les cahiers de l’ifip

Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014 69

2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved

2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved

Revue R&D de la filière porcine françaiseVol 1 - N° 1 - 2014

Les Cahiers de l’IFIP

Keywords: edible coating - fresh meat - consumer’s perception - antimicrobial - antioxidant.Mots clés : enrobage comestible - viande fraîche - perception consommateur - antimicrobien - antioxydant.

MeatCoat est un projet co-financé par la commission Européenne dont le but est de développer un enrobage protecteur comestible pour les viandes fraîches. Dans le cadre de ce projet, une enquête a été conduite auprès des consommateurs français pour évaluer leur perception vis-à-vis de cette innovation. Pour cela, un questionnaire en ligne composé de trois parties (Identification des participants et de leurs habitudes de consommation, connaissance des films d’emballage comestible, perception du film MeatCoat) a été diffusé par internet et 305 réponses ont été col-lectées. Les personnes interrogées étaient majoritairement favorables à l’utilisation de l’enrobage comestible pour les viandes fraîches, mettant en avant les avantages en termes de fraîcheur, d’augmentation de la durée de vie des produits, l’amélioration de la sécurité sanitaire des produits grâce aux propriétés antimicrobiennes de l’enrobage. Les consommateurs sont en attente de plus d’informations sur ce nouveau conditionnement et souhaitent tester par eux-mêmes des viandes couvertes par cet emballage pour se faire une meilleure idée de cette technologie.

Développement d’un enrobage comestible pour les viandes fraîches.Perception des consommateurs français

MeatCoat is an EU co-funded project, in which deals an edible protective coating for fresh meat was developed. This article reports a survey about French consumers’ perception towards this innovative solution. An online questionnaire divided in three parts (Identification of the participants and of their consumption habits, previous know-ledge of edible coating, and perception of the MeatCoat) was disseminated by internet and 305 answers were collected. Most of consumers were in favor of the use of edible films for fresh meat, they identified possible advantages in terms of freshness, shelf life and food safety Improvement due to the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of the coating. They would like to test the edible coating and to have more information on this new packaging.

Mariem ELLOUZE et Sabine JEUGEIFIP-Institut du Porc, 7 avenue du général de Gaulle, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France

[email protected]

Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meatFrench consumers’ perception


2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved

Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception

Introduction

Reducing food wastage is a major challenge worldwide. According to the FAO, one third of the food produced is wasted every year, representing an annual loss of 1.3 billion tons (Gustavsson, 2011). The food giving rise to the most costly wastage is fresh meat. This waste results from micro-biological or organoleptic spoilage associated with problems of colour and/or oxidation.

The European MeatCoat project (www.meatcoat.eu) was developed to address this issue. Its aim was to develop an edible coating for fresh meat that possessed antimicro-bial and antioxidant properties. Such a coating would not only reduce wastage of fresh meat, but also cut packaging costs by replacing non-recyclable multilayer oxygen bar-rier plastic films.This project, which brought together ten partners from seven European countries, has allowed an edible coating to be developed and characterised. Pilot-scale tests have also been carried out to check the technical feasibility of applying this new technology in industrial conditions. Keepability validations and technical measurements were used to assess antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, and the effect of the coating on reducing sweating.

Lastly, a survey was conducted to assess consumers’ per-ception of this innovation. French consumers were asked to reply to a questionnaire on their knowledge of edible coatings and give their impressions of this new packaging method. This survey and its results are described here. The findings will be used to set prior requirements for the implementation of this technology and its general use in industry.

Methods

Similar questionnaires were sent out by the different European partners of the project in France and in the par-ticipating countries. This article concerns the study carried out in France.

The aim of the questionnaire was to collect information on the respondents’•Demographics (gender, region, socio-occupational cate-

gory, family composition, etc.),•Fresh meat consumption habits, e.g. place of purchase

(large retail chains / high street butchers), frequency of purchase, type of packaging (vacuum-packed, packaged in a protective atmosphere, shrink-wrapped), etc.,

•Prior knowledge of edible coatings,•Perceptions of this type of innovation after a brief image-

based description.

The questionnaire was posted online and sent out from November 2013 to February 2014 mainly by email or via the social networks. Paper versions were also used to enable persons without internet access to respond.

Results and Discussion

Demographics of respondents

A total of 305 responses were collected from the different French regions as shown in Figure 1. The three most strongly represented regions were Île-de-France (24.6%), Brittany (13.5%) and Alsace (12.5%).

Distribution by gender was balanced, with 43% men and 57% women responding. The different socio-occupational categories represented were: executive managers (49%), clerical-manual (16%), interme-diate occupations (10%), retired (8%), students (10%), self-employed (farming, retailing, artisans) (4%), and unemployed (3%).

Figure 2 shows the age distribution of the respondents. Three quarters were aged 21–50 years, 13% 51–60 years, 8% were over 60, and 4% were under 20.

Lastly, the questionnaire recorded the family composi-tion of the respondents: 54% were in families with child-ren, 19% were unmarried, and 27% were in couples.

13

1

5 3867541

189

8

23

1

22

10

9 9 10

1425

4%

24%

24%26%

13%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

0 20 40 60 80 100

> 6051-6041-5031-4021-30< 20Age (ans) :

tous les jours

<1 fois par mois

1 à 2 fois par mois

2 fois par semaine

1 fois par semaine

Qualité, fraîcheur

NSP

Sécurité sanitaire

Environnement

Conservation, DLC

Aucun

Autre

Rentabilité indus

> 6051-6041-5031-4021-30< 20Age (years) :

Every day

< once a month

Once or twice a month

Twice a week

Once a week

Quality, fresheness

No view

Health security

Environment

Preservation, UBD

None

Other

Industrial gain

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of respondents (n = 301, 4 non-determined)


2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved

2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved


Consumption habits

Of the respondents, 5% reported buying only beef, and 1% only poultry, but most reported buying meat of dif-ferent animals: 40% reported buying beef, lamb, pork and poultry, and 38% bought beef, pork and poultry.These purchases were mostly made once or twice a week (46% and 28% of cases, respectively) as shown in Figure 3.

Large retail chains were where the respondents most often made their purchases: 29% bought their fresh meat only in supermarkets, and 53% bought it in either supermarkets or from high street butchers. Only 18% of the respondents reported buying their meat solely from high street butchers.The respondents who bought their meat off the self-service shelves of supermarkets (n = 250) were asked to score on a five-point scale the importance to them of certain pur-chasing criteria: use-by date, price, visual appearance of products, in particular colour, type of packaging, and the

presence of a quality certification label or brand. The results obtained are shown in Figure 4.The respondents reported that the use-by date and the visual appearance of the products were the most impor-tant criteria. Price, also important, was ranked third. The presence of a quality certification label or how the meat was packaged also influenced purchasing, but to a lesser degree. Product brand was not a purchasing criterion for most of the consumers surveyed.

Lastly, the respondents who bought fresh meat in super-markets were asked whether they could distinguish among different packaging methods: air, protective atmosphere and vacuum. The survey showed that the respondents were un-familiar with these packaging methods, which are never-theless commonly used for meat. Despite an illustration showing them the different types of packaging, 25% of the respondents could not tell the difference between packa-ging under air and under a protective atmosphere. Shrink-wrapped meat was bought by 44%. Vacuum-packed meat was seldom purchased (10%).

13

1

5 3867541

189

8

23

1

22

10

9 9 10

1425

4%

24%

24%26%

13%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

0 20 40 60 80 100

> 6051-6041-5031-4021-30< 20Age (years) :

Every day

< once a month


Twice a week

Once a week

Quality, fresheness

No view

Health security

Environment

Preservation, UBD

None

Other

Industrial gain

13

1

5 3867541

189

8

23

1

22

10

9 9 10

1425

4%

24%

24%26%

13%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

0 20 40 60 80 100

> 6051-6041-5031-4021-30< 20Age (years) :

Every day

< once a month


Twice a week

Once a week

Quality, fresheness

No view

Health security

Environment

Preservation, UBD

None

Other

Industrial gain

12

30

68

72

149

170

64

117

104

154

89

64

101

66

47

17

10

10

45

30

26

8

4

8

30

9

7

1

49

110

137

158

189

78

122

112

88

90

92

45

35

35

14

37

19

11

11

6

51

12

12

15

10

30

48

97

58

70

124

124

94

80

95

95

9

Brand

Packaging

Quality label

Price

Appearance

Use-buy date

Very important Fairly important No view Not very important Not important


Invisibility

Longer shelf life

Less waste

Natural composition

Freshness

Shinier appearance

Visible when irregularly cut

Price

Big problem Problem Not a big problem No problem

Advantages

Disadvantages

Meat choice

Figure 2 : Age des participants (n=305)

Figure 3: Frequency of purchase of meat in high street butchers and/or supermarkets (n = 305).

Figure 4 : Critères de choix des viandes fraîches en supermarché (n=250)


2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved


Knowledge of edible packaging

Of the respondents, 14% knew about edible coatings used for food products. This information came from the Internet (14 respondents), the press (12), specialised magazines (6), television (7), or an occupational context (4). Known food products with an edible coating included meat, sandwiches and hamburgers, fruits, cheese, cured meat products, butter, fish, biscuits and ready-to-eat meals.

Of these 14 respondents, only four had already tried pro-ducts packaged using this technology. These products were confectionery or tortilla with a protective edible coa-ting. The opinions recorded were unenthusiastic «I tried [the product] out of curiosity», «nothing special», «[I have] no special opinion» but are weakened by the small sample number (n = 4). We note that the protective coatings tried did not include fresh meat.

Impressions of French consumers

First perception

After reading a short description of a MeatCoat coating film, the respondents were asked to give their first impres-sion of the product.

An overall positive opinion was voiced by 53%, who said the edible protective film was « interesting», «pro-mising», «useful», «a good idea», and «good for cutting waste». Irrespective of the age of the respondents, the initial opinion was favourable in most cases. The proportion of favourable opinions was greater in res-pondents aged under 30 years and over 60. Opinions were thus mostly positive regardless of socio-occupa-tional category, except for the self-employed (farming, retailing and artisans), who were less favourable to using this type of coating.

A negative opinion of this innovation was voiced by 28%, because of insufficient knowledge. Some consumers preferred to buy products directly from producers, or in smaller quantities rather than using a product with an additive to protect it and prolong its shelf life.

Reservations were expressed by 19%. These respondents would rather see and try the product first: «I’m going to wait until I’ve tried it», «I’ll see», «I haven’t tried [the coating] yet, I’m still doubtful».

Advantages and disadvantages

After reading the description, the respondents stated what they thought were the main advantages and disadvantages of edible coatings. These free responses were grouped in

categories as shown in Figure 5. This figure shows that the advantages felt are linked to the later sell-by date and the longer shelf life of the products. Environmental concerns such as reducing food spoilage through using natural com-ponents, and reducing waste by using less plastic were also important. The respondents also emphasised health safety (safer product, avoiding microbial proliferation), freshness and better overall organoleptic quality of meat.

Some disadvantages were also stated, mainly linked to health and safety concerns about the ingredients in the coating (unknown health risk of components), ease of use and appearance (removability of the film, behaviour during cooking and freezing, etc.), cost (increased ove-rall price, cost of film), lack of knowledge (new product, concerns about possible negative effects, distrust), taste of the coating (interference with meat taste).

Lastly, the characteristics of the edible packaging were appraised by the respondents. In the list of film characteris-tics (Figure 6), freshness ranked first (criterion judged very important by 61% (90% important or very important). The natural composition of the film was judged very important by 53% (82% important and very important). Reduced waste/spoilage was a very important factor, together with longer

13

1

5 3867541

189

8

23

1

22

10

9 9 10

1425

4%

24%

24%26%

13%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

0 20 40 60 80 100

> 6051-6041-5031-4021-30< 20Age (years) :

Every day

< once a month


Twice a week

Once a week

Quality, fresheness

No view

Health security

Environment

Preservation, UBD

None

Other

Industrial gain

Figure 5: Advantages of MeatCoat edible film according to respondents (free response, n = 305).

With coating

No coating

djvkh’


2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved

2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved


keepability. Invisibility was not among the criteria underlined as an advantage by the respondents (32% no view).

No trend was discernable in the responses for age, socio-occupational category, family structure, or habits of fresh meat consumption (place or frequency of purchase, etc.).The main disadvantages are listed in Figure 7. Shininess was not considered a problem (39%, 71% with «no pro-blem»). Likewise, the visibility of the film when meat was cut up irregularly did not bother consumers, unlike pos-sible extra cost, which was scored as a problem for 73% of the respondents.

Readiness of consumers to taste meat with an edible protective coating

Most of the respondents thought the coating films would be useful (definitely for 27%, probably for 42%), while 15% saw no direct utility from their use.

In all, 75% of the respondents were ready to taste meats with edible protective coatings (not ready 17%, no view 8%). The respondents who were not ready to try this type of product emphasised a lack of knowledge about this new product (origin of the components, possible allergies), the negative connotation of the term «packaging», and lack of confidence in the agrifood business and in food innovation, etc.

Readiness of consumers to buy meat with an edible protective coating

The proportion of positive opinions concerning rea-diness to buy meat with edible protective coatings was 58% (not ready 27%, no view 13%). The reservations recorded were linked to the same factors as previously stated: distrust of the food industry, components used, reluctance to eat «packaging».

12

30

68

72

149

170

64

117

104

154

89

64

101

66

47

17

10

10

45

30

26

8

4

8

30

9

7

1

49

110

137

158

189

78

122

112

88

90

92

45

35

35

14

37

19

11

11

6

51

12

12

15

10

30

48

97

58

70

124

124

94

80

95

95

9

Brand

Packaging

Quality label

Price

Appearance

Use-buy date



Invisibility

Longer shelf life

Less waste

Natural composition

Freshness

Shinier appearance


Price


Advantages

Disadvantages

Meat choice

12

30

68

72

149

170

64

117

104

154

89

64

101

66

47

17

10

10

45

30

26

8

4

8

30

9

7

1

49

110

137

158

189

78

122

112

88

90

92

45

35

35

14

37

19

11

11

6

51

12

12

15

10

30

48

97

58

70

124

124

94

80

95

95

9

Brand

Packaging

Quality label

Price

Appearance

Use-buy date



Invisibility

Longer shelf life

Less waste

Natural composition

Freshness

Shinier appearance


Price


Advantages

Disadvantages

Meat choice

Figure 6: Importance of coating film characteristics (all respondents, n = 297) – Advantages.

Figure 7 : Importance des caractéristiques des films d’enrobage (tous participants, n=297) - Inconvénients


2014

-Ifip

-Insti

tut d

u po

rc -

All r

ights

rese

rved


Conclusion

The aim of this study, conducted as part of the European MeatCoat project (www.meatcoat.eu), was to assess know-ledge and perception of edible coating films among French consumers.Most of the consumers surveyed were in favour of using this edible protective coating for fresh meat (53% favou-rable, 28% unfavourable, 19% no view).The main advantages put forward were maintained freshness and appearance of products, longer shelf-life, and more environment-friendly packaging permitting less waste. However, the consumers would like to have more infor-mation on this type of product. They would like to be fully

informed so as to be sure about the harmlessness of the products used in the manufacture of the coating.

Acknowledgements

MeatCoat is co-funded by the European Commission (7th Framework Programme for Research – Capacities – Research for the benefit of SMEs), Grant Agreement No. 280387.

References

• Ellouze M., Jeuge S., Hillerström A., Lindqvist-Hoffmann J., Herrero M., San Martín E., 2013. Development of a new antimicrobial edible film for fresh meat products. [poster] 8th Dubai International Food Safety Conference.

• Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., van Otterdijk R., 2011. Global food losses and food waste, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome 2011

Reference to this article

• Ellouze M., Jeuge S., 2014. Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception. Les Cahiers de l’IFIP, 1(1), 69-74.

les cahiers de l’ifip

Documents