Perceptions and Liking Distortion from Information about the Nutritional Upgrades in Biofortified Seafood Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Fish Samples Obtained with and without Biofortified Feed
2.3. Setting of the Sensory Experiments
2.4. Data Analysis
- Evaluate how much the consumers liked the three types of fish (sea bream, trout, and carp) by considering the two fish treatments (fortified and conventional) as within-subject measures;
- Evaluate the effects of information availability on “consumer liking” by considering the two experimental conditions: receiving and not receiving information about the nutritional value of the fish, and the two fish treatments (fortified and conventional) as between-subject and within-subject measures, respectively;
- Understand how the information could affect consumer liking compared to the types of fortified fish by analyzing consumer liking of the types of fish (sea bream, trout, and carp) as a within-subject measure as per the two experimental conditions of information disclosure as the between-subject variable;
- Understand how the different fish treatments (fortified and conventional) and the different WTP levels evaluated during the different phases of the experiment (visual, taste, and information phase) could impact the predisposition of the consumers to pay for these products by analyzing the WTP levels and considering the two fish treatments (fortified and conventional) as the within-subject measure.
3. Results
3.1. Impact of the Type of Fish and Feed System (Biofortified and Conventional) on Consumer Liking
3.2. Consumer Rating of Appearance, Aroma, and Taste of Fortified and Conventional Samples
3.3. Impact of Information (Presence/Absence) and Treatment (Fortified and Conventional) on Consumer Liking
3.4. Impact of Information (Presence/Absence) and Type of Fortified Fish (Trout, Carp, and Seabream) on Consumer Liking
3.5. Consumer Evaluation of Appearance, Aroma, and Taste of Fortified and Conventional Fish, with the Absence or Presence of Information
3.6. Impact of Fish Type (Carp, Trout, and Seabream) and Treatment (Fortified/Conventional) on WTP
3.7. Impact of the Timing of WTP Evaluation and Fish Farming Treatment (Fortified/Conventional) on the WTP
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bosch, A.C.; O’Neill, B.; Sigge, G.O.; Kerwath, S.E.; Hoffman, L.C. Heavy Metals in Marine Fish Meat and Consumer Health: A Review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naylor, R.L.; Hardy, R.W.; Buschmann, A.H.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; Klinger, D.H.; Little, D.C.; Lubchenco, J.; Shumway, S.E.; Troell, M. A 20-Year Retrospective Review of Global Aquaculture. Nature 2021, 591, 551–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daskalova, A. Farmed Fish Welfare: Stress, Post-Mortem Muscle Metabolism, and Stress-Related Meat Quality Changes. Int. Aquat. Res. 2019, 11, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorella, K.J.; Okronipa, H.; Baker, K.; Heilpern, S. Contemporary Aquaculture: Implications for Human Nutrition. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021, 70, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harimana, Y.; Tang, X.; Le, G.; Xing, X.; Zhang, K.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Ma, S.; Karangwa, E.; Tuyishimire, M.A. Quality Parameters of Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) Raised in Lotic and Lentic Freshwater Systems. LWT 2018, 90, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tešić, M.; Baltić, M.; Teodorović, V.; Nedić, D.; Mirilović, M.; Marković, R.; Aleksić-Agelidis, A. Effects of Various Meal Compositions on Production Results, Economic Performance and Fish Meat Quality. Acta Vet. 2014, 64, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, I.-J.; Eilertsen, K.-E.; Otnæs, C.H.A.; Mæhre, H.K.; Elvevoll, E.O. An Update on the Content of Fatty Acids, Dioxins, PCBs and Heavy Metals in Farmed, Escaped and Wild Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Norway. Foods 2020, 9, 1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neill, H.R.; Gill, C.I.R.; McDonald, E.J.; McRoberts, W.C.; Pourshahidi, L.K. The Future Is Bright: Biofortification of Common Foods Can Improve Vitamin D Status. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, O.T.; Mohammed, A.J.; Al-Hussieny, A.A. The Ability to Use Spirulina sp. as Food for Common Carp Fish (Cyprinus carpio L. 1758). Plant Arch. 2020, 20 (Suppl. 1), 532–535. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmed, A. Al-Hussieny. Recording Eight New Species of Algae Iraqi Aquatic Environment Within Tigris River in Baghdad City, Iraq View Project. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 4, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, S.; Saha, S.; Kaviraj, A. Fermented Mulberry Leaf Meal as Fishmeal Replacer in the Formulation of Feed for Carp Labeo rohita and Catfish Heteropneustes fossilis—Optimization by Mathematical Programming. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 839–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koshinski, R. Effect of Taraxacum officinale Weber Ex Wiggers Extract on Growth Performance, Biochemical Blood Parameters and Meat Quality of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss W.), Cultivated in a Recirculating System. AACL Bioflux 2020, 13, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
- Kurdomanov, A.; Sirakov, I.; Stoyanova, S.; Velichkova, K.; Nedeva, I.; Staykov, Y. The Effect of Diet Supplemented with Proviotic® on Growth, Blood Biochemical Parameters and Meat Quality in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Cultivated in Recirculation System. AACL Bioflux 2019, 12, 404–412. [Google Scholar]
- Kusmayadi, A.; Leong, Y.K.; Yen, H.W.; Huang, C.Y.; Chang, J.S. Microalgae as Sustainable Food and Feed Sources for Animals and Humans—Biotechnological and Environmental Aspects. Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narsing Rao, G. Physico-Chemical, Functional and Antioxidant Properties of Roe Protein Concentrates from Cyprinus carpio and Epinephelus tauvina. J. Food Pharm. Sci. 2014, 2, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
- San Martin, D.; Orive, M.; Iñarra, B.; Castelo, J.; Estévez, A.; Nazzaro, J.; Iloro, I.; Elortza, F.; Zufía, J. Brewers’ Spent Yeast and Grain Protein Hydrolysates as Second-Generation Feedstuff for Aquaculture Feed. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2020, 11, 5307–5320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, A.R.; Altintzoglou, T.; Mendes, J.; Nunes, M.L.; Dinis, M.T.; Dias, J. Farmed fish as a functional food: Perception of fish fortification and the influence of origin—Insights from Portugal. Aquaculture 2019, 501, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peinado, I.; Miles, W.; Koutsidis, G. Odour characteristics of seafood flavour formulations produced with fish by-products incorporating EPA, DHA and fish oil. Food Chem. 2016, 212, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellarosa, N.; Laghi, L.; Martinsdóttir, E.; Jónsdóttir, R.; Sveinsdóttir, K. Enrichment of convenience seafood with omega-3 and seaweed extracts: Effect on lipid oxidation. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakr, A.T.; Song, Y.; Clifford, A.; Chen, A.; Smith, T.; Wan, Y.; Devlin, L.; Tang, J.; Zhou, W.; Danat, I.M.; et al. Determinants Of Fish Consumption In Older People: A Community-Based Cohort Study. J. Aging Res. Clin. Pract. 2018, 7, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gopinath, B.; Moshtaghian, H.; Flood, V.M.; Louie, J.C.Y.; Liew, G.; Burlutsky, G.; Mitchell, P. Pattern of Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Intake and Fish Consumption and Retinal Vascular Caliber in Children and Adolescents: A Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Chen, L.; He, Y.; Baumann, Z.; Mason, R.P.; Shen, H.; Yu, C.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X. Impacts of Farmed Fish Consumption and Food Trade on Methylmercury Exposure in China. Environ. Int. 2018, 120, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortified Food Market—Industry Analysis, Trend, Forecast 2024. Available online: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/fortified-food-market.html (accessed on 16 July 2021).
- Clark, B.; Hill, T.; Hubbard, C. Consumers’ Perception of Vitamin D and Fortified Foods. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2205–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, C.; Lourenço, H.; Costa, S.; Gonçalves, S.; Nunes, M.L. Survey into the Seafood Consumption Preferences and Patterns in the Portuguese Population. Gender and Regional Variability. Appetite 2013, 64, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacchettini, G.; Castellini, G.; Graffigna, G.; Hung, Y.; Lambri, M.; Marques, A.; Perrella, F.; Savarese, M.; Verbeke, W.; Capri, E. Assessing Consumers’ Attitudes, Expectations and Intentions towards Health and Sustainability Regarding Seafood Consumption in Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 148049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claret, A.; Guerrero, L.; Aguirre, E.; Rincón, L.; Hernández, M.D.; Martínez, I.; Peleteiro, J.B.; Grau, A.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. Consumer Preferences for Sea Fish Using Conjoint Analysis: Exploratory Study of the Importance of Country of Origin, Obtaining Method, Storage Conditions and Purchasing Price. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; de Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer Purchasing Behaviour towards Fish and Seafood Products. Patterns and Insights from a Sample of International Studies. Appetite 2015, 84, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UGent. Consumer Acceptance and Market Opportunities for Eco-Innovative Solutions, Deliverable 4.3; H2020 Project SEAFOODTOMORROW; Grant Agreement No: 773400; UGent: Ghent, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://seafoodtomorrow.eu (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- UGent. Consumer Survey Data Collected With Prior Ethical Approval, Milestone 24; H2020 Project SEAFOODTOMORROW; Grant Agreement No: 773400; UGent: Ghent, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://seafoodtomorrow.eu (accessed on 31 August 2020).
- Ho, A.D.; Yu, C.C. Descriptive Statistics for Modern Test Score Distributions: Skewness, Kurtosis, Discreteness, and Ceiling Effects. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2015, 75, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birch, D.; Lawley, M. The Role of Habit, Childhood Consumption, Familiarity, and Attitudes Across Seafood Consumption Segments in Australia. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2014, 20, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrillo, E.; Varela, P.; Fiszman, S. Effects of Food Package Information and Sensory Characteristics on the Perception of Healthiness and the Acceptability of Enriched Biscuits. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verneau, F.; Caracciolo, F.; Coppola, A.; Lombardi, P. Consumer Fears and Familiarity of Processed Food. The Value of Information Provided by the FTNS. Appetite 2014, 73, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zoccarato, I.; Benatti, G.; Calvi, S.L.; Bianchini, M.L. Use of Pig Manure as Fertilizer with and without Supplement Feed in Pond Carp Production in Northern Italy. Aquaculture 1995, 129, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Realini, C.E.; Kallas, Z.; Pérez-Juan, M.; Gómez, I.; Olleta, J.L.; Beriain, M.J.; Albertí, P.; Sañudo, C. Relative Importance of Cues Underlying Spanish Consumers’ Beef Choice and Segmentation, and Consumer Liking of Beef Enriched with n-3 and CLA Fatty Acids. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 33, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendin, K.; Biörklund-Helgesson, M.; Andersson-Stefanovic, K.; Lareke, A.; Böök, O.; Skjöldebrand, C. Liking, Preference and Practical Implications of Protein and Energy Enriched in-between-Meals Designed for Elderly People. Food Nutr. Res. 2021, 65, 5635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, T.; Abrahamse, W. Communicating the Climate Impacts of Meat Consumption: The Effect of Values and Message Framing. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imm, B.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, S.H. Effects of Sensory Labels on Taste Acceptance of Commercial Food Products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soregaroli, C.; Ricci, E.C.; Stranieri, S.; Nayga, R.M.; Capri, E.; Castellari, E. Carbon Footprint Information, Prices, and Restaurant Wine Choices by Customers: A Natural Field Experiment. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 186, 107061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, T.; Mattila, A.S. The Effect of Ad Appeals and Message Framing on Consumer Responses to Plant-Based Menu Items. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 95, 102917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel, E.; Baty, C.; le Corre, D.; Souchon, I.; Martin, N. Flavor-Active Compounds Potentially Implicated in Cooked Cauliflower Acceptance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 6459–6467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, C.; Hieke, S.; Taper, C.; Siegrist, M. European Consumer Healthiness Evaluation of ‘Free-from’ Labelled Food Products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, C.; Bastounis, A.; Hartmann-Boyce, J.; Stewart, C.; Frie, K.; Tudor, K.; Bianchi, F.; Cartwright, E.; Cook, B.; Rayner, M.; et al. The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systematic Review. Environ. Behav. 2021, 53, 891–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seppä, L.; Latvala, T.; Akaichi, F.; Gil, J.M.; Tuorila, H. What Are Domestic Apples Worth? Hedonic Responses and Sensory Information as Drivers of Willingness to Pay. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 43, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Olsen, S.O.; Hansen, K.B.; Brunsø, K. Health-Related Attitudes as a Basis for Segmenting European Fish Consumers. Food Policy 2010, 35, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zander, K.; Feucht, Y. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Seafood Made in Europe. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2017, 30, 251–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Gender | n | % |
---|---|---|
Male | 38 | 41.8 |
Female | 53 | 58.2 |
Age | ||
18–24 | 24 | 26.4 |
25–34 | 24 | 26.4 |
35–44 | 13 | 14.2 |
45–54 | 14 | 15.4 |
55–59 | 5 | 5.5 |
60–72 | 11 | 12.1 |
Education | ||
Primary or secondary | 27 | 29.7 |
Higher education | 64 | 70.3 |
Geographic area | ||
Suburb or hinterland of a large city | 6 | 6.6 |
Countryside | 17 | 18.7 |
Small town | 57 | 62.6 |
Big city | 11 | 12.1 |
Profession | ||
Paid work (24 h per week or more) | 34 | 37.4 |
Housewife | 2 | 2.2 |
Student | 30 | 33.0 |
Retired | 8 | 8.8 |
Trout | Carp | Seabream | Average Liking Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
Fortified | 6.82 b,A | 1.37 | 4.05 a,A | 2.33 | 7.13 b,A | 1.28 | 6.00 A | 1.66 |
Conventional | 6.95 b,A | 1.28 | 4.25 a,A | 2.34 | 7.15 b,A | 1.11 | 6.11 A | 1.57 |
Average liking score | 6.88 b | 1.32 | 4.15 a | 2.33 | 7.14 b | 1.19 |
Fortified | Conventional | Average Liking Score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
InfoTaste (n = 37) | 6.18 a,A | 1.37 | 6.53 b,A | 0.96 | 6.35 A | 1.16 |
TasteInfo (n = 42) | 5.84 a,A | 0.95 | 5.75 a,B | 1.16 | 5.79 B | 1.05 |
Average liking score | 6.00 a | 1.17 | 6.14 a | 1.13 |
Fortified Trout | Fortified Carp | Fortified Seabream | Average Liking Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
InfoTaste (n = 38) | 7.05 a,A | 1.41 | 4.55 b,A | 2.39 | 6.95 a,A | 1.54 | 6.18 A | 1.78 |
TasteInfo (n = 46) | 6.57 a,A | 1.33 | 3.37 b,B | 2.20 | 7.33 a,A | 0.97 | 5.75 A | 1.50 |
Average liking score | 6.81 a | 1.37 | 3.96 b | 2.30 | 7.14 a | 1.25 |
Trout | Carp | Seabream | Average WTP Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
Fortified | EUR 13.93 b,A | 4.46 | EUR 8.11 a,B | 4.80 | EUR 15.07 b,A | 5.34 | EUR 12.37 A | 4.87 |
Conventional | EUR 13.43 b,A | 4.43 | EUR 7.89 a,B | 4.70 | EUR 14.07 b,B | 5.46 | EUR 11.94 B | 4.86 |
Average WTP score | EUR 13.68 a | 4.45 | EUR 8.00 b | 4.75 | EUR 14.79 a | 5.40 |
Visual | Info | Taste | Average WTP Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
Fortified | EUR 12.01 b,A | 4.29 | EUR 13.20 a,A | 4.58 | EUR 11.48 b,A | 4.19 | EUR 12.24 A | 4.35 |
Conventional | EUR 12.40 a,A | 4.41 | EUR 11.82 a,b,B | 4.10 | EUR 11.47 b,A | 3.96 | EUR 11.90 B | 4.16 |
Average WTP score | EUR 12.21 a,b | 4.35 | EUR 12.52 a | 4.34 | EUR 11.48 b | 4.07 |
Visual | Taste | Info | Average WTP Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
Fortified | EUR 13.31 b,A | 3.41 | EUR 11.56 a,A | 3.16 | EUR 12.60 b,A | 3.62 | EUR 12.50 A | 3.40 |
Conventional | EUR 12.99 a,A | 3.52 | EUR 11.35 b,A | 3.61 | EUR 11.58 b,B | 3.23 | EUR 11.98 B | 3.45 |
Average WTP score | EUR 13.16 a | 3.47 | EUR 11.46 b | 3.39 | EUR 12.09 c | 3.42 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Castellini, G.; Vezzulli, F.; Lambri, M.; Sacchettini, G.; Graffigna, G.; Marques, A.; Capri, E. Perceptions and Liking Distortion from Information about the Nutritional Upgrades in Biofortified Seafood Products. Foods 2022, 11, 2808. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11182808
Castellini G, Vezzulli F, Lambri M, Sacchettini G, Graffigna G, Marques A, Capri E. Perceptions and Liking Distortion from Information about the Nutritional Upgrades in Biofortified Seafood Products. Foods. 2022; 11(18):2808. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11182808
Chicago/Turabian StyleCastellini, Greta, Fosca Vezzulli, Milena Lambri, Gabriele Sacchettini, Guendalina Graffigna, António Marques, and Ettore Capri. 2022. "Perceptions and Liking Distortion from Information about the Nutritional Upgrades in Biofortified Seafood Products" Foods 11, no. 18: 2808. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11182808