www.topwiki.nl www.toptechnologytalks.nl

1. Consumers’ perceptions of HPP
and PEF food products
Anne-Mette Sonne
Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Klaus G. Grunert, Nina Veflen Olsen and Britt-Signe Granli
Nofima, A˚ s, Norway
Erzse´bet Szabo´ and Diana Banati
Central Food Research Institute, Ministry of Rural Development, Budapest,
Hungary
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer attitudes towards apple juice produced
by means of two new processing technologies, high-pressure processing (HPP) and pulsed electric field
processing (PEF).
Design/methodology/approach – Means-end chain approach is used. Laddering interviews are
conducted with consumers in Norway, Denmark, Hungary and Slovakia.
Findings – Consumers in this study did recognize and appreciate the benefits that HPP and PEF
apple juice have to offer over a juice produced by pasteurization. The respondents in all four countries
associated positive consequences with product attributes related to the nutritional value and the taste
of the products produced by means of these novel technologies. Also the environmental benefits from
processing foods by applying these technologies were seen as highly positive characteristics of the
technologies. However, many respondents also expressed some scepticism, especially towards the PEF
treated juice and were unsure about if there were risks associated with consuming products processed
by this technology.
Practical implications – When new processing technologies are introduced, consumer acceptance
is one of the key issues for their future success. It is up to food producers and food scientists to provide
the evidence that will convince consumers that these new technologies are safe to use.
Originality/value – This research contributes to the limited knowledge on consumer attitudes
towards food products produced by HPP and PEF. From a general perspective, the research expands
the body of knowledge on consumer perception of food technologies.
Keywords Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Slovakia, Consumer attitudes, Food technology,
Food manufacturing processes, Soft drinks, New behavioural techniques, High-pressure processing,
Pulsed electric field processing
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
New food processing technologies are being developed continuously. While food
scientists may applaud the progress of science, consumers have been known to take a
more conservative stand and they do not always readily accept the benefits of new
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
The authors would like to thank Annama´ria Polla´k-To´th for all her help with the data collection
for this article. The research presented in this paper is part of an EU research project called Novel
Q (2006-2011) whose main objective is to develop eco-friendly, novel processing technologies for
improved quality (fresh-like character, extended shelf-life) food. For further information please
see www.novelq.org
HPP and PEF
food products
85
Received August 2009
Revised December 2009
June 2010
Accepted June 2010
British Food Journal
Vol. 114 No. 1, 2012
pp. 85-107
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/00070701211197383

2. processing methods. Experience from earlier examples (such as GMO and irradiation)
show that the advantages, which a new technology has to offer, do not automatically
guarantee the success of a product in the market place. If consumers do not recognize
the benefits of a new technology as relevant, its application is at stake. For example,
studies of consumer attitudes towards GMO foods have found that consumer
acceptance depends on whether they perceive specific benefits associated with the
product (Frewer et al., 1996, 1997). Hence, a benefit that is perceived only to be in the
interest of the manufacturer is not sufficient to ensure consumer acceptance of a new
product or technology.
Earlier studies, especially on GMO acceptance, have also shown that technology
acceptance may be culturally dependent and hence may differ across countries
(e.g. Bredahl, 2001; Chern et al., 2002). One possibly interesting dimension of
inter-country differences with regard to acceptance of food processing technologies is a
comparison of Eastern and Northern Europe. Up until recently, consumers in Eastern
Europe lived in a market environment characterized by limited product variety and
limited use of advanced processing technologies compared to Northern Europe. On the
other hand, consumers in Eastern Europe are more used to fresh food markets and may
be more used to the fresh taste of food. These factors result in differences in knowledge
based on which consumers can form attitudes towards new technologies as well as in
different baselines for judging the potential benefits resulting from these technologies.
This paper examines consumer attitudes towards apple juice produced by means of
two new processing technologies, high-pressure processing (HPP) and pulsed electric
field processing (PEF), in four European countries. High pressure is a gentle processing
technology that can be used for the preservation of food products. The product is
subjected to pressure that inactivates most micro-organisms by damaging cell
components such as cell membranes. Like HPP, the Pulsed Electric Field technology is
a gentle food processing technology suitable for preserving liquid and semi-liquid food
products. Electrical impulses are sent through the object damaging cell components
and deactivating/inactivating most micro-organisms. Pulsed Electric Field and High
Pressure technologies can substitute conventional heat pasteurization in food
preservation and since the technologies operate at room temperature, they are
environmentally friendly compared to conventional heat preservation. Both HPP and
PEF preserve food quality and natural freshness, they produce nutritious and
safe-to-eat foods and extend microbiological shelf life without using chemical
additives. Products manufactured by means of HPP or PEF are expected to result in
products that are 10-20 per cent more expensive than the products on the market today.
Large-scale introduction of HPP and PEF products will soon take place on the markets
in Europe. Therefore, from a managerial point of view, it is interesting to learn more
about how consumers perceive food products manufactured by means of these novel
processing technologies. From a general perspective, our research expands the body of
knowledge on consumer perception of food technologies, which at present is mostly
concentrated on the application of GMOs, irradiation, and organic production.
2. Theoretical approach
In this study, we want to analyze how consumers form attitudes when confronted with
food products that involve the use of a new processing technology. Attitude formation is
usually studied by looking at how people form beliefs about the attitude object, i.e. how
BFJ
114,1
86

3. the attitude object is associated to other concepts, as well as at the valence of these
concepts. In our context this would involve looking at how the attitude to the food
products is formed by linking the product to use of the technology and to attributes
following from that use, and furthermore at the degree of liking of the technology and of
the attributes. However, we feel that a thorough understanding of the attitude formation
process requires a deeper understanding of the reasons why certain product attributes,
including the technology used, are valenced positively or negatively. The means-end
chain approach (Gutman, 1982) is useful when looking not only at attributes and their
valences, but also at how these valences can be explained by how the attributes are
mentally linked to the consequences that they have for the consumer, and ultimately to
values. Means-end chains represent individual consumers’ perceived connections
between product attributes, the outcomes associated to these (consequences), and values.
A number of studies support the basic assumption of the MEC theory that product
attributes, which are associated with personal values, influence product preference more
than attributes that are not (e.g. Reynolds et al., 1985; Bech-Larsen et al., 1996). When
applied to the perception of new technologies used in food production, the application of
the MEC theory generates insight not only into the degree of acceptance or rejection of
the technology, but also into the reasons for this acceptance or rejection, as it reveals the
inferences that consumers make from the use of the technology.
Given the scarcity of research dealing with consumers’ attitudes towards HPP and
PEF treated food products, a qualitative approach seems appropriate. Further, MEC
theory has been used previously to investigate consumer acceptance of GMO
technology (Bredahl, 1999; Grunert et al., 2001) and has been used successfully in many
studies on consumers’ attitudes to food products (Barrena and Sa´nchez, 2009; Costa
et al., 2007; De Ferran and Grunert, 2007; Fotopoulos et al., 2003; Grunert et al., 2001;
Judica and Perkins, 1992; Krystallis and Ness, 2003; Nielsen et al., 1998). Consumer
decision-making in relation to food is known to be largely influenced by habitual,
symbolic and emotional aspects as well as characterised by a relatively low level of
involvement (Costa et al., 2003; Grunert et al., 1996; Steenkamp, 1997). By uncovering
how attributes, consequences, and values are linked, MEC can shed light on how
automatic, unconscious, or emotional-based decision-making, take place (Olson and
Reynolds, 2001). MEC is thus assumed to accommodate emotional and less conscious
food consumption aspects and to produce satisfactory results even with low
involvement products (Grunert et al., 1995; Nielsen et al., 1998).
MEC theory assumes that consumers do not buy products for the sake of products as
such, but for the benefits that can be gained from their consumption. By analyzing the
link between the consumer and the product, the means-end approach attempts to reveal
the often hidden motives behind consumer choices. Through understanding these
subjective links, an insight can be gained into which product attributes consumers
prefer, and why they prefer them (Grunert, 2010). This can aid, for instance, a company
in its product development by providing a better understanding of which product
characteristics the consumer perceives to be desirable/undesirable (Costa et al., 2003;
Søndergaard and Harmsen, 2007). Or taking a starting point in the values consumers try
to fulfil by buying a product, one could ask “in what other way would it be possible to
fulfil the consequences and general buying motives, consumers seek in a product
category” resulting in the development of more innovative products. It has also been
suggested that means-end data can be useful for the development of advertising
HPP and PEF
food products
87

4. strategies by establishing the relevance of the different benefits for consumers and using
this information in the positioning and the communication of the product (Bech-Larsen,
2001; Jaeger and Macfie, 2001). In relation to the study of consumer acceptance of HPP
and PEF, using the means-end chain approach can offer an improved understanding of
whether or not consumers perceive juice treated with these new technologies as offering
desirable product attributes. Furthermore, the insight gained into the consequences
consumers associate with consuming HPP and PEF treated products and how these
relate to their underlying buying motives can be highly relevant in communicating with
consumers when introducing HPP and PEF products to the market.
3. Methodology
In most studies employing the means-end approach, consumers’ perceptions of
products and their links to self-relevant consequences and life values have been
measured by means of the laddering method (Grunert and Grunert, 1995; Reynolds and
Gutman, 1988). Laddering interviews were carried out in four countries: Denmark,
Norway, Hungary and Slovakia. The choice of countries was motivated by our interest
in looking into possible differences between Eastern and Northern European
consumers. A total of 30 respondents were interviewed in each country. The
respondents were recruited from the 20 to 60 year age bracket, with an equal balance of
the groups of 20-40 year olds and 40-60 year olds, and with an approximately equal
gender balance. Different methods of recruitment were used. Recruitment by calling
people listed in the local phone book was one. Also notes were posted in local
supermarkets and finally own databases containing contact details for consumers were
used. Consumers were screened on three criteria:
(1) Consumed apple juice at least once a month.
(2) Age.
(3) Gender.
Consumers who were suitable and willing to participate in the study were then asked
to come to the research premises (in the different countries) for the interview. The
interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. Respondents received a small gift in
return for their participation in the interview.
A laddering interview consists of two steps: elicitation of product attributes and
generation of consequences and values linked to these attributes. Various methods
have been used to generate attributes (Bech-Larsen and Nielsen, 1999). In our study,
attributes were elicited using a ranking methodology. This method requires
respondents to rank products according to preference and then to state the reasons
for the ranking. The outcome is a list of attributes to base the interview on. We chose
this method because previous research has shown that more complex elicitation
methods like triadic sorting are more time-consuming and do not seem to outperform
the less complex elicitation techniques (Bech-Larsen and Nielsen, 1999). Furthermore it
is possible to obtain additional information about respondents’ preferences through
their ranking of the products.
Respondents were shown three juice cartons, one conventionally processed juice
(pasteurized), one processed by means of PEF and one by HPP, and they were asked to
study them for as long as they liked. Since generally consumers are not familiar with HPP
and PEF products, it was necessary to describe the technologies and the advantages
BFJ
114,1
88

5. associated with them. The three cartons had the same design and only differed in the
description of the processing method, the nutritional values and the shelf life of the
products. The vitamin content was significantly higher for PEF and HPP juice than for
the pasteurized one, except in the Norwegian study. In the design of the study it had been
decided that the pasteurized juice should be comparable to the standard on the local
market. In Hungary, Slovakia and Denmark this was considered to be a good quality juice
made from concentrate, in Norway it was considered to be a juice that was not made from
concentrate (NFC). In the Norwegian study the difference in the vitamin content of the
HPP and PEF juices compared to the pasteurized product was very small. The shelf life
was set as shorter for the HPP and PEF juices in the countries where the conventional
product was made from concentrate and the same was the case for the NFC juice. The
advantages of the PEF and HPP juices in terms of preserved taste, smell and colour as
well as the environmental benefits of the technology, i.e. lower energy and water
consumption, were also described on the back of the cartons. Finally, the processing
method was stated clearly on the front label (e.g. PEF treated). An overview of the stimuli
used is provided in Table AI in the Appendix.
When the respondents had studied the information on all three juice cartons, they were
asked to rank the three juices according to preference. Further, the respondents were
asked to elaborate on the reasons for their ranking of the three products. Based on the
elicited product attributes, the interviewer followed up with a series of “why is this
important to you” type of questions to get the respondent to build “ladders” going from
product attributes to personal values. This resulted in one or more ladders per respondent
for each of the three products. This laddering method is referred to as “soft” laddering
since it is an interview form where the respondent’s natural flow of speech is restricted as
little as possible. In contrast, “hard” laddering refers to interviews and data collection
techniques (e.g. questionnaires) where the respondent is forced to produce ladders one
step at a time, and to give answers in such a way that the sequence of the answers reflects
increasing levels of abstraction (Russell et al., 2004; Grunert and Grunert, 1995).
After completing the fieldwork, the ladder interviews were content analysed in
order to categorize statements into attributes, consequences and values. Through
meaning-based interpretation of all individually mentioned concepts the data were
then coded into a smaller number of broader categories. The purpose of this was to
represent individual respondents’ ladders as closely as possible while at the same time
catching the gist across different respondents’ ladders.
The analysis followed the basic principles suggested by Reynolds and Gutman
(1988). An implication matrix was constructed from the coded ladders, showing all
direct, as well as indirect links between attributes, consequences and values. The next
step was to derive hierarchical value maps from the matrix. Hierarchical value maps
(HVM) are graphical illustrations of dominant connections between product attributes,
consequences and values for a number of respondents. To aid the data analysis and to
produce hierarchical value maps we used the Mecanalyst (SKYMAX – DG) software.
Construction of hierarchical value maps is a compromise between completeness of data
representation and parsimony in representation. In other words, a trade off has to be
made between richness of data and interpretability. Therefore, links between
categories are only portrayed in the map to the extent that they were mentioned by a
certain minimum of respondents. This number varies from country to country and
from product to product. So the hierarchical value maps are produced with different
HPP and PEF
food products
89

6. cut-off levels based on the interpretability of the maps and inclusion of all central
relations (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988; Grunert and Grunert, 1995).
4. Results
The results provide insight into which attributes consumers associate with juices
processed by means of PEF, HPP and pasteurization and how these product attributes
are related to abstract personal values. The results are presented first per product for all
countries; secondly, an analysis of north versus east European respondents is performed.
4.1 Product preferences
When looking at which product respondents across all countries preferred, the HPP
treated juice was selected most frequently. The PEF treated juice was the one that
consumers selected most frequently as their second choice and the pasteurized juice
was most the least preferred product choice. This is an interesting result since it
indicates that consumers are positive towards juice produced by means of a new
method that they consider to offer an advantage over a traditional processing method
like pasteurization (see Figure 1).
4.2 HPP juice
Looking then at the hierarchical value map for the HPP juice across all countries
Figure A1 shows that the most frequently mentioned attribute for this product was
“high content of vitamins” (mentioned by 64 per cent of respondents). This was
considered to be particularly important because it leads to the consequence of “being
more healthy”. Another attribute that was considered to lead to a healthier body was
that the product does not contain any additives or added sugar, which is surprising
given the fact that none of the three products contained additives or added sugar. An
interesting result is that “gentle processing method” is also perceived as leading to the
consequence of a healthier body. Health being considered a very central consequence is
also seen in its link to five personal values. To be healthy was considered to be
important for a number of reasons; naturally it was considered important because it is
desirable to live a long and healthy life. But health was also considered to be important
because it influences the family’s well-being, improves quality of life and makes one
Figure 1.
Ranking of HPP, PEF and
pasteurized juice across all
countries
BFJ
114,1
90

7. feel good about oneself. Some respondents also mentioned that it was important to be
healthy because a healthy person can achieve more in life.
Some respondents also considered the high content of vitamins to be important
because it meant that they need not take vitamin tablets. It was also mentioned that a high
intake of vitamins would have positive influence on the level of fitness and endurance.
A second central attribute is “preserves taste”. HPP processing was mentioned as
preserving taste, which was perceived as influencing the naturalness and freshness of
the product. Many respondents mentioned that they imagined it would be almost like
eating a real apple. This was perceived to be important because more enjoyment was
the consequence and in the end it contributed to having more fun and pleasure in life.
Finally, that the processing method was perceived to be environmentally friendly
was important because it is good for nature; many respondents said that this was
important to them because they felt responsible for nature.
4.2.1 Cross-national comparison. When comparing the hierarchical value maps for
north and east European respondents, Figures A2 and A3 (see Appendix), taste is
central in both cases. The main difference is that in Norway and Denmark (north),
respondents believed that the juice tastes/smells like fresh, natural apples due the HPP
method preserving taste. In Hungary and Slovakia (east), the respondents saw this as a
result of the juice not being made from concentrate, rather than due to the method. Also
it is worth noting that the north European consumers point to “tastes/smells like fresh
natural apples” having the consequence that it is perceived as making you healthier.
This indicates that “fresh and natural” is not only associated with taste but also with
healthiness. Healthiness is, of course, a very central consequence for both north and
east European consumers. Particularly this is due to the product being perceived as
rich in vitamins. The difference lies in the values that are associated with healthiness.
In both the north and the east European cases, healthiness is seen as having the
consequence of leading to “better work performance”. So it is considered important to
be healthy because then one can perform better at work. Doing well at work is
important for different reasons; for the east European respondents this is related to
achievement – for the north European respondents it is associated with feeling good
about yourself and stimulation, i.e. being able to have an exciting and varied life.
An interesting result is that in the two east European countries the essence of the
HPP technology is mentioned with the attribute “made with pressure”. In the same
manner the east European respondents point to the consequences of “being healthier”
and to the value “security”. This is an exciting result because it implies that although
the method makes use of high pressure, respondents associate it with a positive
consequence as “health” and the value “security”. Also some of the north European
respondents mention the method directly by noting that it is an unknown method.
However, here it is a negative link. The attribute “unknown method” is linked directly
to the value “long healthy life” and should be interpreted as the unknown method could
prevent one from achieving a long and healthy life.
That the method is environmentally friendly is considered important for both east and
north European respondents. The main difference is that the north European respondents
consider the method good for the environment which is considered important not only
because they have a sense of responsibility towards nature but also because they feel
responsible for other people as well as for mankind in general (i.e. future generations).
HPP and PEF
food products
91

8. 4.3 PEF juice
A number of positive attributes were mentioned in connection with the PEF juice. As
was also the case for the HPP juice, the attribute that was most frequently mentioned
was that the product is rich in vitamins. Again this was considered important because it
had the consequence that it would promote health. Further, it was considered important
to be healthy because it meant one would live a long and healthy life, it would increase
own and one’s family’s well-being and generally improve the quality of life.
As was also the case for the HPP juice, the method is seen as environmentally
friendly and this is considered important because it is good for the environment and in
harmony with respondents’ feeling of responsibility towards nature. In the same
manner a number of respondents mention that the method preserves taste, which gives
increased enjoyment and in the end contributes to a more fun and pleasurable life.
The biggest difference between the perception of PEF and HPP can be seen in that
the HPP juice was merely associated with positive consequences, whereas this picture
is more nuanced in the case of PEF. While respondents appreciated some product
attributes of the PEF treated juice, as can be seen in Figure A4, scepticism is expressed
in the product attribute “made with electrical impulses” and “unknown method”.
Electrical impulses are raised as an issue of concern since respondents are uncertain of
the long-term consequences for the body when consuming food products treated with
electricity. It is an unknown method and there is a lack of information of how exactly
this method influences the product.
4.3.1 Cross-national comparison. When we compare the two hierarchical value
maps (HVM) (Figures A5 and A6, see Appendix) for Norway/Denmark and
Hungary/Slovakia we see that the scepticism towards PEF stands out even stronger.
The east European respondents mention that the product produced by electrical
impulses makes you less healthy and that they feel unsure about what the long-term
consequences of consuming the product might be. There are also a number of
respondents who feel that they are unfamiliar with a method that uses electrical
impulses and therefore they have less trust in the product. Also the north European
respondents react against the fact that the product is manufactured using electrical
impulses. They fear that this may deposit something in the product. So although both
groups of respondents are sceptical towards this electric impulse method, it seems that
the east European respondents are more concerned about this. When looking at
Figure A6, we see that the attribute “electrical impulses” is mentioned by 60 per cent of
respondents (where only 25 per cent of north European respondents mentioned this)
and there are also a higher number of consequences linked to the attribute “electrical
impulses” in the hierarchical value map for Hungary and Slovakia.
4.4 Pasteurized juice
As was also the case for the PEF juice, the pasteurized juice is evaluated as offering a
mix of benefits and disadvantages (see Figure A7). On the positive side is that the
method is well known and consequently the product is trusted and considered to be a
safe product. Health is again a central theme and here the product is evaluated both as
contributing to a better health and as resulting in a less healthy body. It is considered
to lead to a healthier body for two reasons: the product is produced by means of a
well-known method and it does not contain any additives (natural product, no sugar or
additives are added). A healthy body is important because respondents strive to have a
BFJ
114,1
92

9. long and healthy life and because they would like to feel good about themselves. The
negative impact on health is caused by the attribute “from concentrate”. As the only
one of the three products, the pasteurized juice was made from concentrate. This was
evaluated as influencing taste and quality as well as the nutritional value of the
product. Some respondents considered it to be of a lower quality than the two other
products, which were not made from concentrate. Also the taste (although respondents
did not taste the product) was evaluated as artificial and less natural. That the product
had a lower content of vitamins was observed by a number of respondents (content of
vitamins was stated on the nutritional label) rating this as negative since the perceived
consequence was that it would lead to a less healthy body.
Only for the pasteurized product, did shelf life appear as an important attribute. In
the cases where the pasteurized juice was made from concentrate (Denmark, Slovakia,
Hungary) it has a longer shelf life than HPP and PEF treated juice. This is perceived to
be positive since one does not have to go shopping very often which leaves more time
for other things, such as spending time with one’s family and engaging in sports and
other hobbies.
4.4.1 Cross-national comparison
The product’s long shelf life is only mentioned by the east European respondents
(Figure A8, see Appendix). Also it stands out that the consequence of a longer shelf life
is not only that you save time but you also save money because there is less waste, and
it is possible to stockpile the product for later consumption. As can be seen in
Figure A9, the north European respondents on the other hand also find it important to
save time shopping but see this as a consequence of a well-known product being fast to
choose at the supermarket. A well-known product does not require you to spend a lot of
time studying the product label trying to understand a new processing technology.
As mentioned previously, many respondents noted that the attribute “made from
concentrate” had the consequence that the product was of a lower quality. East
European respondents see the consequence that juice no longer can replace one serving
of fruit and vegetables. For the north European respondents, “made from concentrate”
has the consequence that it is perceived as a product with a more artificial taste. The
interesting effect here is that it is not only the fact that the product contains less
vitamins that is perceived as leading to a less healthy body but also the artificial taste
is considered to have an effect on health.
A study of the hierarchical value map constructed using the Danish and the
Norwegian data (Figure A9, see Appendix) will have the somewhat confusing result that
approximately equal shares of respondents mention that the pasteurized juice contains
less vitamins and that it is rich in vitamins. This can be explained by the fact that in the
Norwegian study the conventional product was not made from concentrate which meant
that even if the vitamin content was a bit lower than in the HPP and PEF juices, many
respondents still perceived it to have a high vitamin content. This Norwegian effect is
also seen with regard to taste that is described by some respondents as well preserved,
most likely because the product is not made from concentrate.
5. Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, it seems that consumers do recognize and appreciate
the benefits that food products produced with HPP and PEF have to offer when this
HPP and PEF
food products
93

10. information is provided on the product label. The respondents in all four countries
associated positive consequences with product attributes related to the nutritional
value and the taste of the products produced by means of these novel technologies.
Also the environmental benefits from processing foods by applying these technologies
were seen as highly positive characteristics of the technologies. These results are in
correspondence with a Brazilian study of consumer acceptance of HPP juice (Deliza
et al., 2005), which found that when the technology advantages were presented on the
juice labels, participants understood the benefits and expressed a higher intention to
purchase the product than in the cases where the technology was just stated by name
(e.g. HPP treated). The implication is that when introducing HPP and PEF products in
European markets it would be advisable to describe the technologies on the product
labels.
The importance of consumers perceiving the advantages of HPP and PEF products
was also found in a European study including 3000 adults (Butz et al., 2003). The study
found that 67 per cent of participants accepted high pressure processing and concludes
that consumers are ready to buy high-pressure processed products that have
advantages, but do not have disadvantages. This may also explain why consumers in
all four countries expressed scepticism towards the PEF treated juice. Although the
PEF juice had the second largest number of first choice rankings, the PEF juice was
also the product that consumers were most ambivalent about. The product was
perceived to have advantages but in many cases consumers also appeared unsure
about the risks that might be associated with this technology. Another explanation for
the respondents’ reservations toward the PEF juice is perhaps that when faced with the
choice between PEF and HPP, respondents tended to go for the HPP juice since it was
perceived as offering the same benefits as PEF and at the same time carrying less risk.
Hence, more information about the technologies seems to be a key to achieving
consumer acceptance of products manufactured by means of these new technologies.
This appears to be especially important in the case of introducing PEF products, since
many consumers associated the name of the technology with electricity and were
sceptical about what the side effects of using electricity in food production might be.
This consumer scepticism towards pulsed electric field processing (PEF) is also
supported in a previous study on consumer attitudes towards HPP and PEF
technologies (Nielsen et al., 2009). Hence, food producers and food scientists must
provide the evidence that will convince consumers that this technology is safe to use in
connection with food processing. Such information provision should occur in the early
phases of introduction of these new technologies, as research on GMO acceptance has
shown that information may have the opposite of the intended effect once attitudes
have become more stable (Scholderer and Frewer, 2003).
In conclusion, there seems to be good reason for doing further work on the
development of PEF and HPP, as consumers see a potential in products manufactured
by means of these technologies. What is still missing in research on PEF and HPP
technologies is a study of consumers’ trade-off between various product attributes,
e.g. price, taste, shelf life and nutritional value. Few studies of HPP and PEF products
have been conducted, but one European study of consumer attitudes towards high
pressure processed food products (Butz et al., 2003) found that consumers differed
across countries in their willingness to pay a premium for HPP products. Also a recent
study of consumer attitudes towards high pressure freezing of food found that neither
BFJ
114,1
94

11. environmental benefits nor improved sensory quality could produce the lost utility of a
higher price (Lampila and La¨hteenma¨ki, 2007).
Further, when actual PEF and HPP products will become available in Europe, it will
also be interesting to examine consumer attitudes and behaviour towards PEF and
HPP products in real-life situations.
References
Barrena, R. and Sa´nchez, M. (2009), “Consumption frequency and degree of abstraction: a study
using the laddering technique on beef consumers”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 144-55.
Bech-Larsen, T. (2001), “Model-based development and testing of advertising messages:
a comparative study of two campaign proposals based on the MECCAS model and a
conventional approach”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 499-519.
Bech-Larsen, T. and Nielsen, N.A. (1999), “A comparison of five elicitation techniques for
elicitation of attributes of low involvement products”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 315-41.
Bech-Larsen, T., Nielsen, N.A., Grunert, K.G. and Sørensen, E. (1996), “Means-end chains for low
involvement food products: a study of Danish consumers’ cognitions regarding different
applications of vegetable oil”, MAPP Working Paper No. 41, Aarhus School of Business,
Aarhus.
Bredahl, L. (1999), “Consumers’ cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods: results of a
qualitative study in four countries”, Appetite, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 343-60.
Bredahl, L. (2001), “Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to
genetically modified food: results of a cross-national survey”, Journal of Consumer Policy,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 23-61.
Butz, P., Needs, E.C., Baron, A., Bayer, O., Geisel, B., Gupta, B., Oltersdorf, U. and Tauscher, B.
(2003), “Consumer attitudes to high pressure food processing”, Food, Agriculture and
Environment, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-4.
Chern, W.S., Rickertsen, K., Tsuboi, N. and Fu, T.-T. (2002), “Consumer acceptance and
willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetable oil and salmon: a multiple-country
assessment”, AgBioForum, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 105-12.
Costa, A.I.A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M. and Jongen, W.M.F. (2003), “Exploring the use of
consumer collages in product design”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Costa, A.I.A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M. and Jongen, W.M.F. (2007), “To cook or not to cook:
a means-end study of motives for choice of meal solutions”, Food Quality and Preference,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
De Ferran, F. and Grunert, K.G. (2007), “French fair trade coffee buyers’ purchasing motives: an
exploratory study using means-end chains analysis”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 218-29.
Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Abadio, F.B.D., Silva, C.H.O. and Castillo, C. (2005), “Application of
high-pressure technology in the fruit juice processing: benefits perceived by consumers”,
Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 67 Nos 1/2, pp. 241-6.
Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A. and Ness, M. (2003), “Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece:
using means-end chains analysis to reveal organic buyers’ purchasing motives in
comparison to the non-buyers”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 549-66.
HPP and PEF
food products
95

12. Frewer, L.J., Howards, C. and Shepherd, R. (1996), “The influence of realistic product exposure on
attitudes towards genetic engineering of food”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 61-7.
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1997), “Consumer attitudes towards
different food-processing technologies used in cheese production: the influence on
consumer benefit”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 271-80.
Grunert, K.G. (2010), “Means-end chains – a means to which end?”, Marketing: Journal of
Research and Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 30-8.
Grunert, K.G. and Grunert, S.C. (1995), “Measuring subjective meaning structures by the
laddering method: theoretical considerations and methodological problems”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing., Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 209-25.
Grunert, K.G., Grunert, S.C. and Sørensen, E. (1995), “Means-end chains and laddering: and
inventory of problems and an agenda for research”, Working Paper No. 34, MAPP Center,
Aarhus.
Grunert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H.H. and Madsen, T.K. (1996), Market Orientation in Food
and Agriculture, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
Grunert, K.G., La¨hteenma¨ki, L., Nielsen, N.A., Poulsen, J.B., Ueland, O. and A˚ stro¨m, A. (2001),
“Consumer perception of food products involving genetic modification: results from a
qualitative study in four Nordic countries”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12 No. 8,
pp. 527-42.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categorisation processes”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-72.
Jaeger, S.R. and Macfie, H.J.H. (2001), “The effect of advertising format and means-end
information on consumer expectations for apples”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 189-205.
Judica, F. and Perkins, W.S. (1992), “A means-end approach to the market for sparkling wines”,
International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 10-20.
Krystallis, A. and Ness, M. (2003), “Motivational and cognitive structures of Greek consumers in
the purchase of quality food products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 7-36.
Lampila, P. and La¨hteenma¨ki, L. (2007), “Consumers’ attitudes towards high pressure freezing of
food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 10, pp. 838-51.
Nielsen, N.A., Bech-Larsen, T. and Grunert, K.G. (1998), “Consumer purchase motives and
product perceptions: a laddering study on vegetable oil in three countries”, Food Quality
and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 455-66.
Nielsen, H.B., Sonne, A.M., Grunert, K.G., Banati, D., Polla´k-To´th, A., Lakner, Z., Veflen Olsen, N.,
Pajk Zˇontar, T. and Peterman, M. (2009), “Consumer perception of the use of high-pressure
processing and pulsed electric field technologies in food production”, Appetite, Vol. 52
No. 1, pp. 115-26.
Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (2001), “The means-end approach to understanding consumer
decision making”, in Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (Eds), Understanding Consumer
Decision Making: The Means-end Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-20.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988), “Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 11-31.
Reynolds, T.J., Gutman, J. and Fiedler, J.A. (1985), “Understanding consumers’ cognitive
structures: the relationship of levels of abstraction to judgments of psychological distance
BFJ
114,1
96

13. and preference”, in Alwitt, L.F. and Mitchell, A.A. (Eds), Psychological Processes and
Advertising Effects, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 261-72.
Russell, C.G., Busson, A., Flight, I., Bryan, J., van Lawick van Pabst, J.A. and Cox, D.N. (2004),
“A comparison of three laddering techniques applied to an example of a complex food
choice”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 569-83.
Scholderer, J. and Frewer, L. (2003), “The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental
evidence and the need for a new strategy”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 125-57.
Søndergaard, H.A. and Harmsen, H. (2007), “Using market information in product development”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 194-201.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1997), “Dynamics in consumer behavior with respect to agricultural and
food products”, in Wierenga, B. (Ed.), Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behavior in a
Changing World, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, p. 143, 188.
(Appendix appears over page.)
HPP and PEF
food products
97

14. Appendix
HPPjuicePEFjuice
Pasteurizedjuicefrom
concentratePasteurizedjuiceNFC
Energy
(100ml)
47.2kcal(220kJ)47.2kcal(220kJ)47.2kcal(220kJ)47.2kcal(220kJ)
Protein,0.1g,0.1g,0.1g,0.1g
Carbohydrate11.31g11.31g11.31g11.31g
Thereofsugar11.11g11.11g11.11g11.11g
Fat,0.1g,0.1g,0.1g,0.1g
Fibre0.3g0,3g0,3g0,3g
Sodium2mg2mg2mg2mg
VitaminC48mg80percentADT*47mg78percentADT*35mg58percentADT*45mg75*RDApercent
ShelflifeFiveweeksFiveweeks12monthsFiveweeks
Facts100percentapplejuice–not
fromconcentrate
Preservedwithhigh-pressure
treatment
Shakewellbeforeopening
Keepproductrefrigerated:0-48C,
Afteropeningconsumewithin
threetofourdays
100percentapplejuice–not
fromconcentrate
Preservedwithpulsedelectric
fieldtreatment
Shakewellbeforeopening
Keepproductrefrigerated:0-
48CAfteropeningconsume
withinthreetofourdays
100percentapplejuice–made
fromappleJuiceconcentrate
Pasteurized
Shakewellbeforeopening
Afteropeningkeepproduct
refrigeratedandconsume
withinthreetofourdays
100percentapplejuice–not
fromconcentrate
Pasteurized
Shakewellbeforeopening
Keepproductrefrigerated:0-
48CAfteropeningconsume
withinthreetofourdays
Additional
information
HighPressureProcessing(HPP)
isamethodofprocessingwherea
foodissubjectedtoelevated
pressure(uptoapproximately
800MPa).Thistechnology
preservesfruitjuicesinaway
thatthetaste,smell,colourand
thehealthyingredientslike
vitaminsaremaintained.HPP
technologygivesfoodalong-
lastingfreshness.HPPisusing
lessenergyandwater
PulsedElectricFieldtreatment
(PEF)isamildprocessing
technology,whichusesshort
burstsofelectricitytopreserve
food.Themethodoperatesat
roomtemperature,sothetaste
andseveralhealthyheat-
sensitivevitaminsarebetter
maintainedinthejuices.PEFis
environmentallyfriendly
methodasitsavestheenergy
ofheatingupandcoolingdown
foodproducts
Thejuiceismadefroma
concentrate.Directlyafter
harvesting,thefreshfruitsare
pressedandthejuiceis
concentrated.Beforebottling
juice,thesameamountof
waterthatwasexcluded
duringtheconcentrateprocess
isaddedandtheproductwas
pasteurised(quickwarming
andrefrigeration)
Thejuiceispasteurized.
Pasteurizationisamildheat
treatment.Thejuiceisnot
madefromconcentrate,which
ensuresahighqualityproduct
Table AI.
Information provided on
the product labels
BFJ
114,1
98

15. Figure A1.
HPP juice – all countries
HPP and PEF
food products
99

16. Figure A2.
HPP juice – North
European respondents
BFJ
114,1
100

17. Figure A3.
HPP juice – East
European respondents
HPP and PEF
food products
101

18. Figure A4.
PEF – all countries
BFJ
114,1
102

19. Figure A5.
PEF juice – North
European respondents
HPP and PEF
food products
103

20. Figure A6.
PEF juice – East
European respondents
BFJ
114,1
104

21. Figure A7.
Pasteurized juice – all
countries
HPP and PEF
food products
105

22. Figure A8.
Pasteurized juice – East
European respondents
BFJ
114,1
106

23. About the authors
Anne-Mette Sonne is an Assistant Professor at MAPP – Centre for research on customer
relations in the food sector, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University. She received her PhD
from the Aarhus School of Business in 2007 and does research in food marketing. Anne-Mette
Sonne is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: aso@asb.dk
Klaus G. Grunert is a Professor at Aarhus University in Denmark and Director of MAPP.
Nina Veflen Olsen is a Researcher at Nofima in Norway.
Britt-Signe Granli is a Research Assistant at Nofima in Norway.
Erzse´bet Szabo´ is a Researcher at CFRI in Hungary.
Dia´na Ba´na´ti is a Professor and the Director of CFRI in Hungary.
Figure A9.
Pasteurized juice – North
European respondents
HPP and PEF
food products
107
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints