A Consumer Perspective on the Valorization of Forest Fruit By-Products in a Dairy Product: Opportunity or Challenge?

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of monthly income level (low, medium, and high) on consumer behavior regarding a newly launched cream cheese product enriched with berry by-products. A panel of 345 participants was surveyed, and data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests. Most consumers were environmentally aware, recognizing the impact of personal food waste and expressing support for food products incorporating by-products. Respondents also favored the use of renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food industry. Higher income levels were associated with greater health awareness and increased acceptance of cream cheese with berry by-products, with the high-income group showing a greater willingness to pay a premium. Health benefits and the product’s natural character were the main advantages identified. Individuals with lower incomes were more open to trying unfamiliar foods when ingredient details were not provided, while higher-income respondents expressed greater hesitation and distrust toward new products. Willingness to try novel items decreased with income level. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between income groups for label reading, support for mountain dairies, and the influence of product origin, health benefits, nutrient diversity, pricing concerns, and consumer confidence in purchasing cream cheese with berry by-products. These findings are important for understanding how income affects consumer perceptions and willingness to consume innovative, sustainable food products like berry-enriched cream cheese, highlighting key areas for targeted marketing and product development.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, there is a tendency among producers and researchers to find solutions for a complete valorization of fruits, including the re-use of the by-products resulting from juice production. Forest fruit pomace is rich in bioactive compounds, including fibers, polyphenols, and vitamins. Thus, its incorporation in staple foods represents an opportunity to reduce carbon footprint and create novel functional products. However, consumer opinion regarding such new products containing food by-products is crucial for the marketing and production sectors. This is especially relevant in the Romanian context, where alternative food networks are emerging and shaping new forms of local food valorization [1]. The concept of re-use offers mountain communities a pathway to sustainable economic growth by transforming waste into valuable inputs, diversifying their product offerings, and aligning with strong consumer preferences for environmentally responsible and functional food items [1]. To date, there is a limited number of studies analyzing the consumer perspective on the use of berry by-products from the food industry in human nutrition. According to Aschemann-Witzel and Stangherlin [2], consumer perception in this regard is influenced by various factors. In addition to product-related factors (product characteristics), individual and contextual factors also play a role. Considering studies on the general consumer acceptability of foods made from plant-based by-products, it becomes obvious that acceptability was lower for by-product-based product variants compared to conventional ones [3,4]. Furthermore, by-product-based foods were perceived as less environmentally beneficial than organic products. However, foods containing by-products were considered more environmentally beneficial than conventional foods [5]. Additionally, the recycling of juice press residues was supported by the majority of consumers (95.3%) from various European countries [6]. According to Huang et al. [7], marketing strategies for upcycled food should prioritize health values and practical relevance to consumers’ daily lives, as these significantly enhance positive attitudes and market acceptance. Based on their results, industry players are recommended to secure and prominently display certifications for eco-friendly and ethical production, ensuring transparent supply chain management to appeal to consumers’ moral consumption and green behavioral intentions [7]. Another study revealed the possibility of upcycled food to aid the introduction of by-products of the food industry into food products under a positive perception, driven by the interaction between culture and innovation [8]. The findings also highlight consumer trust issues due to a lack of knowledge about food processing, suggesting that future research should explore perceptions of technologies used for upcycled ingredients [8]. Scheibenzuber et al. [9] studied consumer perception regarding the possibility of valorizing food industry by-products across four European countries, including Romania. The results showed that there was high acceptance for these enriched bakery, meat, or dairy products, driven by perceived health benefits and a desire to reduce food waste, though concerns about new allergies and contaminants highlight the critical need for robust food safety considerations [9].

Studies on consumer acceptance of foods derived from the food industry by-products have identified a negative impact of food technophobia and neophobia on the likelihood of accepting these products [10]. A paper revealed that appearance, taste, culture, and technology are key perceptual dimensions modulating public acceptance of novel foods, uncovering a non-linear relationship where sensory and cultural information significantly impact food neophobia [11]. Białek-Dratwa et al. [12] demonstrated in a study in Poland that individuals with higher food neophobia tend to avoid more foods, show less openness to new ingredients, and experience more negative emotions when encountering unfamiliar foods, significantly impacting diverse aspects of their eating behavior. Another study showed that environmental consciousness strengthens German consumers’ willingness to buy food products with proteins from algae, crickets, and jellyfish, while neophobia weakens it, and past meat consumption positively influences acceptance of animal-origin alternative proteins but negatively impacts algae consumption [13].

Nevertheless, research has shown that these products could be perceived as premium if marketed as a new category of foods similar to organic ones [5]. According to Bhatt et al. [5], consumers perceive value-added products as offering both societal and health benefits. The presented findings suggest that there may be a group of consumers interested in organic or locally sourced products who might also favor the adoption of these new foods made with by-products from the food industry. Marketing strategies are crucial in this regard, as clearly indicating the health and environmental benefits of these foods on labels should help introduce them to a broader audience [14]. Therefore, developing organic or “local” versions of foods with ingredients obtained from food industry by-products could increase consumer acceptance.

Another study demonstrated that young Italian consumers were generally interested in issues related to food sustainability [15]. The research highlighted the importance of sustainability and nutritional value information in the acceptability of cereal bars enriched with malt spent grain. When provided with this information, young consumers were more receptive and showed a higher purchase intention. A study on the purchase intention of products containing food industry by-products [10] indicated that 56% of surveyed consumers stated they would be willing to buy such products. However, food neophobia and food technophobia negatively influence the likelihood of expressing a positive purchase intention. Consumers who prioritize reading food labels and believe that foods can provide environmental or health benefits are more likely to purchase products containing by-products [10].

In this context, this paper aimed to evaluate the behavior and preferences of Romanian consumers regarding the utilization of berry by-products for the development of a new dairy product (cream cheese), along with the degree of food neophobia. The research aimed to explain how a person’s income affects their attitudes and purchasing decisions towards a specific, innovative food product like cream cheese with berry by-products. The novelty lies in its detailed segmentation by income, its exploration of the economic implications (willingness to pay for a premium product), and its nuanced understanding of trust and familiarity dynamics within these income segments, all applied to the emerging and important field of upcycled food products. While the concept of upcycling is gaining attention, detailed consumer studies on specific product categories, especially those incorporating fruit by-products into dairy, offer unique, practical insights for both the food industry and sustainability efforts and are not well-researched to date. Most existing literature offers broader demographic analyses. This paper explores the impact of income and reveals nuanced, statistically significant differences across various purchasing factors (e.g., label reading, origin preference, health benefits, pricing concerns), providing actionable insights for targeted marketing that simpler demographic categorizations might miss. The hypothesis considered was that the income level affects: (1) mountain dairy product consumption, (2) attitude towards environment protection, (3) willingness to try a new cream cheese product with berry by-products, (4) the degree of food neophobia.

2. Materials and Methods

The consumer’s opinion on the launching on the market of a new dairy product containing berry by-products was assessed through a questionnaire, conducted both online and on-site between June and November 2024 in Romania. The field research was conducted by researchers. The questionnaire was pre-tested on site before being launched on online platforms. The sample consisted of 351 respondents who participated voluntarily. Random sampling was used and the exclusion criteria referred to people who do not consume dairy products. The questionnaire was applied in public institutions and displayed on social media platforms. The socio-demographic characteristics of the panel are presented in

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics.

Variable	Categories	Frequency	Rel. Frequency (%)
Gender	Men	135	39.13
	Women	210	60.87
Age (years)	18–40	204	59.13
	41–60	118	34.20
	<18	5	1.45
	>61	18	5.22
Monthly income level	High	131	37.97
	Low	98	28.41
	Medium	11	33.62
Education	High school 1	49	14.20
	Primary studies 2	8	2.32
	University 3	288	83.48
Family size	1 member	40	11.59
	2 members	94	27.25
	3–5 members	196	56.81
	>5 members	15	4.35
Occupation	Employee	246	71.30
	Freelancer/Entrepreneur	21	6.09
	Student	45	13.04
	Retired	10	2.90
	Unemployed/Homemaker	17	4.93
	Not disclosed	6	1.74

¹—grade 12, ²—elementary school, ³—bachelor’s or higher degree.

. The incomplete questionnaires were eliminated and 345 final responses were considered.

The aim of the research was explained to the participants, and they were informed that the study was conducted within the Mountain Economy Center (CE-MONT Vatra Dornei) of the Romanian Academy, in collaboration with Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava. Participants were also informed that the questionnaire was anonymous and the personal data would be kept confidential, with access granted only to members of the research team, the funder (CE-MONT), and members of the ethics committee of Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava; processing of personal data was carried out in accordance with European legislation in the field (GDPR); the analysis of the data was conducted through the questionnaire using statistical methods that do not allow the disclosure of any information regarding their person or opinions; in the event of publication of the data, no individual information would be disclosed; the participation in this study was voluntary, would not be remunerated and would not involve any costs on their part; and they can withdraw at any time before submitting the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was developed according to previous studies regarding the consumption of foods with by-products [10,15], by adapting the questions, and included three sections:

• Consumer opinion on the consumption of mountain dairy products and environmental awareness.
• Consumer perception of the launching on the market of a new cream cheese variety enriched with berry by-products.
• A section dedicated to food neophobia.

The final part of the questionnaire was focused on demographic characteristics. The factors and items related to the potential utilization of berry by-products are presented in the Supplementary Material. To process the data, responses were converted into numerical values by assigning scores from 1 to 5 based on their level of importance (Supplementary Material). The questionnaire was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki regarding ethical principles for research involving human participants.

Statistics

Data obtained was grouped in function of the monthly income level as follows: low-income group—RON ≤ 3000 (EUR <600); medium-income group—RON 3001–5000 (EUR 600–1000); and high-income group—RON ≥ 5001 (EUR >1000). Cronbach’s alpha test was applied to verify the internal consistency between items. The differences among groups were highlighted by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests (p < 0.05 was considered significant). The relationships between variables were investigated using principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Statistical data processing was performed on SPSS trial version software, and XL STAT 2024 version.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Mountain Dairy Product Consumption, Health and Environmental Awareness

The items referring to mountain dairy product consumption have an acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.6). No significant differences (p > 0.05) between various income groups were observed regarding the frequency of mountain dairy product consumption (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for mountain product consumption, as well as the health and environmental awareness of consumers.

Item	Group	N	Mean	Median	SD	SE	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Min	Max	Cronbach’s Alpha
							Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Mountain dairy product consumption
Mountain dairy product consumption frequency	low	98	3.21	3.00	1.22	0.12	2.97	3.46	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.38	4.00	1.09	0.10	3.18	3.58	1.00	5.00	0.6
	high	131	3.53	4.00	1.03	0.09	3.36	3.71	1.00	5.00
Label reading	low	98	2.27	2.00	0.63	0.06	2.14	2.39	1.00	3.00
	medium	116	2.44	2.00	0.55	0.05	2.34	2.54	1.00	3.00
	high	131	2.55	3.00	0.54	0.05	2.46	2.64	1.00	3.00
Mountain products consumption to sustain the local economy	low	98	4.00	4.00	1.03	0.10	3.79	4.21	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.22	4.00	0.75	0.07	4.09	4.36	1.00	5.00
	high	131	4.34	4.00	0.75	0.07	4.21	4.47	1.00	5.00
Factors affecting consumption
Product origin	low	98	3.87	4.00	1.14	0.11	3.64	4.10	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.98	4.00	0.97	0.09	3.80	4.16	1.00	5.00
	high	131	4.25	4.00	0.91	0.08	4.10	4.41	1.00	5.00	0.9
Quality label (mountain product, product with protected designation of origin, etc.)	low	98	3.86	4.00	1.12	0.11	3.63	4.08	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.99	4.00	0.96	0.09	3.82	4.17	2.00	5.00
	high	131	4.07	4.00	1.02	0.09	3.89	4.24	1.00	5.00
Ingredients origin	low	98	4.06	4.00	1.00	0.10	3.86	4.26	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.21	4.00	0.91	0.08	4.04	4.37	2.00	5.00
	high	131	4.36	4.00	0.70	0.06	4.24	4.48	1.00	5.00
Nutritional value	low	98	3.96	4.00	1.08	0.11	3.74	4.18	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.94	4.00	0.94	0.09	3.77	4.11	1.00	5.00
	high	131	4.00	4.00	0.97	0.08	3.83	4.17	1.00	5.00
Health awareness
Health benefits	low	98	4.16	4.00	0.76	0.08	4.01	4.31	2.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.36	4.00	0.68	0.06	4.24	4.49	3.00	5.00	0.9
	high	131	4.44	5.00	0.68	0.06	4.33	4.56	2.00	5.00
Healthy diet	low	98	3.47	4.00	0.97	0.10	3.28	3.66	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.66	4.00	0.92	0.09	3.49	3.83	1.00	5.00
	high	131	3.80	4.00	0.92	0.08	3.64	3.96	1.00	5.00
Nutrients diversity	low	98	3.73	4.00	0.97	0.10	3.54	3.93	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.03	4.00	0.82	0.08	3.88	4.18	1.00	5.00
	high	131	4.08	4.00	0.78	0.07	3.94	4.21	2.00	5.00
Fiber consumption	low	98	3.67	4.00	0.98	0.10	3.48	3.87	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.90	4.00	0.82	0.08	3.75	4.05	1.00	5.00
	high	131	3.96	4.00	0.76	0.07	3.83	4.09	2.00	5.00
Environmental awareness
Personal food waste impact	low	98	4.02	4.00	1.02	0.10	3.82	4.22	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.16	4.00	0.84	0.08	4.01	4.32	1.00	5.00	0.7
	high	131	4.11	4.00	0.84	0.07	3.96	4.25	1.00	5.00
Acceptability of foods with by-products	low	98	3.54	4.00	1.20	0.12	3.30	3.78	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.59	4.00	1.14	0.11	3.38	3.80	1.00	5.00
	high	131	3.66	4.00	1.19	0.10	3.45	3.86	1.00	5.00
Buying intention of foods with by-products	low	98	3.28	4.00	1.22	0.12	3.03	3.52	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.33	4.00	1.06	0.10	3.13	3.52	1.00	5.00
	high	131	3.33	4.00	1.17	0.10	3.13	3.53	1.00	5.00
Use of green energy in the food industry	low	98	4.12	4.00	0.84	0.08	3.95	4.29	2.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.17	4.00	0.90	0.08	4.01	4.34	1.00	5.00
	high	131	4.06	4.00	0.95	0.08	3.90	4.23	1.00	5.00
Indifference toward food industry’s impact on the environment	low	98	4.37	4.00	0.68	0.07	4.23	4.50	3.00	5.00
	medium	116	4.37	4.00	0.68	0.06	4.25	4.50	3.00	5.00
	high	131	4.40	5.00	0.72	0.06	4.27	4.52	3.00	5.00

), with most of the respondents affirming that they consumed mountain dairy products several times a week. These products have a recognized nutritional value and are representative for traditional mountain regions in Romania [16]. Cifuni et al. [17] showed that mountain dairy products in Italy presented enhanced nutritional profiles, particularly in fatty acid content, due to traditional grazing practices.

A significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between low and medium and between low and high groups regarding product label reading, with a higher interest manifested by the high-income group (Table). The size effect was medium—r = 0.45 (low vs. medium income group) and strong—r = 0.79 (low vs. high income group), which suggests that the income level has a great impact on label reading behavior. Bryla’s research [18] also reported that household income was associated with front of package reading label, with the highest interest observed in middle (EUR 700–934) and high income (EUR >1400) in Poland. Jackey and colleagues [19] also found that income level influences label reading behavior in older people in Delaware, United States. Furthermore, they reported that income level was associated with knowledge and education, observing that a low monthly income negatively affected food label interpretation [19]. These results may be related to education and socioeconomic status. Thus, it is important to develop food label education programs for the Romanian population.

The high-income group was more aware of consuming mountain products to sustain the local economy compared to the low-income group (p < 0.05), with the r = 0.55 indicating a medium size effect. This was consistent with another study, which showed that 84% of the respondents were interested in limiting food miles through buying organic food in England because “it supports the local economy, reduces food miles, and enhances the local countryside” [20]. In general, consumers have a kind of willingness to support local agriculture and look for healthy and high-quality food coming from agro-ecological/organic agriculture and to be informed about the origin of products [21].

The factors considered to affect the purchase decision and consumption of dairy products were product origin, quality label, ingredients origin, and nutritional value. Similar to our findings, Turkish consumers highlighted some intrinsic product characteristics related to food safety, sensory profile, nutritional value, and region of origin as the main factors affecting the purchase decision of a cheese product [22]. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney (Table 2) tests revealed significant differences among groups (p < 0.05) concerning product origin and health aspects. Product origin factor had different influences on the low- and medium-income groups’ decisions compared to those of the high-income group (p < 0.05), with the latter being more concerned about this aspect. The size effect of about 0.60 indicated that income level has a great impact on the importance of the product origin factor (Table 5). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between low- and high-income level groups regarding the impact of ingredients origin on the consumption and purchase decision, with the high-income group being more interested in this fact (Table 2 and Table 5). The size effect (r = 0.49) indicated a medium impact of income level on the influence of ingredients origin on dairy products purchase decisions. The research of Huang and Gale [23] revealed that people with higher incomes are more willing to buy high-quality foods like “green food” or organic products. It was demonstrated that the age and the education level of the respondents have a significant effect on the perception of foods of different origin [24]. Schnettler et al. [25] observed that the majority of the very-low-income consumers in Chile chose foreign foods instead of local products due to their good price/quality ratio.

Question I.8 from the questionnaire was related to health aspects (Supplementary Material–questionnaire). Health benefits, healthy diet, nutrient diversity, and fiber consumption exhibited a significant impact (p < 0.05) on consumer choice. The high-income group was more aware of health benefits, healthy diet, fiber consumption, and nutrient diversity factors compared to the low-income group (p < 0.05). The size effect (0.50 < r < 0.68) suggests that income level has a medium–high impact on the importance of these factors. On the other hand, there were significant differences between the low- and medium-income groups regarding health benefits and nutrient diversity, with a medium size effect (r > 0.44) suggesting a medium contribution of income level on the impact of these factors on consumers decision. It can be observed that the increase in income level led to an increase in health awareness regarding dairy product consumption. It was suggested that local dairy foods with PDO and PGI quality labels are usually correlated with positive purchase motivation and willingness to pay due to their intrinsic quality attributes, namely natural character, fresh, healthy and safe [22]. Consumers’ awareness and understanding of the characteristics of the product with a healthy-quality label raised people’s willingness to purchase these foods, according to the results obtained by Firoozzare et al. [26]. T. Ali and Ali [27] studied the factors influencing consumers’ awareness of health and wellness foods and stated that health consciousness is the most important factor that affects consumers’ willingness to pay for such type of products, followed by product quality, taste, packaging, price, and convenience. Consumers of organic food may associate these products with health, with greater nutritional content, safer and more sustainable, as against conventional products [28]. A study of consumer opinion regarding organic food consumption revealed that health awareness and the taste of the product are more linked to the emotional side than to the functional side [28]. Some studies demonstrated that consumers consider that organic food possesses more health advantages, and has a significant impact on human well-being [29], which justifies a premium price [28,29,30].

Income level has a non-significant effect (p < 0.05) on the environmental awareness of consumers. Generally, a slight increase in consumer disposition towards environmental protection was observed as the income level increased (Table 2). Most of the consumers are aware of the impact of personal food waste on the environment and agree with the idea of buying food products containing agro-alimentary by-products. Furthermore, most of the respondents support the use of renewable energy sources and reduction in greenhouse gases in the food industry, while disagreeing with the idea of indifference towards environmental protection. Rezai’s work [31] reported that consumers who have a greater education degree (bachelor’s degree and above) and with a higher income level presented a higher awareness of the green foods concept. The study conducted by Annett et al. [32] revealed that health information had a significant influence on consumers’ preferences for organic bread, while environmental information about organic production did not. Another study regarding consumer opinion on food products containing upcycled ingredients suggesting that, although nutritional aspects had a greater impact than environmental awareness in driving food choices [33], consumers could associate upcycled foods more with the environmental benefits of diminishing food loss and waste than with nutritional benefits [34].

3.2. Acceptability of Cream Cheese with Berry By-Products

The acceptability of cream cheese with berry by-products was evaluated by measuring the willingness to buy such a type of product without and with a detailed description of the product ingredients and benefits. A good reliability was observed between items related to the acceptability of cream cheese with berry by-products (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8). The results (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the acceptability of cream cheese with berry by-products.

Item	Group	N	Mean	Median	SD	SE	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Min	Max	Cronbach’s Alpha
							Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Acceptability of cream cheese with berry by-products
Willingness to buy	low	98	0.80	1.00	0.41	0.04	0.71	0.88	0.00	1.00
	medium	116	0.86	1.00	0.35	0.03	0.80	0.93	0.00	1.00	0.8
	high	131	0.90	1.00	0.30	0.03	0.85	0.95	0.00	1.00
Willingness to buy if accessible	low	98	0.89	1.00	0.32	0.03	0.82	0.95	0.00	1.00
	medium	116	0.97	1.00	0.18	0.02	0.93	1.00	0.00	1.00
	high	131	0.92	1.00	0.27	0.02	0.88	0.97	0.00	1.00
Willingness to buy after informing	low	98	0.92	1.00	0.28	0.03	0.86	0.97	0.00	1.00
	medium	116	0.95	1.00	0.22	0.02	0.91	0.99	0.00	1.00
	high	131	0.92	1.00	0.27	0.02	0.88	0.97	0.00	1.00
Price
Too cheap	low	98	5.65	4.00	5.27	0.53	4.60	6.71	2.00	32.00
	medium	116	6.48	4.00	5.07	0.47	5.55	7.42	2.00	32.00	0.7
	high	131	6.47	4.00	6.15	0.54	5.41	7.54	2.00	32.00
Good acquisition price	low	98	10.31	8.00	5.59	0.56	9.19	11.43	2.00	32.00
	medium	116	11.02	8.00	5.67	0.53	9.97	12.06	2.00	32.00
	high	131	11.31	8.00	6.14	0.54	10.25	12.37	2.00	32.00
Expensive but worthy	low	98	19.71	16.00	9.60	0.97	17.79	21.64	4.00	32.00
	medium	116	20.34	16.00	8.77	0.81	18.73	21.96	4.00	32.00
	high	131	21.28	16.00	8.84	0.77	19.75	22.81	4.00	32.00
Too expensive	low	98	27.00	32.00	9.44	0.95	25.11	28.89	2.00	32.00
	medium	116	29.76	32.00	5.97	0.55	28.66	30.86	4.00	32.00
	high	131	29.83	32.00	5.98	0.52	28.80	30.87	4.00	32.00

) revealed that consumers would buy a cream cheese with berry by-products, and the presence of detailed information would have no significant impact on their decision (p > 0.05, r < 0.20). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed for the willingness to buy the product between low- and high-income levels, with the size effect indicating that income has a medium impact (r = 0.52). The willingness to buy the cream cheese with berry by-products if it would be available in convenience stores and at usual prices was significantly different (p < 0.05) between the low- and medium-income group. It could be observed that the acceptability of the product proposed increased as the income was higher (Table 3). These findings support previous evidence that consumer acceptance of upcycled ingredients is influenced by perceived health and nutritional benefits, environmental values, and communication clarity [34,35]. Also, Zhang et al. [36] noted that consumers showed an increased interest in buying upcycled food, but as the perceived quality of these products declines, their willingness to buy them also diminishes. Another study revealed that the income level was also positively correlated with awareness and demand for functional food, which suggested that high-income people in Pakistan were more disposed to purchase functional foods [37]. Firoozzare et al. [26] demonstrated a positive effect of income level on Iranian consumers’ willingness to purchase healthy food and explained these results through the increase in purchasing power and ability to buy this kind of product. Our findings are also in agreement with those obtained by Briz and Ward [38], who demonstrated that the willingness to buy organic foods increases rapidly among people with higher income levels.

Respondents were asked to choose between different price levels (RON 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32/EUR 0.4, 0.8, 3.2, or 6.4) to indicate whether the product is cheap or expensive (see the questions in the Supplementary Material). The reliability between items related to price was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.7). Regarding the price options for a jar of cream cheese with berry by-products (200 g), there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between low- and medium-income groups concerning the price considered too cheap. The size effect (r = 0.51) suggests that income level has a medium impact on the price level considered too cheap (Table 5). On the other hand, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) regarding the price considered too expensive between low- and medium- and high-income levels, respectively, with a medium size effect (r > 0.50) indicating that the income has a moderate impact on the level of price considered too expensive. The high-income group is willing to pay more for the product compared to the other groups (Table 3). Lusk and Briggeman [33] revealed that price was the second most important food value for the American people, while Ali and Rahut [37] reported that Pakistani consumers perceive foods with higher prices as having a greater quality. Briz and Ward [38] observed that the nutritional variables have a non-significant effect on consumer awareness of organic products in Spain, while the impact of price was statistically significant.

Consumers’ opinions about the advantages of consuming cream cheese with berry by-products are displayed in Figure 1. No significant differences were observed between groups (p > 0.05), and most of the respondents considered the health benefits as the most important advantage, followed by the natural product character. These patterns are comparable to mature organic food markets in Europe, where consumer preference for traceable, health-promoting, and sustainable foods has driven the success of alternative food networks [39]. Some studies showed that the natural and nutritional content, related to health benefits, were good predictors of the purchase intention of organic food [28,40]. Making food healthier is considered a good reason to support the use of upcycled food [41]. Some researchers also say that upcycled food could be marketed by highlighting its health benefits [42], but there is a need for more scientific proof of how certain foods affect health in order to avoid misleading claims about the health benefits of upcycled ingredients [43].

3.3. Food Neophobia

It was stated that even when consumers perceived the advantages of using upcycled food ingredients to the environment, they also sowed certain technical fears [44]. Food neophobia was evaluated through the following items: reluctance due to lack of information, lack of confidence in novel products, willingness to eat almost every product, willingness to taste new products on special occasions, and willingness to always taste new products. An acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.7) between items was obtained (

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for food neophobia.

Item	Group	N	Mean	Median	SD	SE	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Min	Max	Cronbach’s Alpha
							Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Fear of new products	low	98	3.50	3.00	1.11	0.11	3.28	3.72	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.83	4.00	1.02	0.10	3.64	4.02	1.00	5.00	0.7
	high	131	4.00	4.00	1.14	0.10	3.80	4.20	1.00	5.00
Reluctance due to lack of information	low	98	3.02	3.00	1.23	0.12	2.77	3.27	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	2.98	3.00	1.25	0.12	2.75	3.21	1.00	5.00
	high	131	2.90	3.00	1.37	0.12	2.66	3.14	1.00	5.00
Lack of confidence in novel products	low	98	3.77	4.00	0.92	0.09	3.58	3.95	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.95	4.00	0.91	0.08	3.78	4.12	1.00	5.00
	high	131	4.18	4.00	0.92	0.08	4.02	4.33	1.00	5.00
Willingness to eat almost everything	low	98	3.33	4.00	1.20	0.12	3.09	3.57	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.10	3.00	1.23	0.11	2.88	3.33	1.00	5.00
	high	131	2.85	3.00	1.28	0.11	2.63	3.08	1.00	5.00
Willingness to taste new products in special occasions	low	98	3.89	4.00	0.97	0.10	3.69	4.08	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.85	4.00	0.90	0.08	3.69	4.02	1.00	5.00
	high	131	3.83	4.00	0.94	0.08	3.67	3.99	1.00	5.00
Willingness to taste always new products	low	98	3.61	4.00	0.93	0.09	3.43	3.80	1.00	5.00
	medium	116	3.71	4.00	0.80	0.07	3.56	3.85	2.00	5.00
	high	131	3.62	4.00	0.93	0.08	3.46	3.78	2.00	5.00

).

A certain degree of fear of testing new products was observed (Table 4), with significant differences among all income groups (p < 0.05). The size effect (0.41 < r < 0.85) indicated a medium-high impact of income level on the fear of new products, the highest effect being observed between low- and high-income groups (

Table 5. Differences among groups evaluated by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests.

Test Results	Mountain Dairy Product Consumption Frequency		Label Reading		Mountain Products Consumption to Sustain the Local economy	Product Origin		Quality Label		Ingredients Origin		Nutritional Value		Health Benefits		Healthy Diet		Nutrient Diversity	Fiber Consumption		Personal Food Waste Impact		Acceptability of Foods with By-Products		Buying Intention of Foods with By-Products		Use of Green Energy in the Food Industry		Indifference Toward the Food Industry’s Impact on Environment
Kruskal–Wallis test
H	3.90		12.02		6.00	8.73		2.04		3.85		0.58		8.85		6.58		8.57	5.00		0.68		0.61		0.10		0.94		0.34
p	0.14		0.00		0.05	0.01		0.36		0.15		0.75		0.01		0.04		0.01	0.08		0.71		0.74		0.95		0.63		0.84
Mann−Whitney Test
low vs. medium income
U	5267.50		4909.00		5162.50	5497.00		5426.50		5239.50		5428.00		4894.00		5060.50		4675.50	4975.00		5359.50		5566.00		5617.50		5410.00		5667.50
W	10,118.50		9760.00		10,013.50	10,348.00		10,277.50		10,090.50		12,214.00		9745.00		9911.50		9526.50	9826.00		10,210.50		10,417.00		10,468.50		10,261.00		10,518.50
z	−0.96		−1.94		−1.24	−0.44		−0.60		−1.06		−0.60		−1.91		−1.45		−2.40	−1.66		−0.77		−0.27		−0.15		−0.66		−0.04
r	0.22		0.45		0.29	0.10		0.14		0.25		0.14		0.44		0.34		0.56	0.39		0.18		0.06		0.03		0.15		0.01
p	0.34		0.05		0.21	0.66		0.55		0.29		0.55		0.05		0.15		0.02	0.10		0.44		0.79		0.88		0.51		0.97
low vs. high income
U	5493.00		4915.00		5332.00	5218.50		5773.00		5509.00		6415.50		5091.50		5216.50		5172.00	5413.00		6296.50		6061.50		6273.00		6302.50		6191.00
W	10,344.00		9766.00		10,183.00	10,069.50		10,624.00		10,360.00		15,061.50		9942.50		10,067.50		10,023.00	10,264.00		11,147.50		10,912.50		11,124.00		14,948.50		11,042.00
z	−1.95		−3.41		−2.37	−2.59		−1.37		−2.00		−0.01		−2.94		−2.54		−2.68	−2.15		−0.27		−0.75		−0.31		−0.25		−0.51
r	0.45		0.79		0.55	0.60		0.32		0.46		0.00		0.68		0.59		0.62	0.50		0.06		0.17		0.07		0.06		0.12
p	0.05		0.00		0.02	0.01		0.17		0.05		0.99		0.00		0.01		0.01	0.03		0.79		0.45		0.76		0.80		0.61
medium vs. high income
U	7036.50		6794.00		6906.50	6324.00		7128.50		7162.00		7224.50		7062.00		6982.00		7423.50	7349.50		7284.50		7318.00		7495.50		7109.00		7349.50
W	13,822.50		13,580.00		13,692.50	13,110.00		13,914.50		13,948.00		14,010.50		13,848.00		13,768.00		14,209.50	14,135.50		15,930.50		14,104.00		14,281.50		15,755.00		14,135.50
z	−1.06		−1.64		−1.36	−2.44		−0.89		−0.85		−0.71		−1.07		−1.16		−0.34	−0.48		−0.61		−0.52		−0.19		−0.94		−0.49
r	0.25		0.38		0.32	0.57		0.21		0.20		0.16		0.25		0.27		0.08	0.11		0.14		0.12		0.04		0.22		0.11
p	0.29		0.10		0.18	0.01		0.37		0.40		0.48		0.29		0.25		0.73	0.63		0.54		0.60		0.85		0.35		0.62
Kruskal−Walli’s test
H		5.07		4.81			0.88		4.54		1.63		2.37		7.62		14.11			0.65		13.29		8.12		0.39		0.90
p		0.08		0.09			0.64		0.10		0.44		0.31		0.02		0.00			0.72		0.00		0.02		0.82		0.64
Mann−Whitney Test
low vs. medium income
U		5308.00		5242.00			5514.00		4783.00		5264.00		5384.50		5017.50		4742.50			5507.00		5004.00		5131.50		5481.00		5315.50
W		10,159.00		10,093.00			10,365.00		9634.00		10,115.00		10,235.50		9868.50		9593.50			12,293.00		9855.00		11,917.50		12,267.00		10,166.50
z		−1.29		−2.21			−0.88		−2.09		−1.01		−0.73		−2.22		−2.17			−0.40		−1.59		−1.26		−0.49		−0.87
r		0.30		0.51			0.20		0.48		0.23		0.17		0.52		0.50			0.09		0.37		0.29		0.11		0.20
p		0.20		0.03			0.38		0.04		0.31		0.47		0.03		0.03			0.69		0.11		0.21		0.63		0.39
low vs. high income
U		5746.00		6188.50			6385.00		5742.50		5864.50		5743.00		5631.50		4668.00			6057.50		4752.00		5060.50		6144.50		6380.50
W		10,597.00		11,039.50			11,236.00		10,593.50		10,715.50		10,594.00		10,482.50		9519.00			14,703.50		9603.00		13,706.50		14,790.50		11,231.50
z		−2.23		−0.93			−0.15		−1.43		−1.21		−1.49		−2.43		−3.68			−0.75		−3.55		−2.81		−0.59		−0.08
r		0.52		0.22			0.03		0.33		0.28		0.35		0.56		0.85			0.17		0.82		0.65		0.14		0.02
p		0.03		0.35			0.88		0.15		0.23		0.14		0.02		0.00			0.46		0.00		0.01		0.55		0.94
medium vs. high income
U		7304.00		7280.00			7411.00		7161.50		7492.50		7156.50		7549.50		6659.50			7320.00		6451.50		6712.50		7527.50		7185.00
W		14,090.00		15,926.00			16,057.00		15,807.50		14,278.50		13,942.50		14,335.50		13,445.50			15,966.00		13,237.50		15,358.50		16,173.50		15,831.00
z		−0.94		−1.42			−0.78		−0.82		−0.20		−0.88		−0.15		−1.76			−0.51		−2.17		−1.62		−0.14		−0.78
r		0.22		0.33			0.18		0.19		0.05		0.20		0.03		0.41			0.12		0.50		0.38		0.03		0.18
p		0.35		0.16			0.43		0.41		0.84		0.38		0.88		0.08			0.61		0.03		0.11		0.89		0.43

U—Mann–Whitney, W—Wilcoxon W, z—score, r—size effect.

). Lack of confidence in novel products was different between low/medium income groups and high income (p < 0.05). The size effect revealed that the income level has a very important impact on lack of confidence in novel products among low- and high-income groups (r = 0.82), while for medium vs. high income the size effect was smaller (0.50). It was observed that the high-income group had a lower willingness to try almost every type of food product compared to the low-income group (p < 0.05), as depicted in Table 4 and Table 5. In general, people with lower income exhibited a lower reluctance to new products when no information about the ingredients was available, while the fear and lack of confidence in new products was higher as the income level increased. The willingness to eat almost everything decreased with income level increase. Hartmann et al. [45] demonstrated that cultural context and food familiarity play essential roles in shaping willingness to try novel foods, including insect- and by-product-based items, facts also stated by the research of Tuorila and Hartmann [46]. Food neophobia negatively correlates with personality traits such as openness, thus limiting acceptance of innovative food products [47]. But, even though food neophobia was widely investigated, recent studies highlight that the underlying mechanisms of food rejection remain insufficiently understood [48,49]. Other studies reported that the increase in education and income levels determined the reduction in food neophobia [50]. A study regarding the willingness of Irish and French consumers to try upcycled food products containing peels and trimming from fruit and vegetables revealed that respondents who do not trust novel foods were less disposed to try products after information about the use of by-product ingredients had been presented [51]. Consumers affirmed that “if I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it” and “I’m afraid to eat things I have never tried before”, highlighting that familiarity is an important aspect when considering buying foods containing by-product ingredients [51].

3.4. Principal Component Analysis

The relationships between mountain dairy consumption variables, health awareness, environmental awareness, the acceptability of a new cream cheese with berry by-products, and food neophobia were highlighted by a principal component analysis (

Table 6. Total variance explained by the principal component analysis.

Component	Eigenvalue	Total Explained Variance
		% of Variance	Cumulative %
1.00	6.17	21.28	21.28
2.00	3.11	10.74	32.02
3.00	2.15	7.41	39.43
4.00	1.97	6.80	46.22
5.00	1.80	6.21	52.44
6.00	1.51	5.21	57.65
7.00	1.21	4.16	61.80
8.00	1.12	3.85	65.66
9.00	1.07	4.34	70.00
KMO		0.81
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	4209.95
	Df	406
	p	0.00

). Based on the eigenvalues >1, nine components were selected. The total variance explained accounted for 70%, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was 0.81, indicating that the sampling was adequate. Bartlett’s test of sphericity returned a significant value (p = 0.00), which indicated that the considered variables do not form an identity matrix and are suitable for factor analysis.

The first component was associated with health benefits, healthy diet, nutritional value, product origin and personal food waste impact (Figure 2). The second component was given by label reading behavior, product origin, quality label importance, ingredients origin, and nutritional value. Principal Component 3 was associated with the willingness to buy cream cheese with berry by-products in different conditions (if available, after reading more information about the product). Fear and lack of confidence in novel product variables contributed the most to the Principal Component 4. Price-related variables (too cheap, good acquisition price, and expensive but worthy price were associated with Principal Component 5. Principal Component 6 was associated with some of the environmental awareness items–consumer opinion regarding the use of green energy in the food industry and indifference toward the impact of the food industry on the environment. Willingness to consume almost everything, to always taste new products, or taste products on special occasions were the variables that exhibited the greatest contribution to the Principal Component 7.

Component 8 was given by the acceptability and buying intention of foods with by-products, while the last component (Component 9) was associated with mountain dairy product consumption frequency and the willingness to consume mountain dairy products to sustain the local economy (Figure 2). The correlations among variables is presented in the Supplementary Material (Table S2).

Label reading and mountain product consumption that sustained the local economy were moderately correlated (p < 0.05, r > 0.41) with some of the factors affecting dairy product consumption, including product origin, quality label, ingredients origin, and health benefits (Supplementary Material). Strong correlations (p < 0.05, r > 0.68) were obtained between the factors of product origin, quality label, and ingredients origin, while quality label was also correlated with ingredients origin (p < 0.05, r = 0.68). Bryla [18] reported that the list of ingredients was considered the most important information at the first purchase intention for Polish consumers. Nutritional value and health benefits importance were moderately correlated with product origin, quality label, and ingredients origin (p < 0.05, r > 0.40). A moderate correlation was observed between the healthy diet factor and the importance of nutritional value (p < 0.05, r = 0.41). Nutrient diversity and fiber consumption were positively correlated with quality label impact, ingredients origin, nutritional value importance, health benefits, and healthy diet (p < 0.05, 0.40 < r<0.68). Fiber consumption was strongly correlated with nutrient diversity (p < 0.05, r = 0.77). According to Coderoni and Perito [10], consumers who consider that reading food labels is important and associate food with environmental or health advantages are more willing to buy and consume foods with upcycled by-products. Furthermore, they related a positive buying intention for foods with upcycled ingredients to a reduction in the environmental effects of production and importance of the origin and nutritional values of foods [10]. A moderate correlation (p < 0.05, r > 0.40) was observed for personal food waste impact with healthy diet, nutrient diversity, and fiber consumption factors, affecting consumer decision. Another study revealed that consumers’ health motivation was the most important factor affecting consumer awareness about functional food ingredients [52]. The acceptability of foods containing by-products was positively correlated (p < 0.05, r = 0.58) with the intention to buy them. Moderate and strong correlations were observed among the willingness to buy cream cheese with berry by-products in different conditions (if accessible, after reading detailed information) (p < 0.05, r < 0.57 < 0.80). Stelick et al. [15] reported a significant positive effect on buying intention for a cereal bar made with brewery spent grains when nutritional (fiber content) or sustainability (use of by-product ingredients) information was provided to Italian consumers. Good acquisition price level was positively correlated with the too cheap price level (p < 0.05, r = 0.59) and expensive but worthy price level (p < 0.05, r = 0.61). The lack of confidence in novel products was strongly correlated with the fear of new products (p < 0.05, r = 0.67), while the willingness to always taste new products was moderately correlated with willingness to taste new products on special occasions (p < 0.05, r = 0.41). The knowledge of product origin could contribute to some kind of familiarity for food-neophobic people and, consequently, may raise their willingness to consume innovative products [50]. This statement is supported in our study by the significant correlation (p < 0.05) between product origin and reluctance to try new products due to the lack of information.

Consumers tend to trust more natural food and the way it is produced, but they can exhibit a certain fear of innovative foods and new food technologies, while perceived naturalness seems to represent one of the main factors affecting the acceptance of these products and technologies [53].

The valorization of food by-products, such as the use of berry waste in innovative food products like cream cheese represents an important sustainable approach within the food industry. This method directly contributes to reducing food waste, a major environmental concern, by transforming discarded materials into valuable resources, which is a key principle of the circular economy [54]. Upcycled foods which were used in a household practice tend to pass to a structured approach, being a novel and growing category gaining significant attention from environmentally conscious consumers as a promising pathway to combat global food loss, waste, and insecurity while promoting sustainable food systems [55]. Beyond environmental benefits, the use of berry by-products holds significant societal potential by fostering new economic opportunities, particularly for local communities and mountain farms that can derive additional income from their agricultural residues. The development of such value-added products also aligns with growing consumer demand for sustainable and organic foods, promoting a more conscious consumption pattern [55,56]. Furthermore, integrating by-products can lead to nutritionally enhanced foods, improving public health while addressing resource efficiency in the food supply chain [57]. A study revealed that health values strongly drive Taiwanese consumers’ positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward upcycled food, making them crucial for marketing [7]. Conversely, green perceived value and product novelty did not significantly impact these intentions, highlighting the need to prioritize health and ethical consumption in promotional strategies [7]. Another study reported that consumers primarily associate upcycled foods with positive concepts like innovation, recycling, and sustainability, perceiving fewer negatives when presented concretely. Moreover, framing the benefits (e.g., climate impact) can actively reduce associations from “waste” towards environmental advantages [58].

4. Conclusions

The paper investigated the impact of monthly income level on mountain dairy product consumption, attitude towards environment protection, willingness to try a new cream cheese with berry by-products, and the degree of food neophobia in Romania. In general, Romanian people showed awareness of the impact of food industry on the environment, with some differences depending on the income level. Furthermore, consumers exhibited an important awareness of health aspects when eating dairy products, with the high-income group being more preoccupied about this fact. Consumers were disposed to buy the new proposed product—cream cheese with berry by-products. Furthermore, they considered that RON 8 (EUR 1.6) would be a good acquisition price for a jar of 200 g, while RON 16 (EUR 3.2) was considered a high price but worthy. A certain food neophobia was observed and the fear and lack of confidence in novel products was higher in the high-income level group. These results confirmed that the proposed product—cream cheese with berry by-products can be accepted by consumers, but the marketing policies should consider the target audience. For example, for high-income consumers, the focus of marketing can be on the health benefits, natural character, and premium quality of the cream cheese; the innovative and sustainable use of berry by-products is a key value driver, encouraging them to pay a premium price. In addition, a highlight on the product’s origin (e.g., mountain product) as a mark of quality and ethical production can be recommended. Since the greater hesitation and distrust toward new products was observed among higher-income respondents, this can be addressed by providing clear, accessible information about ingredients, sourcing, and the benefits of berry by-products for those who seek them. Furthermore, the use of packaging, website content, and digital campaigns to build confidence and provide detailed information for the curious, health-conscious consumer is suggested. For medium-income consumers, a balanced approach might be better, highlighting both the health and natural aspects, while being mindful of pricing. Since these benefits resonated widely, a focus on the product’s role in reducing food waste and fostering sustainable practices is proposed. For low-income consumers, messaging should emphasize the appeal of new and unfamiliar tastes/textures, potentially playing down overly detailed ingredient lists initially, given their higher openness to trying novel foods without full disclosure. In addition, a focus on accessibility and taste experience can be beneficial. These results highlight the potential of the proposed product to increase income and job opportunities in the mountain area, reduce carbon footprint, promote cultural heritage by using local raw materials, and create resilient rural economies.

This study offers academics a deeper understanding of how income shapes consumer trust and willingness to pay for novel, sustainable foods, directing future research to explore psychological mechanisms and refine existing consumer behavior models. It also highlights the need for comparative studies across diverse upcycled products and geographies to generalize these findings. One of the limitations of this study is the susceptibility to socially desirable responding, which imply the predilection to answer in such a way to make the interviewee look good, or the inclination to modify the truth with the aim of making a good impression. To decrease this behavior, we ensured anonymity and confidentiality of answers, with the interviewee being informed that the questionnaire is anonymous and that the findings will only be used in scientific research. The study uses a survey, meaning it gathers self-reported information and stated willingness to pay, which may not always translate accurately into actual purchasing behavior due to social desirability bias or hypothetical scenarios. Future research should investigate how age, gender, education, culture, and lifestyle, among other socio-cultural factors, influence consumer acceptance of novel and sustainable food products like cream cheese with berry by-products to gain a more comprehensive understanding.