1. Marketing the Products with
Emerging Processing
Technologies
Ziynet Boz, Ph.D.
Packaging Technology and Research LLC.
Created by:

2. Created by:
Outline
 History of processed foods
 Consumer trends in food industry
 Consumer perceptions on novel processing methods
 Consumer perceptions on packaging
 Opportunities in shelf-stable products
 Sustainability benefits
 Industry and research directions
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED2

3. Created by:
History of Processing and Packaging
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED3
 The need for food preservation is ancient
 Fresh food was not always available
• Nomadic lifestyle
• Drying, fermenting, smoking, cooking etc.
 A practical method for the “Army marches on its stomach”
 The beginning of modern packaging is marked by the
invention of thermal processing (1809)
 When aseptic technology was discovered consumers saw it
as a “new product” not an improvement over canned foods
 Understanding consumer needs has always been the key
for success
Science Museum, England

4. Created by:
Consumers Reasons for Food Purchases
Fresh, 58%
Taste, 51%
Low cost, 45%
Healthy, 39%
Easy Preparation, 22%
Familiar brand, 20%
Natural Ingredients, 18%
Organic, 10%
Environmentally friendly,
8%
Packaging, 6%
4
Mintel, Food Packaging Trends June 2018

5. Created by:
Novel processing method criteria for adoption
and acceptance
 Improved physicochemical properties of foods
 Providing process efficiencies while reducing the impact on
organoleptic and nutritional quality
 Clean label
 Better nutrient retention and health benefits
 Better texture and organoleptic quality –barrier to entry
• Flavor profile improvements
 Internationally competitive
 Meeting the standards for environmental impact
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED5

6. Created by:
6
Consumer Perceptions:
Novel processing methods
 Education on food systems alone is not
sufficient.
• Risk-benefit perception, sociodemographic attributes,
knowledge and information, trust in source
• Taste(!) and convenience are the key
• Price is less important for foods with novel processing
methods
 Potential perceived risks of the processing
technology is a determining factor: “Unnatural,
unsafe, unhealthy”
• The highest: Irradiated, bioengineered, pesticides, laser-
light sources, bacteriocins, microbially-contaminated foods,
HPP
• The lowest: Thermal treatment, pasteurization, freeze
drying
 Endorsement by government agencies (USDA,
FDA, Surgeon General); Manufacturers, Green
Peace, processor or researcher had negative utility
factor
Hu et al. 2012
Cardello et al. 2007

7. Created by:
Consumer Perceptions:
Novel processing methods
 Lack of knowledge on novel food process: Major barrier
 Improved knowledge on food processes: Higher WTP
 WTP is higher in “national brands”; locally-produced, small family
farms, state-wide, or well-identified source for processed foods.
 “Minimally processed” “fewer preservatives” cues are problematic
from consumer viewpoint
 Organic products
• Certification
• Organic logo effects
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED7

8. Created by:
Opportunities in
Shelf-Stable Products
 Variety and interesting contemporary
products/recipes
 Extended shelf life for humanitarian,
space and military missions
 Convenience
 Less food waste
 Additional nutrient and quality
retention benefits with novel methods
(E.g. Shaka® processing)
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED8
https://www.lovecannedfood.com/

9. Created by:
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED9
Example: Consumers Viewpoint on Canned
Fruit Cups
 Lower added sugar
 Sitting on the shelves long
time
 Minimal processing
 BPA and other linings
 Consumers are not aware
innovations, benefits etc.
 Reaching out to consumers
through right channels
• Cross-merchandizing
• Sampling
• Information

10. Created by:
Sustainable Value Chains
Food Waste
Reduced impact
• LCA studies for entire value chain
• Decreased processing times
• Energy-efficient processing
• Labor requirements
Nutrients: Both macro- and micro-
Packaging waste
Role of process/packaging combinations
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED10

11. Created by:
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED11
0
50
100
150
200
250
NutrientConcentration(per100g)
Potassium (mg)
Folate, DFE (µg)
Calcium, Ca (mg)
Magnesium (mg)
Phosphorus (mg)
Vitamin C, total
ascorbic acid (mg)
Antioxidant blend
(mg)
Freshat
consumption
Crushed-
canned
Freshat
theendof
shelflife
Cooked
0
5
NutrientConcentration(per100g)
Protein (g)
Iron (mg)
Vitamin E (mg)
Niacin (mg)
Zinc, Zn (mg)
Vitamin B-6 (mg)
Riboflavin (mg)
Thiamin (mg)
Lutein (µg)
Lutein-digestible (µg)
Beta carotene (µg)
Freshat
consumption
Crushed-
canned
Freshat
theendof
shelflife
Cooked
Boz and Sand (2019), Submitted manuscript, JFS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Antioxidant Blend Vitamin C Antioxidant Blend
without Vitamin C
Nutrientconcentration(mg/100g)
Canned
Cooked

12. Created by:
Consumer Perceptions: Packaging
 Label: Higher individual
perceived control over
consumption of new
products
 Sustainable packaging
systems
 Addressing public
concerns: Regulatory
compliance for building
trust
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED12
62%“On-pack information is important”
35% “Reducing packaging waste is important”

13. Created by:
13
Industry Direction
 Consumer education and communication on new technologies:
• Stakeholders with focused groups: Tailored messages
• Various media for dialogue
• Risk mitigation strategies followed by industry
 Taste: Aligning ethnic taste trends with relevant products,
personalized recipes in combination with the product
 Sustainability: LCA studies, Less waste, less impact
 Focus on micro-nutrients and phytochemicals
 “No additives/preservatives”: Specific and credible than ”All
natural”

14. Created by:
14
Industry Direction
 Focus on health benefits
 Global markets: Culinary experience
 Organic processed foods can provide a point of entry for processed
foods market
 Premium packaging for private-label products
 Modified packaging formats for E-commerce
 Certified traceable processed products
 Demographics: Connect with young consumers in international foods as they are interested in
tastes, but lack the skills to cook.

15. Created by:
Research Direction
 Consumer research in emerging processing methods
 Consumer attitudes on improved thermal and non-
thermal processing methods
 Nutrient dynamics for varying processing methods:
Macro- and Micro-nutrients
 Organic and health-oriented products processed with
emerging processing methods
 Update on previous research on food processing
methods
 Research on consumer attitudes and behaviors for varying
food products with the same method to identify product-
specific attitudes
 Affect of various education channels. E.g. printed,
internet etc.
 Post-consumption behaviors that can be matched with
brand image
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED15

16. Created by:
References
 Batte, M. T., Hooker, N. H., Haab, T. C., & Beaverson, J. (2007). Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy, 32(2), 145–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.05.003
 Bruhn, C. M. (2007). Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 8(4), 555–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2007.04.006
 Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 73–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2006.07.002
 Chrysochou, P., Chryssochoidis, G., & Kehagia, O. (2009). Traceability information carriers. The technology backgrounds and consumers’ perceptions of the technological solutions. Appetite, 53(3), 322–331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.07.011
 Cox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Quality and Preference, 19(8), 704–710.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.04.005
 Dean, M., Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Moral Concerns and Consumer Choice of Fresh and Processed Organic Foods1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2088–2107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00382.x
 Frewer, L. J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., … Vereijken, C. (2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(8), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005
 Hu, W., Batte, M. T., Woods, T., & Ernst, S. (2012). Consumer preferences for local production and other value-added label claims for a processed food product. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39(3), 489–510.
https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr039
 Lavilla, M., & Gayán, E. (2018). Consumer Acceptance and Marketing of Foods Processed Through Emerging Technologies. In Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation (pp. 233–253). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811031-
7.00007-8
 Market Research US Food Market Outlook 2018
 Mintel Reports Food Packaging Trends (June 2018), Private Label food and drink trends (January 2019), Food and Drink Shopper December 2018
 Olsen, N. V., Grunert, K. G., & Sonne, A.-M. (2010). Consumer acceptance of high-pressure processing and pulsed-electric field: a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21(9), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.002
 Perrea, T., Grunert, K. G., & Krystallis, A. (2015). Consumer Value perceptions of food products from emerging processing technologies: A cross-cultural exploration. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 95–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.009
 Priyadarshini, A., Rajauria, G., O’Donnell, C. P., & Tiwari, B. K. (2018). Emerging food processing technologies and factors impacting their industrial adoption. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 0(0), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1483890
 Ragaert, P., Verbeke, W., Devlieghere, F., & Debevere, J. (2004). Consumer perception and choice of minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits. Food Quality and Preference, 15(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-
3293(03)00066-1
 Rollin, F., Kennedy, J., & Wills, J. (2011). Consumers and new food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.09.001
 Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
© INSTITUTE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED16

17. Created by:
Thank you! Let’s Connect
www.PackagingTechnologyAndResearch.com
Ziynet@PackagingTechnologyAndResearch.com