Acceptance of Functional Foods: A Comparison of French, American, and French Canadian Consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food products have diversified with industry globalization. To market functional foods efficiently, food managers must gauge cross‐cultural variance of functional food acceptance. Expanding on previous research, we investigate young consumers' acceptance of functional foods. Data collected in French Canada, United States, and France in 2004 reveal that business students are slightly in favor of functional foods, and associate health benefits with these foods but very few product‐related benefits. Students do not have strong opinions on the trustworthiness of information and expressed a slight interest in purchasing this type of product. Analyses of cultural differences revealed significant, albeit small, divergence in these variables. Statistical analysis performed on the full sample assessed the impact of food attitudes and other cognitive and attitudinal factors on the general attitude toward functional foods. Health and product‐related benefits and belief about the credibility of information are the main positive determinants of the acceptance of functional foods, followed by high knowledge. Apart from the negative impact of Neophobia, none of the other food attitudes influences attitudes toward functional foods. Linear regressions performed on each subgroup indicated similar positive cross‐cultural results for health and product‐related benefits. However, cross‐cultural differences are detected for knowledge, credibility of information, and food attitudes that influence acceptance of functional foods. Les produits alimentaires se sont diversifiés avec l'avènement de la mondialisation. Pour commercialiser efficacement les aliments fonctionnels, les gestionnaires du secteur alimentaire doivent évaluer l'acceptation des aliments fonctionnels par les diverses cultures. À partir de travaux de recherche antérieurs, nous avons examiné l'acceptation des aliments fonctionnels par les jeunes consommateurs. Des données recueillies en 2004 au Canada français, aux États‐Unis et en France ont révélé que les étudiants en commerce étaient légèrement en faveur des aliments fonctionnels, leur associaient des avantages pour la santé, mais très peu d'avantages liés aux produits. Les étudiants n'avaient pas une très bonne opinion concernant la crédibilité de l'information et ont manifesté un faible intérêt pour l'achat de ces produits. Des analyses des différences culturelles ont révélé des divergences, petites mais significatives. Les analyses statistiques effectuées sur l'échantillon total ont évalué l'impact des attitudes envers les aliments ainsi que d'autres facteurs cognitifs et attitudinaux sur l'attitude générale envers les aliments fonctionnels. Les avantages pour la santé, les avantages liés aux produits et les croyances concernant la crédibilité de l'information sont les principaux facteurs favorables à l'acceptation des aliments fonctionnels, suivis d'un degré de connaissances élevé. Outre l'impact négatif de la néophobie, aucune autre des attitudes envers les aliments n'influe sur les attitudes envers les aliments fonctionnels. Les régressions linéaires effectuées pour chaque sous‐groupe ont indiqué des résultats positifs similaires. Toutefois, nous avons noté des différences interculturelles quant à la connaissance, à la crédibilité de l'information et aux attitudes envers les aliments qui influencent l'acceptation des aliments fonctionnels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".