ACCEPTANCE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

IN FOODS AND PACKAGING AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-

BEING IN SOUTH AMERICABerta Schnettler1, Gloria Crisóstomo1, Nataly Mills1, Horacio Miranda1, José Sepúlveda2, Marcos Mora3, Germán

Lobos4, Marianela Denegri2 and Klaus G. Grunert5

1 Departamento de Producción Agropecuaria, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales. Universidad de La Frontera. Casilla 54-D, Temuco, Chile. E-mail:

bschnett@ufro.cl. 2 Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Educación y Humanidades. Universidad de La Frontera. 3 Departamento de Economía Agraria, Facultad

de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 4 Escuela de Ingeniería Comercial, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile. 5 MAPP Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus University, Denmark.

INTRODUCTIONNanotechnology foods and food packaging are already

commercialized, though the number of products is still

low. In the near future, nanotechnology may become

increasingly important in the food sector, with

governmental agencies and industry investing

considerable resources in its development and

implementation (Frewer et al., 2011). Consumers seem

to be hesitant to buy nanotechnology foods in

developed countries. However, Siegrist et al. (2008)

found that the public perceives various nanotechnology

applications differently. Given the increasing use of

nanotechnology in the production of foods and

packages, a study was conducted to evaluate the

acceptance of these among supermarket buyers in

Temuco (La Araucanía Region) Chile, a developing

country in South America. The existence of different

market segments were also identified in terms of their

preferences. Sunflower oil with different brands at

different prices was used as a case study.

CONCLUSIONOver 50% of the participants prefer sunflower oil with

nanotechnology applications in the packaging and the food,

which is related to the level of satisfaction with life and

food-related life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:FONDECYT project 1100611.

REFRENCESDiener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985).

The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

Frewer, L.J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R.,

Meertens, R., Rowe, G., Siegrist, M., & Vereijken, C.

(2011). Consumer response to novel agri-food

technologies: Implications for predicting consumer

acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food

Science & Technology, 22, 442-456.

Grunert, K., Dean, D., Raats, M., Nielsen, N., & Lumbers,

M. (2007). A measure of satisfaction with food-related life.

Appetite, 49(2), 486-493.

Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. 2008.

Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different

nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging.

Appetite 51: 283-290.

METHODOLOGYA personal survey was carried out on a sample of 400

habitual supermarket shoppers, who were responsible

for buying food for their homes. The survey was

conducted at the exits of two supermarkets during

January and April 2011. Previous knowledge of

nanotechnology was asked about as well as

sociodemographic and psychographic characteristics.

The SWLS (Satisfaction with Life Scale, Diener et al.,

1985) and SWFL (Satisfaction with Food-related Life,

Grunert et al., 2007) scales were included. Those

surveyed put their preferences in twelve combinations

of levels for each attribute in a fractional factorial

design with a conjoint analysis (TRENSREG procedure

of SAS 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A

cluster analysis was used to distinguish consumer

segments, with the method of Ward as a way of

chaining and with the square Euclidean distance as

measure of likelihood among objects. To describe the

consumer segment, a Chi-square test was applied for

the discrete variables and a one-factor analysis of

variance for the continuous variables, with a 99%

confidence level. The variables whose analysis of

variance resulted in significant differences (P ≤ 0.001)

were subjected to the Dunnett’s T3 Multiple

Comparisons Test.

Figure 1. Importance (%) the attributes in the total

sample.

Figure 2. Utilities of the levels of the attributes in the total

sample.

Figure 3. Importance of the attributes in groups obtained

with cluster analysis.

The segments differed in their satisfaction with life (Fig.

5), satisfaction with food-related life (Fig. 6) and their

lifestyle (Fig. 7). Group 3 was comprised of people

extremely satisfied with their life and their food-related

life, who had an innovative lifestyle.

Figure 4. Utilities of the levels of the attributes of groups

obtained with cluster analysis.

Figure 5. Satisfaction with life of groups obtained with cluster

analysis.

Figure 6. Satisfaction with food-related life of groups obtained

with cluster analysis.

Three market segments were distinguished. The

largest (Group 2, 44%) preferred oil without

nanotechnology. The second (Group 3, 35.2%)

preferred oil with nanotechnology in the food and the

packaging, with greater preference for the package

that increase the shell life. The third (Group 1, 20.8%)

presented similar behavior, but showed greater

preference for the oil with nanoparticles that reduced

cholesterol and for the package that prevents bacteria

and viruses from forming (Fig. 3 and 4).

Figure 7. Lifestyle characteristics of groups obtained with

cluster analysis.

The preferred oil was the national brand with

nanoparticles to reduce cholesterol, in packages with

nanoparticles to increase the duration of the product

and prevent the formation of bacteria and viruses, at

medium price (Fig. 2).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIn the total sample, brand was more important (33.5%)

than the nanotechnology application in both the

packaging (24.6%) or the food (23.6%), and more

important than the price (17.9%) (Fig. 1).