ACCEPTANCE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
IN FOODS AND PACKAGING AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-
BEING IN SOUTH AMERICABerta Schnettler1, Gloria Crisóstomo1, Nataly Mills1, Horacio Miranda1, José Sepúlveda2, Marcos Mora3, Germán
Lobos4, Marianela Denegri2 and Klaus G. Grunert5
1 Departamento de Producción Agropecuaria, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales. Universidad de La Frontera. Casilla 54-D, Temuco, Chile. E-mail:
[email protected]. 2 Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Educación y Humanidades. Universidad de La Frontera. 3 Departamento de Economía Agraria, Facultad
de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 4 Escuela de Ingeniería Comercial, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile. 5 MAPP Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus University, Denmark.
INTRODUCTIONNanotechnology foods and food packaging are already
commercialized, though the number of products is still
low. In the near future, nanotechnology may become
increasingly important in the food sector, with
governmental agencies and industry investing
considerable resources in its development and
implementation (Frewer et al., 2011). Consumers seem
to be hesitant to buy nanotechnology foods in
developed countries. However, Siegrist et al. (2008)
found that the public perceives various nanotechnology
applications differently. Given the increasing use of
nanotechnology in the production of foods and
packages, a study was conducted to evaluate the
acceptance of these among supermarket buyers in
Temuco (La Araucanía Region) Chile, a developing
country in South America. The existence of different
market segments were also identified in terms of their
preferences. Sunflower oil with different brands at
different prices was used as a case study.
CONCLUSIONOver 50% of the participants prefer sunflower oil with
nanotechnology applications in the packaging and the food,
which is related to the level of satisfaction with life and
food-related life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:FONDECYT project 1100611.
REFRENCESDiener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Frewer, L.J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R.,
Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., & Vereijken, C.
(2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food
technologies: Implications for predicting consumer
acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 22, 442-456.
Grunert, K., Dean, D., Raats, M., Nielsen, N., & Lumbers,
M. (2007). A measure of satisfaction with food-related life.
Appetite, 49(2), 486-493.
Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. 2008.
Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different
nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging.
Appetite 51: 283-290.
METHODOLOGYA personal survey was carried out on a sample of 400
habitual supermarket shoppers, who were responsible
for buying food for their homes. The survey was
conducted at the exits of two supermarkets during
January and April 2011. Previous knowledge of
nanotechnology was asked about as well as
sociodemographic and psychographic characteristics.
The SWLS (Satisfaction with Life Scale, Diener et al.,
1985) and SWFL (Satisfaction with Food-related Life,
Grunert et al., 2007) scales were included. Those
surveyed put their preferences in twelve combinations
of levels for each attribute in a fractional factorial
design with a conjoint analysis (TRENSREG procedure
of SAS 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A
cluster analysis was used to distinguish consumer
segments, with the method of Ward as a way of
chaining and with the square Euclidean distance as
measure of likelihood among objects. To describe the
consumer segment, a Chi-square test was applied for
the discrete variables and a one-factor analysis of
variance for the continuous variables, with a 99%
confidence level. The variables whose analysis of
variance resulted in significant differences (P ≤ 0.001)
were subjected to the Dunnett’s T3 Multiple
Comparisons Test.
Figure 1. Importance (%) the attributes in the total
sample.
Figure 2. Utilities of the levels of the attributes in the total
sample.
Figure 3. Importance of the attributes in groups obtained
with cluster analysis.
The segments differed in their satisfaction with life (Fig.
5), satisfaction with food-related life (Fig. 6) and their
lifestyle (Fig. 7). Group 3 was comprised of people
extremely satisfied with their life and their food-related
life, who had an innovative lifestyle.
Figure 4. Utilities of the levels of the attributes of groups
obtained with cluster analysis.
Figure 5. Satisfaction with life of groups obtained with cluster
analysis.
Figure 6. Satisfaction with food-related life of groups obtained
with cluster analysis.
Three market segments were distinguished. The
largest (Group 2, 44%) preferred oil without
nanotechnology. The second (Group 3, 35.2%)
preferred oil with nanotechnology in the food and the
packaging, with greater preference for the package
that increase the shell life. The third (Group 1, 20.8%)
presented similar behavior, but showed greater
preference for the oil with nanoparticles that reduced
cholesterol and for the package that prevents bacteria
and viruses from forming (Fig. 3 and 4).
Figure 7. Lifestyle characteristics of groups obtained with
cluster analysis.
The preferred oil was the national brand with
nanoparticles to reduce cholesterol, in packages with
nanoparticles to increase the duration of the product
and prevent the formation of bacteria and viruses, at
medium price (Fig. 2).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIn the total sample, brand was more important (33.5%)
than the nanotechnology application in both the
packaging (24.6%) or the food (23.6%), and more
important than the price (17.9%) (Fig. 1).
