Consumers’ Perception and Acceptance of Food Additives

Angela Bearth and Christina Hartmann, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Food Additives and the Consumer 1

Drivers of Consumers’ Perceptions of Food Additives 1
Risk Communication and the Marketing of Food Additives 2
References 3

Food Additives and the Consumer

According to definition, food additives are substances of natural or synthetic origin that are not consumed as a food or as a typical
ingredient of food, but are added to serve a particular technological or sensory function (Branen et al., 2002; Emerton and
Choi, 2008). The most common food additive categories are preservatives, processing food additives, food colors and sweeteners
(Branen et al., 2002; Emerton and Choi, 2008). Food additives bring along many benefits for food production and consumers;
without them, it would be impossible to maintain the current variety, safety, convenience, and quality of foods (Branen et al.,
2002; Emerton and Choi, 2008). Food additives are subjected to an intensive risk assessment process prior to and during their
authorization for use in foods (Branen et al., 2002; Emerton and Choi, 2008). However, owing to the nature of any scientific
process, these processes include a level of inherent uncertainty (Branen et al., 2002; Emerton and Choi, 2008). This uncertainty
is minimized by enforcing strict testing protocols and safeguards (e.g., independent researchers, core requirements for the scientific
evidence, no-observed-adverse-effect-level, acceptable-daily-intake levels). This is why most experts agree on the safety of the
consumption of food additives within the limits of the acceptable daily intake, and moreover, stress the benefits of food additives
for food quality, security and safety (Branen et al., 2002; Emerton and Choi, 2008).
However, consumer research shows that consumers regard food additives with suspicion and worry with risk perceptions ranging
from a general unease to specific concerns regarding their potential detrimental effects on health and well-being, such as causing
cancer, allergies or developmental issues in children (Bearth et al., 2014a; Buchler et al., 2010; Haukenes, 2004; Kajanne and
Pirttilä-Backman, 1996; Mehmetoglu and Demirkol, 2007; Shan et al., 2012; Shan et al., 2013; Tarnavölgyi, 2003). A study
investigated consumers’ perceptions of food additives within three focus groups (i.e., consumers, doctors, food industry experts)
and concluded that consumers exhibit a non-specific fear of food additives, in the sense that they cannot explain in what way food
additives might have health impairing effects, but perceive them as generally unhealthy (Tarnavölgyi, 2003). In a word association
task (Varela and Fiszman, 2013), consumers mentioned primarily neutral or negative associations, while positive associations
regarding food additives’ functions and benefits were less common (68 vs. 19 mentions). Common negative word associations
that consumers have with the term ‘food additives’ are ‘bad for or detrimental to health,’ ‘artificial/not natural’ and ‘chemistry,
modified, medicine’ (Varela and Fiszman, 2013). In terms of risk prioritization, a Swiss survey found that consumers were on average
more worried about food additives than pathogenic bacteria in meat (Bearth et al., 2014b), although there is also evidence from
older US and Australian studies, which have found other risk prioritizations regarding those two potential food risks. For example,
Buchler et al. (2010) found differing risk prioritization for different sociodemographic groups, in the way that women, people
with a higher education and older people were highly concerned about food additives compared to other potential food risks, while
other groups prioritized different potential food risks. For an overview of different risk prioritizations see Branen et al. (2002).

Drivers of Consumers’ Perceptions of Food Additives

Initially, it is important to state, that consumers do not have a homogenous perception of food additives; they do not think of the
entire range of food additive categories when they are asked about their acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions (Branen et al.,
2002). Particularly, consumers associate colors, preservatives, sweeteners and flavor enhancers with the term ‘food additives,’ while
they are less aware of other food additive categories, such as thickeners or antioxidants (Bearth et al., 2014a; Tarnavölgyi, 2003;
Varela and Fiszman, 2013). Moreover, they differentiate between food additives of natural and artificial origin or food additives
that sound artificial (i.e., complicated names, E-number). Substances presented under the label “food additives” are associated
with artificiality and unnaturalness, terms that in turn are associated with harm to health (Bearth et al., 2014a; Behrens et al.,
2010; Dickson-Spillmann et al., 2011; Rozin, 2006; Rozin et al., 2012). Generally, food additives of natural origin or food additives
that are labelled with their common names instead of chemical names or E-numbers obtain more consumer acceptance than
food additives of artificial origin (Bearth et al., 2016; Branen et al., 2002; Dickson-Spillmann et al., 2011; Evans et al., 2010).
Two studies investigating particular kinds of food additives, hydrocolloids used as thickeners and wood-based food additives,
showed that consumers were highly accepting of this kind of food additives due to their natural origin (Stern et al., 2009; Varela
and Fiszman, 2013). Another study, comparing the perception of sweeteners of artificial (i.e., Aspartame) and natural origin

1
2 Consumers’ Perception and Acceptance of Food Additives

(i.e., Steviol glycoside) uncovered a clear preference for the latter in terms of lower risk perception, higher benefit perception and
acceptance, and more positive thoughts and feelings towards Steviol glycoside (Bearth et al., 2016). Thus, when consumers evaluate
product properties and have to decide which products to consume, artificially named food additives might lead to a lack of
perceived naturalness of foods and can be a barrier for the acceptance of the usage of this additive in foods and even the food
product itself.
Another concept that has received considerable criticism, but that has frequently been used to explain consumers’ acceptance and
perceptions is known under the term ‘knowledge deficit model’ (e.g., Hansen et al., 2003). Within this model high risk perceptions
and low acceptance are attributed to consumers’ ignorance and lack of knowledge about the risk. Research indeed suggests that
consumers know very little about the risk assessment and regulation processes of food additives (Bearth et al., 2014a; MacGregor
et al., 1999). Several authors (e.g., Bearth et al., 2014a, 2016; MacGregor et al., 1999; Tarnavölgyi, 2003) found that consumers
exhibit particular difficulties with the concept of dose–response (i.e., every substance is harmful, the harmfulness depends on
the dose an individual was exposed to). This, and the results by Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman (1996) that consumers with a higher
degree of education exhibited more balanced views of food additives, suggests that a lack of knowledge about the risk assessment of
food additives is one of the explanations for the discrepancies between risk perceptions. A recent study tested this in an experimental
setting and found that providing lay-people with information on the risk assessment of food additives, in form of a simple,
educational video, increased the knowledge and reduced consumers’ risk perception (Bearth et al., 2016). Another study by
Shim et al. (2011) has shown similar results using an educational leaflet as means of information transmission.
Another related aspect influencing the acceptance of food additives is the presence of beliefs regarding the personal benefits of
food additives. While there is some controversy regarding the interrelationship between risk and benefit perception, some
researchers have suggested that they are inversely related (Alhakami and Slovic, 1994; Bearth and Siegrist, 2016). Thus, a certain
amount of perceived, personal benefit can outweigh a certain amount of perceived risk. For instance, consumers appreciate pro-
cessed and ready-to-eat foods regarding food preparation time and convenience, while they express concerns regarding food addi-
tives, hormones and pesticides (Behrens et al., 2010; Kretzschmar and Schmid, 2011; Seo et al., 2014). However, not all food
additives have direct conspicuous benefits for consumers (e.g., stabilizers, preservatives) and thus, cannot be weighed in when
consumers judge the usefulness of food additives (Emerton and Choi, 2008).
Furthermore, Amin et al. (2013) used structural equation modelling to identify a number of other influential factors for the
acceptance and encouragement of the use of food additives in foods, such as general food concern, confidence in stakeholders,
perception of the societal impact of science and technology, general risk taking attitudes, perceived risk and benefit, and familiarity
with food additives. Research also showed that persons who are more worried about the impact of modern life on their health,
preferred natural additives as opposed to synthetic compounds in foods (Devcich et al., 2007). Lastly, studies also suggest that
consumers’ perceptions of modern potential risks, such as pesticides and food additives, differ according to socio-demographics
factors (Buchler et al., 2010; Eiser et al., 2002). Thus, women, older people and people with higher education were more concerned
about modern risks than men, younger people and people with lower educational level (Buchler et al., 2010). To sum up, studies
showed that various psychological as well as demographic factors influence the perception and acceptance of food additives. Further
research should be undertaken to better understand drivers of risk perception and acceptance when it comes to food additives.

Risk Communication and the Marketing of Food Additives

Consumers risk perceptions and low acceptance particularly of food additives of artificial origin and the complexity of the topic pose
a number of challenges for policy and marketing. On the one hand, evidence shows that consumer information and education
regarding the risk assessment of food additives lowers unnecessary worries about the safety of food additives; on the other
hand, this ‘knowledge deficit model’ has been heavily criticized for over-simplifying the matter (Bearth et al., 2016; Hansen
et al., 2003; Shim et al., 2011; Verbeke et al., 2007).
Like in various domains, there are some discrepancies among experts’ risk judgments of chemical substances such as food
additives (Kraus et al., 1992; Mertz et al., 1998; Slovic et al., 1995). For instance, Mertz et al. (1998) found that toxicologists working
in industry and government had lower risk perceptions than toxicologists working in academia. Consumers are aware of these
discrepancies in experts’ judgments of the safety of food additives and attribute these discrepancies to the general difficulty of
obtaining reliable scientific knowledge, various interested-related reasons and differences in personal interests, abilities and
personal backgrounds of experts (Haukenes, 2004; Kajanne and Pirttilä-Backman, 1999). This in turn reduces their confidence
and trust in food safety and experts’ judgment and complicates risk communication.
In addition, the way food additives are presented and discussed in old (e.g., newspapers) and new media (e.g., social media,
blogs) might play an important role for consumers’ perceptions. While the potential riskiness of food additives, in particular
of the flavor enhancer Monosodium Glutamate and the sweetener Aspartame, was subjected to an intensive medial debate, the
benefits and usefulness of food additives did not receive as much attention from the media (Hellsten et al., 2010; Lofstedt,
2008, 2009; Mosby, 2009). Moreover, research suggests that people are most prone to read and accept information that is confirm-
ing that a risk is present, such as ‘the study showed that food additives are harmful’ (Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2001; Verbeke et al.,
2007) and information that corresponds with their existent beliefs (i.e., confirmation bias; Nickerson, 1998).
Another important point is that the goal of communication is not imminent in the case of food additives, as uncertainty is
present and food additives are not an unambiguous risk or non-risk. Accurate messages about food additives’ safety are always
 Consumers’ Perception and Acceptance of Food Additives 3

conditional (e.g., Aspartame is not harmful to health, if daily life-long consumption is below the ADI). However, absolute messages
(e.g., Aspartame is safe) are easier to communicate, yet imprecise. The marketing formulae of ‘clean labelling’ utilizes people’s high
risk perception of food additives of artificial origin and their preferences for natural-sounding food additives by using additive-free
labels or by listing food additives with their names instead of e-numbers (Osborn, 2014). While this strategy has its merits, it does
not increase transparency, trust and confidence in the risk assessment process or consumers’ ability for informed decisions
(Robertson, 2006); something that Osborn (2014) calls the clean label paradox: ‘.: consumers are setting the conditions for
product profiles, but they do not really know what the rules are.’ In the consequence, consumers learn that ‘food additive-free’
must be a valuable product attribute when manufactures highlight it on the package with a label. This has of course, a negative
impact on the acceptance of food additives.
Food additives are an important part of the food production system and without them, a lot of products would not be available
for consumers all over the world. Determining the best way to communicate the benefits of food additives is still under researched,
however. Particularly, more research is needed that identifies communication strategies that help consumers to make more
informed decision when it comes to product choice and food additives.

References

Alhakami, A.S., Slovic, P., 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 14 (6), 1085–1096.
Amin, L., Azad, M.A., Samian, A.L., 2013. Factor influencing risk perception of food additives. J. Food Agric. Environ. 11 (2), 66–72.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.E., Siegrist, M., 2014a. The consumer’s perception of artificial food additives: influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Qual. Prefer. 38,
14–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.008.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.E., Siegrist, M., 2014b. Poultry consumers’ behaviour, risk perception and knowledge related to campylobacteriosis and domestic food safety. Food Control.
44, 166–176.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.E., Siegrist, M., 2016. “The dose makes the poison”: informing consumers about the scientific risk assessment of food additives. Risk Anal. 36 (1), 130–144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12410.
Bearth, A., Siegrist, M., 2016. Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: a meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 49,
14–23.
Behrens, J.H., Barcellos, M.N., Frewer, L.J., Nunes, T.P., Franco, B., Destro, M.T., Landgraf, M., 2010. Consumer purchase habits and views on food safety: a Brazilian study. Food
Control. 21 (7), 963–969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.07.018.
Branen, A.L., Davidson, P.M., Salminen, S., Thorngate III, J.H., 2002. Food Additives, 2 ed. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Buchler, S., Smith, K., Lawrence, G., 2010. Food risks, old and new demographic characteristics and perceptions of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia.
J. Sociol. 46 (4), 353–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1440783310384449.
Devcich, D.A., Pedersen, I.K., Petrie, K.J., 2007. You eat what you are: modern health worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives in functional foods. Appetite 48,
333–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.09.014.
Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., Keller, C., 2011. Attitudes towards chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food Qual. Prefer. 22 (1), 149–156.
Eiser, J.R., Coulson, N.S., Eiser, C., 2002. Adolescents’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of food additives and their presence in different foods. J. Risk Res. 5 (2), 167–176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870010004979.
Emerton, V., Choi, E., 2008. Essential Guide to Food Additives. Leatherhead Food International, Surrey, UK.
Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., Cox, D.N., 2010. Consumers’ ratings of the natural and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite 54, 554–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.appet.2010.02.014.
Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., Sandøe, P., 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41 (2),
111–121.
Haukenes, A., 2004. Perceived health risks and perceptions of expert consensus in modern food society. J. Risk Res. 7 (7–8), 759–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13669870210166194.
Hellsten, I., Dawson, J., Leydesdorff, L., 2010. Implicit media frames: automated analysis of public debate on artificial sweeteners. Public Underst. Sci. 19 (5), 590–608.
Kajanne, A., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M., 1996. Toward an understanding of laypeople’s notions about additives in food: clear-cut viewpoints about additives decrease with education.
Appetite 27 (3), 207–222.
Kajanne, A., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M., 1999. Laypeople’s viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Underst. Sci. 8 (4), 303–315.
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., Slovic, P., 1992. Intuitive toxicology – expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 12 (2), 215–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6924.1992.tb00669.x.
Kretzschmar, U., Schmid, O., 2011. Quality and safety aspects of organic and low-input food processing: results of a Delphi survey from an expert consultation in 13 European
countries. Njas-Wageningen J. Life Sci. 58 (3–4), 111–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2011.09.002.
Lofstedt, R.E., 2008. Risk communication, media amplification and the aspartame scare. Risk Manag. 10 (4), 257–284.
Lofstedt, R.E., 2009. Risk communication and the FSA: the food colourings case. J. Risk Res. 12 (5), 537–557.
MacGregor, D.G., Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., 1999. “How exposed is exposed enough?” – lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Anal. 19 (4), 649–659. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/a:1007033619806.
Mehmetoglu, A.C., Demirkol, O., 2007. Preferences of Turkish people for irradiated, GM or organic foods. J. Food Agric. Environ. 5 (3–4), 74–80.
Mertz, C.K., Slovic, P., Purchase, I.F.H., 1998. Judgments of chemical risks: Comparisons among senior managers, toxicologists, and the public. Risk Anal. 18 (4), 391–404. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00353.x.
Mosby, I., 2009. ‘That Won-Ton Soup headache’: the Chinese restaurant syndrome, MSG and the making of American food, 1968–1980. Soc. Hist. Med. 22 (1), 133–151.
Nickerson, R.S., 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2 (2), 175.
Osborn, S., 2014. Labelling relating to natural ingredients and additives. Adv. Food Beverage Label. Inf. Regul. 207.
Robertson, G.L., 2006. Crisis management and risk communication – why the food industry must get it right. Food Aust. 58 (8), 367–371.
Rozin, P., 2006. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 1 (2), 91.
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Shields-Argelès, C., 2012. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59 (2).
Seo, S., Kim, O.Y., Shim, S., 2014. Using the theory of planned behavior to determine factors influencing processed foods consumption behavior. Nutr. Res. Pract. 8 (3), 327–335.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2014.8.3.327.
Shan, L.J., Wu, L.H., Xu, L.L., 2012. An empirical study on consumer perception of food safety risk – an example of food additives. J. Food Agric. Environ. 10 (3–4), 237–239.
Shan, L.J., Yang, D., Wang, L., Xu, L.L., Wang, X.L., 2013. Consumers’ safety perception of food safety in China: a case of food additive. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 24 (5), 28–30.
4 Consumers’ Perception and Acceptance of Food Additives

Shim, S.M., Seo, S.H., Lee, Y., Moon, G.I., Kim, M.S., Park, J.H., 2011. Consumers’ knowledge and safety perceptions of food additives: evaluation on the effectiveness of
transmitting information on preservatives. Food Control. 22 (7), 1054–1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.01.001.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., 2001. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Anal. 21 (1), 199–206. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.211102.
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C.K., Neil, N., Bartlett, S., 1995. Intuitive toxicology II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal. 15 (6), 661–675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x.
Stern, T., Haas, R., Meixner, O., 2009. Consumer acceptance of wood-based food additives. Br. Food J. 111 (2–3), 179–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700910931995.
Tarnavölgyi, G., 2003. Analysis of consumers’ attitudes towards food additives using focus group survey. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 68 (3), 193–196.
Varela, P., Fiszman, S.M., 2013. Exploring consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of hydrocolloids used as food additives and ingredients. Food Hydrocoll. 30 (1), 477–484. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.07.001.
Verbeke, W., Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., De Brabander, H.F., 2007. Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Anal. Chim. Acta 586 (1),
2–7.