Applying the food technology neophobia scale in a developing country context. A case-study on processed matooke (cooking banana) flour in Central Uganda
Introduction
Despite the high rate of market failures, new food technologies are still increasingly introduced, due to the anticipated range of benefits they can bring to the consumer and the food sector, particularly in developing regions (Rollin, Kennedy, & Wills, 2011). Nevertheless, consumers are traditionally concerned about the risks associated with such food applications, especially when there is a perceived lack of tangible benefits (Frewer et al., 2011, Rollin et al., 2011, Siegrist, 2008). This has led to a growing body of literature in consumer food research dealing with consumers' fear of novel foods, also known as food neophobia (e.g. Caracciolo et al., 2011, Chen et al., 2013, Cox and Evans, 2008, Frewer et al., 2011, Matin et al., 2012, Pliner and Hobden, 1992, Siegrist, 2008, Verneau et al., 2014). While it is generally characterized as a personality trait, i.e. a continuum along which people can be placed in terms of their tendency to be in favor of new foods or to be reluctant (Pliner & Salvy, 2006), food neophobia has also been treated as a form of behavior, involving the avoidance of novel foods in particular situations (Pliner and Salvy, 2006, Ritchey et al., 2003). As the success of new food technologies largely hinge on consumers' behavioral responses in the market place (Chen et al., 2013), negative attitudes towards food technologies may prevent widespread adoption and result into product failures. Therefore, identifying population segments that are more or less food technology neophobic as well as segments of early adopters of innovative food technology is deemed useful from a marketing point of view (Evans, Kermarrec, Sable, & Cox, 2010).
Food neophobia does not only relate to consumers' reluctance to try new food products, but also to the acceptance of new technologies used in food production and processing, known as food technology neophobia (e.g. Bäckström et al., 2004, Choe and Cho, 2011, Cox and Evans, 2008, Grunert et al., 2003, Lähteenmäki et al., 2002). Therefore it is deemed useful to make a distinction between the acceptance of new foods and the new technologies that are applied to develop those foods (Evans et al., 2010, Frewer et al., 2011, Grunert et al., 2003, Siegrist, 2008). The key factors that contribute to consumers' resistance to try foods produced by new food technologies generally include functional barriers related to ease of use and usefulness, benefits and risk perceptions, knowledge and attitudes, socio-demographic indicators and lifestyle factors, as well as psychological barriers (Chen et al., 2013; Frewer et al., 2013, Ronteltap et al., 2007).
When looking at consumer research on food and food technology neophobia, the development of the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), which provides a standardized, validated measurement, is considered as the starting point for the increased attention on both phenomena, by which scientists particularly focused on evaluating the relationship between appetite and food aversion (Choe and Cho, 2011, Olabi et al., 2009). The FNS has been found to be associated with general neophobia, trait anxiety and sensation seeking (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). Consequently, studies have shown that the FNS accurately predicts responses to novel or unfamiliar food (e.g. Lähteenmäki et al., 2002, Ritchey et al., 2003).
However, while the FNS has been proven to be suitable for assessing consumer reactions towards ethnic or other culture foods (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), it seems not appropriate for examining acceptance of foods produced by novel technologies (Cox and Evans, 2008, Frewer et al., 2011, Siegrist, 2008). Even though food technology neophobia is still poorly addressed in consumer research (Choe and Cho, 2011, Cox and Evans, 2008, Olabi et al., 2009), the Food Technology Neophobia Scale (FTNS) (Cox and Evans, 2008, Evans et al., 2010), is considered a more suitable tool than the food neophobia scale (FNS) (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) to map consumer perceptions of food technologies. The original FTNS consists of 13 seven-point bi-polar scales, anchored from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’ with a neutral mid-point, which focus on food technology itself, rather than the (attributes of the) food product.
Since its introduction in 2008, seven consumer studies have measured the FTNS (for a review, see Table 1). Building upon the first application of Cox and Evans, 2008, Evans et al., 2010 have retested the FTNS constructs by looking at the same processing technologies, products and research location as in their original work. Out of the remaining studies, two focused on food packaging in Canada (Chen et al., 2013, Matin et al., 2012), while three other studies applied FTNS to food processing in Italy (Caracciolo et al., 2011, Coppola et al., 2014, Verneau et al., 2014). In general, the FTNS has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of food technology neophobia. Although it has been tested and lauded for its consistency and stability (e.g. Chen et al., 2013, Evans et al., 2010, Matin et al., 2012, Verneau et al., 2014), the low number and limited scope of FTNS applications do not allow validation of its use in different contexts. Firstly, the existing FTNS studies have only been conducted in developed countries, such as Australia (Cox and Evans, 2008, Evans et al., 2010), Canada (Chen et al., 2013, Matin et al., 2012) and Italy (Caracciolo et al., 2011, Coppola et al., 2014, Verneau et al., 2014). Secondly, besides the work of Cox and Evans, two other studies (Chen et al., 2013, Matin et al., 2012) also dealt with food-related packaging technology, rather than focusing on food technology. Consequently, there is a need to conduct more studies on the applicability of the FTNS in other sectors and contexts, especially in relation to food technology in developing regions.
Indeed, consumers have heterogeneous attitudes and preferences toward different, novel food technologies (Frewer et al., 2013, Pliner and Salvy, 2006, Ronteltap et al., 2007), which may affect their food choices. This study measures and applies the FTNS to assess consumer preference of matooke (fresh versus processed) in Uganda. Matooke is an East-African highlands cooking banana that is traditionally peeled, mashed and boiled or steamed in banana leaves after being harvested between three-quarters to full maturity (Florence Isabirye Muranga, Sampath, Marlett, & Ntambi, 2007). During this process, the color of the pulp changes from a creamy white to a yellowish color depending on original maturity of the bunch. Because matooke fruit is bulky and highly perishable, post-harvest losses are consistently high, up to a level of 45% (Florence I Muranga, Mutambuka, Nabugoomu, & Lindhauer, 2010; Florence I Muranga, Nabugoomu, & Katebarirwe, 2011). To substantially reduce the bulk of matooke starch, increase its shelf-life and diversify its use for bakery and confectionary industries, recent advances in processing (pre-gelatinization) have resulted in the development of banana flours, like raw, instant and extruded ‘Tooke’ flour (Florence I Muranga et al., 2011).
With banana as its main staple crops, Uganda also became one of the world's largest producers of matooke, ranking first in Sub-Saharan Africa, with an estimated production of about 9.5 million tons (i.e. 26.4% of the global production), cultivated by 72% of farmers (Karugaba & Kimaru, 1999). While Uganda also has the highest per capita consumption of matooke, estimated at 191 kg per year, Tooke flour was less successful. Since its introduction in 2008, processed banana flour only obtained a market share between 20% and 30% (Florence I Muranga et al., 2010). The low adoption of the Tooke flour raises a food technology neophobia question. Emerging processed food products based on novel technologies sometimes tend to raise concerns amongst consumers, who perceive them as unsafe, unnatural and unpleasant, hence the need for applying the FTNS to the case of processed matooke (Cooking Banana) flour.
Section snippets
Data collection method
By using convenience sampling, a sample was drawn from banana consumers in the central business districts of Kampala, Wakiso and Mukono in Central Uganda. The majority of the population in these areas are traditional matooke consumers. These are also locations where ‘Tooke’ flour has been introduced.
Based on a pretested, structured questionnaire, face-to-face interviews were administered between April and May 2013. Out of the 220 respondents who completed the questionnaires, 209 questionnaires
Sample descriptive
The socio-demographic profile of the sample indicates that males are slightly more presented (58% of participants), while the average age was about 32 years. In general, respondents were married (71%) and were formally employed (69%), while having an average household size of 6 persons and had a degree or secondary level of education (85%). When comparing these figures with national census data, our sample has 8.4% more males, a larger household size (5.5 versus 4.7 persons), but a similar
Discussion
While seven consumer studies already applied the FTNS, the present FTNS-based study is innovative in several ways. It is the first study that (1) used the FTNS in a developing country context, i.e. Uganda; (2) targeted towards the use of food technology in a traditional, staple crop, i.e. processed matooke flour; (3) examined differences in FTNS factors according to the socio-demographic variables and the role of the FTNS in explaining preference of technology-based food; (4) reviewed the
Acknowledgments
Walter Odongo is supported by a PhD fellowship from the Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education (NICHE-UGA 083). We acknowledge the contribution of Isaac Senyondo in the data collection.
References (36)
- et al.
Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales
Appetite
(2004) - et al.
Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food
Food Policy
(2010) Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking☆
Appetite
(2003)- et al.
Measuring consumer resistance to a new food technology: a choice experiment in meat packaging
Food Quality and Preference
(2013) - et al.
Food neophobia and willingness to try non-traditional foods for Koreans
Food Quality and Preference
(2011) - et al.
Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers' fears of novel food technologies: the food technology neophobia scale
Food quality and preference
(2008) - et al.
Willingness to accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China
Appetite
(2010) - et al.
Reliability and predictive validity of the food technology neophobia scale
Appetite
(2010) - et al.
Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies
Trends in Food Science & Technology
(2011) - et al.
Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Trends in Food Science & Technology
(2013)
Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies
Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda
Appetite
Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product alternative
Food Quality and Preference
Food neophobia levels of Lebanese and American college students
Food Quality and Preference
Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans
Appetite
Validation and cross-national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory factor analysis
Appetite
Consumers and new food technologies
Trends in Food Science & Technology
Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics
Appetite
Cited by (26)
Consumer acceptance of novel sustainable food technologies: A multi-country survey
2023, Journal of Cleaner ProductionAre tourists neophobic against offal meals?
2023, International Journal of Gastronomy and Food ScienceA systematic review of consumer studies applying the Food Technology Neophobia Scale: Lessons and applications
2023, Food Quality and PreferenceThe lesser evil: Consumer acceptance of X-ray irradiation compared with alternative phytosanitary treatments
2022, AppetiteCitation Excerpt :Such concerns are similar to the safety concerns apparent as an outcome of food technology neophobia, wherein participants may fear food processed with new technologies as they may be perceived as inhabiting more risk (Krings et al., 2022). In the current research, these concerns were partly a result of lack of knowledge, or fear driven by uncertainty, similar to other research exploring the acceptance of novel technologies in geographic areas where the technology may not have high awareness (De Steur, Odongo, & Gellynck, 2016). As these technologies or their applications may be novel (e.g., irradiation by X-ray is not new, but irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment is new to New Zealand), there may be a lack of historical proof of safety.
Consumers fear for novel food processing technologies: An application of food technology neophobia scale in the consumption of processed milk products in Northern Uganda
2022, Applied Food ResearchCitation Excerpt :Multicollinearity was assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF); with the VIF for each factor was less than 10, indicating good variance of coefficient in the data set. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to assess the consumers level of food technology neophobia basing on the 13-item FTNS statements (De Steur et al. 2016). The EFA was deemed appropriate because there were at least ten times as many respondents for every variable and the absolute sample size was greater than 100 (De Steur et al. 2016).
Text highlighting as a new way of measuring consumers' attitudes: A case study on vertical farming
2022, Food Quality and Preference