Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/trends-in-food-science-
and-technology

Review

The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a

systematic review

nchez-Siles b, Michael Siegrist c, *

n a, Luis Manuel Sa
Sergio Roma
a
Marketing Department, Facultad de Economía y Empresa, Universidad de Murcia, 30100, Murcia, Spain
b
Research and Development Department, Hero Group, 30820 Murcia, Spain
c €tstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior, Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Background: Consumers’ perceptions of naturalness are important for the acceptance of foods and food
Received 28 February 2017 technologies. Thus, several studies have examined the significance of naturalness among consumers.
Received in revised form Nonetheless, the aspects that are considered essential in perceiving a food item as natural may vary
6 June 2017
across consumers and different stakeholder groups.
Accepted 8 June 2017
Available online 16 June 2017
Scope and approach: This systematic review identified 72 studies conducted in 32 countries involving
85,348 consumers. We aimed to answer the following questions: 1) How has the perceived importance
of naturalness for consumers been defined and measured? 2) To what extent is perceived naturalness
Keywords:
Consumer
important to consumers? 3) Are there individual differences regarding the importance given to food
Importance of food naturalness naturalness that can be explained by consumers' characteristics? 4) Do consumers’ attitudes toward food
Systematic review naturalness influence their intentions and behavior?
Key findings and conclusions: The review clearly shows that for the majority of consumers, food natu-
ralness is crucial. This finding could be observed across countries and in the different years when the
studies were conducted. Therefore, neglecting the aspect of naturalness in the food industry may be very
costly in the end. Our review also reveals differences across studies in how naturalness has been defined
and measured. Based on a content analysis of the measurement scales, the items used to measure the
importance of naturalness can be classified into three categories: 1) the way the food has been grown
(food origin), 2) how the food has been produced (what technology and ingredients have been used), and
3) the properties of the final product.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction buying incentive,” and almost three-quarters of the respondents

Humans have an innate sense of attachment to natural things
(Wilson, 1984). Therefore, it should not be surprising that most
people, in recent decades, have a strong preference for natural
s, 2012). The results of the
foods (Rozin, Fischler, & Shields-Argele
Nielsen Global Health and Wellness Survey (2015), conducted in 60
countries and involving 30,000 consumers, reveal that the most
desirable food attributes are freshness, naturalness, and minimal
processing. Similarly, insights from the Kampffmeyer Food
Innovation Study (2012: 1) involving over 4,000 consumers in
eight European countries show food naturalness as a “decisive
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sroman@um.es (S. Rom
an), luisma.sanchez@hero.es
(L.M. S

anchez-Siles), michael.siegrist@hest.ethz.ch (M. Siegrist).
perceive a close connection between “natural” and “healthy.”
Overall, these market research findings show that a lot of con-
sumers in developed countries want to eat natural foods. From a
natural science perspective, naturalness certainly does not mean
that a food is less risky, healthier, or tastier. This is not how most
consumers perceive naturalness, however (Rozin, 2005, 2006).
They perceive naturalness as a positive food product attribute.
However, the relative importance of food naturalness varies across
cultures, countries and history (Rozin et al., 2004). Humans have
traditionally tried to control and minimize natural risks, and the
introduction of commercially processed foods in the 1950's in
developed countries contributed to longer shelf life of food, food
security and nutrition security (Weaver et al., 2014). Consumers at
that time showed a strong preference for processed foods.
Although a number of studies have examined the importance of
food naturalness among consumers, a systematic review that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
0924-2244/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma
summarizes the findings is lacking. The preference for natural
items is stronger for foods than for medicines (Rozin et al., 2004).
Perceived naturalness is therefore an especially important variable
for the acceptance of foods and food technologies. However, what
do consumers understand by naturalness? In several studies, Rozin
and colleagues have examined the meaning of the highly desirable
food attribute of naturalness (Rozin, 2005, 2006; Rozin et al., 2004,
2012). The results of their research suggest that judgments about
naturalness are more strongly influenced by the process than by the
content. The largest drop in perceived naturalness is observed
when an item is the product of genetic modification (Rozin, 2005),
whereas domestication seems much less damaging to perceived
naturalness compared with gene technology. Another study sug-
gests that chemical changes have a more negative impact on
perceived naturalness compared with physical processes (Evans, de
Challemaison, & Cox, 2010). One possible explanation for the
preference for natural items could be that these products are
perceived as healthier. However, even if natural and artificial foods
are specified as equally healthy, a strong preference for naturalness
could still be observed (Rozin et al., 2004). This result suggests that
naturalness per se is perceived as a desirable product attribute.
The Global Consumer Trends Tracking Survey conducted among
28,000 consumers in 20 countries suggests that consumers believe
that natural foods are free from artificial additives or chemicals, yet
their opinions vary on whether natural products need to be organic
or are healthier than non-natural foods (Euromonitor International,
2016). In fact, food naturalness is a highly abstract construct (e.g.,
Siipi, 2013) and is frequently linked to healthiness, freshness, and
organic or locally produced foods (e.g., Ba €ckstro€ m, Pirttil€
a-
Backman, & Tuorila, 2004; Milosevi
 
c, Zezelj, Gorton, & Barjolle,
2012; Renner, Sproesser, Strohbach, & Schupp, 2012; Roininen
et al., 2001). Meyer-Ho € fer, Nitzko, and Spiller (2015: 1535) note
that “‘naturalness’ is hard to quantify or measure. Moreover, the
term is not clearly defined or regulated […]. It is thus open to a wide
variety of associations and individual interpretations by con-
sumers.” Similarly, Hemmerling, Canavari, and Spiller (2016: 2288)
acknowledge that “the concept of naturalness with respect to food
is generally vague, unclear and sometimes even deceiving to
consumers.”
Despite researchers’ difficulties in defining naturalness, con-
sumers do not seem to have problems in intuitively assessing the
naturalness of foods. To summarize the available knowledge
regarding naturalness and consumer behavior, we conducted a
systematic literature review. We aimed to find out how naturalness
had been measured in past studies, how important perceived
naturalness was, and how perceived naturalness is associated with
food choices. Specifically, we wanted to address the following
questions in our review:
1. How has the perceived importance of naturalness for consumers
been defined and measured?
2. To what extent is perceived naturalness important to
consumers?
3. Are there individual differences regarding the importance given
to food naturalness that can be explained by consumers'
characteristics?
4. Do consumers' attitudes toward food naturalness influence their
intentions and behavior?
2. Method
This study aimed to systematically search for, appraise and
synthesis research evidence on the importance of food naturalness
for consumers. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review of
45
the literature.1 The study design follows the PRISMA Statement
protocol (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009) in order to
ensure scientific quality and minimize the risk of bias. An extensive
literature search for papers related to food naturalness was con-
ducted in September and October 2016. Major databases were used
(i.e., ProQuest, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, SCOPUS,
PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Library Plus, and Google Scholar) to
identify the relevant literature. No limits were established
regarding the year of publication. We used several combinations of
the terms food, naturalness, natural content, natural ingredients,
consumers, perceptions, interests, concerns, preferences, and impor-
tance of, as well as closely related variations of these terms (i.e., free
from additives, free from preservatives, minimally processed foods,
organic foods, adherence to, and food choice criteria).
Articles were included for review if (1) they reported empirical
studies that were written in English and published in peer-
reviewed journals, and (2) they clearly examined consumers'
preference for food naturalness. Studies exclusively referring to the
naturalness of food packaging were excluded. Studies where food
naturalness was combined with other food choice motives (e.g.,
health, ethical concern), as a result of exploratory factor analysis,
were also disregarded. In these studies, naturalness items were
combined with other items (e.g., health items such as, “It is
important to me that the food I eat on a typical day is nutritious”) to
create a new, broader variable which simultaneously included food
naturalness as well as other food choice motives. Therefore, these
studies could not be used to assess the importance of food natu-
ralness or its relationship to consumers' characteristics, intentions,
and behaviors. Finally, (3) for studies that developed a new mea-
sure of food naturalness, the scale should show sufficient internal
consistency (Cronbach's a
0.65) as suggested in the literature
(Iacobucci & Duhachek, 2003; Nunnally, 1967).
As shown in Fig. 1, this initial process yielded 1,130 publications.
In total, 180 articles were excluded because they were duplicates;
53 studies were added based on the references cited in the publi-
cations included in the review. This procedure resulted in 1,003
potentially relevant titles. The screening of the titles and the ab-
stracts yielded 157 articles (846 were excluded on the basis of in-
clusion criterion #1). Screening the full text resulted in the final
inclusion of 72 articles (81 did not meet inclusion criterion #2, and
4 failed inclusion criterion #3). Two researchers independently
conducted this screening. Any disagreement was discussed and
resolved with a third researcher. The key data from these 72 articles
were extracted and tabulated to answer the research questions of
this review.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of the studies included in the review
As shown in Appendix 1, 69 articles reported original empirical
studies, and 3 articles reported secondary data analyses (Lockie,
Lyons, Lawrence, & Grice, 2004; Phan & Chambers, 2016a;
Pieniak, Perez-Cueto, & Verbeke, 2013). These three publications
were included in the review, because they reported different results
from those reported in the original studies. The reviewed studies
1
A systematic review was chosen over other alternatives (e.g., state-of-the-art
review, mapping review, scoping review) because it allows to establish what is
known, what remains unknown and to propose recommendations for practice and
future research (Grant & Booth, 2009; for a detailed description of other alterna-
tives see pp. 95e96). A meta-analysis could not be conducted because it requires
that the variable under study be measured in the same way (which is not the case
for food naturalness). Also, it requires statistical data (correlations and standard
deviations) not reported in many of the studies included in the review.
46
n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma
Fig. 1. Food naturalness PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram.
examined a total of 118 different samples of consumers. Eleven
articles reported multi-sample studies (most of them conducted in
several countries) (Aschemann-Witzel & Grunert, 2015;
Hemmerling et al., 2016; Januszewska, Pieniak, & Verbeke, 2011;
€hteenma
La €ki et al., 2002; Markovina et al., 2015; Meyer-Ho €fer
et al., 2015; Onwezen & Bartels, 2013; Pieniak, Verbeke,
Vanhonacker, Guerrero, & Hersleth, 2009; Prescott, Young,
O'Neill, Yau, & Stevens, 2002; Roininen et al., 2001; Thøgersen,
2017). The sample sizes of quantitative studies ranged from 47 to
10,028 subjects. Overall, this review was based on a total sample of
85,348 participants. The samples represented 32 countries, with
the majority from Europe (21), followed by Asia (6), America (3),
and Oceania (2). Regarding the methodological approach, all but
one (Roininen & Tuorila, 1999) were cross-sectional studies. Most
studies were entirely quantitative (56), and the remaining 13 used a
mixed-method approach.
3.2. How has the perceived importance of naturalness for
consumers been defined and measured?
Various definitions of preference for food naturalness2 have
been proposed. For Steptoe, Pollard, and Wardle (1995: 281),
“natural content” referred to importance assigned by consumers to
“the use of additives and natural ingredients.” Four years later,
€hteenma €ki, and Tuorila (1999: 75) defined natural
Roininen, La
product interest as “interest in eating foods that do not contain
€ckstro
€ m et al. (2004: 81),
additives and are unprocessed”. For Ba
adherence to natural food referred to “organically grown food,
2 food naturalness has been measured (see Appendix 2). We focused
Not all authors have used the term “preference for food naturalness,” yet they
all refer to importance, preference, and/or interest in food naturalness.
signaling the importance of nature.” Onyango, Govindasamy,
Hallman, Jang, and Puduri (2006: 65) defined natural foods as
“the foods containing neither preservatives nor artificial colorings.
[They] also [include] locally and organically grown foods.” Renner
et al. (2012: 124) conceptualized naturalness in a broader way
and combined naturalness with fair trade. Rozin et al. (2012: 454)
defined natural (including food) “principally by the absence of
certain ‘negative’ features (e.g., additives, pollution, human inter-
vention), rather than the presence of certain positive features.”
Notably, these definitions and conceptualizations show that food
naturalness has been defined in somewhat different ways by
various authors.
In the light of these different definitions, it should not be sur-
prising that consumer preference for naturalness in foods has been
measured in diverse ways (see Appendix 2). The scale developed by
Steptoe et al. (1995) has been used in 36 studies, showing good
reliability (Cronbach's a ranged from 0.60 to 0.91). Roininen et al.’s
(1999) measure has been used in 16 studies (Cronbach's a ranged
from 0.60 to 0.90). The remaining scales have been used in only a
small number of studies (Ba €ckstro€ m et al., 2004 [4 studies]; Siegrist,
Stampfli, Kastenholz, & Keller, 2008 [2]; Tobler, Visschers, &
Siegrist, 2011 [2]; Renner et al., 2012 [2]). Four studies used
different ad hoc scales (Hemmerling et al., 2016; Mooney &
Walbourn, 2001; Olbrich, Hundt, & Grewe, 2015, pp. 67e101;
Onyango et al., 2006) that were not employed in other studies. Two
studies (Kraus, 2015; Meyer-Ho € fer et al., 2015) used single items for
measuring the importance of food naturalness.
Given the broad variety of the scales used for measuring con-
sumer preference for naturalness in foods, we conducted a content
analysis to gain a better understanding of how the importance of
in particular on the definitions of naturalness and the items used

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma
for measuring the importance of naturalness in the 72 reviewed
articles. As shown in Fig. 2, this process resulted in three separate
yet related categories, describing (1) how the food is grown
(relating to its origin), (2) the way the food is produced and pro-
cessed, and (3) the properties of the final product (representing the
result or outcome):
 The first category is related to how the food has been grown. It
focuses on how food is farmed and emphasizes organic farming
and local production.
 The second category refers to post-harvest food processing and
distinguishes between the ingredients used and the production
process itself. As for the ingredients, consumers seem to give
more importance to the absence of certain negative elements
(mainly additives but also preservatives, artificial colors and
flavors, chemicals, hormones, pesticides, and genetically modi-
fied organisms) than to the presence of certain positive ele-
ments (natural ingredients). The products should be as
minimally processed as possible, even resembling homemade
foods. Using traditional food production methods is perceived as
preserving the food's natural state.
 The final outcome is the product that consumers purchase and
eat. The properties often attributed to natural foods are
healthiness, tastiness, freshness, and eco-friendliness.
It should be noted that most scales used items from more than
Fig. 2. Attributes included in scales measuring consumers' perceived importance of naturalness in foods (FNI).
47
one category. The scales had acceptable to high Cronbach's alpha
values (ranging from 0.66 to 0.90 as shown in Appendix 2). In other
words, the results suggest that the items from the different cate-
gories shown in Fig. 2 are substantially correlated and have good
internal consistency (i.e., the degree to which the items measure a
single unidimensional construct, Cronbach, 1951).
3.3. To what extent is perceived naturalness important to
consumers?
As shown in Fig. 2, different questions were used to measure
consumers’ perceived importance of naturalness in foods (FNI).
However, both the items and the response scales differed, making it
difficult to compare the mean values across studies. Therefore, for
each study, the mean values of FNI were standardized on a scale
ranging from 1 to 10 (a higher value indicated higher importance of
naturalness). Fig. 3 shows the stem-and-leaf plots of the stan-
dardized mean values for the three most often used scales
(B€
ackstro€ m et al., 2004; Roininen et al., 1999; Steptoe et al., 1995).
Stem-and-leaf plots help us to easily identify general patterns of
FNI mean values. For the majority of the samples, values ranging
from 7 to 8 were observed. For example, as Fig. 3 reveals, FNI mean
values for Steptoe et al. (1995) were lower than 7 in only 11 samples
out of 38. Overall, these results indicated that independent of the
country and the year of the study, naturalness was considerably
important for consumers.
48
n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma

Fig. 3. Stem-and-leaf plots for FNI mean values.

3.4. Which factors influence individual differences in perceived
importance of naturalness?
Although in most studies, high mean values of FNI were
observed, there were individual differences in how important
naturalness was perceived. A large number of studies examined the
association between consumers' age, gender and FNI (see Table 1).
The results of these studies suggest that FNI is higher for older and
female consumers compared with their younger and male coun-
terparts. Other sociodemographic factors’ impacts on FNI were less
often examined, and the results were inconclusive (see Table 1).
Regarding psychological factors, several studies demonstrated
the importance of consumers’ values in explaining FNI. Particularly,
idealism (Chrysochou, Askegaard, Grunert, & Kristensen, 2010),
tradition, and universalism (Pohjanheimo, Paasovaara, Luomala, &
Sandell, 2010) were positively related to FNI, whereas hedonism
and power were negatively associated with FNI (Pohjanheimo et al.,
2010).
Health interest was positively correlated with FNI (Mai &
Hoffmann, 2015; Steptoe et al., 1995), while attitudes toward
chemicals, novel technologies, and functional foods were nega-
tively correlated (Bearth, Cousin, & Siegrist, 2014; Chen, 2011, 2013;
Dickson-Spillmann, Siegrist, & Keller, 2011; Huotilainen & Tuorila,
2005; Mai & Hoffmann, 2015; Siegrist et al., 2008). Notably, some
of the studies showed some conceptual overlaps between how FNI
was measured and the predictors. Furthermore, attitudes toward
traditional and organic foods as well as food neophobia and food
involvement were positively related to FNI in six studies.
A recent study by Olbrich et al. (2015, pp. 67e101) involving
over 10,000 German consumers revealed that attitudes toward

Table 1
Consumers’ characteristics influencing FNI.

Studies with significant1 results Studies with non-significant results

Consumers' socio-demographics
Age Steptoe et al. (1995); Roininen et al. (1999); Lindeman and Va €€
ana€nen (2000); Prescott et al. Piggford, Raciti, Harker, and Harker (2008)
(2002); Lockie et al. (2004); Honkanen and Frewer (2009); Kornelis, van Herpen, van der Lans,
and Aramyan (2010); Renner et al. (2012); Endrizzi et al. (2015); Olbrich et al. (2015)
Gender Steptoe et al. (1995); Roininen et al. (1999); Roininen and Tuorila (1999); Steptoe and Wardle Mooney and Walbourn (2001); Honkanen
(1999); Lindeman and V€ € n€
aa €ckstro
anen (2000); Roininen et al. (2001); Ba € m et al. (2004); Lockie and Frewer (2009)
et al. (2004); Piggford et al. (2008); Dickson-Spillmann et al. (2011); Januszewska et al. (2011);
Renner et al. (2012); Chen (2013); Bearth et al. (2014); Endrizzi et al. (2015); Gagic, Jovicic,
Tesanovic, and Kalenjuk (2014)
Education Kornelis et al. (2010) Steptoe and Wardle (1999)
Income Olbrich et al. (2015) Steptoe et al. (1995); Piggford et al. (2008)
Household size Olbrich et al. (2015)
Work hours Piggford et al. (2008)
Residential area2 Ba€ckstro€m et al. (2004)
Consumers' psychological variables
Values Pohjanheimo et al. (2010); Chrysochou et al. (2010)
Personality traits Steptoe et al. (1995) €-Backman, and Tuorila
Huotilainen, Pirttila
(2006); Pula, Parks, and Ross (2014)
Health interest Steptoe et al. (1995); Mai and Hoffmann (2015)
Attitudes toward chemicals Huotilainen and Tuorila (2005); Siegrist et al. (2008); Dickson-Spillmann et al. (2011); Chen
and novel technologies3 (2011, 2013); Bearth et al. (2014)
Attitudes toward Pieniak et al. (2009)
traditional food
Attitudes toward organic Olbrich et al. (2015); Hsu, Chang, and Lin (2016)
food
Food neophobia €ckstro
Ba €m et al. (2004)
Food involvement Eertmans, Victoir, Vansant, and Van den Bergh (2005); Onwezen and Bartels (2013)

Notes. 1Significance of the relationships shown needs to be interpreted with caution as the variability between samples can result in different effect sizes between variables. 2
FN was more important for consumers living in rural areas as compared to those living in urban areas. 3This variable in italics is negatively related to FNI.

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma 49

organic food were related to FNI. Similar results were observed by
Hsu et al. (2016) in Taiwan. These two studies indicated no overlap
between FNI and the items measuring preferences for organic food.
Only a few studies examined the association between person-
ality traits and FNI. Steptoe et al. (1995) reported a positive corre-
lation between FNI and locus of control. Huotilainen et al. (2006)
found that the perceived importance of FN was unrelated to con-
sumers’ willingness to accept food innovations. Pula et al. (2014)
found no significant differences regarding FNI between
prevention-focused and promotion-focused individuals. The
limited findings suggest that personality traits are not strongly
related to FNI.
3.5. Do consumers’ attitudes toward food naturalness influence
their intentions and behavior?
Table 2 shows the results of the studies that examined the
relevance of FNI for consumer intentions or self-reported behavior.
The majority of the studies (19) used behavioral intentions as the
dependent variable, while 12 studies used self-reported behavior.
The results suggest that FNI plays an important role in explaining
consumers’ willingness/intentions to eat organic food. This rela-
tionship was insignificant in only 2 out of 10 studies. However,
some studies showed an overlap between items measuring FNI and
items measuring intentions or behavior related to consumption of
organic foods (B€
ackstro€ m et al., 2004; Urala & L€ €ki, 2007;
ahteenma
Mouta, de Sa
, Menezes, & Melo, 2016; Onwezen & Bartels, 2013).
Moreover, FNI was found to influence the intention to eat foods
that were more environmentally friendly (Tobler et al., 2011), fresh
(Gomez, Schneid, & Delaere, 2015), natural (Oellingrath, Hersleth,
& Svendsen, 2013), localetraditional (Hemmerling et al., 2016;
Huotilainen et al., 2006), and lower in calories (Phan &
Chambers, 2016b). Interestingly, the findings from the cross-
country study by Hemmerling et al. (2016) were inconclusive; FNI
had a significant effect on localetraditional food consumption in
Germany and Italy, but it was insignificant in Poland, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, and France.
Only two studies examined the influence of FNI on consumers'
intentions to eat functional foods, and their findings were incon-
clusive. Kraus (2015) reported a significant effect in Poland,
whereas the results of Urala and L€ ahteenma €ki's (2004) study were
not significant in Finland. La€hteenma €ki et al. (2002) found that FNI
was negatively related to consumers' intentions to buy genetically
modified cheese in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In their
experiment, Lusk et al. (2015) found that FNI increased the prob-
ability of choosing the non-hormone or non-clone milk as opposed
to the hormone or clone variety.
Importantly, various studies conducted in different countries
showed that FNI positively influenced individuals’ reported intake
of healthy (Grubor et al., 2015; Pollard et al., 1998, 2002; Steptoe &
Wardle, 1999; Thong & Solgaard, 2017), organic (Lockie et al., 2002),
and traditional foods (Pieniak et al., 2009, 2013) and reduced their
consumption of unhealthy (Pollard et al., 1998; Steptoe & Wardle,
1999) and convenience foods (Brunner et al., 2010). However,
Roininen and Tuorila (1999) and Zandstra et al. (2001) found that
FNI did not influence healthy or unhealthy eating. One possible
reason for such non-significant results may be their limited sample
sizes (N ¼ 144 and N ¼ 132, respectively). Interestingly, from a
sample of 197 Spanish consumers, Carrillo et al. (2013) found that
perceived naturalness of functional foods increased their
consumption.
4. Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review that has
identified, analyzed, and integrated the literature on consumers’
perceived importance of food naturalness. The studies included in
this systematic review were conducted in different developed
countries from four continents, predominantly from European
countries, involving a total of 85,348 consumers. The results clearly
show that for the majority of consumers in developed countries,
naturalness in food products is important. This finding could be
observed across countries and in the different years when the
studies were conducted. A further insight is that preference for food
naturalness is high in almost all of the reviewed studies.
Our review also shows differences across studies in how the

Table 2
FNI and its relationship to behavioral intentions and reported behavior.

Studies with significant1 results Studies with non-significant results

Behavioral intentions
Willingness/intention to consume
organic food
Willingness/intention to consume
familiar/ecological/fresh/natural/
lower-calorie/localetraditional foods
Willingness to consume functional
foods
Willingness/intention to consume
food produced by novel
technologies
Reported behavior
Healthy food consumption3
Unhealthy food consumption4
Organic food consumption
Traditional food consumption
Convenience food consumption
Functional food consumption
B€
ackstro€m et al. (2004); Chen (2007); Urala and L€ ahteenma €ki (2007); Onwezen and €hteenma
Urala and La €ki (2006);
Bartels (2013); Hasselbach and Roosen (2015); Lyerly and Reeve (2015); Mouta et al. Lee and Yun (2015)
(2016)
Huotilainen et al. (2006); Tobler et al. (2011); Oellingrath et al. (2013); Gomez et al. Hemmerling et al. (2016)
(2015); Hemmerling et al. (2016)2; Phan and Chambers (2016b)
Kraus (2015) Urala and L€ €ki (2004)
ahteenma
L€ €ki et al. (2002); Lusk et al. (2015)
ahteenma
Pollard, Steptoe, and Wardle (1998); Steptoe and Wardle (1999); Pollard, Greenwood, Roininen and Tuorila (1999); Zandstra,
Kirk, and Cade (2002); Grubor, Djokic, Djokic, and Kovac-Znidersic (2015); Thong and De Graaf, and Van Staveren (2001)
Solgaard (2017)
Pollard et al. (1998) Roininen and Tuorila (1999); Zandstra
Steptoe and Wardle (1999) et al. (2001)
Lockie, Lyons, Lawrence, and Mummery (2002)5
Pieniak et al. (2009, 2013)
Brunner, Van der Horst, and Siegrist (2010)
Carrillo, Prado-Gasco
, Fiszman, and Varela (2013)

Notes. 1Significance of the relationships shown needs to be interpreted with caution as the variability between samples can result in different effect sizes between variables.
2
Hemmerling et al. (2016) found significant results in some countries and non-significant results in others. 3 Several food items were included as healthy (e.g., fruits, veg-
etables, fish, etc.) or unhealthy (e.g., chocolate, butter, sausages, etc.). 4Variables in italics are negatively related to FNI. 4This study excluded items related to organic food on its
FNI scale.
50
n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma
perceived importance of food naturalness for consumers has been
measured. Based on a content analysis of the items used, they can
be classified into the following three categories: 1) the way the food
has been grown (food origin), 2) how the food has been produced
and processeddwhat technology and ingredients have been used,
and 3) the properties of the final product. As presented in Appendix
2, 14 different scales have been developed for measuring FNI. Some
of the scales have been used only in a few studies, while three
scales have been used in a larger number of studies (see Fig. 3). As
shown in Appendix 2, the contents of the items used overlap in
these three scales, but there are also differences. For example, the
scale used by Ba €ckstro
€m et al. (2004) emphasizes the production
method, such as organically grown food, which is absent in the
scale proposed by Steptoe et al. (1995). Nevertheless, examining the
items, we would expect substantial correlations among the scales
proposed by Steptoe et al. (1995), Roininen et al. (1999), and
B€ackstro€ m et al. (2004). However, in our literature search, we could
not find a study that examined the correlations among the different
measures proposed. Therefore, it is impossible to decide whether
some of the conflicting findings revealed in the present review can
be explained by the use of different instruments for measuring
people's preference for naturalness. It is important to investigate
how strongly the different instruments are correlated and whether
the importance of naturalness is still a one-dimensional construct if
all aspects that have been proposed in the various measurement
instruments are combined in a single study.
As shown in Fig. 2, the items in the existing naturalness scales
focus on different aspects. Some items are related to the conse-
quences of the consumption of natural products; other items refer
to specific production methods (e.g., organic production). The
measure of Ba €ckstro€m et al. (2004) has a mixture of preferences for
naturalness and for organic foods. Due to this overlap, it is difficult
to estimate how important naturalness is for the preference for
organic foods, for example. Researchers interested in the impact of
perceived naturalness on behavior should make sure that the
measure of naturalness and the explained behavior do not overlap
to the extent that the explanation becomes somewhat trivial.
Many studies have examined the impacts of sociodemographic
variables on FNI. Consistent findings across several studies have
been found only for age and gender; FNI is higher among older and
female consumers compared with their younger and male coun-
terparts. Values such as idealism or attitudes toward synthetic
chemicals are also correlated with FNI. Only a few studies have
examined the impact of personality traits on FNI, with inconclusive
results. There seems to be a lack of studies that have systematically
examined the factors influencing FNI.
Consumer behavior in various domains seems to be influenced
by FNI. Consumers with high FNI values are more willing to eat
traditional, ecological, healthy, and organic foods compared with
consumers with low FNI values. The results further suggest FNI's
correlation with a negative perception of novel food technologies.
The relationship between new food products and FNI is less clear,
however. One study has found a negative relationship between FNI
and consumption of convenience products.
5. Practical implications
The importance of naturalness for consumers has key implica-
tions for the food industry. It may have consequences not only for
the development and marketing of foods, but also for the devel-
opment of innovative food technologies. Food products that are not
perceived as natural may not be accepted by the majority of con-
sumers in most countries. Still, consumers often have conflicting
interests. They want to save cooking time and buy convenience
food; at the same time, they like to eat unprocessed and natural
foods. This issue also poses an opportunity for the food industry.
Production processes, ingredients, packaging, and marketing need
to be combined in a way that consumers perceive the products as
natural foods that have similarities with traditional ones.
Novel food technologies promise to offer completely new pos-
sibilities. One example is 3D-printing technology for food fabrica-
tion (Sun, Zhou, Huang, Fuh, & Hong, 2015). This engineering
approach will enable customized food designs and personalized
nutrition. Cultured meat is another food innovation that is
currently being studied (Post, 2012). It aims to replace livestock
meat production by in vitro culturing of meat. These are just two
avenues of research in which foods are produced in completely new
ways. One challenge for consumer acceptance of these technologies
may be the lack of naturalness. We even predict a low level of
consumer acceptance of these new food innovations if these foods
are perceived as artificial. Companies working on innovative food
technologies should design these in a way that the food products
are perceived as natural by consumers.
From a purely technological point of view, one could question
whether the food industry should invest resources to produce foods
that are perceived by consumers as more natural while having no
other additional benefits. Such a perspective is, however, much too
narrow, in our view. Consumers' perceptions are often more rele-
vant for the success of foods than the perceptions of food engineers
and nutritionists. It is important to realize that consumers’ per-
ceptions of a food product not only influence the willingness to buy
it, but also the sensory experience of that product (Siegrist &
Cousin, 2009) as well other properties related to it. Therefore, the
food industry needs to develop foods that are perceived as natural
and as a result evoke positive thoughts consumers associate with
natural foods. Based on the results of the present reviewdthat
naturalness in foods is important for consumers across different
countries and a substantial time spandthere is no reason to believe
that the importance of naturalness will diminish in the future. Thus,
how natural consumers perceive new foods or innovative food
technologies to be should be taken into account at an early stage of
product or technology development. Neglecting the aspect of
naturalness in the food industry may prove very costly in the end.
The present review shows the importance of being free from pre-
servatives, additives, and artificial ingredients for perceived natu-
ralness of foods. Currently, the food industry is responding to this
trend by the use of the “clean label,” which emphasizes simple
ingredient listing and the absence of chemical additives or un-
necessary ingredients.
6. Future research
The present review has identified several research gaps that
open interesting avenues for future research. There is a lack of
coherence in the conceptualization and operationalization of FNI
measures. A consensus on how to best define and operationalize
consumers’ perceptions of food naturalness and its importance
would facilitate the analysis and comparison of future studies.
Importantly, all existing measures of FNI have been considered and
treated as unidimensional. Further research is needed to develop a
measure of FNI that takes into account all the different aspects of
naturalness as shown in Fig. 2. The development of such a measure
would enable future studies to examine which of the food natu-
ralness attributes are more relevant for consumers, which would be
extremely important for the industry in order to develop their
products.
Almost all of the studies (except Roininen & Tuorila, 1999)
included in this review have relied on cross-sectional surveys,
which have focused on the respondents' stated preferences, in-
tentions, and self-reported consumption. Drawing causal

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma 51

inferences from these study designs is problematic. We believe that
longitudinal studies could provide additional insights on how FNI
translates into actual behavior. In addition, we encourage scholars
to provide all relevant raw data (e.g., mean values and standard
deviations, correlation matrix) so that future studies can conduct a
meta-analysis on the antecedents and consequences of consumers’
preference for food naturalness.
There are two different streams of research about naturalness.
One line of research concentrates on individual differences in the
perceived importance of naturalnessdthe focus of the present re-
view. The other line of research, not included in this review, ex-
amines which factors (e.g., chemical and physical transformations)
influence the perceived naturalness of foods (Rozin, 2005, 2006).
These two research streams have not yet been combined. Thus,
future research could investigate, for example, if people with a
strong preference for naturalness in their foods react differently to
water from which the minerals have been extracted first and then
added again.
Almost all of the studies included in this review have been
conducted in developed countries. It would be relevant and inter-
esting to examine whether a strong preference for natural foods
could also be observed in developing countries. In such countries,
food safety might be more of a concern than naturalness. Further-
more, natural food products might not be perceived as expensive
and luxury items compared with less natural food products. This
would be an interesting research question for future studies.
Even though this review emphasizes how important perceived
naturalness is, future research is needed to analyze the extent to
which consumers' focus on naturalness in foods may also have
some “unwanted” side effects. For example, recent findings from
Lazzarini, Zimmermann, Visschers, and Siegrist (2016) suggest that
the impact of production methods (i.e., organic production) on the
environmental impact of food products is overestimated. Similarly,
evidence from Siegrist and Sütterlin (2017) indicates that con-
sumers’ reliance on the perception of naturalness of products may
also result in biased judgements and decisions.
Finally, on a related issue, consumers are more willing to accept
food additives of natural origin compared with synthetic products.
Replacing some of the synthetic food additives may impact the
price of the product and its shelf life. Research is needed to help
gain a better understanding of such consumer tradeoffs. For
example, it is unclear to what extent consumers are willing to
sacrifice shelf life and how much they are willing to pay for more
naturalness in their food products.
In conclusion, for most consumers in developed countries, it is
very important that food products be natural. They prefer foods
that are grown and produced in a traditional way and in accordance
with nature. Furthermore, the products should be free from syn-
thetic food additives and preservatives. These consumer expecta-
tions pose huge challenges to the food industry.
Funding resource
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Fabien Gandolphe, Sandra Echecopar,
and the three anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments on
previous drafts of this article.
Appendix 1. Summary of studies reviewed

Author/s, year published and country Method, sample size and composition1 Main findings (related to food naturalness importance)

Steptoe et al., 1995 Interviews with experts
UK Mail surveys
N(study1) ¼ 358 (Female 61.4%;
Mage2 ¼ 34.1)
N(study2) ¼ 358 (Female 51.4%;
Mage ¼ 30.5)
Pollard et al., 1998 Mail survey
UK N ¼ 241 (Female 51.8%; Mage ¼ 30.7)
Roininen et al., 1999 Online survey
Finland N ¼ 1005 (Female 53.4%; Mage ¼ 44)
Roininen & Tuorila, 1999 Self-administered survey
Finland N ¼ 144 (Female 76.4%; Mage ¼ 32)
Steptoe & Wardle, 1999 Mail survey
UK N ¼ 676 (Female 50.7%)
€€
Lindeman & Va €nen, 2000
ana Self-administered surveys
Finland N(study1) ¼ 281
(Female 69%, Mage ¼ 19.7)
N(study2) ¼ 125
(Female 86%, Mage ¼ 25.66)
Lindeman & Sirelius, 2001 Self-administered survey
Finland N(study1) ¼ 82 (Female 100%, Mage ¼ 27)
N(study2) ¼ 149 (Female 96.7%,
Mage ¼ 31.5)
Mooney & Walbourn, 2001 Self-administered survey
US N ¼ 113 (Female 50.4; Mage ¼ 19)
- Food naturalness (FN) was the 5th most important factor (out of 9) explaining food
choice (Mv3 ¼ 2.475).
- FN was more important for female participants.
- Age, weight control, locus of control and health, and ethical concern were
positively correlated to FN.
- FN was not influenced by income4.
- FN was the 5th most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choices
(Mv ¼ 2.45).
- FN was more important for non-students.
- FN was positively correlated to healthy food consumption (brown bread, fresh
fruit) and negatively correlated to unhealthy food (e.g., cake and chips).
- FN was the 3rd most important factor (out of 6) explaining consumers' attitudes to
health and hedonic food choices.
- FN was more important for female and older participants.
- FN was more important for female participants.
- FN did not influence the frequency participants consume apples and chocolate bars.
- FN was more important for female participants.
- FN was positively correlated to fibre, fruit and vegetable consumption and
negatively correlated to general fat consumption.
- FN was not influenced by education.
- FN was more important for female and older participants.
- FN was the 7th most important factor (out of 11) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 2.5).
- Food unnaturalness was the least important factor (out of five) for college students
to reject food (Mv ¼ 3.90)
(continued on next page)
52
n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma
(continued )
Author/s, year published and country Method, sample size and composition1
Roininen et al., 2001 Self-administered survey
The Netherlands N ¼ 1305 (similarly distributed across
Finland countries)
UK (Female % ranges from 57 to 61; Mage
ranges from 42 to 49)
Zandstra et al., 2001 Self-administered survey
The Netherlands N ¼ 132 (Female 62.12%, Mage 53)
L€
ahteenma €ki et al., 2002 Experiment and self-administered survey
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden N ¼ 738 (Female 61%, Mage ¼ 40)
Lockie et al., 2002 13 Focus groups and telephone survey
Australia N ¼ 1200 (age
0.18).
Pollard et al., 2002 Mail survey
UK N ¼ 998 (Female 100%, Mage ¼ 50.7)
Prescott et al., 2002 Japan, New Zeland, Self-administered survey
Taiwan and Malaysia N ¼ 165 (Japan)
N ¼ 126 (New Zealand)
N ¼ 263 (Taiwan)
N ¼ 100 (Malaysia)
100% Female in all samples
B€ €m et al., 2004
ackstro Focus groups and online survey
Finland N ¼ 743 (Female 52%; Mage ¼ 43.7)
Lockie et al., 2004 Same as Lockie et al., 2002
Australia
Urala & L€
ahteenma €ki., 2004 Mail survey
Finland N ¼ 1158 (Female 58%, Mage ¼ 44)
Eertmans et al., 2005 Self-administered survey
Belgium N ¼ 324 (Female 85%, Mage 18.6)
Huotilainen & Tuorila, 2005 3 data sets over four years with different
Finland respondents (not longitudinal)
Online survey (N2001 ¼ 734),
Mail surveys (N2002 ¼ 1156), and
(N2004 ¼ 1113)
Female % ranged from 52 to 58; Mage
ranged from 44 to 49.
Huotilainen et al., 2006 Mail survey
Finland N ¼ 1156 (Female 56%, Mage 45)
Onyango et al., 2006 Face-to-face interviews
South Korea N ¼ 1054
Urala & L€
ahteenma €ki, 2006 Experiment and self-administered survey - FN did not influence consumers' choices of organic snack bars.
Finland N(study1) ¼ 41 (Female 80%, Mage 37)
N(study2) ¼ 60 (Female 70%, Mage 35)

mbaro, 2007
Ares & Ga Self-administered survey
Uruguay N ¼ 200 (Female 51.5%; Mage ¼ 37.7)
Chen, 2007 Self-administered survey
Taiwan N ¼ 470
Urala & L€ €ki, 2007
ahteenma Mail surveys
Finland N (Study 1) ¼ ¼ 1156 (Female 56%,
Mage ¼ 45)
N (Study 2) ¼ ¼ 1113 (Female 58%,
Mage ¼ 49)
Piggford et al., 2008 Self-administered survey
Australia N ¼ 98 (Female 81.8%)
Siegrist et al., 2008 Mail survey
Switzerland N ¼ 357 (Female 49%; Mage ¼ 52)
Fotopoulos, Krystallis, Vassallo, & Auto-administered survey
Pagiaslis, 2009 N ¼ 997 (Female 82.7%; Mage ¼ 42.9)
Greece
Honkanen & Frewer, 2009 Face-to-face Survey
Russia N ¼ 1081(Female 50%)
Main findings (related to food naturalness importance)
- There was no difference in terms of gender.
- FN was ranked the third most important factor in UK (Mv ¼ 4.5) and the
Netherlands (Mv ¼ 4), and the fourth one in Finland (Mv ¼ 4.5) (out of 6 factors)
related to choosing foods based on health and taste attitudes.
- FN was more important for female participants in all countries.
- FN did not influence consumption of low-fats and high-fat food types.
- FN negatively influenced intentions to buy GM cheese.
- FN was the third most important factor (out of 13) explaining food choice
(Mv ¼ 3.86).
- FN was more important for organic consumers (Mv ¼ 4.08) as compared to non-
organic consumers (Mv ¼ 3.68).
- FN was the factor with the highest positive correlation to organic food
consumption.
- FN and health were the strongest motivations specifically affecting fruit and
vegetable intake (Mv ¼ 3.33 for both of them)
- FN was the most important factor (out of 9) in Taiwan (Mv ¼ 5.82), and the second
most important one in Japan (Mv ¼ 5.6) and Malaysia (Mv ¼ 6.11), and the 6th in
New Zeland (Mv ¼ 5.3).
- FN was more important for older consumers.
- FN was the second most important factor (out of 5) explaining attitudes towards
new foods (Mv ¼ 4.78).
- FN was more important for females and participants living in rural areas.
- FN positively influenced willingness to try organic foods and modified dairy
products.
- FN was positively correlated to food neophobia.
- FN was more important among consumers who took responsibility for shopping
and were prepared to pay a premium for foods they considered environmentally
friendly.
- FN was more important among women and older consumers.
- FN did not affect respondents' willingness to use functional foods.
- FN was the 5th most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 3.48)
- FN was positively correlated to food involvement.
- FN was the most important factor (out of 5) explaining attitudes towards new
foods in 2001 (Mv ¼ 5) and 2002 (Mv ¼ 5.2); and the second most important in
2004 (Mv ¼ 4.9).
- FN and adherence to new food technology were negatively correlated.
- FN positively influenced willingness to use familiar foods: (rye bread, low-fat
cheese, and smoked pork).
- FN was not influenced by consumers' level of innovativeness.
- FN was the most important factor (out of six) explaining eating decisions.
(Mv ¼ 7.84)
- FN was the 4th most important factor (out of 7) explaining food choice. (Mv ¼ 5.4).
- FN was the most important factor (out of 12) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 5.85).
- FN was the second most important factor (out of 12) influencing attitude to organic
foods.
- FN positively affected consumers' willingness to use organic bread.
- FN was more important for female participants.
- FN was not affected by age, income or working hours.
- FN increased risk perceptions associated with nanotechnology
- FN was the most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 5.98)
- FN and Health were positively and strongly correlated.
- FN was the third most important factor (out of 12) explaining food choice
(Mv ¼ 5.6)
- FN was more important for older consumers.
- No differences were found in terms of gender.

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma 53

(continued )

Author/s, year published and country Method, sample size and composition1 Main findings (related to food naturalness importance)

Honkanen & Olsen, 2009 Self-administered survey - FN along with healthiness were the two most important motives (out of 8)
Spain N ¼ 450 (Female 93%, Mage ¼ 40.9) explaining food choice (Mv of both ¼ 6.5).
Pieniak et al., 2009 Online survey - FN was positively correlated to attitude toward traditional food and traditional
Belgium, N ¼ 4828 (similarly distributed across food consumption.
France, Italy, Norway, Poland and Spain countries)
(Female % ranges from 47.3 to 51.9; Mage
ranges from 40.6 to 43.7)
Brunner et al., 2010 Switzerland Mail survey - FN negatively influenced consumption of convenience food products
N ¼ 918 (Female 70.3%; Mage ¼ 51.2)
Chrysochou et al., 2010 Mail survey - FN was ranked the 4th most important factor (out of 6) in choosing foods based on
Denmark N ¼ 316 (Female 50%) health and taste attitudes (Mv ¼ 4.79).
- FN was more important among idealist consumers as compared to pragmatic
consumers.
Kornelis et al., 2010 Online survey - FN was the sixth most important factor (out of 11) explaining food choice
Netherlands N ¼ 1844 (Mage ranges from 39.2 to 60.1) (Mv ¼ 0.09)
- FN was higher among older, more educated consumers, and those who belong to
an environmental organization.
Pohjanheimo et al., 2010 Experiment and self-administered survey - FN was the 5th most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 4.88).
Finland N ¼ 224 (Female % ranges from 78.8 to - FN was more important among traditional consumers as compared to hedonistic
90.7; Mage ranges from 31.7 to 41.4) consumers.
- FN was negatively correlated to consumers' hedonism and power and positively to
universalism and age.
Chen, 2011 Online survey - FN had a negative impact on consumers' attitudes toward GM foods.
Taiwan N ¼ 522 (Female 53.26%)
Dickson-Spillmann et al., 2011 Online survey - FN was positively influenced by negative attitudes toward chemicals as well as risk
Switzerland. N ¼ 1215 (Female 51%, Mage 53.2) perceptions of additives and contaminants
- FN was more important for female participants.
Januszewska et al., 2011 Online Surveys - FN was ranked the 2nd most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choice in
Belgium Belgium N ¼ 458 Romania (Mv ¼ 5.68) and Hungary (Mv ¼ 5.53). In Belgium FN ranked 3rd
Hungary, (Female 60%, Mage 28) (Mv ¼ 5.69) and the 5th in Philippines (Mv ¼ 5.29).
Romania, Hungary N ¼ 401 (Female 61.5%, Mage - FN was more important for females in all countries.
Philippines 40)
Philippines N ¼ 332 (Female 71.4%,
Mage ¼ 21)
Self-administered survey
Romania N ¼ 229(Female 65.9%,
Mage ¼ 40)
Tobler et al., 2011 Mail survey - FN increased consumers' willingness to consume food in an environmentally
Switzerland N ¼ 6189 (Female 52.4%; Mage ¼ 54.4) friendly manner (e.g., seasonal fruits and vegetables)
Oellingrath et al., 2013 Self-administered survey - FN was the 4th most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 4.8).
Norway N ¼ 1095 parents of children aged 12e13 - FN as rated by parents was positively associated with the “varied Norwegian”
years eating pattern and negatively associated with the “dieting” pattern of their
children.
Renner et al., 2012 In-depth interviews and - FN was the 8th most important factor (out of 15) explaining motives for eating
Germany online surveys (Mv ¼ 3.95).
N(Study 1) ¼ 1250 (Female 75%; - FN was more important for female and older (
30) participants.
Mage ¼ 34)
N(Study 2) ¼ 1040 (Female 72%;
Mage ¼ 29)
Carrillo et al., 2013 Self-administered survey (participants - FN (Mv ¼ 5.2) was more important than health as a factor affecting food choice
Spain needed to consume functional foods) among participants who consume functional foods.
N ¼ 197 (Female 75%, Mage ¼ 36.5) - FN positively influenced consumers' functional food spending behavior.
Chen, 2013 Self-administered survey - FN was the second most important factor (out of 6) in choosing foods based on
Taiwan N ¼ 533 (Female 55.16%) health and taste attitudes (Mv ¼ 4.87)
- FN was more important for females and consumers with high modern tainted
foods worries.
Onwezen & Bartels, 2013 Online surveys - FN was the most important factor (out of 6) explaining consumers' attitudes
UK, US and Germany (Study 1) N (Study 1) ¼ 3011 (similarly distributed towards new foods (Mv ¼ 3.75).
Netherlands, Poland and Spain (Study 2) across countries) (Female 49.4%, - FN positively influenced willingness to buy organic food.
Mage ¼ 44.67) - FN was positively correlated to food involvement.
N (Study 2) ¼ 1496 (similarly distributed
across countries) (Female 51.6%,
Mage ¼ 46.2)
Pieniak et al., 2013 Same as Pieniak et al., 2009 - FN is directly associated with traditional food consumption among individuals
with obesity.
Bearth et al., 2014 Mail surveys - FN was considered very important (Mv ¼ 5).
Switzerland N (Study 1) ¼ 506 - FN increases risk perception, and decreases benefit perception and acceptance of
(Female 66%, Mage 57) food additives.
N (Study 2) ¼ 487 - FN was more important for female participants.
(Female 55%, Mage 56)
Bechtold & Abdulai, 2014 Mail survey - FN was more important among functional food skeptic consumers as compared to
Germany N ¼ 1309 (Female 55%) functional food neutral consumers.
Endrizzi et al., 2015 Sef-administered survey and experiment - FN was the second least important factor (out of 6) in choosing foods based on
Italy N ¼ 346 (Female 44%, Mage23) health and taste attitudes (Mv ¼ 5.36).
(continued on next page)
54
n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma

(continued )

Author/s, year published and country Method, sample size and composition1 Main findings (related to food naturalness importance)

- FN was more important among female and older (>20 years) consumers.
Gagic et al., 2014 Self-administered survey - FN was the 4th (out of 11) most important factor explaining food choice
Serbia N ¼ 450 (Female 61.56%) (Mv ¼ 3.74).
- FN was more important for females.
Lusk et al., 2015 Experiment and self-administered survey - FN increased the probability of choosing the non-hormone or non-clone milk as
USA N ¼ 47 (Female 51.06%, Mage 61.6) opposed to the hormone or clone one.
Pula et al., 2014 Online survey - FN is not influenced by consumers' personality (Prevention-focused individuals vs.
US N ¼ 408 (Female 68.6%; Mage ¼ 35.7) promotion-focused).
Aschemann-Witzel & Grunert, 2015 Online surveys - FN was considered similarly important in both countries (Mv were 4.29 and 4.17
Denmark, US N ¼ 376 (US) for Denmark and US respectively).
(Female 51.1%, Mage 42.0) - FN did not influence resveratrol food supplement interest.
N ¼ 454 (Denmark)
(Female 61.0%, Mage 45.7)
Grubor et al., 2015 Focus groups and face-to-face survey - FN was positively correlated to self-reported frequency of consumption of fruit and
Serbia N ¼ 300 (Female 59.7%, Mage 35.96) vegetables.
Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015 Face to face survey - FN was the most important factor (out of 5) explaining food choice (Mv ¼ 4.47)
Germany N ¼ 720 (Female 63.2%, Mage 50.7) - FN was more important for consumers preferring organic over local food as
compared to those preferring local over organic food.
Kraus, 2015 Face-to-face survey - FN was the 5th most important factor (out of 13) explaining the decision to buy
Poland N ¼ 200 (Female 68.5%) and consume functional food.
Lee & Yun, 2015 Online survey - FN was the third most important factor (out of 5) explaining organic food choice
US N ¼ 725 (Female 55%, Mage 43) (Mv ¼ 5.19).
- FN did not influence consumers' utilitarian attitudes and hedonic attitudes toward the
purchase of organic food.
Lyerly & Reeve, 2015 Online surveys - FN was positively and strongly correlated to organic food preference.
US N1 ¼ 151 (Female 57.3%)
N2 ¼ 91 (Female 72.4%, Mage 23.09)
N3 ¼ 235 (Female 62%%, Mage 36.39)
N4 ¼ 162 (Female 63.6%, Mage 41.18)
Mai & Hoffmann, 2015 Self-administered survey - FN was positively influenced by health consciousness.
Germany N ¼ 560 (Mage ¼ 44.8)
Markovina et al., 2015 Online survey - FN importance was different across countries.
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, N ¼ 9381 (similarly distributed across - FN was the first factor (out of 9) in Poland (Mv ¼ 3.89), the second in Greece
Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the countries) (Mv ¼ 4), the 3rd in Germany (Mv ¼ 3.74), Spain (Mv ¼ 3.63) and Portugal
UK and Norway Female 49.4% (Mv ¼ 3.80), the 4th in the UK (Mv ¼ 3.27) and Ireland (Mv ¼ 3.40), and the 5th in
Norway (Mv ¼ 3.2) and the Netherlands (Mv ¼ 3.15) explaining food choice.
Meyer-Ho €fer et al., 2015 Online survey - FN was one of the most important attributes (MGER ¼ 5.46; MUK ¼ 5.58; MSP ¼ 5.99;
Czech Republic, Germany, Spain and the N ¼ 1180 (similarly distributed across MCZ ¼ 6.04) participants expect from organic food.
UK countries) - Differences were found across countries.
(Female 64%; Mage ¼ 42)
Olbrich et al., 2015 Online survey - FN has a positive effect on attitude towards organic food.
Germany N ¼ 10028 - FN was positively correlated to age, number of children in the family under 14
years, family income, and household size (total number of members in the family).
_
Dikmen, Inan-Ero lu, Go
g €ktaş, Barut-Uyar, Self-administered survey - FN was the third most important factor (out of 9) affecting food choices
& Karabulut, 2016 N ¼ 963 (Female 53.48%, Mage 25.4) (Mv ¼ 2.86).
Turkey
Hemmerling et al., 2016 Experiment and self-administered survey Results of the experiment:
Italy, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, N ¼ 1796 (similarly distributed across - Participants (organic consumers) in all countries except France preferred the
Switzerland and France countries) flavoured (less natural) yoghurt over the unflavoured (more natural) yoghurt. In
(Female 66.8%, Mage ¼ 45.4) France there was no difference between them.
Results of the survey:
- The importance given to FN by organic consumers in the countries surveyed was:
Italy (Mv ¼ 0.25), France (Mv ¼ 0.18), Poland (Mv ¼ 0.16), Switzerland (Mv ¼ 0.03),
Germany (Mv ¼ 0.18) and the Netherlands (Mv ¼ 0.47).
Results of the experiment and the survey
- Only in Germany and Italy FN was positively and weakly correlated to sensory
preference for the natural yoghurt.
In the remaining countries the correlation was not significant signaling an attitude-
liking gap.
Hsu et al., 2016 Taiwan Face-to-face interviews and online - FN had a positive effect on attitudes towards organic food.
survey - The influence of FN on intention to buy organic food was totally mediated by
N ¼ 252 (Female 61.9%) attitudes towards organic food.
Kim, 2016 Face-to-face survey - FN was the 7th most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choices among frail
South Korea N ¼ 87 (Female 69%, Mage 78.6) older adults (Mv ¼ 2.17).
Mouta et al., 2016 Experiment and self-administered survey - FN negatively influenced students' acceptance of soda, and positively influenced
Brazil N ¼ 130 acceptance of ready-to-eat fruit salad.
Phan & Chambers, 2016a Online survey - Natural concerns were a motivation for all eating occasions except mid-morning
US N ¼ 198 (Female 82%) snacking.
Phan & Chambers, 2016b Same as Phan & Chambers, 2016a - Natural concerns were among the most important reasons to choose lower calorie
US foods.
Vainio, Niva, Jallinoja, & Latvala, 2016 Online survey - Food natural concerns were more important for those who had an established diet
Finland N ¼ 1048 (58% Female) including beans and soy products, as compared to those who consumed only beef.
Thøgersen, 2017 Online survey - The importance of natural concerns was different across countries.
Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Germany, N ¼ 3543 (similarly distributed across
France, NL, the UK, Denmark & Finland. countries)

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma 55

(continued )

Author/s, year published and country Method, sample size and composition1 Main findings (related to food naturalness importance)

- Order of importance and Mv were: IT(Mv ¼ 5.39), HU(Mv ¼ 5.36), PL(Mv ¼ 5.11),
ES(Mv ¼ 5.06), FR (Mv ¼ 4.99),FI(Mv ¼ 4.67), DE(Mv ¼ 4.66), UK(Mv ¼ 4.54),
DK(Mv ¼ 4.51), and NL(Mv ¼ 4.24).
Thong & Solgaard, 2017 Online survey - FN was the second most important factor (out of 9) explaining food choice
France N ¼ 996 (Female 50.9%; Mage ¼ 42) (Mv ¼ 5.84).
- FN is the most important factor predicting fish consumption frequency.

Notes. (1) Mean age and/or gender only shown when percentages have been provided in the original articles, (2) Mage ¼ Mean age, (3) Mv ¼ Mean value, shown as reported in
original articles, not standardized, (4) Non-significant results are shown in italics.

Appendix 2. Definition and measurement of FNI

Author/s, year published Food naturalness importance definition and/or measurement Cronbach
alpha

Steptoe et al., 1995 Definition “Natural content”: Use of additives and natural ingredients 0.84e0.86
Measurement: “It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day …
… contains no additives”
… contains natural ingredients”
… contains no artificial ingredients”
Roininen et al., 1999 Definition “Natural product interest”: Individuals' interest in eating foods that do not contain additives and are unprocessed 0.76
Measurement:
“I try to eat foods that do not contain additives”
“I do not worry about additives in my daily diet (R)1”
“I do not eat processed foods, because I do not know what they contain”
“I eat mostly organically grown fruit and vegetables”
“In my opinion, artificially flavored foods are not harmful for my health (R)”
“In my opinion, organically grown foods are no better for my health than those grown conventionally (R)”
Mooney & Walbourn, Measurement: 0.89
2001 “I reject this particular food because …
… it contains artificial ingredients
… it is processed and contains unnatural ingredients”
Lockie et al., 2002 Measurement: “It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day … 0.86
… contains no additives”
… contains natural ingredients”
… contains no artificial ingredients”
… is certified free of chemical and hormone residues”
… is as unprocessed as possible”
… is prepared in a way that preserves its natural goodness”
B€
ackstro€m et al., 2004 Definition: “Adherence to natural food”: Refers to organically grown products signaling the importance of nature 0.81
Measurement:
“I value things being in accordance with nature”
“I trust in organically grown food”
“In my opinion, organically grown products are no better than conventionally grown (R)”
“I feel good when I eat clean and natural food”
“I would like to eat only food with no additives”
Onyango et al., 2006 Definition: The foods containing neither preservatives nor artificial colorings. It also includes locally and organically grown 0.8
foods.
Measurement:
“It doesn't contain artificial colors”
“It doesn't contain artificial flavors”
“It's produced organically”
“It's grown in South Korea”
Siegrist et al., 2008 Measurement (the original term was “preference for natural foods”): 0.81
“I appreciate naturalness in all things”
“I have confidence in organic foods”
“In my view, biological foods are not better than conventional foods” ()
“I feel good, if I eat natural foods”
“I would prefer to eat solely foods without additives”
“Whenever possible I purchase or consume biological foods”
Honkanen & Olsen, 2009 Measurement: 0.88
“It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day …
… keeps me healthy
… is nourishing
… is produced without additives
… is processed as little as possible
… is as natural as possible”
Brunner et al., 2010 Measurement: 0.69
“I cherish naturalness in all things”
“I don't believe that organic foods are better than conventional foods”
“I feel better when I eat organic foods”
“I would prefer to eat only additive-free foods”
“I purchase or consume organic foods whenever possible”
(continued on next page)
56
n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma

(continued )

Author/s, year published Food naturalness importance definition and/or measurement Cronbach
alpha

Tobler et al., 2011 Measurement (“importance of naturalness” was the term originally used by authors): 0.87
“The more natural a product is, the better its nutrients and vitamins are”
“Natural foods taste better than other foods”
“Natural foods are better for my health”
“I avoid foods that contain artificial preservatives”
“l well when I eat natural foods”
“When I purchase foods, I make sure that these are natural”
Renner et al., 2012 Definition: “Natural concerns”: assesses the preference for natural foods from fair trade or organic farming. 0.90
Measurement:
“I eat what I eat because …
… it is natural (e.g. not genetically modified)
… it contains no harmful substances (e.g. pesticides, pollutants, antibiotics)
… it is organic”
Pula et al., 2014 Measurement: 0.90
“It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day …
… contains no additives
… contains natural ingredients
… has undergone minimal processing
… is free of chemical preservatives
… is free of residues from chemical sprays and pesticides”
Olbrich et al., 2015 Measurement: 0.79
“I reject products with preservatives”
“When shopping, I am careful to choose foods without any additives”
“I find out what foods are environmentally stressed and do not buy them”
“I reject products with flavour enhancers (e.g., glutamate)”
Hemmerling et al., 2016 Measurement: 0.66
“I avoid all types of additional ingredients if possible”
“For me, it is important to buy traditional products from my region”
“It is important to me that the food products I buy are fresh”
“I prefer food that tastes artisan/hand-crafted (e.g., food that is produced by small companies)”
“I prefer fresh products to canned or frozen ones”
“When eating I am very health-conscious”

Note. (1) Reversed-scored item.

References Validation of a Turkish version of the food choice questionnaire. Food Quality
and Preference, 52, 81e86.
Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2005). Food-related
Ares, G., & G
ambaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying
personality traits, food choice motives and food Intake: Mediator and moder-
food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods.
ator relationships. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 714e726.
Appetite, 49(1), 148e158.
Endrizzi, I., Torri, L., Corollaro, M. L., Dematte , M. L., Aprea, E., Charles, M., et al.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). Resveratrol food supplements: A
(2015). A conjoint study on apple acceptability: Sensory characteristics and
survey on the role of individual consumer characteristics in predicting the at-
nutritional information. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 39e48.
titudes and adoption intentions of US american and Danish respondents. BMC
Euromonitor International. (2016). Global consumer trends tracking survey. http://
Public Health, 15, 1e10.
€ € m, A., Pirttil€ blog.euromonitor.com/2016/10/consumers-reading-labels-carefully-ever-
Backstro a-Backman, A. M., & Tuorila, H. (2004). Willingness to try new
seeking-natural-ingredients.html Accessed 12/10/16.
foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales.
Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., & Cox, D. N. (2010). Consumers' ratings of the natural
Appetite, 43, 75e83.
and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite, 54, 557e563.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M. E., & Siegrist, M. (2014). The Consumer's perception of arti-
Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vassallo, M., & Pagiaslis, A. (2009). Food choice ques-
ficial food Additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions.
tionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced
Food Quality and Preference, 38, 14e23.
general food motivation model. Appetite, 52, 199e208.
Bechtold, K. B., & Abdulai, A. (2014). Combining attitudinal statements with choice
Gagic, S., Jovicic, A., Tesanovic, D., & Kalenjuk, B. (2014). Motives for food choice
experiments to analyze preference heterogeneity for functional dairy products.
among Serbian consumers. Economics of Agriculture, 61(1), 41e51.
Food Policy, 47, 97e106.
Gomez, P., Schneid, N., & Delaere, F. (2015). How often should I eat It? Product
Brunner, T. A., Van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Convenience food products.
correlates and accuracy of estimation of appropriate food consumption fre-
Drivers for consumption. Appetite, 55, 498e506.

, V., Fiszman, S., & Varela, P. (2013). Why buying functional quency. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 1e7.
Carrillo, E., Prado-Gasco
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review
Foods? Understanding spending behaviour through structural equation
types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal,
modelling. Food Research International, 50, 361e368.
26, 91e108.
Chen, M. F. (2007). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to
Grubor, A., Djokic, N., Djokic, I., & Kovac-Znidersic, R. (2015). Application of health
organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits.
and Taste attitude scales in Serbia. British Food Journal, 117, 840e860.
Food Quality and Preference, 18, 1008e1021.
Hasselbach, J. L., & Roosen, J. (2015). Motivations behind preferences for local or
Chen, M. F. (2011). The gender gap in food choice motives as determinants of
organic food. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 27, 295e306.
consumers' attitudes toward GM foods in Taiwan. British Food Journal, 113,
Hemmerling, S., Canavari, M., & Spiller, A. (2016). Preference for naturalness of
697e709.
european organic Consumers: First evidence of an attitude-liking-gap. British
Chen, M. F. (2013). Consumers' health and taste attitude in Taiwan: The impacts of
Food Journal, 118, 2287e2307.
modern tainted food worries and gender difference. British Food Journal, 115,
Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. (2009). Russian consumers' motives for food choice.
526e540.
Appetite, 52, 363e371.
Chrysochou, P., Askegaard, S., Grunert, K. G., & Kristensen, D. B. (2010). Social dis-
Honkanen, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Environmental and animal welfare issues in
courses of healthy eating. A market segmentation approach. Appetite, 55,
food choice: The case of farmed fish. British Food Journal, 111(3), 293e309.
288e297.
Hsu, S. Y., Chang, C. C., & Lin, T. T. (2016). An analysis of purchase intentions toward
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of Tests. Psy-
organic food on health consciousness and food safety with/under structural
chometrika, 16(September), 297e334.
equation modeling. British Food Journal, 118, 200e216.
Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). Attitudes toward chemicals
Huotilainen, A., Pirttil€ a-Backman, A. M., & Tuorila, H. (2006). How innovativeness
are associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference,
relates to social representation of new foods and to the willingness to try and
22(1), 149e156.
_ lu, E., Go €ktaş, Z., Barut-Uyar, B., & Karabulut, E. (2016). use such foods. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 353e361.
Dikmen, D., Inan-Ero g
Huotilainen, A., & Tuorila, H. (2005). Social representation of new foods has a stable

n et al. / Trends in Food Science & Technology 67 (2017) 44e57
S. Roma
structure based on suspicion and Trust. Food Quality and Preference, 16,
565e572.
Iacobucci, D., & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing Alpha: Measuring reliability with
confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 478e487.
Januszewska, R., Pieniak, Z., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Food choice questionnaire
revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite, 57, 94e98.
Kampffmeyer Food Innovation Study (2012). http://goodmillsinnovation.com/sites/
kfi.kampffmeyer.faktor3server.de/files/attachments/1_pi_kfi_cleanlabelstudy_
english_final.pdf/Accessed 15.10.16.
Kim, C. O. (2016). Food choice patterns among frail older adults: The associations
between social network, food choice values, and diet quality. Appetite, 96,
116e121.
Kornelis, M., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I., & Aramyan, L. (2010). Using non-food
information to identify food-choice segment membership. Food Quality and
Preference, 21, 512e520.
Kraus, A. (2015). Factors influencing the decisions to buy and consume functional
food. British Food Journal, 117, 1622e1636.
€hteenma
La €ki, L., Grunert, K., Ueland, Ø., Åstro € m, A., Arvola, A., & Bech-Larsen, T.
(2002). Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product
alternative. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 523e533.
Lazzarini, G. A., Zimmermann, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Does
environmental friendliness equal healthiness? Swiss consumers' perception of
protein products. Appetite, 105, 663e673.
Lee, H. J., & Yun, Z. S. (2015). Consumers' perceptions of organic food attributes and
cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions
toward organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 259e267.
Lindeman, M., & Sirelius, M. (2001). Food Choice Ideologies: The Modern Mani-
festations of Normative and Humanist Views of the World. Appetite, 37,
175e184.
Lindeman, M., & V€ € n€
aa anen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives.
Appetite, 34, 55e59.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Grice, J. (2004). Choosing organics: A path
analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among australian
consumers. Appetite, 43, 135e146.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Mummery, K. (2002). Eating “Green”: Moti-
vations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 42,
23e40.
Lusk, J. L., Crespi, J. M., Cherry, J. B. C., McFadden, B. R., Martin, L. E., & Bruce, A. S.
(2015). An fMRI investigation of consumer choice regarding controversial food
technologies. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 209e220.
Lyerly, J. E., & Reeve, C. L. (2015). Development and validation of a measure of food
choice values. Appetite, 89, 47e55.
Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2015). How to Combat the Unhealthy ¼ Tasty Intuition: The
Influencing Role of Health Consciousness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
34, 63e83.
Markovina, J., Stewart-Knox, B. J., Rankin, A., Gibney, M., de Almeida, M. D. V.,
Fischer, A., et al. (2015). Food4Me Study: Validity and reliability of food choice
questionnaire in 9 european countries. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 26e32.
Meyer-Ho €fer, M., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2015). Is there an expectation Gap? Con-
sumers' expectations towards organic. British Food Journal, 117, 1527e1546.
Milosevi
 
c, J., Ze zelj, I., Gorton, M., & Barjolle, D. (2012). Understanding the motives
for food choice in western balkan countries. Appetite, 58(1), 205e214.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA
Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pmed1000097.
Mooney, K. M., & Walbourn, L. (2001). When college students reject Food: Not just a
matter of Taste. Appetite, 36, 41e50.
Mouta, J. S., de S
a, N. C., Menezes, E., & Melo, L. (2016). Effect of institutional sensory
test location and consumer attitudes on acceptance of foods and beverages
having different levels of processing. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 262e267.
Nielsen Global Health, & Wellness Survey. (2015). We are what we eat. http://www.
nielsen.com/us/ Accessed 15.12.16.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oellingrath, I. M., Hersleth, M., & Svendsen, M. V. (2013). Association between
parental motives for food choice and eating patterns of 12-to 13-year-old
Norwegian children. Public Health Nutrition, 16, 2023e2031.
Olbrich, R., Hundt, M., & Grewe, G. (2015). Willingness to pay in food retailingdan
empirical study of consumer behaviour in the context of the proliferation of organic
products. xxviii.
Onwezen, M. C., & Bartels, J. (2013). Development and cross-cultural validation of a
shortened social representations scale of new foods. Food Quality and Preference,
28, 226e234.
Onyango, B., Govindasamy, R., Hallman, K., Jang, H., & Puduri, V. S. (2006). Consumer
acceptance of genetically modified foods in South Korea: Factor and cluster
analysis. Journal of Agribusiness, 24, 61e78.
Phan, U. T., & Chambers, E. (2016a). Application of an eating motivation survey to
study eating occasions. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31, 114e123.
Phan, U. T., & Chambers, E. (2016b). Motivations for choosing various food groups
based on individual foods. Appetite, 105, 204e211.
Pieniak, Z., Perez-Cueto, F., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Nutritional status, self-
identification as a traditional food consumer and motives for food choice in
six european countries. British Food Journal, 115, 1297e1312.
57
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Guerrero, L., & Hersleth, M. (2009). As-
sociation between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in
six european countries. Appetite, 53, 101e108.
Piggford, T., Raciti, R., Harker, D., & Harker, M. (2008). Young adults' food Motives:
An australian social marketing perspective. Young Consumers, 9, 17e28.
Pohjanheimo, T., Paasovaara, R., Luomala, H., & Sandell, M. (2010). Food choice
motives and bread liking of consumers embracing hedonistic and traditional
values. Appetite, 54, 170e180.
Pollard, J., Greenwood, D., Kirk, S., & Cade, J. (2002). Motivations for fruit and
vegetable consumption in the UK Women's Cohort Study. Public Health Nutri-
tion, 5, 479e486.
Pollard, T. M., Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (1998). Motives underlying healthy eating:
Using the food choice questionnaire to explain variation in dietary intake’.
Journal of Biosocial Science, 30.
Post, M. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat
Science, 92, 297e301.
Prescott, J., Young, O., O'Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., & Stevens, R. (2002). Motives for food
choice: A comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New
Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 489e495.
Pula, K., Parks, C. D., & Ross, C. F. (2014). Regulatory focus and food choice motives.
Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience, and familiarity.
Appetite, 78, 15e22.
Renner, B., Sproesser, G., Strohbach, S., & Schupp, H. T. (2012). Why we eat what we
eat. The eating motivation survey (TEMS). Appetite, 59, 117e128.
Roininen, K., L€ ahteenma €ki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Quantification of consumer at-
titudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite, 33, 71e88.
Roininen, K., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Health and Taste attitudes in the prediction of use
frequency and choice between less healthy and more healthy snacks. Food
Quality and Preference, 10, 357e365.
Roininen, K., Tuorila, H., Zandstra, E. H., De Graaf, C., Vehkalahti, K., Stubenitsky, K.,
et al. (2001). Differences in health and Taste attitudes and reported behaviour
among Finnish, Dutch and british consumers: A cross-national validation of the
health and Taste attitude scales (HTAS). Appetite, 37, 33e45.
Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural” process more important than content.
Psychological Science, 16, 652e658.
Rozin, P. (2006). Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates
content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgment
and Decision Making Journal, 1, 91e97.
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argele s, C. (2012). European and american per-
spectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59, 448e455.
Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., et al. (2004).
Preference for Natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the
contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147e154.
Siegrist, M., & Cousin, M.-E. (2009). Expectations influence sensory experience in a
wine tasting. Appetite, 52, 762e765.
Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. (2008). Perceived risks and
perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food
packaging. Appetite, 51, 283e290.
Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2017). Importance of perceived naturalness for accep-
tance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite, 113, 320e326.
Siipi, H. (2013). Is natural food healthy? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 26(4), 797e812.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a Measure of the
Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: The Food Choice Questionnaire.
Appetite, 25, 267e284.
Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (1999). Motivational factors as mediators of socioeconomic
variations in dietary intake patterns'. Psychology & Health, 14, 391e402.
Sun, J., Zhou, W., Huang, D., Fuh, J. Y. H., & Hong, G. S. (2015). An overview of 3D
printing technologies for food fabrication. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 8(8).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11947-015-1528-6.
Thøgersen, J. (2017). Sustainable food consumption in the nexus between national
context and private lifestyle: A multi-level study. Food Quality and Preference,
55, 16e25.
Thong, N. T., & Solgaard, H. S. (2017). Consumer's food motives and seafood con-
sumption. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 181e188.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers' will-
ingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57, 674e682.
Urala, N., & L€ahteenm€ aki, L. (2004). Attitudes behind consumers' willingness to use
functional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 793e803.
Urala, N., & La €hteenm€ aki, L. (2006). Hedonic ratings and perceived healthiness in
experimental functional food choices. Appetite, 47, 302e314.
Urala, N., & La €hteenma €ki, L. (2007). Consumers' changing attitudes towards func-
tional foods'. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 1e12.
Vainio, A., Niva, M., Jallinoja, P., & Latvala, T. (2016). From beef to beans: Eating
motives and the replacement of animal proteins with plant proteins among
Finnish consumers. Appetite, 106, 92e100.
Weaver, C. M., Dwyer, J., Fulgoni, V. L., King, J. C., Leveille, G. A., MacDonald, R. S.,
et al. (2014). Processed foods: Contributions to nutrition. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 99, 1525e1542.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
Zandstra, E. H. C., De Graaf, C., & Van Staveren, W. A. (2001). Influence of health and
Taste attitudes on consumption of low- and high-fat foods. Food Quality and
Preference, 12, 75e82.