
successful marketing of these products. Several investigators have
examined the role of product and benefit information on the
acceptance and likely purchase and use of foods processed by
novel technologies (see Bruhn, 1995b; Hashim, Resurreccion, &
McWatters, 1996; Jaeger et al., 2004; Lusk et al., 2004; Pohlman,
Wood, & Mason, 1994; Schutz & Cardello, 1997 for examples of
this approach). In these studies, the information has often focused
on the benefits to be achieved from the new technology and on
endorsements of the technology and its benefits by scientific,
governmental, or other food industry organizations (e.g. Frewer,
Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1997). In such studies the
information is made available to the consumer either on product
labels, on in-store displays, through pamphlets, manufacturer
websites, or other forms of media marketing. In addition to
product information, product exposure and trial (tasting) also has
been shown to reduce the reluctance of consumers to choose or
purchase foods processed by novel techniques (Frewer, Howard,
& Shepherd, 1996; Pohlman et al., 1994; Schutz et al., 1989;) or
containing novel ingredients (Luckow, Sheehan, Delahunty, &
Fitzgerald, 2005).
While most educational and other information-based ap-
proaches to changing consumer attitudes and behaviors have
adopted highly product-dependent empirical approaches, in which
a single product or technology is examined along with one or two
forms of information presented in a single format, these approaches
are not useful for assessing the relative importance of the wide
array of factors that operate simultaneously to influence consumer
attitudes toward foods produced or processed by novel technol-
ogies and/or for determining the types of information that may be
most useful for changing these attitudes and behaviors.
In order to address the more general issues related to consumer
attitudes and conceptions regarding foods processed by emerging
technologies and to more broadly assess the information-based
 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83 75

factors responsible for increasing their likely utilization, a Table 2

conjoint analytic study was undertaken with both military and Factors and factor levels used in the conjoint design
civilian consumers, examining the relative importance of a variety Processed/treated by Product type Endorsed by
of factors that may be important to fostering the utilization of these Irradiation A meat item The Food and Drug
products by the consuming public. Administration
Pulsed electric fields A milk/dairy The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
product
2. Methods
High pressure A bakery item University researchers
Heat pasteurization A vegetable The Surgeon General of the U.S.
2.1. Respondents Ionizing energy A fruit juice GreenPeace
Genetic modification A sauce/gravy The World Health
Three groups of respondents were recruited. They consisted of Organization
Cold preservation The manufacturer/processor
two civilians and one military sample. The military respondents
were U.S. Army personnel participating in training exercises in Benefits Cost Risks
Ft. Polk, LA, USA (n = 79). They were selected as a representative
Results in a fresher Is less expensive Has an unknown health risk
sample of the likely consumers of future military rations that may product
be produced/processed by innovative and emerging technologies. Is minimally No difference in cost Is untested
The civilian respondents were 1) employees of the U.S. Army processed
Natick Soldier Center, Natick, MA, USA, none of whom worked Has lower Is more expensive Uses more energy
bacterial risk
in a food-related field (n = 70) and 2) a sample of shoppers at a
Is better tasting Reduces worker safety
large retail mall in Natick, MA, USA (n = 76). The sample of Is more nutritious May produce harmful
laboratory employees was selected, because many of the deci- byproducts
sions regarding the adoption of new rations for the military are
based on sensory and other data collected from civilian employee Format/type of product and processing information
panels during the design and development of the rations. Thus, it The processing information is printed on the package label
is important to know whether the same factors influence their Product samples are available for tasting in the store
attitudes and conceptions about foods processed by innovative Processing information is available in pamphlets at the store
Processing information is available on a website
technologies as affects the attitudes of military personnel for Processing information is posted on the store shelf
whom the foods are being developed. The employee panel used
here was comprised of administrative, secretarial and research
support staff, as well as summer interns. Research staff who work
in food-related fields were excluded from participation. Other basis of the conceptual dimension or behavior of interest. The
research staff may have been aware of some of the technologies, “attributes” in this case constitute the factors that are believed to
but only through social interactions with other employees. The underlie the behavior of interest. By varying the factors or their
group of mall shoppers was selected to serve as an unbiased levels in each choice alternative using a statistically-determined
control group against which the attitudes and perceptions of both experimental design, conjoint analysis enables the researcher to
the military respondents and the laboratory employees could be “work backwards” from the choices/ratings made by the
compared. Table 1 shows relevant demographics of the consumer to uncover the relative importance of each factor
respondent groups. without the need to ever directly ask the consumer his opinion of
the importance of the factor to his/her choices or ratings.
2.2. Conjoint questionnaire In the present research, the same conjoint analytic survey
was administered to each of the three respondent groups. SPSS
Conjoint analysis is a consumer research technique that seeks 12.0 Conjoint was used to generate an orthogonal main-effects
to uncover the factors controlling consumer choice behavior using fractional factorial design that minimizes the number of stimu-
multiattribute choice alternatives in conjunction with a specified lus concepts required for presentation. SPSS Orthoplan created
experimental design. Consumers are presented with a large set of the stimulus concepts required for the study. Each stimulus
multiattribute choice alternatives and choose or rate them on the concept contained one factor item (level) from each of 7 factors.
Each group of respondents completed questionnaires in which
they evaluated 49 different food product concepts created by the
Table 1 design, each comprised of one level of these seven factors
Demographics and sample sizes of consumer groups (product type, method of food processing, cost, risks, benefits,
Military Civilian information type, and the source of product endorsement).
Lab employees Mall Shoppers Factors were selected to represent those variables that have been
Gender 98% M, 2% F 68% M, 32% F 61% M, 39% F shown in the literature (cited in the Introduction) to be important
Age (mean) 24 42 32 drivers of consumer interest and use of food products produced/
Income (% N $50 K) 1% 69% 65% processed using novel and emerging food technologies.
Location of testing Fort Polk, LA Natick, MA Natick, MA For each factor, several different factor levels were used to
n 70 76 79
construct the concepts (see Table 2 for a listing of both the factors
76 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83

training exercises. All groups were provided written and oral

instructions on how to complete the questionnaires, and all
respondents were allowed to ask questions for further clari-
fication. Questionnaires were completed by pencil, with sub-
jects indicating their interest in use of the product by circling
one of the multiple choice rating categories for the dependent
variable (see Fig. 1).

3. Results

The data from the conjoint study were analyzed using SPSS
Conjoint 12.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Il). This software
uses a general linear model analysis to calculate the part-worths
or “utility values” for each level of each factor. These utility
values indicate the influence of each factor level on the re-
Fig. 1. An example concept rating page from the conjoint questionnaire.
spondent's ratings. An “averaged importance” value is also
calculated for each factor that reflects the relative range of utility
values for the levels within each factor. The calculated utility
and factor levels). The food processes were selected to represent a values can be summed to produce a predicted value for the
wide range of likely concern levels, ranging from traditional dependent measure, which can then be correlated with the actual
processes of low concern, e.g. heat pasteurization, to novel ratings in order to determine the degree of fit of the model to the
processes that often evoke high concern among consumers, e.g. data.
genetic modification and irradiation. Some processing names
were selected as alternative labels that could evoke different levels 3.1. Fit of the model(s) and relative importance of factors
of concern for the same process, e.g. “ionizing energy” versus
“irradiation”, while others were generic process names that could The data were well fit by the statistical model for all three
be used to represent a class of processes, e.g. “cold preservation”. consumer groups (Natick employees: r = .991, mall shoppers:
Benefits were selected to cover sensory, microbiological, fresh- r = .993, military consumers: r = .992).
ness, nutrition and reduced processing benefits. Endorsing agen- Fig. 2 shows the averaged importance values for the seven
cies/individuals were selected to represent a range of sources, factors utilized in the study [data for civilians are in gray (Natick
including various agencies in the U.S. Government, university
researchers, international health organizations, consumer groups,
and manufacturers/processors. Risks focused on environmental,
health, energy and safety issues, as well as the risk of being
untested. Product and cost factors were chosen to represent a
range in each category.
Since all possible combination of factor levels are plausible
to naïve consumers, no combination of factor levels was dis-
allowed in the creation of the 49 concepts. Thus, while certain
combinations of factor levels, e.g. “high pressure processing”
combined with “a baked item”, may be unrealistic in technical
practice, they were not disallowed.
After reading each product concept, respondents rated the
product for their interest in using it. A 5-point rating scale was
employed (1 = not at all interested; 5 = extremely interested).
Fig. 1 shows an example of concept rating page from the
questionnaire.

2.3. Procedure

Natick employees completed the questionnaires during a

survey session in which they were seated in individual con-
sumer testing booths. The mall consumers were solicited for
their participation while shopping and completed the survey at a
Fig. 2. Average importance values for the overall factors contributing to
central testing site in the mall. Military consumers completed consumer interest in foods processed by emerging technologies. Letters above/
the questionnaires in small groups while seated in an open below the bars reflect significant differences between respondent groups; bars
warehouse building during a rest period that was part of field with different letters are significantly different at p b .05.
 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83 77

employees) and white (shoppers); data for military are in

black]. ANOVA conducted on the importance values showed
significant differences among the factors (F = 100.9, df = 6,
1290; p b .001), but there was no significant interaction by
respondent group. The potential risk associated with the product
had the greatest importance in determining consumers' interest
in use for all respondent groups. Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferroni adjustment showed risk to be significantly more
important (p b .05) than all other factors in its contribution to
respondent interest in using the product. This factor was fol-
lowed, in approximate order and for all respondent groups, by
the processing method, the endorsing agency/individual (not
significantly less important than processing method), and the
product type (significantly lower than processing method, but
not significantly different than endorsing individual/agency).
These were followed by product type and the type/nature of
product information, both of which were significantly and
progressively lower in importance. Cost was the least important
factor and was also significantly less important than all other
factors. In comparing differences among respondent groups,
there were significant differences (p b .05) for benefits and cost,
but the overall pattern of importance was quite similar among
groups. Fig. 4. Utility values for the contribution of each food processing method to
consumer interest in the use of products processed by emerging technologies.
Letters above/below the bars reflect significant differences between respondent
3.2. Utility values for factor levels
groups; bars with different letters are significantly different at p b .05.

Figs. 3–8 show the utility values for the different levels of
each factor shown in Fig. 2. The utility values reflect the relative
contribution of that element to the consumers' rating of the
concept. Positive values (bars above the horizontal line located
at 0.0) reflect positive contributions to the rating of interest in
use, while negative values (bars below the line) reflect negative
contributions. Note that the sum of the utility values across all

Fig. 3. Utility values for the contribution of risk factors to consumer interest in
the use of products processed by emerging technologies. Letters above/below
the bars reflect significant differences between respondent groups; bars with Fig. 5. Utility values for the contribution of benefit types to consumer interest in
different letters are significantly different at p b .05. the use of products processed by emerging technologies.
78 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83
Fig. 6. Utility values for the contribution of each endorsement source to
consumer interest in the use of products processed by emerging technologies.
Letters above/below the bars reflect significant differences between respondent
groups; bars with different letters are significantly different at p b .05.
factor levels is equal to zero (0.0), but and that for ease of
visualization of differences, the range of utility values along the
ordinates of Figs. 3–8 vary.
Fig. 7. Utility values for the contribution of each form/source of product
information to consumer interest in the use of products processed by emerging
technologies.
Fig. 8. Utility values for the contribution of cost to consumer interest in the use
of products processed by emerging technologies. Letters above/below the bars
reflect significant differences between respondent groups; bars with different
letters are significantly different at p b .05.
3.3. Potential risks
Fig. 3, which shows the data for potential “risks”, reveals that
“harmful byproducts” and “unknown health risks” both contribute
high negative utility value to consumers' interest in use of the
products relative to all other risks. ANOVA (F = 123.7, df = 4,
860, p b .001) with Bonferroni adjusted multiple comparisons
showed these two risks to contribute significantly more (p b .05)
negative utility to interest in use of the products than all other
risks. This was true for all respondent groups, in spite of an overall
risk × respondent group interaction (p b .002). The term “untested”
had some slight negative utility and also stands in sharp contrast to
other potential risks, such as “reduced worker safety” and “greater
energy use” in terms of influencing interest in use by all consumer
groups. The only meaningful difference between respondent
groups was for “reduces worker safety”, which had lower utility
for the civilian lab employees, followed by the military consumers
and then the mall shoppers, all of whom differed significantly
(p b .05) from one another.
3.4. Food processing/production method
Fig. 4 shows the utility values for the different food processing/
production methods. On an absolute basis, genetic modification
and irradiation had the greatest negative utility values for all
consumer groups. ANOVA (F = 19.2, df = 6, 1290, p b .001) with
Bonferroni adjusted multiple comparisons showed genetic modi-
fication to contribute significantly more (p b .05) negative utility
to interest in use than all other processing methods for the lab
employees, but for the military and shopping mall respondents,
 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83 79

genetic modification and irradiation were not significantly dif-
ferent from one another (F for factor × respondent group in-
teraction = 2.6, df = 12, 1290, p b .002). Looking at the data for
“irradiation” in Fig. 4, the significantly lower negative utility
value for “irradiation” among the lab employees versus the
shopping mall respondents may be due to a greater familiarity
with this type of processing among these respondents (Natick
Labs had an active food irradiation program for some years). The
military respondents had intermediate utility which was not sig-
nificantly different from either of the latter groups. For “genetic
modification”, the significantly greater negative utility for the
laboratory employees may be a reflection of the relative nature of
the utility values, i.e. the sum of the utility values across all factor
levels must equal zero (0.0). Since these respondents had lower
negative utility for irradiation, the higher negative utility for
genetic modification may simply be the relative counterpart to
this. Besides genetic modification and irradiation, the only other
technology that showed differences by respondent groups was
pulsed electric fields (Fig. 4).
For other processing/production technologies, high pressure
processing had the most positive utility value for most respondent
groups and was not significantly different from heat pasteuriza-
tion or “cold preservation”. “Ionizing energy”, a synonym for
irradiation, was viewed more favorably than the term “irradiation”
among all respondent groups, although this difference only
reached significance (p b .05) among the shopping mall respon-
dents. Also, of some particular interest to the marketing of non-
thermally processed foods is the fact that the term “cold
preservation” had positive utility for all consumer groups.
3.5. Perceived benefits
more positive among the laboratory employees than the shopping
mall respondents, with military respondents falling in the middle.
Surprisingly, university researchers had negative utility values
that were not significantly different from those for food manu-
facturers/processors or Green Peace, although the mall shopper
sample had less negative utility for manufacturers/processors than
did the lab employees.
3.7. Format/type of product information
With regard to the format and type of product information,
Fig. 7 shows that product information presented on store
shelves had negative utility for all consumer groups, while in-
store pamphlets had positive utility for all groups. The utility of
other forms of information varied by respondent group, with
military respondents having high positive utility for information
located on websites and reduced utility for package labels and
in-store samples, as compared to both civilian groups. However,
no differences reached statistical significance.
3.8. Cost and product type
Figs. 8 and 9 show the obtained utility values for cost and
product type. Cost showed an expected inverse relationship with
utility value for all groups, with differences among the cost levels
being highly significant (F = 16.6, df = 2430, p b .001). Lab em-
ployees had significantly more positive utility for low cost than the
other respondent groups. Product type failed to show significant
differences among products, although sauces/gravies and meat
items were generally negative, while fruit juice and bakery items

Fig. 5 shows the utility values for the different benefits to be

achieved from the use of the technologies. ANOVA showed
significant differences among the factor levels (F = 14.1, df= 5,
1075, p b .001) and a significant interaction with respondent group
(F = 1.9, df = 10, 1075, p b .05), although no single benefit showed
a statistically significant difference by respondent group. Of the 6
benefits examined, better taste and better nutrition were viewed by
all consumer groups to have the greatest absolute positive utility,
although the effect was not significant among all groups. “Mini-
mally processed” and “fewer preservatives” had negative utility
for all consumer groups. Interestingly, among the lab respondents,
these two benefits had significantly lower utility values than all
other benefit types (p b .05), perhaps suggesting that scientifically
literate consumer groups do not perceive fewer additives or less
processing as benefits in food.

3.6. Endorsing agency/individuals

With regard to the endorsing agencies/individuals, there was a

significant effect of factor levels on utility values (F = 13.0, df = 6,
1290, p b .001) and no interaction with respondent group. Fig. 6
shows that all consumer groups were most positive about en-
Fig. 9. Utility values for the contribution of product type to consumer interest in
dorsements made by the Surgeon General of the United States or, the use of products processed by emerging technologies. Letters above/below
to a lesser extent, other government agencies (FDA, USDA). The the bars reflect significant differences between respondent groups; bars with
utility values for the Surgeon General were significantly (p b .05) different letters are significantly different at p b .05.
80 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83
had positive utility. Military consumers had significantly higher
utility for meat products than did mall shoppers, possibly due to
the generally high preference for meat in rations.
3.9. Predicting consumer interest in products processed by
emerging technologies
By using the utility values produced by conjoint analysis, it
is possible to make predictions about consumer interest toward
any specific product concept. This is done by summing the
utility values for each selected factor level with the constant
produced by the model. This predictive approach enables the
comparison of predicted consumer interest in the use of any two
or more product concepts. Using the models it is possible to
predict consumer interest in use of two similar products
produced by two different processing techniques. Take the
example of two “fruit juices” for which processing information
is presented “on the label” and both of which are “more ex-
pensive” than traditional fruit juices. Let's assume that Product
A is a juice processed by “high pressure”, marketed as “fresher”
and endorsed by “FDA”, but which consumers believe “uses
more energy”, while Product B has been processed by “irra-
diation”, marketed as having “fewer preservatives” and en-
dorsed by the “World Health Organization”, but that consumers
believe it has “harmful byproducts”. By summing the utility
values for each factor level with the model constants, the
predicted interest in use of Juice A is 2.72, 3.22 and 3.12 for the
lab employees, military respondents, and mall shoppers, re-
spectively. Thus, this product is predicted to generate “moderate
interest” among these consumer groups (means range from 2.72
to 3.12, where 3.0 = “moderate interest”). Juice B, on the other
hand, results in predicted use scores of 1.55, 1.85, and 1.85 for
the same three respondent groups. Thus, Juice B is predicted to
generate consumer interest below “slightly interested” (means
range from 1.55 to 1.85, where 2.0 = “slightly interested”). Pre-
dictions for other conceptual products can be easily made
through the summing of utility values generated by the conjoint
model. This predictive aspect of conjoint analysis for con-
ceptual product design holds great potential for identifying
critical product features required to maximize the likely success
of a product prior to its market introduction.
4. Discussion
Although there were large differences among the three
consumer groups in terms of age, gender, and income level
(Table 1) and while military demographic data support the
existence of a large difference in educational level and socio-
economic status between military personnel and civilians, the
differences in their perceptions of the relative importance of
factors contributing to their interest in foods processed by
innovative and emerging technologies were relatively small and
only occasionally reached statistical significance. For all con-
sumer groups, the potential risk of the technology was the most
important factor determining interest in use. Harmful bypro-
ducts and unknown health risks had the greatest effects on
lowering interest in use. These data are consistent with findings
in the risk perception literature showing that involuntary and/or
unknown risks are important drivers of product acceptance and
use, and that consumers often associate foods processed by
novel technologies, e.g. genetically modified foods, with con-
cepts of “unnatural”, “unknown”, “unsafe” and/or “unhealthy”
(Grunert et al., 2001; Harper, Henson, Bredhal, & Jaeger, 2002).
Of some further interest in these data is the fact that the military
group was almost entirely male and that, while the differences
among respondent groups did not reach statistical significance,
the military respondents attached the lowest level of importance
to the risks associated with the products. This is consistent with
previous studies that have shown males to have generally lower
levels of concern for novel and/or risky food technologies than
females (Cardello, 2003; Malone, 1990; Terry & Tabor, 1988).
For all consumer groups tested, the food processes/produc-
tion methods that were perceived most negatively were genetic
modification and irradiation. These results are consistent with
previous data on relative concern levels for novel and emerging
technologies (Cardello, 2000, 2003) that have shown greatest
consumer concern among U.S. respondents for genetic engi-
neering and irradiation and much lower levels of concern for
other emerging technologies. Of some interest to the marketing
of nonthermal technologies is the fact that the term “cold pre-
servation”, which in the past was often used to refer generally to
nonthermal methods, had positive utility for all respondent
groups and was not perceived differently from “heat pasteuri-
zation”. However, it is unclear what meaning consumers ascribe
to “cold preservation”. In previous survey work, many re-
spondents interpreted this phrase to mean refrigerated or frozen
products (Cardello, 2000). Of additional importance is the fact
that, among the other emerging technologies, high pressure
processing had the most positive utility and was not different
from either “heat pasteurization” or “cold preservation”.
Among the benefits that might be put forth in the marketing
of products processed by novel and emerging technologies,
better nutrition and better taste were seen by all consumer
groups to be the most positive benefits contributing to interest in
their use. The high importance of “taste” to consumers is a
critical finding and supports previous conjoint and other con-
sumer studies showing the factor of taste to be a critical driver of
consumer perceptions of food quality and acceptance (e.g.
Moskowitz & Krieger, 1995; Tuorila & Cardello, 2002, Car-
dello & Schutz, 2003).
For many emerging technologies, e.g. pulsed electric fields
and high pressure processing, the opportunity to provide a
fresher tasting product is a major benefit to be promoted in their
marketing, e.g. “fresher with pressure”. However, examination
of the specific benefit statement “fresher product” shows only
low positive or even negative utility (for mall respondents). This
finding may mean that consumers do not care as much if the
product is objectively fresher, as long as it tastes better, and that
marketers should focus greater attention on the concept of
“better taste” and “better nutrition” in the future marketing of
these foods.
The finding that the phrase “minimally processed” has
negative utility for consumers also should be of concern to
marketers of these products, since current marketing efforts
 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83
often tout the products as being “minimally processed”. This
marketing strategy is based on the assumption that consumers
view minimal processing as a benefit. However, minimally pro-
cessing may only be perceived as a benefit by food processing
technologists and nutrition experts who know the detrimental
effects of heat processing on food quality and nutrition. For the
average consumer, the term “minimally processed” may imply,
instead, that the product has not been processed sufficiently,
and therefore may pose some microbiological or other safety
risk. Ironically, even a somewhat more technologically savvy
group of respondents, as is represented here by the laboratory
employee group, did not associate benefit to the term “minimally
processed”. Clearly, greater attention and analysis needs to be
devoted to the meaning of phrases used by food industry
professionals, before the marketers of these emerging technol-
ogies use these technically-oriented phrases in consumer mar-
keting campaigns.
The fact that the Surgeon General of the United States had the
highest positive utility value for “source of product endorsement”
is not surprising for the military group or for the employees of
Natick Labs, a U.S. government laboratory. However, the fact that
this source of endorsement also had the highest utility for the
sample of mall shoppers is testimony to the generality of con-
fidence placed in this source by American consumers. The other
two government sources (USDA and FDA) were the only other
endorsing elements that had positive utility for consumers. The
positive effect of all of the government sources of endorsement
stands in contrast to findings from the U.K. and other European
countries, where government agencies are distrusted (Frewer
et al., 1997; Moses, 1999), especially on issues related to bio-
engineered foods. While it is not surprising that the “manufac-
turer/processor” and “Green Peace” both had negative utility
(presumably due to their lack of impartiality), it was unexpected
that university researchers would be perceived in a similar nega-
tive light. In a study on consumer attitudes toward food irradiation
conducted in 1993 (Bruhn & Schutz, 1999), university scientists
were seen as a credible source of food safety information. There
are two potential reasons for the apparent discrepancy between the
results observed by Bruhn and Schutz (1999) and the present
findings. First, it can be speculated that during the past decade, the
often conflicting reports of university researchers concerning the
benefits (or hazards) related to environmental and other health
issues have made them a less reliable source of factual infor-
mation on matters of risk in the minds of consumers. Alter-
natively, since the survey by Bruhn and Schutz (1999) was
accompanied by a cover letter printed on university stationary, the
respondents in the latter study may have been less inclined to
report distrust of university scientists than the respondents in the
present study.
Regarding the methods for communicating processing infor-
mation, the military respondents had highest utility for website
information, as opposed to labeling on the package or the avai-
lability of samples to taste in the store. This may reflect the
younger demographics (Table 1) of this population, who are
likely to be more facile and more comfortable with obtaining
information “on-line” and from Internet sources than would
older populations. The method by which one communicates
81
important product information to the consumer must be geared
to the consumer segment being targeted, and no single infor-
mation format or medium will necessarily be effective for all
consumers.
Although the inverse relationship between cost and utility
values is logical and to be expected, it must be kept in mind that,
relative to all of the other factors examined, cost was the least
important factor (Fig. 2). This is reflected in the low absolute
values of the utilities in Fig. 8. This finding is consistent with a
recent study on GM foods (Jaeger, Deliza, & Barros, 2003),
showing that for some consumers, cost is far less important than
concerns toward the technology itself. Clearly, such factors as
the specific technology, its perceived risks, and its benefits will
far outweigh economic factors in consumers' decisions about
the purchase and use of foods processed by innovative and
emerging technologies.
Lastly, with regard to the specific food product to which these
technologies are applied, although there is variability in the data,
the negative utilities associated with meats and sauces/gravies for
most consumer groups implies that novel processes, when applied
to animal products, may engender more concern than when
applied to plant products. This is in keeping with previous studies
that have shown animal-based (versus plant-based) products to be
more susceptible to the influence of risk perceptions associated
with novel technologies (Chen & Raffan, 1999; Frewer et al.,
1997; Funcane & Holup, 2005; Harper et al., 2002; Moses, 1999).
In retrospect, there are certain caveats that must be considered
when interpreting the data from this study. First is the fact that the
civilian data only represent opinions of U.S. consumers in the
northeastern U.S. It is not a stratified sample, nor does it neces-
sarily reflect the attitudes to be found in other regions of the
country. Secondly, the total number of respondents in each group
is relatively small, although the consistency of the data among
groups suggests that the data are relatively robust. Thirdly, the
responses of the consumers were made to the names of the
technologies. It is unknown what knowledge or misconceptions
the respondents had about these technologies. Thus, the data
reflect the consumers' conceptions of these technologies, given
their current state of knowledge (or ignorance). Lastly, to a degree,
the data are context dependent. That is, if a different set of
elements within any factor were chosen, the relative utility values
of other elements in the set could change, as could the overall
importance of that factor relative to other factors. The latter
possibility must be considered in any survey, since the specific set
of questions or response alternatives can create a perceptual or
cognitive context upon which all responses are dependent.
5. Conclusions
The relative importance of factors influencing interest in the
use of foods produced or processed by innovative and emerging
technologies did not vary greatly among either the military or
civilian consumer groups used in this study. This relative stability
in responses suggests that consumer attitudes and opinions rega-
rding these technologies and the factors that drive their acceptance
are relatively robust. For those in the novel food processing
industry, these data mean that consumer attitudes cannot be
82 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83
ignored as representing only a minority opinion. The fact that the
perceived potential risk of the technologies was the most im-
portant factor influencing consumer interest in their use, suggests
that regardless of the actual risks of the technologies, the per-
ceived risks are the critical determinants of the market success of
these technologies. Industry leaders who ignore these perceived
risks do so at their product's peril. Among the technologies
assessed, irradiation and genetic modification resulted in the
greatest negative utilities, while high pressure processing pro-
duced the most positive utility values of all the emerging tech-
nologies. The latter finding should suggest to industry that high
pressure processing may find more rapid acceptance among
consumers than other technologies with less positive associations.
Industry marketers of innovative and emerging food technologies
also need to explore further the meaning to consumers of such
phrases as “minimally processed” and “cold preservation” in
order to optimize the marketing strategy and marketplace po-
tential for these foods. Lastly, the innovative food processing
industry and its marketing arm should utilize the predictive power
of conjoint analysis for the design of new food products, and this
consumer-based, predictive research should be followed-up with
validity testing in test markets that mimic the consumer segments
used in generating the conjoint predictions.
References
Bord, R. J., & Conner, R. E. (1990). Risk communication, knowledge and
attitudes: Explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk
Analysis, 10(4), 499−506.
Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumer's cognitions with regard to genetically modified
foods: Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 33,
343−360.
Bruhn, C. M. (1995a). Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated
food. Journal of Food Protection, 58, 175−181.
Bruhn, C. M. (1995b). Strategies for communicating the facts on food irradiation
to consumers. Journal of Food Protection, 58, 213−216.
Bruhn, C. M., & Schutz, H. G. (1999). Consumer food safety knowledge and
practices. Journal of Food Safety, 19, 73−87.
Bruhn, C. M., Schutz, H. G., Johns, M. C., Lamp, C., Stanford, G., Steinbring, Y. J.,
et al. (1996). Consumer response to the use of lasers in food processing. Dairy,
Food and Environmental Sanitation, 16(12), 810−816.
Bruhn, C. M., Schutz, H. G., & Sommer, R. (1987). Food irradiation and
consumer values. Ecology of Food and Nutrition., 21, 219−235.
Cardello, A.V. (2000). Consumer attitudes and expectations toward non-thermal
and other novel food processing techniques. Presentation at: the IFT Non-
thermal Processing Division Workshop on Non-thermal Processing of Food.
Portland, OR.
Cardello, A. V. (2003). Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food
processing technologies: Effects on product liking. Appetite, 40(3),
217−233.
Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2003). The concept of food freshness:
Uncovering its meaning and importance to consumers. In K. R. Cadwallader
& H. Weenen (Eds.), Freshness and Shelf Life of Foods (pp. 22−41).
Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.
Chen, S., & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Student's knowledge and
attitudes in the U.K. and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1),
17−23.
Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., & Silva, A. L. S. (2003). Consumer attitude towards
information on non-conventional technology. Food Science and Technology,
14, 43−49.
Dunlap, R. E., & Beus, C. E. (1992). Understanding public concerns about
pesticides: An empirical examination. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26,
418−438.
Dunne, C. P. (1999, Nov.–Dec. 9–11). Food processing industry advances. The
Warrior.
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Consumer
attitudes toward different food-processing technologies used in cheese
production — The influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and
Preference, 8, 271−280.
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1996). The influence of realistic
product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering foodstuffs. Food
Quality and Preference, 7, 61−67.
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns about general
and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics.
Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98−124.
Frewer, L. J., & Shepherd, R. (1995). Ethical concerns and risk perceptions
associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelation-
ships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agricultural
and Human Values, 12, 48−57.
Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). The interrelationship between
perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-
related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. Journal
of Food Safety, 14, 19−40.
Funcane, M. L., & Holup, J. L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors
affecting perceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the
literature. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1603−1612.
Grunert, K. G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N. A., Poulsen, J. B., Ueland, O., &
Astrom, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food products involving
genetic modification — Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic
countries. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 527−542.
Harper, G., Henson, S. J., Bredhal, M., Jaeger, S. R. (2002). Consumer
acceptability of genetically-modified functional food products. Unpublished
working paper, Center for International Trade Studies, University of Missouri.
Hashim, I. B., Resurreccion, A. V. A., & McWatters, K. H. (1996). Consumer
attitudes toward irradiated poultry. Food Technology, 50, 77−80.
Jaeger, S. R., Deliza, R., & Barros, A. M. (2003). Demand for genetically
modified fruit among consumers in Brazil and New Zealand. Poster
presented at the 5th Rosemary Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium,
Boston, MA, July 2003.
Jaeger, S. R., Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Moore, M., Morrow, B., et al.
(2004). The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring the
acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15,
701−714.
Luckow, T., Sheehan, V., Delahunty, C., & Fitzgerald, G. (2005). Determining
the odor and flavor characteristics of probiotic, health-promoting ingredients
and the effects of repeated exposure on consumer acceptance. Journal of
Food Science, 70(1), S53−S59.
Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., et al.
(2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer
acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental
auctions in United States. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31,
179−204.
Malone, J. W., Jr. (1990). Consumer willingness to purchase and to pay more for
potential benefits of irradiated fresh food products. Agribusiness, 6(2),
163−178.
Miles, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about different
food hazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 47−61.
Moseley, B. (1990). Food safety: Perception, reality and research. Royal College
of General Practitioners Members Handbook (pp. 346−351).
Moses, V. (1999). Biotechnology products and European consumers. Biotech-
nology Advances, 17(8), 647−678.
Moskowitz, H. R., & Krieger, B. (1995). The contribution of sensory liking to
overall liking: An analysis of six food categories. Food Quality and
Preference, 6, 83−90.
Mucci, A., & Hough, G. (2004). Perceptions of genetically modified foods by
consumers in Argentina. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 43−51.
Mucci, A., Hough, G., & Ziliani, C. (2004). Factors that influence purchase
intent and perceptions of genetically modified foods among Argentine
consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 559−567.
Oser, B. L. (1978). Benefit/risk: Whose? What? How much? Food Technology,
32(8), 55−58.
 A.V. Cardello et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8 (2007) 73–83
Pohlman, A. J., Wood, O. B., & Mason, A. C. (1994). Influence of audiovisuals
and food samples on consumer acceptance of food irradiation. Food
Technology, 48(12), 46−49.
Saba, A., & Vassallo, M. (2002). Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene
technology in tomato production. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 13−21.
Schutz, H. G., Bruhn, C. M., & Diaz-Knauf, K. V. (1989). Consumer attitude
toward irradiated foods: Effects of labeling and benefit information. Food
Technology, 43, 80−86.
Schutz, H. G., & Cardello, A. V. (1997). Information effects on acceptance of
irradiated foods in a military population. Dairy, Food, and Environmental
Sanitation, 17(8), 470−481.
Slovic, P. (1987). Risk perception. Science, 236, 280−285.
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1991). A review of risk perception research:
Implications for food safety issues. Report for the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food. Reading, England: AFRC Institute of Food Research.
83
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of food related hazards:
Individual and social dimensions. Food Quality and Preference, 5,
185−194.
Taub, I. A. (1999). An integrated perspective on food preservation and
stabilization. Activities Report of the R&D Associates, 51(1), 171−188.
Terry, D. E., & Tabor, R. L. (1988). Consumer acceptance of irradiated produce.
Journal of Food Distribution Research, 19(1), 73−89.
Tuorila, H., & Cardello, A. V. (2002). Consumer responses to an off-flavor in the
presence of specific health claims. Food Quality and Preference, 13,
561−669.
Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004). Consumer attitudes,
knowledge and behavour: A review of food safety issues. Trends in Food
Science and Technology, 15, 56−66.
Wolf, I. D. (1992). Critical issues in food safety, 1991–2000. Food Technology,
46(1), 64−70.