Norwegian Consumers' Skepticism Towards Smoke-Flavoring of Salmon-Is It for Real?

Overview

Journal Foods

Specialty Biotechnology

Date 2022 Jul 27

PMID 35885413

Authors

Lene Waldenstrom

Marte Berg Wahlgren

Ase Strand

Jorgen Lerfall

Mari Ovrum Gaarder

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to explore Norwegian consumers' attitudes toward smoke-flavoring of cold smoked salmon (CSS), by conducting a digital survey and focus group discussions. Some of the smoke-flavoring techniques, like atomized purified condensed smoke, is considered healthier than conventional smoking. Manufacturers of CSS are, however, hesitant to use all kinds of smoke-flavoring due to expected consumer skepticism. In the digital survey, the expected skepticism was confirmed ( = 487). Only 15% of the respondents were positively oriented toward smoke-flavoring of CSS. The selection criterion for the focus group discussion was based on the results from the survey and resulted in three attitude-oriented focus groups (negative, neutral, and positive). The negative focus group considered smoke-flavored CSS to be unnatural and out of the question to buy or eat. Unlike the negative focus group, the neutral group was curious to learn more and open to potential smoke-flavor benefits. However, credible information or science was crucial to influence CSS choice. Future studies may investigate whether the existent of this large group of curious neutral consumers (47% of the respondents) influence manufacturers (of CSS) skepticism or how various types of product information could steer consumer acceptance of smoke-flavoring of CSS.

References

Llauger M, Claret A, Bou R, Lopez-Mas L, Guerrero L . Consumer Attitudes toward Consumption of Meat Products Containing Offal and Offal Extracts. Foods. 2021; 10(7). PMC: 8303894. DOI: 10.3390/foods10071454. View

Cruz R, Martins Z, Marques A, Casal S, Cunha S . Smoked fish products available in European markets: Human exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers and their metabolites. Food Chem Toxicol. 2018; 121:262-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2018.09.002. View

Searle B, Staton S, Littlewood R, Thorpe K . Associations between food provision and feeding practices in socially disadvantaged childcare centres. Appetite. 2021; 169:105811. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105811. View

Brunner T, Van der Horst K, Siegrist M . Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite. 2010; 55(3):498-506. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.08.017. View

Torrico D, Hutchings S, Ha M, Bittner E, Fuentes S, Warner R . Novel techniques to understand consumer responses towards food products: A review with a focus on meat. Meat Sci. 2018; 144:30-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.006. View

Lingbeck J, Cordero P, OBryan C, Johnson M, Ricke S, Crandall P . Functionality of liquid smoke as an all-natural antimicrobial in food preservation. Meat Sci. 2014; 97(2):197-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.02.003. View

Roininen K, Lahteenmaki L, Tuorila H . Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite. 1999; 33(1):71-88. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1999.0232. View

Steptoe A, Pollard T, Wardle J . Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 1995; 25(3):267-84. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1995.0061. View

Knorr D, Augustin M . Preserving the food preservation legacy. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022; 63(28):9519-9538. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2065459. View

10.

Nordhagen S, Lee J, Onuigbo-Chatta N, Okoruwa A, Monterrosa E, Lambertini E . What Is Safe and How Much Does It Matter? Food Vendors' and Consumers' Views on Food Safety in Urban Nigeria. Foods. 2022; 11(2). PMC: 8774326. DOI: 10.3390/foods11020225. View

11.

Stjernqvist N, Ljungmann C, Benn J, Demant Klinker C . "I was pushed over the edge, but I didn't die" - A qualitative case study of Danish school children's food literacy at FOODcamp. Appetite. 2022; 175:106040. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106040. View

12.

Guerrero L, Guardia M, Xicola J, Verbeke W, Vanhonacker F, Zakowska-Biemans S . Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite. 2008; 52(2):345-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.008. View

13.

Stone H, FitzGibbon L, Millan E, Murayama K . Curious to eat insects? Curiosity as a Key Predictor of Willingness to try novel food. Appetite. 2021; 168:105790. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105790. View

14.

Andreassen H, Gjerald O, Hansen K . "The Good, The Bad, and the Minimum Tolerable": Exploring Expectations of Institutional Food. Foods. 2021; 10(4). PMC: 8066764. DOI: 10.3390/foods10040767. View

15.

Waldenstrom L, Gaarder M, Lerfall J . Sensory methodology in product optimization of cold smoked Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) processed with atomized purified condensed smoke. J Food Sci. 2021; 86(10):4650-4667. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.15915. View

16.

Galati A, Tulone A, Moavero P, Crescimanno M . Consumer interest in information regarding novel food technologies in Italy: The case of irradiated foods. Food Res Int. 2019; 119:291-296. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.01.065. View

17.

Truong V, Lang B, Conroy D . Are trust and consumption values important for buyers of organic food? A comparison of regular buyers, occasional buyers, and non-buyers. Appetite. 2021; 161:105123. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105123. View