UNDERSTANDING CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS

AND COATINGS: FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS

VICKI CHEUK-HANG WAN
1
, CHOW MING LEE
2
and SOO-YEUN LEE
2,3
1
Dial Corporation
Scottsdale, AZ
2
Food Science and Human Nutrition Department
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
905 S. Goodwin Ave., MC-182
Urbana, IL 61801
Accepted for Publication October 3, 2006
ABSTRACT
The application of edible lms and coatings (EFCs) is one of the inno-
vations of packaging technology aimed to improve food quality and to retain
freshness of food. In order to maximize the potential of a new technology, it is
important to consider consumer concerns and acceptance. Therefore, a focus
group study was conducted to understand consumer attitudes, opinions and
concerns toward EFCs. Furthermore, innovative applications of EFCs in
different food systems were probed during the focus group discussions. Four
independent focus groups (n = 27) were conducted with each group consisting
of ve to eight consumers who are frequent grocery shoppers. Consumers were
concerned about the types of products that are coated, safety of the coating
materials, sensory qualities of the resulting products, end benets of EFCs and
the cost of the food products packaged with EFCs. This research presents
insights on the issues to address when commercializing EFC applications.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study demonstrates the effective utilization of qualitative consumer
testing such as focus group when probing the consumer attitudes and accep-
tance toward novel food processing or packaging technologies, which include
edible lms and coatings (EFCs). The main ndings from this study on EFCs
shed light to the important steps to consider when commercializing EFCs,
which are to evaluate sensory attributes of integrated coated products, to
3
Corresponding author. TEL: 217-244-9435; FAX: 217-265-0925; EMAIL: soolee@uiuc.edu
Journal of Sensory Studies 22 (2007) 353366. All Rights Reserved.
2007, The Author(s)
Journal compilation 2007, Blackwell Publishing
353
properly label ingredients of EFCs with a focus on marketing the natural
ingredients added and to target marketing strategies to advertise direct con-
sumer benets of the resulting EFC products.
INTRODUCTION
Edible lms and coatings (EFCs) have been shown to improve quality and
extend shelf life of food products by acting as barriers of gases, moisture,
odors and lipids (Kester and Fennema 1986). They can be made of different
macromolecules such as soy proteins (Gennadios and Weller 1991), whey
proteins (McHugh et al. 1994), polysaccharides (Nisperos-Carriedo 1994),
and combination of proteins and lipids (Weller et al. 1998). Researchers in the
last decade have focused on investigating functional properties of edible lms
such as mechanical and water barrier properties, and solubility in various
solvents with different modications. It was found that protein lms have
limited water barrier properties but good oxygen and lipid barrier properties
(Krochta 1992). Edible coatings have been applied to different food products
such as fruits (Park 1999), peanuts (Lee et al. 2002a), chocolate-covered
almond pieces (Lee et al. 2002b), carrots (Mei et al. 2002) and deep-fried
products (Mallikarjunan et al. 1997; Albert and Mittal 2002). However, no
study has been reported to probe consumer attitudes and concerns toward the
use of EFCs in food products.
In order to successfully market new products or technologies, it is impor-
tant to consider consumer opinion (Best 1991). Many factors eventually affect
consumers purchase intent of food products. These factors include intrinsic
sensory attributes such as appearance, taste, avor and texture, and extrinsic
factors such as price, convenience, nutritional content, hygienic standards and
packaging (Deliza et al. 2003). Such extrinsic factors cannot be readily iden-
tied using quantitative consumer methods and researchers rely on qualitative
methods like focus group to understand consumer behavior.
Focus groups are generally used in the early stages of product develop-
ment and market research to probe consumer reaction to the new product or
concept (McQuarrie and McIntyre 1986; Sheth et al. 1999; Langford and
McDonagh 2003). Focus group also acts as a bridge between laboratory and
quantitative consumer tests (McNeill et al. 2000). Back in 1996, when irra-
diation of food products received a lot of consumer attention, a focus group
study was conducted to determine consumer attitude and consumer-friendly
communication language to promote the consumption of irradiated poultry
(Hashim et al. 1996). It was found that consumers were aware of the irradia-
tion technology, but they wanted more information to understand its advan-
354 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE
tages and disadvantages. The study suggested that education, informative
labels, posters and in-store sampling were effective ways to encourage con-
sumers to buy irradiated poultry.
Results obtained from focus group can also be used to construct ques-
tionnaires for subsequent quantitative analysis. In the study of Brug et al.
(1995), the focus group methodology was utilized to identify beliefs that are
important in consumption of fruits and vegetables in the Netherlands, such as
perceived health benets and taste. The results were used to develop a ques-
tionnaire to measure responses of larger populations. Focus group use was
shown to be a reliable method to understand consumer behavior (Stewart et al.
1994) and to determine quality criteria of products (Galvez and Resurreccion
1992; McNeill et al. 2000).
The number of participants in a focus group varies among researchers,
including 6 to 9 (Casey and Krueger 1994), 8 to 12 (Chalofsky 1999) and 5 to
10 (Krueger 2002). Krueger and Casey (2000) recommend six to eight par-
ticipants for most noncommercial topics. Mini focus groups, consisting of four
to six participants are becoming popular because they are easier to set up and
are more comfortable for the participants in sharing their opinions (Krueger
and Casey 2000). A moderator, who is usually trained and experienced,
follows a series of previously planned questions and makes sure that the
discussion is not off tracked (Lawless and Heymann 1999). The moderator
must also establish an environment that is friendly and permissive (Krueger
2002).
Focus groups not only have the advantage of being able to probe in-depth
questions on a specic topic which cannot be done otherwise with quantitative
consumer tests, but also have the advantage of allowing for new topics and
ideas to be brought up by the interaction among the participants (Stewart and
Shamdasani 1991). This methodology has been found to be suitable for studies
involving problem identication, planning, product development, implemen-
tation of new product or service, evaluation, marketing and research on topics
that require interaction among respondents which cannot be effectively
explored using individual interviews, survey or participant observations
(Chalofsky 1999).
However, focus groups also have shortcomings. The moderator must be
experienced enough to encourage every subject to participate and not let one
or two members dominate the group. Furthermore, the results are difcult to
analyze and interpret because they are qualitative. Casey and Krueger (1994)
suggested having more than one person analyze the data in order to minimize
personal biases. By using code words, Stewart et al. (1994) was able to
summarize the discussions into a smaller list of factors affecting food choices.
The objectives of this study were to (1) investigate consumer awareness
and attitudes toward EFCs; (2) determine the factors that affect buying intents
355 CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS AND COATINGS
of food products coated with EFCs; and (3) contrive innovative ideas to
commercially utilize EFCs in food processing and manufacturing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Subjects
Four focus groups were conducted with eight, eight, six and ve partici-
pants in each group, respectively. The groups consisted of nine males and 18
females; 16 of them were in the age group of 1825, and 11 of them were in
the age group of 2565. All participants were frequent grocery buyers and
most of them go to the grocery store at least once a week. Each group was
moderated by the same moderator with experience in moderating focus
groups.
Procedure
A discussion guideline (Fig. 1) was designed following the recommen-
dations of Lawless and Heymann (1999). The moderator rst introduced
herself and stated the ground rules of focus group, in which the participants
should respect others opinions and only one person should speak at a time.
Then, the participants were informed that the sessions were recorded with
audio and video aids.
In order to get everyone acquainted with one another and to get the
participants thinking about the topic of interest, each of the participants was
asked to state his/her name and briey discuss one concern that he/she had
about keeping his/her food products fresh. If the participant talked at the
beginning of the session, it is more likely that he or she will participate more
in the discussion (Casey and Krueger 1994). The warm-up exercise also made
the environment less threatening and more permissive.
After the warm-up phase, a handout with a statement about EFCs was
distributed to the participants (Fig. 2). Participants were then asked about their
awareness, attitudes, and concerns about buying and consuming food products
with edible coatings. The focus group was facilitated by the moderator and by
the assistant moderator who was responsible for recording the sessions.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
The results were analyzed and interpreted by adapting the six-step
method recommended by Casey and Krueger (1994). All materials including
video tapes, audio tapes and notes of all groups were collected and reviewed.
Responses for each question were examined. Similarities and differences
356 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE
Time: 11.5 hours
I. Introduction
A. Introduce self
B. Ground rules:
1. Free to participate or not participate at any time
2. One person talking at a time
3. Respect others opinions
C. Taping of the focus group
II. Warm-up: To get everyone acquainted with one another and to get us all thinking
about the topic of interest, please
A. State your name
B. Briefly discuss one concern you have about keeping your food fresh (e.g., I hate
when my soda goes flat after I open the bottle)
III. Initial questions
A. Awareness
1. Have you heard of edible coating?
2. What are some applications for edible coatings that you can think of?
3. What are your thoughts about how it affects the food product?
IV. Definition of biodegradable and edible coatings (Fig. 2) and further probing of
consumer issues for EFC
A. Attitudes and Concerns
1. Do you have any questions about EFC? (e.g., what it is made of .)
2. What are your attitudes about edible coating? What concerns do you have
about edible coating (e.g., safety, nutritional, chemical hazard, digestibility,
allergy)?
3. Do you want your food products packaged with edible coatings?
4. Would you rather buy a coated or uncoated product?
5. What factors determine whether you buy a food product with edible coating or
not?
6. Ask for innovative product application with EFC.
B. Labeling concerns
1. If a product is packaged with edible coating, how should it be advertised?
2. How should EFC be labeled? What information should be included?
V. Clarification and conclusion
A. If you would like more information about edible films and coating, you can
B. Thank you for your time
FIG. 1. DISCUSSION GUIDELINE FOR THE FOCUS GROUP ON EDIBLE FILMS AND
COATINGS (EFCs)
357 CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS AND COATINGS
among groups were identied and reported. To minimize personal bias, results
were then discussed and summarized by the moderator and the principal
investigators of the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
When asked about their awareness of edible coatings (question III.A,
Fig. 1), most of the participants had never heard of EFCs before the discussion.
Wax coating on apples was the example that was brought up most frequently.
When the example of M&M sugar coating was discussed as one of the
examples of edible coatings, the participants quickly made the distinction
between the coatings that served as an integral part of the product and the
coatings that were applied as an addition to the product to extend shelf life or
to improve sensory properties. They regarded the sugar coating of M&M as an
integral part of the product and as a necessity.
Participants had both positive and negative views of EFC applications in
food products (question IV, Fig. 1). Consumers were concerned about the
safety and sensory attributes of the coated products, as well as the types of
products that are coated (Table 1). Furthermore, the additional cost and per-
ceived benets were also factors affecting the purchase intent for the coated
products (Table 1).
Types of Product
Consumer attitudes toward the applications of EFCs to food products
were rst probed after the explanation of EFCs was given (question IV.A.2 and
3). Participants were also asked if they would purchase coated food products
Biodegradable and edible coating
Biodegradable means the material is capable of being broken down by the action of living
things such as microorganism. Edible means the material is safe to eat. Coating is a layer of
one substance covering another, in this case, covering a food product. The objectives of
applying a coating to a food product are to extend the shelf life and improve quality of the
food products by acting as a barrier (moisture and/or gas) or providing gloss (shine). It is
usually made with proteins, lipids or polysaccharides or combinations of those
macromolecules with other chemicals added, depending on the objectives of the coating.
FIG. 2. DEFINITIONS OF BIODEGRADABLE AND EDIBLE COATINGS PROVIDED TO
THE PARTICIPANTS
358 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE
(question IV.A.4 and 5). Most of the consumers responded that they had to
know the types of products that were coated before they could make the
decision. This implied that consumers might have different degrees of accept-
ability for different products being coated. They expressed that they were more
likely to purchase a coated product if the product itself has a natural outer
layer which can be removed before it is consumed (Table 1). Examples that
were suggested were fruits, such as apples, oranges and bananas. The ease of
removing the coating from the product was a concern. Consumers expressed
that there should be instructions on the package showing how they could
remove the coating.
Safety
Safety of the coated product was the second concern brought up during
the discussion. Concerns of safety included the ingredients of the coating and
the handling of the coated products. First, participants demanded that the
coated products should be labeled as Coated, as well as the ingredients of
coatings listed on the products label. As stated by Best (1991), technologies
that are applied to food products should not be invisible to consumers.
The participants also expressed their preference for EFCs made with
natural rather than articial ingredients. Because EFCs are generally made
with proteins, polysaccharides and/or lipids from natural source, it may be
benecial to inform the consumers that the major ingredients of the coatings
are natural. Prescott et al. (2002) also reported that Japanese, Taiwanese and
Malaysian panelists placed natural content (natural ingredients with no addi-
tives or articial ingredients) as the most important motivation in food choice.
TABLE 1.
FACTORS AFFECTING PURCHASE INTENT OF FOOD PRODUCTS COATED WITH
EDIBLE COATINGS
Factor Description Discussion
Type of product Natural outer layer Outer layer which could be removed favored
Safety Ingredient of edible coating Labeling issue, natural ingredients favored,
allergy issue
Handling of coated product Microbial contamination issue
Sensory attribute Taste, avor and texture Assessment of the changes that were
made required
Appearance Issue of not being able to determine quality
because of changes in appearance
Perceived benet Manufacturers benet Extending shelf life
Consumer benet Added convenience
Improvement in overall quality
Cost Higher price Accepted if consumers benets were obvious
359 CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS AND COATINGS
Decreased purchase intent was observed for genetically modied products as
they were perceived as unnatural (Frewer et al. 1996). Absence of chemicals
was also one of the reasons why people bought organic foods (Schifferstein
and Oude Ophuis 1998).
Ingredients that cause allergies were also a concern among the focus
group participants. There are 2% of the general population and 8% of child
population who have some form of food allergy (Ortolani et al. 2001). There-
fore, listing all the coating ingredients was indicated as important. For the
participants who were vegetarians, listing the ingredients to verify the non-
animal source was also an important factor.
The safety of food products could be improved by incorporating antimi-
crobial agents into the coatings to reduce the risks of microbial contamination
of the products. Surprisingly, participants were concerned that the coated
products may encourage production, distribution or retail employees to be
careless with sanitation.
Sensory Quality
Besides the safety of coated products, the participants were also con-
cerned about the sensory quality of coated products. If the purpose of the
coatings was to extend shelf life, the majority of our panel expressed that the
coating should not have any taste or odor, and it should be transparent.
However, they welcomed the idea of applying coatings as carriers of avors for
new product development.
Taste, avor and texture are often considered the most important
attributes of foods. Taste satisfaction was an important motivation for Dutch
people to consume fruits and vegetables (Brug et al. 1995). They are the major
drivers of meat consumption (Verbeke and Vackier 2004) and they also con-
tribute to the acceptance of different variety of apples (Jaeger et al. 1998).
However, not many studies have been conducted to investigate the sensory
properties of EFC-coated products. Descriptive analysis was utilized to evalu-
ate different sensory attributes of peanuts coated with whey protein (Lee et al.
2002a). Perceived rancidity of coated peanuts was signicantly less than that
of uncoated peanuts. Glossiness and gloss stability of chocolate-covered
almond pieces coated with whey protein were measured, and they were com-
parable to the shellac coating which is currently used in the confectionery
industry (Lee et al. 2002c). Coated carrots were found to have improved
appearance and similar fresh aroma and avor to uncoated carrots (Mei et al.
2002). Sensory attributes of lms made with whey protein isolate (WPI) and
candelilla wax emulsions were also evaluated (Kim and Ustunol 2001). Emul-
sion lms were opaque, slightly sweet and adhesive with no pronounced milk
avor, while lms with no wax incorporated were transparent.
360 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE
Appearance is another important measure of food quality. Due to the
concerns of not being able to appraise the quality of the food products that
are coated, the participants expressed their preference toward transparent
edible coatings (Table 1). Our ndings agree with that of Bredahl et al.
(1998) and Jaros et al. (2000). However, many studies have shown that coat-
ings affect the appearance of coated products. Lee et al. (2002a) reported
that WPI-coated peanuts were darker than uncoated peanuts. Furthermore,
emulsion lms of WPI and candelilla wax are opaque in appearance (Kim
and Ustunol 2001).
Perceived Benets
In an article by Booth (1995) about the cognitive basis of quality, shelf
life was regarded as one of the important factors of quality. Normally, one
would think the longer the shelf life, the better the quality. However, in this
study, participants had different opinions when they were informed that
products coated with EFCs may have extended shelf life.
Coated products with extended shelf life were perceived as value-added
products in the following situations: (1) for consumers who cannot nish the
products in a short time period and want the product to be fresh for a longer
time on the shelf; (2) for consumers who pay less attention to keeping food
fresh (i.e., less likely to clip a bag of chips, or close the lid of a container); (3)
for produce that is not always in season, and therefore, for which coating can
extend the availability of these products throughout the year; and (4) for
perishable foods which need to withstand longer transportation duration.
However, for participants who go to the grocery store more than twice a week,
the extended shelf life of coated products was not as appealing. They preferred
fresher products over coated products that were placed on the shelf for pro-
longed period. Furthermore, they suspected the extension of shelf life of the
products actually was more benecial to the manufacturers and retailers than
to the consumers. Similarly, Frewer et al. (1997) found that consumers were
less likely to buy cheese that was produced in a shorter period of time because
they perceived that was benecial to the producers rather than to the consum-
ers or the environment.
Another benet associated with coated products was convenience. EFC-
coated sliced cheese was an example suggested by the focus group panel of
added convenience compared to a block of cheese or sliced cheese which
requires the removal of the plastic wrapping. For participants with children,
they were willing to pay extra for the coated products that are more natural and
convenient. Compared to the general public, elderly consumers with higher
disposable income may be targeted for genetically engineered products with
environmental or health benets at a higher price (Deliza et al. 1999).
361 CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS AND COATINGS
Cost
Cost was another factor participants were concerned with when discuss-
ing EFCs. Most of the consumers would choose to buy the less expensive
product, if the coated and uncoated products had the same qualities and
benets. However, if the participants perceived the coated products as value-
added products, they were willing to pay higher price for the coated products
if the benets were obvious (Table 1).
Finally, consumers were asked to discuss and provide examples of inno-
vative product applications using EFCs (question IV.A.6, Fig. 1). The sug-
gested products were divided into three broad categories: dairy, bakery and
snack products. Within the dairy category, sliced cheese was recommended to
be individually coated with edible coating instead of the plastic wrap that is
currently used in the market. One of the innovative applications brought up
within the dairy category was replacing the foil seal of yogurt package with a
layer of edible lm. After removing the plastic cap, consumers could just break
the edible seal to consume the yogurt. Both of the applications within the dairy
category were aimed to provide convenience and to decrease the use of
nonbiodegradable plastic packaging materials.
Participants also came up with ideas on bakery products that are vulner-
able to deterioration and have a relatively short shelf life (<2 weeks). For
consumers that are not able to consume the whole bag of bread before the
sell-by date, a possible application proposed was to coat the inner side of the
bread package with antimicrobial agent-incorporated edible coating to extend
shelf life.
Because fried snacks, such as potato chips, are susceptible to lipid oxi-
dation and moisture gain, which result in deterioration of quality, participants
discussed the application of EFCs to provide oxygen and moisture barrier
function on such products. Candies packaged in a primary package were
mentioned as potential products to be coated to decrease the stickiness and to
ease the handling of the candy pieces.
Results from this study strongly suggested that it is important to evaluate
sensory attributes of actual coated food products, in addition to investigating
basic chemical and physical properties of edible lms, the latter being
researched extensively. This study also suggested that the natural ingredients
of EFCs should be properly labeled and advertised, and the marketing direc-
tion of coated products should be focused on how to convey the potential
benets of the coated products to the consumers. Future studies could include
conducting sensory discrimination tests on the integrated coated products to
investigate whether the consumers could distinguish between the coated and
the uncoated products, or between the coated products manufactured by dif-
ferent coating materials and processing methods. Additionally, preference tests
362 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE
could be conducted to determine if the coated product is liked as well as the
uncoated product or which coated product is preferred the most. Future focus
group studies can investigate the relationship between the different labels of
coated products and changes in consumer purchase intent.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from this study suggest that besides focusing on investigating
basic chemical and physical properties of edible lms, it is also very important
to evaluate sensory attributes of integrated coated products. This study also
suggested that the natural ingredients of EFC should be properly labeled and
advertised, and the marketing direction of coated products should be focused
on how consumers would benet from the coated products. Future studies
could include conducting sensory discrimination tests on the actual products to
investigate whether the consumers could distinguish between coated and
uncoated products, and preference tests to determine which product is pre-
ferred by the consumers. Additional focus group studies may also be con-
ducted to investigate the relationship between the different labels of coated
products and consumer purchase intent.
REFERENCES
ALBERT, S. and MITTAL, G.S. 2002. Comparative evaluation of edible
coatings to reduce fat uptake in a deep-fried cereal product. Food Res. Int.
35, 445458.
BEST, D. 1991. Designing new products from a market perspective. In Food
Product Development (E. Graf and I.S. Saguy, eds.) pp. 128, AVI Book,
New York, NY.
BOOTH, D.A. 1995. The cognitive basis of quality. Food Qual. Prefer. 6,
201207.
BREDAHL, L., GRUNERT, K.G. and FERTIN, C. 1998. Relating consumer
perceptions of pork quality to physical product characteristics. Food
Qual. Prefer. 9, 273281.
BRUG, J., DEBIE, S., VANASSEMA, P. and WEIJTS, W. 1995. Psychosocial
determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults: Results of
focus group interviews. Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 99107.
CASEY, M.A. and KRUEGER, R.A. 1994. Focus group interviewing. In
Measurement of Food Preferences (H.J.H. Mace and D.M.H. Thomson,
eds.) pp. 7796, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
363 CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS AND COATINGS
CHALOFSKY, N. 1999. How to Conduct Focus Group, American Society for
Training & Development, Alexandria, VA.
DELIZA, R., ROSENTHAL, A., HEDDERLEY, D., MACFIE, H.J.H. and
FREWER, L.J. 1999. The importance of brand, product information and
manufacturing process in the development of novel environmentally
friendly vegetable oils. J. Int. Food Agribusiness Marketing 10(3), 6777.
DELIZA, R., ROSENTHAL, A. and SILVA, A.L.S. 2003. Consumer attitude
towards information on non-conventional technology. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 14, 4349.
FREWER, L.J., HOWARD, C. and SHEPHERD, R. 1996. The inuence of
realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of
food. Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 6167.
FREWER, L.J., HOWARD, C., HEDDERLEY, D. and SHEPHERD, R. 1997.
Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used
in cheese production the inuence of consumer benet. Food Qual.
Prefer. 8, 27180.
GALVEZ, F.C.F. and RESURRECCION, A.V.A. 1992. Reliability of the focus
group technique in determining the quality characteristics of mungbean
[Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczec] noodles. J. Sensory Studies 7, 315326.
GENNADIOS, A. and WELLER, C.L. 1991. Edible lms and coatings from
soymilk and soy protein. Cereal Foods World 36, 10041009.
HASHIM, I.B., RESURRECCION, A.V.A. and MCWATTERS, K.H. 1996.
Consumer attitudes toward irradiated poultry. Food Technol. 50,
7780.
JAEGER, S.R., ANDANI, Z., WAKELING, I.N. and MACFIE, H.J.H. 1998.
Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: A cross-cultural com-
parison. Food Qual. Prefer. 9, 355366.
JAROS, D., ROHM, H. and STROBL, M. 2000. Appearance properties a
signicant contribution to sensory food quality. Lebensm-Wiss. Technol.
33, 320326.
KESTER, J.J. and FENNEMA, O.R. 1986. Edible lms and coatings: A
review. Food Technol. 40(12), 4759.
KIM, S.J. and USTUNOL, Z. 2001. Sensory attributes of whey protein isolate
and candelilla wax emulsion edible lms. J. Food Sci. 66, 909911.
KROCHTA, J. 1992. Control of mass transfer in foods with edible coatings
and lms. In Advances in Food Engineering (R.P. Singh and M.A.
Wirakartakusumah, eds.) pp. 517538, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
KRUEGER, R.A. 2002. Designing and conducting focus group interviews.
http://www.whatkidscando.org/studentresearch/2005pdfs/
Kruegeronfocusgroups.pdf (accessed May 1, 2006).
KRUEGER, R.A. and CASEY, M.A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide
For Applied Research, 3rd Ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
364 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE
LANGFORD, J. and MCDONAGH, D. 2003. Introduction. In Focus Groups
(J. Langford and D. McDonagh, eds.) pp. 120, Taylor & Francis, New
York, NY.
LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 1999. Qualitative consumer research
methods. In Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices (R.
Bloom, ed.) pp. 519546, Aspen Publication, Gaithersburg, MD.
LEE, S-Y., TREZZA, T.A., GUINARD, J.X. and KROCHTA, J.M. 2002a.
Whey-protein-coated peanuts assessed by sensory evaluation and static
headspace gas chromatography. J. Food Sci. 67, 12121218.
LEE, S-Y., DANGARAN, K.L. and KROCHTA, J.M. 2002b. Gloss stability
of whey-protein/plasticizer coating formulations on chocolate surface.
J. Food Sci. 67, 11211125.
LEE, S-Y., DANGARAN, K.L., GUINARD, J.X. and KROCHTA, J.M.
2002c. Consumer acceptance of whey-protein-coated as compared with
shellac-coated chocolate. J. Food Sci. 67, 27642769.
MALLIKARJUNAN, P., CHINNAN, M.S., BALASUBRAMANIAM, V.M.
and PHILIPS, R.D. 1997. Edible coatings for deep-fat frying of starchy
products. Lebensm-Wiss. Technol. 30, 709714.
MCHUGH, T.H., AUJARD, J.F. and KROCHTA, J.M. 1994. Plasticized whey
protein edible lms: Water vapor permeability properties. J. Food Sci. 59,
416419, 423.
MCNEILL, K.L., SANDERS, T.H. and CIVILLE, G.V. 2000. Using focus
groups to develop a quantitative consumer questionnaire for peanut
butter. J. Sensory Studies 15, 163178.
MCQUARRIE, E.F. and MCINTYRE, S.H. 1986. Focus groups and the devel-
opment of new products by technologically driven companies: Some
guidelines. J. Prod. Innovation Manag. 1, 4047.
MEI, Y., ZHAO, Y., YANG, J. and FURR, H.C. 2002. Using edible coating to
enhance nutritional and sensory qualities of baby carrots. J. Food Sci. 67,
19641968.
NISPEROS-CARRIEDO, M.O. 1994. Edible coatings and lms based on
polysaccharides. In Edible Films and Coatings to Improve Food Quality
(J.M. Krochta, E.A. Baldwin and M. Nisperos-Carriedo, eds.) pp. 305
335, Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster, PA.
ORTOLANI, C., ISPANO, M., SCIBILIA, J. and PASTORELLO, E.A. 2001.
Introducing chemists to food allergy. Allergy 56(Suppl. 67), 58.
PARK, H.J. 1999. Development of advanced edible coatings for fruits. Trends
Food Sci. Technol. 10, 254260.
PRESCOTT, J., YOUNG, O., ONEILL, L., YAU, N.J.N. and STEVENS, R.
2002. Motives for food choice: A comparison of consumers from
Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 489
495.
365 CONSUMER ATTITUDES ON EDIBLE FILMS AND COATINGS
SCHIFFERSTEIN, J.N.J. and OUDE OPHUIS, P.A.M. 1998. Health-related
determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Qual.
Prefer. 9, 119133.
SHETH, J.N., MITTAL, B. and NEWMAN, B.I. 1999. Customer Behavior:
Consumer Behavior and Beyond, Dryden Press, Orlando, FL.
STEWART, D.W. and SHAMDASANI, P.N. 1991. Focus Groups, Sage Pub-
lications, Newbury Park, CA.
STEWART, B., OLSON, D., GOODY, C., TINSLEY, A., AMOS, R., BETTS,
N., GEORGIOU, C., HOERR, S., IVATURI, R. and VOICHICK, J. 1994.
Converting focus group data on food choices into a quantitative instru-
ment. J. Nutr. Educ. 26, 3436.
VERBEKE, W. and VACKIER, I. 2004. Prole and effects of consumer
involvement in fresh meat. Meat Sci. 67, 159168.
WELLER, C.L., GENNADIOS, A. and SARAIVA, R.A. 1998. Edible bilayer
lms from zein and grain sorghum wax or carnauba wax. Lebensm-Wiss.
Technol. 31, 279285.
366 V.C.-H. WAN, C.M. LEE and S.-Y. LEE