Food Protection Trends - May/June 2021 - 311

I do want to know [if DMDC is used]. If it's not pasteurized and
DMDC is not used, I'm not going to buy it. It's not safe enough.
Potential methods and content of communications
about DMDC
When asked how the food industry could communicate
with consumers, participants mentioned commercials,
Facebook, and food samplers, such as those who offer food
samples at the supermarket. Advertisements and articles
in food- and health-related magazines containing a brief
description were also suggested. The extensive discussion
focused on the content of the message and the value of a web
link. Label statements containing information about a " web
link " and " quality and safety " were preferred significantly
more than " maintain quality " and " long-lasting quality "
(Table 3). Several participants suggested that the statements
could be combined to increase the effectiveness of messaging.
Whereas participants favored a web link for those who
wanted more information, they suggested that the benefits
of using DMDC and the safety evaluation of DMDC should
be included. Some noted the likelihood of articles critical
of DMDC, so they suggested that the company prepare the
customer with science-based and validated information
about its safety. Participants responded that they trusted
the company more when it provided information without
prompting. The following quotes capture this sentiment:
Use a website because people who are going to want to read it are
going to read it. They're going to read all the research. But you have
to be wary because they're going to find an article that says it's bad,
just as some say it's good. So beat them to the punch by saying all the
good stuff.
If you're going to put it on there, let people know ahead of time.
Tell the positives of why they're doing it, it's going to be great for you,
and orange juice is going to last longer, your kids can enjoy it longer.
And then at the same time maybe put it on the label. But if they're
not going to do a positive ad campaign, just don't label it because it's
just going to make people panic.
DISCUSSION
Participant attitudes toward label terms in this study
are comparable to those documented among consumers
in general. " No chemical added " was ranked as the most
important factor impacting a consumer's purchasing
decision. The International Food Information Council's 2019
consumer food survey reported that four of the top five food
safety issues among U.S. consumers were concerns about
cancer-causing chemicals in food, chemicals (in general) in
food, pesticides, and food additives (11). The International
Food Information Council's survey also reported that
label claims, such as " natural, " were the most impactful on
purchasing decisions. Consumers perceived " natural " to
mean " no preservatives, " whereas they perceived " chemicalsounding preservatives " as " unnatural " (16). In this study,

consumers perceived DMDC as an unfamiliar chemical used
as a preservative, and they had a negative reaction to the
words " dimethyl dicarbonate (DMDC). "
Similarly, participants in this study viewed " all natural " and
" organic " positively. As mentioned in the introduction, when
consumers were told that the USDA's definition of the term
" natural " is that the product is minimally processed, few were
willing to pay a premium (30). Some consumers believed
that food bearing " organic " labels was healthier, tasted better,
and had environmental benefits (3, 15, 19, 26). Many studies
reported little association between organic farming and those
perceived benefits. Organic foods were not necessarily more
nutritious (18), more sustainable (13), or better tasting
(44). For example, a recent review article reported that there
were limited differences in the composition of organic and
conventional crops (18). A previous sensory study reported
that consumer preference and consumer perceived sensory
qualities were not significantly different between organically
and conventionally grown vegetables (44). Knudsen and
colleagues' (13) life cycle analysis revealed that organic
farming had a higher carbon footprint, which suggested that
consumers' perception of environmental benefits may not be
supported. Nevertheless, the buying " organic " trend has led
some consumers to believe that this method of production is
the best for human and environmental health (12).
Participants considered " pasteurized " less important than
the other statements provided, " no chemical added " and
" fresh-squeezed. " This could be because pasteurization was
taken for granted by participants. Alternatively, this ranking
could reflect the attitudes of those who consider raw milk
more healthy than pasteurized milk (4, 17). Two of the
focus group participants held this view. On the other hand,
some participants were aware of safety issues and would not
purchase a juice without a pathogen kill-step. Our study's
findings suggested a continued need to alert the public to the
importance of measures to enhance food safety.
The finding that consumers sought health information from
various sources, like WebMD, My Fitness Pal, or food labels,
was consistent with previous studies that reported the internet
as a major source of health information (24, 45). Nearly 40% of
young consumers (ages 18 to 30) obtained health information
from an internet search engine, and a quarter relied on popular
internet health websites, such as WebMD (24). This study indicated that more science-based food safety and health information should be developed for the internet. However, information
about DMDC was not available through these sources.
When asked about their preferences regarding the delivery of information about DMDC, many reported that
they wanted to find information on the juice company's
website. This suggests that food companies who plan
to utilize DMDC or other ingredients or technologies
unfamiliar to consumers should be prepared to meet
consumer expectations and provide information about
the processes.

May/June Food Protection Trends

311

Food Protection Trends - May/June 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2021