2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.11.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consumer reaction to information on food additives: Evidence from an eating experiment and a field survey

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference in appraised price between consumers aware of the dangers of food additives and consumers who tend to conform to others may result from the difference in the importance they place on such information, which reflects whether the consumer actively seeks such information or not. These results are similar to previous studies' finding that for food technology, consumers tend to accept the negative information more than the positive information, even if the technology has many merits (Aoki et al 2010). Moreover, consumers with non-scientific information selected the negative information more (Hayes et al 2002).…”
Section: Conjoint Analysis Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The difference in appraised price between consumers aware of the dangers of food additives and consumers who tend to conform to others may result from the difference in the importance they place on such information, which reflects whether the consumer actively seeks such information or not. These results are similar to previous studies' finding that for food technology, consumers tend to accept the negative information more than the positive information, even if the technology has many merits (Aoki et al 2010). Moreover, consumers with non-scientific information selected the negative information more (Hayes et al 2002).…”
Section: Conjoint Analysis Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Aoki et al (2010) clarified the factors affecting individual purchase decisions in a laboratory experiment and contingent environment using ham sandwiches with and without a sodium nitrite as the target. Consumers tended to avoid sodium nitrite, whether or not they were provided with detailed information including its positive and negative role.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The positive effects mainly relate to the nutritional and safety benefits, as meat itself is an excellent dietary source of proteins, iron, zinc and vitamin B12, all providing high biological value for humans (Hathwar, Rai, Modi, & Narayan, 2012). The processing of meat into meat products improves the product's shelf-life and microbiological safety (Aoki, Shen, & Saijo, 2010). Some negative aspects associated with particular processed meats are such as the high fat and cholesterol content and the possible cancer promoting effects related to high intakes (Valsta, Tapanainen, & Mannisto, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the intake of nitrite added in meat processing may result in the formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in the stomach and large intestine in the presence of amino acids (Herrmann, Duedahl-Olesen, & Granby, 2015). In addition, It has been shown that consumers may not favour the use of sodium nitrite, regardless of the presence or absence of detailed information about this additive (Aoki et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation