uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Consumers' health-related perceptions of bread - Implications for labeling and dietary counceling
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics.
(English)In: Appetite, ISSN 0195-6663, E-ISSN 1095-8304Article in journal (Refereed) Submitted
Abstract [en]

Purpose: From a health perspective, there is a wide variety of commercial bread types. The aim is to describe consumers’ health-related perceptions of bread by exploring which health-related quality attributes consumers associate with bread and whether there are differences with regard to age and education level.

Methodology: A postal and web-based sequential mixed-mode survey (n=1134, 63% responded online and 37% by paper). Open-ended questions and an elicitation task with pictures of commercial breads were used. Responses were analyzed for their content and inductively categorized.

Findings: Three fourths (n=844) knew of breads they considered healthy; these were most commonly described using terms such as “coarse,” “whole-grain,” “fiber rich,” “sourdough,” “crisp,” “less sugar,” “dark,” “rye,” “seeds,” “a commercial brand,” “homemade” and “kernels.” The attributes were perceived as healthy mainly because they “contain fiber” and are “good for the stomach,” or have good “satiation” and beneficial “glycemic properties.” The frequency of several elicited attributes and health effects differed as a function of age group (18-44 vs. 45-80 years) and education level group (up to secondary education vs. university). Difficulties identifying healthy bread were perceived as a barrier for consumption especially among consumers with a lower education level (38%) compared to a higher (28%) (p=.004).

Originality/value: The present study identifies potential pitfalls in consumer evaluations of bread from a health perspective, particularly in relation to labels and packing. The findings are relevant to health professionals working in dietary counseling as well as to industry when designing packaging and to authorities when drawing up regulations.

Keyword [en]
quality perception, cues, labeling, whole grain, age groups, educational level
National Category
Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified
Research subject
Food, Nutrition and Dietetics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-316597OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-316597DiVA: diva2:1078475
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2011-242VINNOVA, 2011-242
Available from: 2017-03-04 Created: 2017-03-04 Last updated: 2017-03-16
In thesis
1.
The record could not be found. The reason may be that the record is no longer available or you may have typed in a wrong id in the address field.

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

By organisation
Department of Food, Nutrition and Dietetics
In the same journal
Appetite
Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf