You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Nutrients
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

26 March 2024

What Is Quality Food? The Opinion of Key of the Brazilian Food System

,
,
and
1
Nutrition Postgraduate Programme, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88040-900, Brazil
2
Nutrition Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88040-900, Brazil
3
Department of Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine and Public Health and History of Science, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients2024, 16(7), 948;https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16070948
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Food Systems, Optimal Nutrition, and Health Promotion: Challenges in the 21st Century
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

The aim of the study was to explore the concept of quality food in the opinion of key informants of the food system. This qualitative research included 208 key informants related to the food supply for Brazilian public food services. The participants were grouped into three groups according to their participation in the food system: 1. Food production; 2. Management and marketing; 3. Meal’s production process. Key informants answered the following question: “In your opinion, what is quality food?”. The answers were analysed through qualitative content analysis. The data analysis resulted in 52 codes grouped into eight categories, expressing the opinion of the study participants about what quality food is: nutritional, sustainable, sensory, hygienic–sanitary, care, regulatory, dependability and symbolic. Nutritional and sustainable dimensions were predominantly considered. The activities carried out in the food system seem to influence the opinion on food quality. The groups linked to food production put more emphasis on the sustainable dimension, followed by the nutritional dimension, while the groups linked to management and marketing and to the meals production process put more emphasis on the nutritional and sensory dimensions. These differences may indicate a difficulty in the transition towards a more sustainable and healthy food system.

1. Introduction

When it comes to food, the term “quality” is considered complex [1], relative and also multidimensional [2], encompassing several dimensions. These dimensions consist of a set of characteristics attributed to foods, such as nutritious, safe, tasty, good-looking and intact [2,3,4,5]. In general, these are dimensions that involve aspects of quality from the entire spectrum of food provision and food consumption, such as nutritional, symbolic or cultural, sanitary, regulatory, sensory [3,6,7], ease of use and eco-friendliness [6,7].
The several concepts of quality food can be informed by different influences related to culture [1] and individual food experiences during food acquisition, preparation and consumption [8]. Episodes resulting from the lack of food safety can also influence the formation of different concepts of food quality for consumers [9]. As a result, the safety requirements for foods imposed by consumers have influenced companies to focus on product quality [10]. Other issues also affect the formation of different points of view on aspects that may be related to food quality [10], such as the use of pesticides [11], food waste, and [12] public health problems such as obesity and malnutrition [13].
Individual experiences with food can influence expectations and opinions about its quality [1,2,5,14]. In this sense, the activities that take place in the food system, from cultivation to consumption [15], can influence opinions about food quality. In turn, how those involved in the system perceive quality can directly influence the quality of the food that is produced and offered [2]. Thus, the development of interventions aimed at building a more sustainable and healthier food system, capable of providing food that encompasses the different dimensions of quality, can be facilitated by recognising what these people consider to be quality food.
Quality food has been the focus of several studies. However, these studies focus on food consumers [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. There are few studies aimed at identifying the concept of quality food in the opinion of those involved in the food system. When they exist, they seek to identify the opinion on the quality of a specific food [23], and not an overview. The aim of this study is to explore the concept of quality food in the opinion of key informants linked to different stages of the food system.
For this purpose, the study involved key informants involved in the school feeding services and in the Popular Restaurant Programme (from agricultural production to the provision of meals). The National School Feeding Program is a public policy that aims to provide healthy meals to all students enrolled in the public school network [24]. The program is present in all municipalities in the country and is managed by the education councils. The Popular Restaurant Program is part of the network of Public Food and Nutrition Facilities and aims to provide healthy meals to the population in situations of food insecurity, especially in large Brazilian cities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

An exploratory and descriptive qualitative study was conducted by analyzing the content of open interviews with 208 key informants who played different roles in the meals production for Brazilian public food services (school meals and popular restaurants) of 38 municipalities.

2.2. Selection of Participants

The study involved key informants implicated in school feeding services in 21 municipalities in southern Brazil and the Popular Restaurant Program in 17 municipalities from all regions of the country (south, north, northeast, southeast and midwest).
For the selection of the 21 municipalities included, a probabilistic sample by conglomerates was performed among the municipalities of the southern region of Brazil. In order to cover key informants from municipalities of regions with different socioeconomic, geographical and cultural backgrounds, we randomly selected municipalities from different mesoregions. Mesoregions are subdivisions of states that group municipalities of a geographical area with economic and social similarities [25]. The inclusion criteria for this selection were a population between 20 and 70 thousand inhabitants, having a nutritionist as technical head of school feeding, and accepting participation in the research. The acceptance happened via telephone contact with the Education Departments of each selected municipality.
For the selection of the 17 municipalities included, we considered those that were listed and registered by competent institutions in the country. We used data from the Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger (MDS) website, which reported the presence of 100 popular restaurants throughout Brazil, distributed along 20 states. A convenience sample was carried out among the states, selecting the municipality with the largest number of inhabitants.
Participants were selected from a list of potential key informants previously defined by the researchers using a snowballing technique. The initial list was discussed among the researchers until a consensus was reached. The catering manager was initially contacted by email and/or telephone, and contact was facilitated with the other key informants.

2.3. Data Collection

Interviews were carried out between March 2015 and February 2017. Two hundred and eight interviews were carried out, grouped into three categories based on experiences and work area: A. Food production (n = 79), B. Management and marketing (n = 46), and 3. Meal production process (n = 83). Table 1 shows the reporters included in each group.
Table 1. Participants of the study were divided into groups.
Nutritionist researchers trained during field visits in the workplace of the study participants conducted the data collection. Before the data collection, the participants received information about the study and were assured anonymity. All study participants signed the informed consent form (ICF). The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) under protocols nº 1.002.956 and 13.314.367.

2.4. Instrument for Data Collection

The instruments for data collection were composed of semi-structured questionnaires regarding the food supply to public food services. These questions were prepared by the research team, nutrition academics, and nutritionists, with the collaboration of experts on the subject. They were tested in a previous pilot study, where one of the nutritionists applied the instruments to key informants of a public school and a popular restaurant. For the present study, an open question was selected for analysis: “In your opinion, what is quality food?”. The interviews were recorded, with the consent of the interviewees, and transcribed literally.

2.5. Data Analysis

We used Version 11 Pro of the Nvivo software for data analysis and organisation.
For data analysis, the Content Analysis method [26] is complemented by the coding in cycles [27]. The analysis was performed in two coding cycles. The first coding cycle was carried out by two researchers, coding themes and nuclei of the answers to the research question that offered meaning to the term “quality food”. After that, a discussion was held for consensus among the researchers, differentiating, organising and thereby highlighting the relevant codes. Then, the second coding cycle was performed, in which the data was reanalysed for a conclusion of the analysis.
For the categorisation of the codes, the semantic criterion (conceptual or thematic) was adopted as a classification criterion [26]. In addition, we opted for the mixed categorisation model, which groups the codes into categories formulated according to the initial hypotheses of the research (a priori), allowing for modifications in the course of the analysis [28]. Thus, the codes are grouped into generalist categories, formulated in the pre-analysis according to the research hypotheses and regrouped into terminal categories at the end of the analysis. We adopted the quality dimensions associated with food as generalist categories. Based on the literature, six categories of analysis were defined a priori: (1) hygienic–sanitary; (2) nutritional; (3) regulatory; (4) sensory; (5) symbolic; (6) sustainable [2,5,6,7].
To identify the most frequent category, we counted the number of text fragments encoded in each category. To explore possible differences in the opinion of the research participants about what quality food is, the results were stratified according to the professional experience of each of the participating groups (Groups A, B and C).

3. Results

The data analysis resulted in 52 codes grouped into eight categories, expressing the opinion of the study participants about what quality food is. Six of those referred to the existing categories at the beginning of the analysis and two emerging categories: a dimension of care and a dimension of dependability. Table 2 shows the terminal categories with the respective codes and lines that exemplify them.
Table 2. Categories, codes, and examples of citations were provided according to the opinions of the survey participants.
The nutritional dimension grouped responses related to the guarantee of meeting the nutritional needs of individuals, highlighting the balance of food, variety and nutritional adequacy. The sustainable dimension was more related to forms of food production, emphasising quality as organic, local, fresh and seasonal foods. The sensory aspects of quality were divided into extrinsic attributes (such as appearance) and intrinsic attributes (such as maturation), and they were influenced by the way of preparation. This dimension included opinions that related food to the result triggered by human senses, arranged by sight, touch, smell and taste.
In the hygienic–sanitary dimension, the responses were related to food safety, especially in offering food without health risks. The care dimension grouped responses related to the relationship of care in all the processes that food is submitted to, referring mainly to the relationship of respect, diligence, commitment and zeal in food production. In the regulatory dimension, key informants associated quality with accordance with legislation and regulations in production and consumption. In the dependability dimension, the answers were in the sense of the relationship of trust between producer and consumer as an important aspect of quality. The symbolic dimension was related to the cultural context of food.
Figure 1 shows the frequency of codes grouped by categories identified in the study that explain the opinion of the different groups of Key Informants on what quality food. By analysing the number of coded citations (n = 611), it was observed that the nutritional dimension was the most frequently mentioned (n = 182), followed by the hygienic–sanitary (n = 109), sustainable (n = 123) and sensory (n = 130) dimensions. When analysing the number of encodings in each dimension stratified by the key-informants group, we observed that the nutritional dimension was more frequent for Groups B (Management and Marketing) (n = 54) and C (Meal Production Process) (n = 84), and sustainable for Group A (Food Production) (n = 70). The symbolic dimensions, dependability, regulation and care were less frequent among all groups.
Figure 1. Frequency of codes grouped by categories identified in the study that explain the opinion of the different groups of Key Informants on what is a quality food (n = 611).

4. Discussion

This study explored the concept of quality food in the opinion of key informants linked to different stages of the food system. The participants recognised several aspects of food quality, and the greatest consensus was regarding the nutritional, sustainable, sensory and hygienic–sanitary aspects. To a lesser extent, we observed references to aspects of regulatory quality, care, dependability and symbolic nature. The results suggest a difference in the opinion of key informants according to their professional experience. In the present study, the group linked to food production placed more emphasis on the sustainable dimension, followed by the nutritional one. The groups involved with the management and marketing and with the productive process of meals emphasised the nutritional and sensory dimensions. All groups identified extrinsic aspects of food as an important attribute of food quality, with emphasis on cooks, who gave more importance to appearance.
The nutritional dimension appeared prominently in the statements of informants from all groups. However, there was greater evidence in the responses of those linked to the productive process of meals, especially nutritionists. This result may be related to the prioritisation of nutritional aspects in the training of these professionals [29,30]. However, the increasing global concern about the sustainability of the food system highlights the importance of the sustainable dimension for food quality [15] and the need to incorporate this perspective in the training and performance of the nutritionist professional.
According to the authors [31], there is a need to improve the quality of food that should be taken into account; how and by whom our food is grown, and the implications for biodiversity, for local employment, fair trade and social justice [32]. Eating habits, local culture [33,34] and culinary skills are also considered key aspects or even facilitators for more sustainable eating patterns [35,36].
Key informants linked to the productive process of meals also spoke of quality food as one that has adequate sensory characteristics. These expectations may be related to the area of activity of this professional since the raw material is directly related to the object of work of this position, and the requirements of the final consumer fall onto them. Our result is similar to those of previous studies that highlighted sensory quality as decisive for food acquisition by consumers [37,38].
However, it should be considered that the appearance of the food might be related to the form of production used. A good example is agroecology and organics, which are more respectful of the environment and produce more nutritious foods [39,40]. They do not prioritise food production with a focus on sensory aspects, as occurs in conventional food production [41], which can generate rejection of products by professionals who work directly with the food, such as nutritionists or cooks since they are used to manipulating food in a certain format and pattern. This result highlights the importance of the intersectional approach to the acquisition of agroecological and organic food, connecting health, agriculture and the environment with technology sectors so that they work together [42].
Although there is divergence among the participants of the research on quality aspects, the nutritional, sustainable, hygienic–sanitary and sensory dimensions seemed to have a certain degree of consensus, even if they were mentioned with different frequencies among the informants of each group. Specifically, the hygienic–sanitary dimension was present in the responses of nutritionists and cooks, who emphasised the importance of safe and contaminant-free food, as observed in [43].
It is worth mentioning that even if the symbolic dimension is present in the definition of food and nutritional security [44] and is incorporated into international food-related recommendations [4,24], it was not often highlighted by the research participants, and even so, the definition does not deal with quality. There are studies defending the idea that managers of public food and nutrition facilities should carry out strategic planning to adapt the food supply of the institution to the regional eating habits and food culture of the population being served [45]. They must balance nutritional aspects, symbolic, as well as sustainable aspects of food (organic, local food, from family farming, for example). Although the regulatory and symbolic dimensions were little relevant among the research participants, the importance of these dimensions in the discussion of quality is fairly known [3].
Although some dimensions have been commonly mentioned among the groups of the research participants, some key informants seem to associate quality according to their insertion stage in the system, considering their activities pertinent to this stage, such as cooks and nutritionists. A study showed that previous experiences and the context in which the individual finds themselves influence their opinion and reference to food quality [20].
It is important to mention that the two emerging categories (care and dependability) identified in the present study also deserve to be discussed in the context of the food system, especially among the actors of the system, for the delivery of food that further guarantees consumer satisfaction. It is known that, from the consumer’s point of view, issues related to credibility, trust, and care regarding food are among the determinants of the consumer’s food choice [46,47,48,49,50]. This may be due to episodes of food outbreaks, which have affected consumer confidence regarding food safety primarily [46]. This confidence or care for the food can take place after an approximation of all the actors of the food system with the consumer. This approach can be through greater availability of food information, especially through food regulatory institutions [50], or by the very rapprochement between consumers and actors, especially if they manage to do it personally [49]. In 2006, some authors identified, in the opinion of consumers, that farmers are the actors who manage to convey greater confidence about food [50]. Therefore, it is a game changer for consumer satisfaction that all actors of the food system are engaged and have as a principle the zeal for food in all stages of the food system and that they are able to communicate it to the consumer by being closer or giving more information about this food, for example.
One of the limitations of this qualitative study is that the results are based on the opinions of key informants. As such, they cannot be generalised. However, the selection of participants with different professional backgrounds allowed a first approximation to the opinion of key informants linked to different stages of the food system on the quality of food.

5. Conclusions

Through the present study, we can infer that both the nutritional and hygienic–sanitary dimensions are more consolidated to define quality food, different from the other dimensions, which were not incorporated in their entirety by the key informants participating in the research. The activities carried out in the food system seem to influence the opinion on food quality. The group linked to food production placed more emphasis on the sustainable dimension, followed by the nutritional one. The groups involved with the management and marketing and with the productive process of meals emphasised the nutritional and sensory dimensions. These differences may indicate a difficulty in the transition towards a more sustainable and healthy food system.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S.M., P.S. and S.B.C.; methodology, S.S.M., P.S. and S.B.C.; software, T.G.; formal analysis and data curation, T.G. and S.S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.G.; writing—review and editing, S.S.M., P.S. and S.B.C.; visualisation, T.G. and S.S.M.; supervision, S.S.M. and S.B.C.; project administration and funding acquisition, S.B.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) (Process n. 483184/2012-8 and 407965/2013-0).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-tion of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) (protocol code nº 1.002.956 (27 March 2015) and 1.314.367 (9 September 2015)).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Nutrition Postgraduate Programme of the Federal University of Santa Catarina for the financial support that made it possible to publish the results of the study in open access.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Bruns, K.; Fjord, T.A.; Grunert, K.G. Consumers’ Food Choice and Quality Perception; MAPP Working Paper No. 77; Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, MAPP Centre: Aarhus, Denmark, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. Meiselman, H.L. Criteria of Food Quality in Different Contexts. Food Serv. Technol. 2001, 1, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Proença, R.P.D.C.; Sousa, A.A.; Veiros, M.B.; Hering, B. Qualidade Nutricional e Sensorial Na Produção de Refeições; EDUFSC: Florianópolis, Brazil, 2005; ISBN 9786558050186. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde, Departamento de atenção Básica. Guia Alimentar para a População Brasileira; Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica: Brasília, Brazil, 2014; ISBN 9788533421769. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alkerwi, A. Diet Quality Concept. Nutrition 2014, 30, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lagrange, L. La Commercialisation des Produits Agricoles et Alimentaires; Technique & Documentation-Lavoisier: Paris, France, 1995; ISBN 9782852069848. [Google Scholar]
  7. Prezotto, L.L. Uma Concepção de Agroindústria Rural de Pequeno Porte. Rev. Ciênc. Humanas 2002, 31, 133–154. [Google Scholar]
  8. Corsin, F.; Funge-Smith, S.; Clausen, J. A Qualitative Assessment of Standards and Certification Schemes Applicable to Aquaculture in the Asia-Pacific Region; FAO: Bangkok, Thailand, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  9. Diez Garcia, R.W. Reflexos Da Globalização Na Cultura Alimentar: Considerações Sobre as Mudanças Na Alimentação Urbana. Rev. Nutr. 2003, 16, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. da Silva, V.; Amaral, A.M.P. Segurança Alimentar, Comércio Internacional e Segurança Sanitária. Informações Econ. 2004, 34, 38–49. [Google Scholar]
  11. Morgan, K.; Sonnino, R. The Urban Foodscape: World Cities and the New Food Equation. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Buttel, F.H.; McMichale, P. The Supply Chain. In Food Policy: Integrating Health, Environment and Society; Lang, T., Barling, D., Caraher, M., McMichale, P., Eds.; Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford, UK, 2009; ISBN 9780198567882. [Google Scholar]
  13. Popkin, B.M. Contemporary Nutritional Transition: Determinants of Diet and Its Impact on Body Composition. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2011, 70, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Grunert, K.G. Food Quality and Safety: Consumer Perception and Demand. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Developing Sustainable Food Value Chains—Guiding Principles; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; ISBN 9789251084816. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansstein, F.; Keqiang, W.; Hongmei, L. Perceptions of Food Quality: Evidence from a Survey in Shanghai. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 754–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Horská, E.; Urgeová, J.; Prokeinová, R. Consumers’ Food Choice and Quality Perception: Comparative Analysis of Selected Central European Countries. Agric. Econ. 2011, 57, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mascarello, G.; Pinto, A.; Parise, N.; Crovato, S.; Ravarotto, L. The Perception of Food Quality. Profiling Italian Consumers. Appetite 2015, 89, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, H.; Gibson, K.E.; Wright, K.G.; Neal, J.A.; Sirsat, S.A. Food Safety and Food Quality Perceptions of Farmers’ Market Consumers in the United States. Food Control 2017, 79, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Galiñanes Plaza, A.; Saulais, L.; Blumenthal, D.; Delarue, J. Eating Location as a Reference Point: Differences in Hedonic Evaluation of Dishes According to Consumption Situation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chironi, S.; Bacarella, S.; Altamore, L.; Ingrassia, M. Quality Factors Influencing Consumer Demand for Small Fruit by Focus Group and Sensory Test. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2017, 23, 857–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ingrassia, M.; Bacarella, S.; Columba, P.; Altamore, L.; Chironi, S. Traceability and Labelling of Food Products from the Consumer Perspective. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 58, 865–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jover, A.J.V.; Montes, F.J.L.; Fuentes, M.M.F. Measuring Perceptions of Quality in Food Products: The Case of Red Wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. PNAE. Lei N° 11.947 de Junho de 2009. Dispõe Sobre o Atendimento Da Alimentação Escolar e Do Programa Nacional de Alimentarção Escolar e Dá Outras Providências; PNAE: Brasília, Brasil, 2009; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  25. IBGE. Divisão Regional Do Brasil. Available online: https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/organizacao-do-territorio/divisao-regional/15778-divisoes-regionais-do-brasil.html?=&t=o-que-e (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  26. Bardin, L. Análise de Conteúdo; Casa de Ideias: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; ISBN 978-85-62938-04-7. [Google Scholar]
  27. Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers; SAGE: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 9781446247365. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rocha Silva, C.; Gobbi, B.C.; Simão, A.A. The Use of the Analysis of Content as a Tool for the Qualitative Research: Description and Aplication of the Method. Organ. Rurais Agroind. 2005, 7, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jacob, M.C.M.; Araujo, F.S. Desenvolvimento de Competências Para Nutrição No Contexto de Sistemas Alimentares Sustentáveis. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2019, 11, 4369–4378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bianchini, V.U.; Martinelli, S.S.; Soares, P.; Fabri, R.K.; Cavalli, S.B. Criteria Adopted for School Menu Planning within the Framework of the Brazilian School Feeding Program. Rev. Nutr. 2020, 33, e190197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fornazier, A.; Belik, W. Produção e Consumo Local de Alimentos: Novas Abordagens e Perspectivas Para as Políticas Públicas. Segur. Aliment. Nutr. 2013, 20, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Coley, D.; Howard, M.; Winter, M. Food Miles: Time for a Re-Think? Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 919–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gliessman, S.R. Agroecologia: Processos Ecológicos em Agricultura Sustentável; UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2001; ISBN 9788538600381. [Google Scholar]
  34. Martinelli, S.S.; Cavalli, S.B. Healthy and Sustainable Diet: A Narrative Review of the Challenges and Perspectives. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2019, 24, 4251–4262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. de Oliveira, N.R.F.; Jaime, P.C. O Encontro Entre o Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável e a Promoção Da Saúde No Guia Alimentar para a População Brasileira. Saúde Soc. 2016, 25, 1108–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Reipurth, M.F.S.; Hørby, L.; Gregersen, C.G.; Bonke, A.; Perez Cueto, F.J.A. Barriers and Facilitators towards Adopting a More Plant-Based Diet in a Sample of Danish Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fernqvist, F.; Ekelund, L. Credence and the Effect on Consumer Liking of Food—A Review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 32, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Schulte-Holierhoek, A.; Verastegui-Tena, L.; Goedegebure, R.P.G.; Piqueras Fiszman, B.; Smeets, P.A.M. Sensory Expectation, Perception, and Autonomic Nervous System Responses to Package Colours and Product Popularity. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Seal, C.J.; Sanderson, R.; Benbrook, C.; Steinshamn, H.; Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Skwarło-Sońta, K.; Eyre, M.; et al. Higher PUFA and N-3 PUFA, Conjugated Linoleic Acid, α-Tocopherol and Iron, but Lower Iodine and Selenium Concentrations in Organic Milk: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta- and Redundancy Analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 1043–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Barański, M.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Volakakis, N.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Stewart, G.B.; Benbrook, C.; Biavati, B.; Markellou, E.; Giotis, C.; et al. Higher Antioxidant and Lower Cadmium Concentrations and Lower Incidence of Pesticide Residues in Organically Grown Crops: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 794–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Matt, D.; Rembialkowska, E.; Luik, A.; Peetsmann, E.; Pehme, S. Quality of Organic vs. Conventional Food and Effects on Health; Estonian University of Life Sciences: Tartu, Estonia, 2011; ISBN 9789949484065. [Google Scholar]
  42. dos Santos, F.; Fernandes, P.F.; Rockett, F.C.; de Oliveira, A.B.A. Evaluation of the inclusion of organic food from family-based agriculture in school food in municipalities of rural territories of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2014, 19, 1429–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ebone, M.V.; Cavalli, S.B.; Lopes, S.J. Segurança e Qualidade Higiênico-Sanitária em Unidades Produtoras de Refeições Comerciais. Rev. Nutr. 2011, 24, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. SISAN. Lei N° 11.346 de Setembro de 2006. Cria o Sistema Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional—SISAN com Vistas em Assegurar o Direito Humano à Alimentação Adequada e dá Outras Providências; SISAN: Brasília, Brasil, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fabri, R.K.; Proença, R.P.d.C.; Martinelli, S.S.; Cavalli, S.C. Regional Foods in Brazilian School Meals. Br. Food J. 2015, 177, 1706–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Grunert, K.G. Current Issues in the Understanding of Consumer Food Choice. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2002, 13, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. De Jonge, J.; Van Trijp, J.C.M.; Van der Lans, I.A.; Renes, R.J.; Frewer, L.J. How Trust in Institutions and Organizations Builds General Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: A Decomposition of Effects. Appetite 2008, 51, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gedrich, K. Determinants of Nutritional Behaviour: A Multitude of Levers for Successful Intervention? Appetite 2003, 41, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Green, J.M.; Draper, A.K.; Dowler, E.A. Short Cuts to Safety: Risk and “Rules of Thumb” in Accounts of Food Choice. Health Risk Soc. 2003, 5, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Van Kleef, E.; Frewer, L.J.; Chryssochoidis, G.M.; Houghton, J.R.; Korzen-Bohr, S.; Krystallis, T.; Lassen, J.; Pfenning, U.; Rowe, G. Perceptions of Food Risk Management among Key Stakeholders: Results from a Cross-European Study. Appetite 2006, 47, 46–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Identification of New Allergens in Macadamia Nut and Cross-Reactivity with Other Tree Nuts in a Spanish Cohort
Previous
The Association between Grazing and Food Addiction: The Italian Version of the Repetitive Eating Questionnaire (Rep(Eat)-Q) and Its Relationships with Food Addiction Criteria
Next