Survey Reveals Urban Consumers Attitudes ... - Wiley Online Library

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Food Quality ISSN 1745-4557

SURVEY REVEALS URBAN CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS REGARDING THE USE OF WAX ON APPLES M.A. CLIFF1,3, J.B. LI2 and K. STANICH1 1 2

Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 5000, Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0, Canada Okanagan Plant Improvement Corporation, Summerland, BC V0H 1Z5, Canada

3

Corresponding author. TEL: 250-494-6365; FAX: 250-494-0755; EMAIL: [email protected] Received for Publication April 11, 2013 Accepted for Publication October 16, 2013 10.1111/jfq.12065

ABSTRACT This research explored consumers’ awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of wax on apples, using a survey consisting of five demographic questions, 14 apple wax questions and five apple wax information statements. Consumers responded to queries regarding the use and nature of wax coatings, as well as any health and environmental concerns. They identified their preferred apple treatment (unwaxed, waxed, either) four times throughout the survey, after being presented with information. Consumers’ responses were evaluated according to their demographics (age, gender and ethnicity). Statistical analyses (frequency plots, analysis of variance) were used to evaluate data from the two largest ethnic subgroups of consumers (European, Asian) (n = 781). On average, consumers lacked knowledge and information about apple waxing. Interestingly, 84% of consumers initially stated they preferred unwaxed apples. While some 40% of consumers changed their preferences once additional information was provided, another 42.3% of consumers did not.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS This research successfully documented the attitudes and beliefs of urban consumers toward the use of wax on apples. It suggested some consumers might be more willing to accept waxed apples, if additional information (brochure or leaflet) was available, while others would not. As such, the research provided industry with objective information to assess the appropriateness of their marketing/retailing practices in order to meet the needs of their consumers.

INTRODUCTION Consumers, in general, are becoming more interested in the many aspects of food production systems. They are not only concerned about the environmental sustainability but the health, nutrition and safety of the foods they eat. To meet consumer demand for fresh and healthy food, the food industry uses a variety of postharvest technologies to maintain quality and ensure the longest possible shelf life. One such method is to use a protective wax coating on fruits and vegetables. While many fruits and vegetable have a natural wax, called a cuticle (Baldwin 2005), this natural wax is partially or completely removed during the washing process. Wax is then (re)applied by a process of dipping, brushing or spraying (Baldwin 2007) to the commodity. Many fruits

or vegetables including apples, lemons, oranges, cucumbers and tomatoes can be waxed (El-Anany et al. 2009; ValenciaChamorro et al. 2009; Mehyar et al. 2011). Organic fruits and vegetables are not usually waxed; however, in the winter, organic apples and cucumbers are sometimes waxed with a certified organic wax. Wax was first applied to fruits and vegetables as early as the 12th century (Baldwin 2007). Apples have been waxed for many years to replace the cuticle, improve cosmetic appearance, reduce moisture loss, maintain firmness and juiciness, inhibit mold growth, prevent physical damage and increase shelf life (Drake and Nelson 1990; Mitchell 1992; Salvador et al. 2003; El-Anany et al. 2009; Ochoa et al. 2011). Research on different wax formulations (candelilla wax, carnauba-shellac) (Alleyne and Hagenmaier 2000), coating materials (zein, starch, polyvinyl acetate,

Journal of Food Quality 37 (2014) 29–41 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

29

CONSUMER ATTITUDES REGARDING WAX ON APPLES

carnauba-polysaccaride) (Bai et al. 2002, 2003) and preservation techniques (chemical treatments, oil dipping, wrapping materials) (Sabir et al. 2004) are available in the literature, many of which have not been widely adopted by the industry. Waxes for the food industry are derived from animal (i.e., beeswax, insect wax [shellac]), vegetable (carnauba, candelilla, sugarcane, palm) and petroleum (paraffin) sources (Alleyne and Hagenmaier 2000; Baldwin 2005; El-Anany et al. 2009). For a comprehensive review of coatings used in the fruit and vegetable industry, readers are referred to a recent book by Baldwin et al. (2011). Increasingly, the use of postharvest technologies such as waxing must be balanced with consumers’ acceptance of the technology. Wax which was once widely desirable in the U.S.A. (Leonard and Wadsworth 1989) now requires labeling, and it is undesirable in Europe, Japan (Baldwin 2007) and Australasia. As of 1993, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required all waxed fruits be labeled at the retail level, specifying the type of waxes used (i.e., animal, vegetable, petroleum) and other ingredients (Baldwin 2007). Japan accepts citrus fruits coated with shellac and carnauba wax but not petroleum-based waxes. Such information suggests that consumers’ acceptance of this long-time practice is changing. Some consumers may have health and environmental concerns regarding the use of wax on food products. In 2002, Health Canada investigated a concern that the addition of morpholine, an emulsifier, to wax could transform into the carcinogen N-nitrosomorpholine; however, it was reported to be safe (Health Canada 2002). Using a focus group, Wan et al. (2007) revealed that consumers were concerned about the possible presence of allergens in edible coatings and the lack of labeling. Wan et al. (2007) also identified that consumers prefer their edible coatings, including waxes, to be “natural” or “additive-free”. Prescott et al. (2002) identified that Japanese, Taiwanese and Malaysian consumers believed that “natural” was the most important factor in food choice. Other researchers have reported that Muslims, Orthodox Jews and vegetarians all have concerns about the use of animal products in the wax coatings (Sonti 2003; Baldwin 2007) and some consumers felt that all postharvest treatments and wax coatings should be listed (Baldwin 2007). In British Columbia (BC) in 2005, approximately 1,200 apple growers produced some 260 million pounds of apples. Ninety-five percent of these apples were distributed through the wholesale distribution system and were waxed. The remaining 5% were sold from farm or roadside stands suggesting they were unwaxed (Ference Weicker and Company Ltd. 2007). Wax preparations for apples in BC, in the past, have contained a blend of shellac, carnauba and paraffin waxes 30

M.A. CLIFF, J.B. LI and K. STANICH

(Meheriuk and Porritt 1972); today they comprise of a blend of shellac and vegetable wax (Shield Brite AP-40, Pace International LLC, Seattle, WA) (Pace International LLC 2009). This product complies with Canadian and U.S. regulatory requirements and does not contain microcrystalline wax, paraffin wax, fungicides or ingredients derived from known allergens (Pace International LLC 2009). Clearly as the food distribution chains become more global, there is a need for the apple industry to understand both regional and cross-cultural differences. To this end, this survey was conducted to (1) evaluate consumers’ awareness, attitudes and beliefs toward the use of wax on apples, (2) document consumers’ preferred apple treatment (unwaxed, waxed, either), (3) understand consumers’ concerns and (4) assist the industry to meet the needs of the marketplace.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The Survey The survey (Fig. 1) was designed in conjunction with apple industry to evaluate consumers’ awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding apple waxing. A paper survey was developed in English and Chinese; an electronic survey was only available in English. Consumers were intercepted, asked to participate and thanked when completed. No reimbursement of any type was given. Consumers answered five demographic questions (age, gender, ethnicity, purchase location and frequency of consumption) and responded to 14 apple wax questions including: four knowledge statements, four “check all that apply” (CATA) questions, two purchase intent questions and one choice question. The choice question asked consumers to identify their preferred apple treatment (“I would choose: □ unwaxed apples, □ waxed apples, or □ either [unwaxed/ waxed], if I had a choice.”). It was asked four times throughout the survey, as shown in Fig. 1. The survey also contained five information statements regarding apple wax (Table 1). The four knowledge statements were: “Most apples in the marketplace are waxed”, “I know why apples are waxed”, “There are several types of wax which may be used on apples” and “All organic apples are unwaxed”. Consumers assessed the knowledge statements on a 7-point Likert Scale (Rasmussen 1989) with the following categories: “highly agree”, “moderately agree”, “somewhat agree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “somewhat disagree”, “moderately disagree” and “highly disagree”. The four CATA questions included: “The wax on apples serves to . . .”, “I believe the waxes are from . . .”, “I believe the wax coating on apples is a health concern because the wax . . .” and “I believe the use of a wax coating on apples is an environmental concern because it . . .”.

Journal of Food Quality 37 (2014) 29–41 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.



FIG. 1. FLOWCHART OF THE DESIGN OF THE APPLE WAX SURVEY

The two purchase intent questions queried consumer regarding health or environmental concerns for purchasing unwaxed fruit. Consumers had the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey.

September 24, 2011) and one test site in Vancouver, BC (UBC Botanical Garden Apple Festival, October 15–16, 2011).

The Consumers The Venue Research was conducted at one practice site in Summerland, BC (Pacific Agri-Food Research Center Open House,

A total of 904 consumers completed the survey in two locations: Vancouver (n = 837) and Summerland (n = 67), of which 854 and 50 were in English and Chinese, respectively. The consumers identified their ethnicity as 69% European


31


TABLE 1. INFORMATION STATEMENTS PROVIDED TO CONSUMERS IN THE SURVEY REGARDING THE USE OF APPLE WAX No.

Information statement

1

“The wax serves ALL of the listed roles. It shines the apples, prevents water loss and helps maintain fruit texture.” “The wax coatings used on apples are from PLANT and ANIMAL sources only. All the waxes are NATURAL.” “In practice, organic apples may be waxed or unwaxed. The waxes used on organic fruit are certified as organically produced.” “Apples are washed prior to waxing to remove dirt and orchard sprays. The wax coating on apples is FOODGRADE and safe to eat. On BC apples, the wax is usually a blend of shellac and vegetable wax. Wax coatings are also used on a variety of fruits and vegetables as well as chocolates and candies.” “The presence of a wax coating on apples indicates the fruit has been cleaned and packed for distribution.”

2 3

4

5

(France, Germany, Italy, Russia, UK), 24% Asian (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korean, Taiwan) and 7% other (South Asian, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Latin, Aboriginal Peoples of North America, Arab and Black). Classifications were based on those utilized by Quan et al. (2006). Due to insufficient sample size, only consumers from the two largest ethnic subgroups (European, Asian) were included in the statistical analyses. Consumers who identified themselves as consuming apples less than once a month were considered non-apple eaters and were dropped from the analyses. Data analyses were conducted on 781 consumers: 92% in Vancouver and 8% in Summerland; 66% female and 34% male; 74% European and 26% Asian ethnicity. The percentage of consumers in each of the age categories (18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59 and ≥60 years of age) was 33, 19, 19, 16 and 13%, respectively. For these 781 consumers, 33% consumed apples once a day, 45% consumed several times a week, 12% consumed once a week and 10% consumed several times a month. Consumers obtained their apples from grocery stores (79%), produce markets (69%), fruit stands (34%), packing houses (5%), home grown (17%) and other locations (9%). Due to the venue location, consumers were believed to be relatively affluent and engaged, not necessarily representative of all socioeconomic groups in the urban marketplace.

Data Collection and Statistical Analyses Responses from the paper ballots were entered manually in to an HP tablet computer installed with Compusense five Commuter sensory software (Compusense Inc. Guelph, ON, Canada). All electronic surveys were tabulated automatically. Responses to the knowledge questions were assigned values 1 through 7 by Compusense five sensory software; these values were transformed to 7 through 1, so 32


that the highest value corresponded to the highest level of agreement (1 = “highly disagree”, 2 = “moderately disagree”, 3 = “somewhat disagree”, 4 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 5 = “somewhat agree”, 6 = “moderately agree” and 7 = “highly agree”). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance using a general linear model consisting of three main effects (age, gender and ethnicity) and all interactions (age × gender, age × ethnicity, gender × ethnicity), using SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Preliminary analysis revealed that age × gender and age × ethnicity were nonsignificant and were dropped from the final model. Differences among mean responses were determined using Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05). The frequencies of response (%) were calculated for all CATA and purchase intent questions; comments were summarized. Response frequencies for the consumers’ preferred apple treatment (unwaxed, waxed, either) were tabulated by gender, age and ethnicity, using SAS (SAS Institute). A preliminary analysis of variance revealed that gender was nonsignificant, so only the effects of age and ethnicity were reported. Consumers’ preferred apple treatment (unwaxed, waxed, either) was tracked throughout the survey (choice 1, choice 2, choice 3, choice 4) and expressed as percent. Means were calculated for each choice by age and ethnicity and compared by analysis of variance and Fisher’s least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Knowledge Questions The responses to knowledge questions differed significantly by age at P ≤ 0.05 (Table 2). The mean responses for all age groups (>5), corresponded to “slightly agree” to “moderately agree”, suggested that consumers knew that “Most apples in the marketplace are waxed” (Fig. 2A). Consumers 30–49 years of age agreed most with this statement, with a mean of 5.9, while the youngest (18–29 years of age) and older (50–59 and ≥60 years of age) consumers were less knowledgeable with means of 5.6 for both groups (Fig. 2A). In contrast, responses did not differ between genders or ethnicities (Table 2). Consumers of all age groups had lower responses (3–4) to “I know why apples are waxed” (Fig. 2B), with means between 3 (“somewhat disagree”) and 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”), suggesting that consumers were uncertain about their knowledge regarding the role of wax on apples. Youngest consumers (18–29 years of age) had the highest score (mean = 4.0), and were ambivalent (“neither agree nor disagree”). In contrast, consumers who were ≥60 years of age had the lowest means (3.2) and disagreed most with the




TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF F-VALUES FOR THE THREE-FACTOR ANOVA FOR THE KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS Source of variation

Question # 1

Question # 2

Question # 3

Question # 4

Age Gender Ethnicity Gender × Ethnicity

“Most apples in the marketplace are waxed.” 3.03* 0.29 0.40 0.05

“I know why apples are waxed.” 5.59*** 0.03 2.00 5.06*

“There are several types of wax which may be used on apples.” 3.48** 1.98 0.10 0.29

“All organic apples are unwaxed.” 8.75*** 11.13*** 9.69** 0.80

*,**,*** Significant at P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01, P ≤ 0.001, respectively using Fisher’s least significant difference test.

statement; however, their responses were not significantly different from consumers who were 30–39, 40–49 or 50–59 years of age. Responses did not differ, on average, between genders or ethnicities (Table 1), but the effect of gender × ethnicity was significant (P ≤ 0.05). Male and female consumers of European and Asian ethnicity had responses between 3 (“somewhat disagree”) and 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”). However, females of Asian ethnicity disagreed the most, with the lowest mean response (3.2), while the females of European ethnicity disagreed the least (mean = 3.8) and were more confident about their knowledge about the role of apple wax.

For the knowledge question “There are several types of wax which may be used on apples”, consumers from all the age groups had responses between 3 (“somewhat disagree”) and 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) (Fig. 2C). These low scores suggested that consumers were uncertain about the sources of wax on apples or believed that there were only a few sources. The oldest consumers (≥60 years of age) disagreed the least (Fig. 2C) with a significantly higher mean response (3.7) compared with all other age groups of consumers who did not differ in their responses. Responses did not differ significantly between genders or ethnicities (Table 2) for this question.

FIG. 2. MEAN RESPONSES* TO THE FIRST (A), SECOND (B), THIRD (C) AND LAST (D) KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS, FOR EACH AGE GROUP, USING A 7-POINT LIKERT SCALE WHERE: 1-“HIGHLY DISAGREE”, 2-“MODERATELY DISAGREE”, 3-“SOMEWHAT DISAGREE”, 4-“NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE”, 5-“SOMEWHAT AGREE”, 6-“MODERATELY AGREE” AND 7-“HIGHLY AGREE” *Bar charts within each knowledge question with different subscripts were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test.


33



Question #

Knowledge question

Gender

n

Mean† response

Standard deviation

1

“Most apples in the marketplace are waxed.”

2

“I know why apples are waxed.”

3

“There are several types of wax which may be used on apples.” “All organic apples are unwaxed.”

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

260 521 260 521 260 521 260 521

5.7a 5.7a 3.5a 3.6a 3.1a 3.3a 4.1a 3.6b

1.3 1.3 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.7

4

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF MEAN RESPONSES TO THE KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS FOR EACH GENDER GROUP USING THE LIKERT SCALE*

* Likert Scale (1–7) where: 1-“highly disagree”, 2-“moderately disagree”, 3-“somewhat disagree”, 4-“neither agree nor disagree”, 5-“somewhat agree”, 6-“moderately agree” and 7-“highly agree”. † Means for each question, with different subscripts, were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test.

Age, gender and ethnicity were all significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) for the last knowledge question “All organic apples are unwaxed” (Table 2). The mean response (x = 4.2) from the youngest consumers (18–29 years of age) fell between 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) and 5 (“somewhat agree”) (Fig. 2D) and was significantly higher than the mean responses from all other age categories, with means between 3 (“somewhat disagree”) and 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”). The oldest consumers (≥60 years of age) disagreed the most, with the lowest mean response (3.3) (Fig. 2D); these consumers were correct and on average were more informed about the use of wax on organic apples. Likewise, the female consumers were more informed than male consumers, with mean responses of 3.6 and 4.1, respectively (Table 3). Mean responses from consumers of European (3.9) and Asian (3.5) ethnicity were between 3 (“somewhat disagree”) and 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”). Consumers of Asian ethnicity with a lower mean response were more often correct, regarding the use of wax on organic apples, compared with consumers of European ethnicity (Table 4).

Question # Knowledge question 1 2 3 4

Ethnicity

“Most apples in the marketplace are waxed.” European Asian “I know why apples are waxed.” European Asian “There are several types of wax which may European be used on apples.” Asian “All organic apples are unwaxed.” European Asian

CATA Questions and Purchase Intent Questions The first CATA question “The wax on apples serves to . . .” was asked to gain understanding of consumers’ knowledge about the role of wax on apples. High proportions of consumers believed, correctly, that the wax on apples serves to “enhance visual appearance” (81.6%), “increase shelf life” (69.0%) and “prevent water loss” (55.3%) (Fig. 3A); lower frequencies of consumers believed that the wax on apples served to “prevent mold growth” (45.1%), “maintain apple texture” (36.4%) or “prevent physical injury” (28.6%). An additional 4.0% of the consumers were either unsure of its purpose or believed that the wax on apples served “other” roles. The number of consumers who correctly identified the reasons for the use of wax on apples suggested that while consumers were not confident in their understanding of why wax was used on apples, with a mean of 3.2–4.0 (“somewhat disagree” to “neither agree nor disagree”), they did possess a partial understanding, or were able to make

n

Mean† Standard response deviation

579 202 579 202 579 202 579 202

5.7a 5.7a 3.6a 3.3a 3.3a 3.2a 3.9a 3.5b

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF MEAN RESPONSES TO THE KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS FOR EACH ETHNIC GROUP USING THE LIKERT SCALE*

1.2 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8

* Likert Scale (1–7) where: 1-“highly disagree”, 2-“moderately disagree”, 3-“somewhat disagree”, 4-“neither agree nor disagree”, 5-“somewhat agree”, 6-“moderately agree” and 7-“highly agree”. † Means for each question, with different subscripts, were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test.

34




FIG. 3. RESPONSE (PERCENT (%) OF CONSUMERS) TO THE FIRST (A), SECOND (B), THIRD (C) AND FOURTH (D), CHECK ALL THAT APPLY QUESTIONS

reasonable guesses about its role, given a list of possible uses. The second CATA question “I believe the waxes are from . . .” was asked to gain further understanding of consumers’ knowledge. Fig. 3B revealed that the majority of consumers (67.7%), correctly believed, that the waxes were derived from plant sources. A smaller portion of consumers (37.8%) believed, correctly, that waxes could also be obtained from animal sources. Approximately one-third of consumers (33.2%) believed, incorrectly, that petroleum waxes were currently used on BC apples. In addition, 8.3% selected the other category, of which the majority (7.8%) did not know the sources of the waxes. A very small portion of consumers (0.5%) used the other category to indicate they believed that the waxes were from unnatural (plastic) or chemical sources. Many consumers (62.0%) indicated that one reason for purchasing unwaxed apples was health concerns. The third CATA question “I believe the wax coating on apples is a health concern because the wax . . .” tabulated these concerns. The greatest concern was that consumers believed the wax could: “trap orchard sprays” (35.6%)

(Fig. 3C), while 21.9% and 21.3% of consumers believed it was “indigestible” and “could contain carcinogens”, respectively. Lower percentages of consumers believed that the wax could “trap dirt” (14.9%) or “contain heavy metals” (12.2%), while an additional 10.8% of the consumers specified that they had “other” health concerns (i.e., unnatural, animal product, allergies). Such findings are consistent with work of Baldwin (2007) and Sonti (2003) who reported that Muslims, Orthodox Jews and vegetarians had concerns about the use of animal products in the wax coatings. Many consumers (52.4%) also indicated that another reason for purchasing unwaxed apples was environmental concerns. The last CATA question “I believe the use of a wax coating on apples is an environmental concern because it . . .” allowed these concerns to be identified. Consumers believed (Fig. 3D) that the wax coating on apples represented fruit which: “had been processed” (29.5%), “had been stored” (23.6%), “was non-local” (21.0%) and/or “had a high carbon footprint” (18.2%), while an additional, 1.4% of the consumers specified that they had “other” environmental concerns (i.e., nonvegetarian or unknown).


35



Figure 4 tracked the change in preferred apple treatment for all age categories throughout the survey, from choice 1 (initial) to choice 4 (final). The frequency of response (% consumer) for consumers who preferred unwaxed apples, decreased from choice 1 to choice 2 (Δ −28.2%). Smaller changes were observed from choice 2 to choice 3 (Δ −11.5%) and from choice 3 to choice 4 (Δ −2.7%) (Table 5). This pattern reflected that consumers were more accepting of waxed apples once they were provided with additional information. Interestingly, changes became incrementally smaller from choice 1 through choice 4, suggesting that there were diminishing returns in the amount of change that was possible. In contrast, the frequency of response for consumers who preferred waxed apples, increased from choice 1 to choice 2 (Δ +12.7%) and from choice 2 to choice 3 (Δ +7.8%) (Tables 4 and 5). This pattern reflected that consumers increased their acceptance of waxed apples as additional information was provided. However, this acceptance dropped somewhat from choice 3 to choice 4 (Δ – 0.7%) suggesting that no further increase was possible. The frequency of response for consumers who preferred either (unwaxed/waxed) treatment increased from choice 1

Consumers’ Preferred Apple Treatment (Unwaxed, Waxed, Either) Age. Consumers of all age categories changed their preferred apple treatment (unwaxed, waxed, either) as information was provided throughout the survey, from choice 1 through choice 4. Small but significant differences were observed between the youngest consumers (18–29 years of age) and all other age groups (Table 5), for each choice. As a result, a significantly lower overall mean for the youngest consumers (18–29 years, 49.7%) was observed compared with all other consumers (≥30 years, 56.5–61.0%). A higher percentage of the youngest consumer (18–29 years of age) selected waxed (19.1%) or either (unwaxed/ waxed) (31.2%) apples, compared with consumers over 30 years of age (waxed, 11.5–14.7%; either, 27.1–28.9%). Such a pattern reflected that the youngest consumers were more willing to accept waxed apples as more information was provided, suggesting that the youngest consumers (18–29 years of age) were less aware that wax was used as a coating on apples or simply had fewer concerns. However, in practice, the majority of consumers across all age groups were very similar in their responses (Table 5).

TABLE 5. PERCENT (%) OF CONSUMERS (n = 781) PREFERRING EACH APPLE TREATMENT (UNWAXED, WAXED, EITHER [UNWAXED/WAXED]) BY AGE GROUP. RESPONSES CALCULATED FOR EACH OF THE FOUR TIMES CONSUMERS WERE QUERIED (CHOICE 1–4) AND AVERAGED ACROSS ALL OTHER CATEGORIES (GENDER, ETHNICITY) Age 18–29 years

30–39 years

40–49 years

50–59 years

≥60 years

Average†

Choice*

Preferred apple treatment

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

%

Choice 1 (initial)

Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed)

203 7 43 253 119 53 81 253 94 73 86 253 87 60 106 253 4 4 4

80.2 2.8 17.0 100.0 47.0 21.0 32.0 100.0 37.2 28.9 34.0 100.0 34.4 23.7 41.9 100.0 49.7c 19.1a 31.2a

134 1 15 150 91 19 40 150 72 27 51 150 69 22 59 150 4 4 4

89.3 0.7 10.0 100.0 60.7 12.7 26.7 100.0 48.0 18.0 34.0 100.0 46.0 14.7 39.3 100.0 61.0a 11.5b 27.5b

122 5 19 146 84 20 42 146 73 30 43 146 69 23 54 146 4 4 4

83.6 3.4 13.0 100.0 57.5 13.7 28.8 100.0 50.0 20.6 29.5 100.0 47.3 15.8 37.0 100.0 59.6ab 13.4b 27.1b

110 3 15 128 70 19 39 128 57 28 43 128 52 25 51 128 4 4 4

85.9 2.3 11.7 100.0 54.7 14.8 30.5 100.0 44.5 21.9 33.6 100.0 40.6 19.5 39.8 100.0 56.5b 14.7b 28.9ab

88 0 16 104 65 11 28 104 47 23 34 104 45 20 39 104 4 4 4

84.6 0.0 15.4 100.0 62.5 10.6 26.9 100.0 45.2 22.1 32.7 100.0 43.3 19.2 37.5 100.0 58.9ab 13.0b 28.1b

84.7 1.8 13.4

Choice 2 (second)

Choice 3 (third)

Choice 4 (final)

Overall average‡

56.5 14.5 29.0 45.0 22.3 32.7 42.3 18.6 39.1

* Consumers were asked to identify their preferred apple treatment (“I would choose: □ unwaxed apples, □ waxed apples, or □ either [unwaxed/ waxed], if I had a choice.”) four times throughout the survey. † The average percent for each preferred apple treatment was calculated across all the age groups. ‡ The overall average for each preferred apple treatment was calculated across all four choices. Within each treatment, percentages with different subscripts were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference.

36




FIG. 4. PERCENT (%) OF CONSUMERS* (n = 781) PREFERRING EACH APPLE TREATMENT (UNWAXED, WAXED, EITHER), FOR EACH OF THE FOUR TIMES CONSUMERS WERE QUERIED (CHOICE 1–4). CONSUMERS WERE GIVEN INFORMATION STATMENTS ABOUT APPLE WAX PRIOR TO EACH CHOICE. RESPONSES WERE AVERAGED ACROSS ALL AGE GROUPS *Bar charts within each treatment, with different subscripts, were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test. † Consumers were asked to identify their preferred apple treatment (“I would choose: □ unwaxed apples, □ waxed apples, or □ either [unwaxed/ waxed], if I had a choice.”) four times throughout the survey.

to 2, choice 2 to 3 and choice 3 to 4 with increments of Δ +15.6%, Δ +3.7% and Δ +6.4%, respectively (Table 5). This pattern suggested that consumers were willing to change their preferred apple treatment when more information was provided, but like consumers who preferred unwaxed and waxed apples, there was a limit to the incremental change that was possible. This change in consumer response is consistent with Deliza et al. (2003) who reported that consumers’ acceptance of technology may increase when additional information is provided. While changes were observed for some consumers (40%), another 42.3% of consumers did not change their preferred apple treatment when information was provided (Table 5). These consumers selected unwaxed apples at the start and at the end of the survey. Such findings may in part be explained by greater acceptance of technology if the consumer perceives a direct benefit rather than believing that the benefit is derived by producers and retailers (Frewer et al. 1997). Alternately, consumers may have simply been rejecting technology per se, preferring “natural” apples when resolving value conflicts associated with food choice (Luomala et al. 2004). “Naturalness” may have been an important criteria for food selection, particularly in Vancouver which has a “Greenest City 2020” campaign (City of Vancouver 2012), to encourage consumers to change their habits, behaviors and lifestyle to reduce their environmental impact. Ethnicity. Consumers of both ethnicities changed their preferred apple treatment (unwaxed, waxed, either) throughout the survey (Fig. 5A). For consumers who preferred unwaxed apples, there was a significant decrease in percent of consumers from choice 1 to choice 2 for participants of European (France, Germany, Italy, Russia, UK) (Δ −28.9%) and

Asian (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korean, Taiwan) (Δ −30.2%) heritage. A smaller change was observed from choice 3 to choice 4 for consumers of European ethnicity (Δ −3.8%); while a slight increase was observed for consumers of Asian ethnicity (Δ +0.5%) (Table 6). This pattern reflected that consumers of both ethnicities were more accepting of TABLE 6. PERCENT (%) OF CONSUMERS (n = 781) PREFERRING EACH APPLE TREATMENT (UNWAXED, WAXED, EITHER) BY ETHNIC GROUP. RESPONSES CALCULATED FOR EACH OF THE FOUR TIMES CONSUMERS WERE QUERIED (CHOICE 1−4) AND AVERAGED ACROSS ALL OTHER CATEGORIES (GENDER, AGE) Ethnicity European

Asian

Choice*

Preferred apple treatment

n

%

n

%

Choice 1 (initial)

Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total Unwaxed apples Waxed apples Either (unwaxed/waxed) Total

489 6 84 579 322 79 178 579 268 106 205 579 246 92 241 579

84.5 1.0 14.5 100.0 55.6 13.6 30.7 100.0 46.3 18.3 35.4 100.0 42.5 15.9 41.6 100.0

168 10 24 202 107 43 52 202 75 75 52 202 76 58 68 202

83.2 5.0 11.9 100.0 53.0 21.3 25.7 100.0 37.1 37.1 25.7 100.0 37.6 28.7 33.7 100.0

Choice 2 (second)

Choice 3 (third)

Choice 4 (final)

* Consumers were asked to identify their preferred apple treatment (“I would choose: □ unwaxed apples, □ waxed apples, or □ either [unwaxed/waxed], if I had a choice.”) four times throughout the survey.


37



FIG. 5. PERCENT (%) OF CONSUMERS FROM EACH ETHNIC GROUP* THAT CHOSE UNWAXED APPLES (A), WAXED APPLES (C) AND EITHER (UNWAXED/WAXED) (E) FOR EACH CHOICE†; PERCENT (%) OF CONSUMERS FROM EACH ETHNIC GROUP THAT CHOSE UNWAXED APPLES (B), WAXED APPLES (D) AND EITHER (UNWAXED/WAXED) (F) AVERAGED‡ ACROSS ALL FOUR CHOICES (CHOICE 1–4) *Bar charts (A, C, E) within each ethnic group, with different subscripts, were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test. † Consumers were asked to identify their preferred apple treatment (“I would choose: □ unwaxed apples, □ waxed apples, or □ either [unwaxed/ waxed], if I had a choice.”) four times throughout the survey. ‡ Bar charts (B, D, F) across both ethnic groups, with different subscripts, were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s least significant difference test.

waxed apples if they were provided with additional information. However, the percent change became incrementally smaller with additional information, suggesting that consumers were not willing to change further. For consumers who preferred waxed apples (Fig. 5C), there was a significant increase in percent of consumers from choice 1 to choice 2 for consumers of European 38

(Δ +12.6%) and Asian (Δ +16.3%) ethnicity; while, there was an additional increase from choice 2 to choice 3 for consumers of both ethnicities (European, Δ +4.7%; Asian, Δ +15.8%) (Table 6). This pattern reflected that consumers of both ethnicities increased their acceptance of waxed apples as additional information was provided. This increase is inconsistent with Sonti (2003), who reported



that consumers increased their purchase intent by 7%, when informed of the advantages of edible coatings. In this research, consumers’ responses dropped after introduction of the last fact, as seen by the decrease in response between choice 3 to choice 4 (European, Δ −2.4%; Asian, Δ −8.4%). Such a pattern suggested that further change was not possible. For consumers who preferred either (unwaxed/waxed) treatment (Fig. 5E), there was an increase in percent of consumers from choice 1 to choice 4 for European (Δ +27.1%) and Asian (Δ +21.8%) ethnicities (Table 6). This pattern suggested that consumers of European ethnicity were slightly more willing to change their preferred apple treatment when information was provided compared with those of Asian ethnicity. In addition, these consumers were more willing to select both apple treatments (unwaxed/waxed). However, like the other two apple treatments, there was a limit to their willingness to change. Interestingly, the patterns of the change were similar between consumers of European and Asian ethnicity for their preferred apple treatment. As an overview, the percent of consumers was averaged across the choices for each apple treatment. For consumers who preferred unwaxed apples (Fig. 5B), there was no significant difference between ethnicities, reflecting that consumers responded similarly to the additional information. In contrast, consumers who preferred waxed apples and either (unwaxed/waxed) were significantly different between the two ethnicities. As shown in Fig. 5D, consumers of Asian ethnicity on average preferred waxed apples more frequently than consumers of European ethnicity, suggesting that Asians were even more willing to accept waxed apples when additional information was provided. On the other hand, consumers of European ethnicity preferred either (unwaxed/ waxed) more frequently than those of Asian ethnicity (Fig. 5F), suggesting that Europeans were even more willing to select both apple treatments once additional knowledge statements were provided. Despite some willingness to change, consumers’ attitudes (European, 42.5%; Asian, 37.6%) remained unchanged (Table 6). This high level of rejection of waxed apples was believed to reflect consumers’ decision making under conditions of technological uncertainty. Research by Frewer et al. (2009) provides a framework for understanding of the perceived risk and benefit associated with food choice. In general, the higher the perceived risk associated with the technology, the less favorable the consumers’ attitudes. However, if many possible risks and benefits occur simultaneously, consumers may respond to the net effect. Comments (n = 301) reflected that 22.3% and 6.9% of consumers believed that unwaxed apples were “more natural” and “healthier”. Additional comments (16.9, 8.2, 6.0, 1.9 and 1.6%) indicated that consumers believed unwaxed apples had better sensory characteristics such as: better tasting, better in texture, fresher tasting, better


looking and cleaner looking, respectively. Comments also suggested that consumers believed unwaxed apples were locally grown (3.1%) and environmentally friendly (2.5%). Consumers clearly stated their beliefs, with many of them reiterating that they desired unwaxed apples. Consumers’ decisions would have been influenced by situational and social context (Jaeger and Rose 2008), cultural and economic factors (Zheng et al. 2010), personality and psychological factors (Eertmans et al. 2005; Babicz-Zielin´ska 2006), as well as current marketing trends and strategies (OACC 2007; Vineland Research 2010). For example, retailers are currently positioning organic fruit “front and center” in grocery outlets in order to meet the needs of their consumers. While Luomala et al. (2004) has conceptualized the consumers’ food-related value conflicts in term of: novelty versus tradition, health versus indulgence, economy versus extravagancy, convenience versus care, technology versus nature and others versus self, much research remains to be done to fully understand consumers’ decision-making processes.

CONCLUSIONS This research successfully evaluated consumers’ awareness, attitudes and beliefs toward the use of wax on apples. The urban population sampled in this research (n = 781) were relatively affluent consumers who had an aptitude and interest in heritage, novel and organic apples. From this perspective, the consumers sampled were an interested or engaged market sector. While the majority of consumers knew that most apples in the marketplace were waxed and many understood some of the reasons for waxing, relatively few had a complete understanding. This lack of knowledge was believed to contribute to the lack of acceptance of waxed apples. Approximately 84% of the consumers stated that they preferred unwaxed apples at the beginning of the survey. Approximately 40% of consumers changed their preferences once information was provided and were more willing to accept waxed apples. These changes were very similar across consumers of all ages and genders. However, consumers of Asian ethnicity were slightly more accepting of waxed apples and slightly more willing to change their choice once information was provided. Results may reflect differences in situational, cultural or varietal preferences (Zheng et al. 2010; Cliff et al. 2014); however, much remains to be understood. Most consumers had an incomplete understanding of the role and type of wax used on apples. It was believed that a brochure, leaflet or quick response code (Grainews 2012) would be advantageous for sales of waxed apples. On the other hand, many consumers (∼40%) would likely be uninfluenced by an information sheet and the current commercial practices do not meet their needs. For these consumers,


39


newer cultivars with better storability, improved postharvest technologies and cold chain distribution may make it possible to deliver high quality apples without the use of wax. While the BC industry has introduced new cultivars and amalgamated infrastructure to improve competitiveness and profitability (Carew et al. 2012), they have not addressed the use of wax. As such, this research provides much needed information to assist industry in meeting the needs of their consumers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge funding from “Developing Innovative Agri-Products” (DIAP) project and collaboration with the Okanagan Plant Improvement Company (PICO). They would also like to thank Nick Ibuki and Paul Birzins (DIAP Project Manager) for assisting with apple selection and questionnaire development, as well as Sara Saberi, Masoumeh Bejaei and Paul Birzins for assisting with data collection. REFERENCES ALLEYNE, V. and HAGENMAIER, R.D. 2000. Candelilla-shellac: An alternative formulation for coating apples. Hortscience 35, 691–693. ´ SKA, E. 2006. Role of psychological factors BABICZ-ZIELIN in food choice – a review. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 15/16, 4, 379–384. BAI, J., BALDWIN, E.A. and HAGENMAIER, R.D. 2002. Alternate to shellac coatings provide comparable gloss, internal gas modification, and quality for “Delicious” apple fruit. Hortscience 37, 559–563. BAI, J., ALLEYNE, V., HAGENMAIER, R.D., MATTHEIS, J.P. and BALDWIN, E.A. 2003. Formulation of zein coatings for apples (Malus domestica Borkh). Postharvest Biol. Technol. 28, 259–268. BALDWIN, E.A. 2005. Edible coatings. In Environmentally Friendly Technologies for Agricultural Produce Quality (S. Ben-Yehoshua, ed.) pp. 301–314, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. BALDWIN, E.A. 2007. Surface treatments and edible coatings in food preservation. In Handbook of Food Preservation, 2nd Ed. (M.S. Rahman, ed.) pp. 477–498, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. BALDWIN, E.A., HAGENMAIER, R.D. and BAI, J. 2011. Edible Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. CAREW, R., FLORKOWSKI, W.J. and SMITH, E.G. 2012. Hedonic analysis of apple attributes in metropolitan markets of Western Canada. Agribusiness 28, 293–309. CITY OF VANCOUVER 2012. Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/greenest-city-2020 -action-plan.aspx (accessed December 28, 2013).

40


CLIFF, M.A., STANICH, K. and HAMPSON, C. 2014. Consumer research explores acceptability of a new Canadian apple – Salish™. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94, 99–118. DELIZA, R., ROSENTHAL, A. and SILVA, A.L.S. 2003. Consumer attitude towards information on non conventional technology. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14, 43–49. DRAKE, S.R. and NELSON, J.W. 1990. Storage quality of waxed and nonwaxed “Delicious” and “Golden Delicious” apples. J. Food Qual. 13, 331–341. EERTMANS, A., VICTOIR, A., VANSANT, G. and VAN DEN BERGH, O. 2005. Food-related personality traits, food choice motives and food intake: Mediator and moderator relationships. Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 714–726. EL-ANANY, A.M., HASSAN, G.F.A. and REHAB ALI, F.M. 2009. Effects of edible coatings on the shelf-life and quality of Anna apple (Malus domestica Borkh) during cold storage. J. Food Technol. 7, 5–11. FERENCE WEICKER AND COMPANY LTD. 2007. Developing the tree fruit industry in British Columbia. http://www.fwco .com/treefruit/Report-PhaseI.pdf (accessed September 18, 2013). FREWER, L., de JONGE, J. and van KLEEF, E. 2009. Consumer perceptions of food safety. In Medical Sciences, Vol. II, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) (B.P. Mansourian, A. Wojtezak and S.M. Mahfouz, eds.), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, pp. 244–264, EOLSS Publishers, Oxford, UK. http://www.eolss.net (accessed July 31, 2012). FREWER, L.J., HOWARD, C., HEDDERLEY, D. and SHEPHERD, R. 1997. Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production – the influence of consumer benefit. Food Qual. Prefer. 8, 271–280. GRAINEWS 2012. Ontario marketing board offers QR codes for fruit. http://www.grainews.ca/news/ont-marketing-board -offers-qr-codes-for-fruit/1001120656 (accessed September 18, 2013). HEALTH CANADA 2002. A summary of the health hazard assessment of morpholine in wax coatings of apples. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/exec _summary-resume_exec-eng.php (accessed June 1, 2013). JAEGER, S.R. and ROSE, J.M. 2008. Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 539–564. LEONARD, R.L. and WADSWORTH, J.J. 1989 Consumer preferences: A guide to Connecticut apple marketing. http://www.fmpc.uconn.edu/publications/reports.php (accessed September 18, 2013). LUOMALA, H.T., LAAKSONEN, P. and LEIPÄMAA, H. 2004. How do consumers solve value conflicts in food choice? An empirical description and points for theory-building. Adv. Consum. Res. 31, 564–570. MEHERIUK, M. and PORRITT, S.W. 1972. Effects of waxing on respiration, ethylene production, and other physical and chemical changes in selected apple cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52, 257–259.



MEHYAR, G.F., AL-QADIRI, H.M., ABU-BLAN, H.A. and SWANSON, B.G. 2011. Antifungal effectiveness of potassium sorbate incorporated in edible coatings against spoilage molds of apples, cucumbers, and tomatoes during refrigerated storage. J. Food Sci. 76, M210–M217. MITCHELL, F.G. 1992. Fruits. In Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, 2nd Ed. (A.A. Kader, ed.) pp. 31–38, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, CA. OACC 2007. Retail Sales of Certified Organic Food Products, in Canada, in 2006. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, NS. http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/RetailSalesOrganic _Canada2006.pdf (accessed September 18, 2013). OCHOA, E., SAUCEDO-POMPA, S., ROJAS-MOLINA, R., de la GARZA, H., CHARLES-RODRÍGUEZ, A.V. and AGUILAR, C.N. 2011. Evaluation of a candelilla wax-based edible coating to prolong the shelf-life quality and safety of apples. Am. J. Agri. Biol. Sci. 6, 92–98. PACE INTERNATIONAL LLC 2009. Our products. http://www .paceint.com/pome.html (accessed September 18, 2013). PRESCOTT, J., YOUNG, O., O’NEILL, L., YAU, N.J.N. and STEVENS, R. 2002. Motives for food choice: A comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 489–495. QUAN, H., WONG, A., JOHNSON, D. and GHALI, W.A. 2006. The public endorses collection of ethnicity information in hospital: Implications for routine data capture in Canadian health systems. Healthc. Policy 1, 55–64. RASMUSSEN, J.L. 1989. Analysis of Likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver. Psychol. Bull. 105, 167–170.


SABIR, S.M., SHAH, S.Z.A. and AFZAL, A. 2004. Effect of chemical treatment, wax coating, oil dipping and different wrapping materials on physio-chemical characteristics and storage behavior of apple (Malus domestica Borkh). Pakistan J. Nutr. 3, 122–127. SALVADOR, M.L., JAIME, P. and ORIA, R. 2003. Use of edible coatings to reduce water loss and maintain quality of Reinette apple. Acta Hort. 600, 701–705. SONTI, S. 2003. Consumer Perception and Application of Edible Coatings on Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables. M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. VALENCIA-CHAMORRO, S.A., PÉREZ-GAGO, M.B., DEL RÍO, M.A. and PALOU, L. 2009. Curative and preventive activity of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-lipid edible composite coatings containing antifungal food additives to control citrus postharvest green and blue molds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 2770–2777. VINELAND RESEARCH. 2010. Ontario Fifteen Year Comprehensive Strategic Plan for the Ontario Apple, Tender Fruit, and Fresh Grape Industry, Vineland Research and Innovations Centre Inc., Vineland, Ontario. 70 pp. WAN, V.C.H., LEE, C.M. and LEE, S.Y. 2007. Understanding consumer attitudes on edible films and coatings: focus group findings. J. Sensory Studies 22, 353–366. ZHENG, Q., MCCRACKEN, V.A. and TAYLOR, M.R. 2010. Consumer apple variety choices based on national household-level data. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ agsaaea10/61897.htm (accessed September 18, 2013).


41