This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Consumer perspectives: take-out packaging and food safety
Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA and International Center for Food Industry Excellence, Lubbock, Texas, USA
Charles C. Broz
Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA, and
College of Education and Human Ecology, Department of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Purpose – A consumer focus group was conducted in West Texas, to discuss consumer opinion about desired features in take-out containers or packaging, and perceptions related to food safety practices. Findings – The results of this qualitative case study indicated that the majority of take-out food was purchased for personal consumption, and that location, convenience and time are the primary factors inﬂuencing the decision for purchase. The main features considered desirable in take-out containers were these: the ability to insulate food, to contain product without spillage, and to keep individual foods separate within the same package. Practical implications – As the desirability for take-out food continues to increase, risks emerge surrounding the lack of handling instructions on most take-out packaging, and the scarcity of consumer food safety knowledge. Though most participants in this study claimed to return home quickly with take-out food after purchase, and consume the food as soon as possible, a good number admitted to not being as knowledgeable about food safety and handling as they would like. Research limitations/implications – Though data were collected from a diverse group of panelists, the small scope of this research could not be said to represent the USA as a whole. Future studies would need to include multiple focus group studies in metropolitan regions across the nation. Originality/value – The paper adds to the body of knowledge on take-out food and customer attitudes to food safety. Keywords Fast foods, Food packaging, Customer satisfaction, United States of America Paper type Case study
Introduction As consumer’s purchase of food away from home increases annually, with it arise several concerns as to the public’s knowledge of safe food handling behavior. The increase in take-out food is accompanied by the increasing risk of foodborne illness. In
This study was made possible by a grant from the Food Service Management Educators Council, and by the College of Human Sciences at Texas Tech University. The researchers would also like to thank Dr Shelley S. Harp, and Dr Dennis A. Harp, as well as the participants of the focus group.
British Food Journal Vol. 110 No. 8, 2008 pp. 819-828 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI 10.1108/00070700810893340
The challenge is to ﬁnd containers that keep the food hot. it is only take-out and curbside services that are fueling the market. as a marketing tool. curbside take-out has doubled the annual take-out sales of chain concepts such as Outback Steakhouse. In addition. 2000). the type of container being used. A total of 38 percent of restaurant owners polled anticipate that take-out sales will contribute more to total sales in 2007. with children or without. consumers must rely on their own food safety knowledge and the integrity of the packaging to prevent consuming a contaminated product. 2002). 2004). the value to the current consumer is the ability to purchase already prepared food. 2002). Consumer interest for dining in restaurants is not growing. and dual-income couples. sealable lids. the company conducted focus groups to determine what the consumer wanted from take-out packaging. 2004). The public felt that the chain’s existing white polystyrene clamshell containers did not keep food hot. 2007). but they are also functioning on several levels: as a means to support the integrity of the product.BFJ 110. 37 percent of consumers polled have now used curbside services in restaurants previously considered “sit-down” establishments (National Restaurant Association. There is a growing demand for the convenience of take-out food. 2004). and are cost effective (Matsumoto. once packaged food has left the establishment. tended to leak.8 820 spite of proper sanitary practices by foodservice personnel. with an estimated annual increase of 5 percent. especially at concepts previously considered “sit-down” restaurants. 2007). While such convenience seems irresistible to consumers. and the consumer knowledge as to reheating food products safely With take-out sales continuing to increase. and were damaged easily with sharp utensils (Sheridan. and foodservice establishments are seeking to satisfy this demand (Foodservice & Packaging Institute. Applebee’s and Chili’s (Warner. The current containers. These convenience products are now responsible for up to ten percent of total sales for some establishments (Swartz. 2004). These numbers indicate a huge amount of proﬁt for the chains when one considers that 57 percent of the American population orders take-out food at least once per week (Klara. This market is supported by single working people. widespread purchase of take-out food brings about concerns of several problematic factors: the amount of time from purchase to consumption. “restaurants have become places to get food to eat somewhere else” (Food Institute Report. Over the last three years. while curbside to go concepts need packaging to keep the food quality all the way home (Swartz. In essence. 2003). 2006). who are purchasing take-out food . and take it away to consume at home (Prewitt. In the initial stages of Applebee’s curbside service. many proprietors are investing in more efﬁcient packaging. Containers used by traditional quick service restaurants (QSRs) hold food that is frequently consumed in the car or the parking lot.. 2007). Chain QSRs and full-service restaurants are showing the greatest potential for use of foodservice disposable packaging over the next ﬁve years. Such proﬁts represent a 58 percent increase over a ten-year period in 2002. This evolution of take-out food has trended toward curbside service since 2001. Despite the increasing sales. up $152 billion from 1992’s ﬁgures (Stewart et al. as opposed to typical growth of 1 or 2 percent (Falkman. 2004). and to reproduce the upscale nature of the restaurant’s table settings in the consumer’s home (Shea. cost the company far more than did the competitively priced clamshells. heavy plastic bases with clear.
as well as a poster containing cues to provoke discourse on speciﬁc topics. 2004). 2005). age. The purpose of this qualitative study is to determine the public’s opinion on take-out foods. especially when considering the growing numbers of consumers purchasing take-out food. Proper procedures to secure approval from the University’s Internal Review Board were followed prior to the study for research using human subjects. This lack of safety knowledge represents a serious problem. 2007). The focus group method was chosen to provide the researchers with greater understanding of consumer perception on speciﬁc topics (Silayoi and Speece. and ﬁnancial status. Subsequently. and the paucity of handling/re-heating instructions included with take-out products. come the increases in risks to the consumer associated with a general lack of food safety knowledge and practices. as well as the fact that 24 percent of ADA survey respondents reported illness associated with consumption of take-out food (Klara. The panelists were made up of a diverse group of people differing in ethnicity. gender. Methods This qualitative case study utilized a focus group of nine panelists and a moderator to obtain the public’s opinions and knowledge about take-out foods. This study used a qualitative methodology to correlate the researchers’ hypotheses with the empirical data collected from interviewed subjects (Olsson. 2005). 2005). and take-out food safety. the public’s lack of food safety knowledge. Though the federal government regulates the manufacture of single use packaging items in regards to health issues and environmental safety concerns. and that 48 percent rely solely on their senses to determine if a food product is spoiled (Klara.The survey indicated that 51 percent of Americans do not know the proper temperature for reheating leftovers. Their reasons for choosing to purchase take-out food differed. 2004). this research was inspired by a case study designed to investigate foodservice in the UK. With these increases in consumption of take-out food. their preferences for styles of take-out packaging. All food safety standards are self-regulated. The session was guided by a moderator. Three reported cases of botulism have recently been associated with incidents in which packaged foods were not cooled and stored properly (Lando and Fein. Most take-out containers and packaging materials do not contain any handling or reheating instructions. In addition. Considering the growing popularity of take-out food. leaving the responsibility to the restaurant operators to ensure the safety of their clientele (Binkley and Ghiselli. 2004). take-out packaging. and all participants signed a consent form allowing the researchers to videotape the discussion. 2004). Other research published in the British Food Journal suggests that consumers have poor concepts as to how long leftovers may be safely stored (Terpstra et al. and their knowledge of food safety. 2004). there is a signiﬁcant risk for widespread foodborne illness. Consumer perspectives 821 . and consisted of several open-ended questions as to the panelists’ opinions about take-out food. 2007). A survey by the American Dietetic Association (ADA) revealed that 75 percent of the participants would appreciate safe handling instructions on take-out labels (Klara. 1999). there are no governmental regulations on the packaging or labeling of take-out food (Foodservice & Packaging Institute.. the QSRs have taken over 50 percent of the food away from home market (Allen. as did the types of establishments from which the food was purchased.ﬁve times per week due to time constraints (Binkley and Ghiselli.
During the opening questions. as well as mentioning important. The interview consisted of ﬁve questions related to the person’s purchase of take-out food. The questions pertained to the consumers’ opinions as to preferred restaurants from which to purchase take-out food. and knowledge of food safety.BFJ 110. three transition questions. again time and convenience were the two most common responses with a fair number citing time as the motivating factor. one person mentioned Applebee’s Weight Watcher’s menu as a deciding factor. two key questions. the screening process collected contact information. one Hispanic male in his late twenties. and sparked the panelists’ interest. the panelists were asked to think of the last time they purchased take-out food. The questions about factors that inﬂuence purchasing decisions. As to the primary purchase decisions. The focus group discussion was facilitated by a trained moderator with prior experience in focus groups. and the session was recorded on video and audio equipment. After a discussion by the researchers. This qualitative case study was conducted on the campus of a West Texas university. and why they preferred to purchase take-out food from these sources. and the number of different restaurants from which take-out food was purchased. one Caucasian male in his thirties. inﬂuencing factors in the decision to purchase. and to have purchased take-out food at least six times in the last six months. along with three attachments containing an introduction. Participants included three Caucasian females ages 40 – 50. Most of the panelists said that time was the most important factor inﬂuencing these purchases. Selected panelists were sent a reminder letter via e-mail. In the “other” category. These themes will be discussed below in an effort to highlight the main commonalities. and a map to the site. and only one mentioned quality of the product. The group was asked a series of questions including four opening questions. Selection criteria required participants to be 21 years-of-age or older. why they chose the restaurant. In addition. superﬂuous panelists were dismissed with a parting gift. one Hispanic female in her late thirties. reasons for purchase. During the discussion of the introductory questions. and what features or services they liked or did not like. A qualitative content analysis was conducted by the researchers through review of the taped session as well as review of ﬁeld notes as is standard practice for content analysis research. one Hispanic female in her late twenties. and one Asian female in her twenties. The recruitment process yielded a total of 13 willing participants. but less obvious factors in an “other” category. In addition. three primary themes were discovered. and a brief description of how focus groups are conducted. questions about packaging. and questions about safe food handling practices seemed to elicit the most discourse. important/unimportant features of packaging. the frequency of purchase. panelists were asked about their favorite restaurants. more detailed information about focus groups. one African American female in her late forties. which drew out the most information. Results Over the course of the discussion. The focus group session lasted approximately two hours. and a few citing convenience. several mentioned convenience. six introductory questions. and one ending question cued to a poster. In the .8 822 Participants were recruited for the focus group through an initial telephone call and pre-screening interview. which were culled down to the nine desired due to space limitations.
A few other panelists mentioned hot food as being particularly important. one liked freshness. time. and said that she “didn’t want to see vats of food sitting out”. one liked reserved parking for pick-up orders. Panelists said they would choose restaurants due to past experiences of the establishment as “getting my order right”. one liked McDonald’s for the free toys. and store for later consumption. panelists were asked why they purchase take-out food. Also. a local television broadcast which lists restaurants that have been cited for health code violations. Next. and included questions of freshness. Another mentioned greasy or dirty packaging as being a sanitation concern. one panelist said that her decisions were frequently based on “Food For Thought”. for taking to work. Another bought take-out food to use as hors d’oeuvres for a party. they felt as though the establishment was not hiding anything.“other” category. in which food preparation is visible to the consumer. One said she purchased take-out food for a funeral. especially with chicken products. A few panelists said they appreciated the demonstration kitchen. one panelist said she chose McDonald’s restaurant because her children liked Happy Meals. one participant mentioned the letter grades posted in the windows of restaurants in some other cities. The rest of the responses were unique. not touching food after touching money/cash register. and ﬂies/insects in the establishment. the panelists’ responses were markedly different. When asked about services and features that they liked or disliked the last time they purchased take-out food. i. lack of preservatives. and proper food handling practices. Since they said they could see food being prepared. The “other” category for this question was one panelist who said the most important factor was that the contents of the packaging did not leak out onto the ﬂoor of his car. quality. temperature and freshness. A preponderance of participants said they purchased take-out food for immediate consumption by themselves or their families. One panelist liked food made to order. In the “other” category. for personal/family consumption. and frequently watched “Food For Thought” as well. When asked about inﬂuence factors that would cause them to choose a certain restaurant. When asked about factors concerning food safety that might inﬂuence their decisions regarding choosing a particular restaurant. wearing gloves. panelists primarily mentioned cleanliness. Another said that he patronized a particular seafood restaurant because “[he likes] to know what kind of ﬁsh [he’s] eating”. and a few mentioned taking food to the hospital. one panelist said she always looked through her family’s food for foreign objects. and one disliked a type of packaging which had been broken and failed to contain the product. a few others mentioned choices/selection. and one said he had knowledge of the temperature danger zone. and convenience. a couple of panelists stated that time was the only factor in the decision. the panelists were asked about important food-handling practices after the food has been purchased. Many said the most important factor was to keep the food hot and consume it as soon as possible. for taking to special occasions. Consumer perspectives 823 . with only a few commonalities. and is assigned by a local health inspector. Finally. Mentioned were washing hands. The main concerns were with a clean environment. and one said he bought food to freeze.e. to store for later consumption. For the ﬁrst transition question. This is a rating scale from A to C. One panelist mentioned the temperature danger zone. He felt this was a wise practice since it allowed the consumer to see how the city rated the performance of the establishment before they enter the facility.
one panelist said that she preferred a container which featured a transparent lid. and that her order was correct. spending limits. quick. good. Participants of the focus group cited taste as an important factor. vegetarian. Only a handful of panelists mentioned budget. hot. On the issue of recycling. one panelist felt that recyclable containers were the most desirable. fresh. neat. whereas a few panelists said that microwaveable containers were not important.BFJ 110. One panelist mentioned delivery as being an important factor. and . . nice container. A couple of participants mentioned that the printing/logos on the outside of the packaging were not at all important. . hot. . another panelist said that due to a lack of local recycling programs. She said that if she had to warm up a conventional oven to heat the product for service. The ﬁnal transition question asked panelists for the ﬁrst three words that came to mind when they thought of purchasing take-out foods. convenient. with drive-through the most popular. . but one said that for take-out food. recommendation by others. well-packaged. hot. and how these factors inﬂuence purchase of take-out food. He also mentioned feeling hurried in making a food decision at the drive-through “with a line of other cars behind me”. He said that if he was going to purchase food from an upscale restaurant that he “would go inside. Another panelist mentioned that oven-proof containers were not important. hot. . while another said that she felt uncomfortable having food delivered to her house. that was the least important factor. fast. and the types of services offered by an establishment. as most take-out food products are fairly inexpensive. fresh. while one said a recommendation was unimportant. and sit down”. Several panelists mentioned sealing lids and/or no spillage. variety. hot. affordable. although one participant said he avoided the drive-through due to the fact that it was difﬁcult to ensure the order was ﬁlled properly. the convenience factors are no longer present. A fair number said that being microwaveable was an important feature. quick. Type of service was mentioned by virtually all panelists. . A fair number mentioned recommendations by others as an important factor. so she was conﬁdent in what she was purchasing. The ﬁrst key question was concerned with participants’ opinions about what features they liked or did not like in take-out packaging. . delivery. but there was quite a bit of commonality in the responses which follow: . fresh. . Most of the panelists said that one of the things they liked the most was for the packaging to keep the food hot. dollar amount was not important. tasty. fresh. convenient. such as drive-through. Finally. Not all participants came up with three words. fast. conversely. healthy. tasty. or car-side.8 824 The next transition question was concerning the factors of taste. A handful of panelists said that containers with separate food compartments were the most desirable. as the reason she purchases take-out food is convenience.
As interest in dining out at “sit-down” restaurants wanes. the ending question was posed as to anything the discussion might have omitted. with the added convenience of being able to call in the order before hand. With some consumers purchasing take-out up to ﬁve times per week. and given several minutes to review the list of factors. Many panelists said that location was an important factor in the decision to purchase take-out food. or anything the researchers may have missed. procedure for holding product for service. However. The focus group discussion touched on many points as to what types of factors inﬂuence consumers to make a purchase decision. One panelist mentioned that large to-go drinks do not ﬁt in his car’s drink holder. Though many cited simply “time” or “convenience”. and the primary concerns as to the performance of packaging. Others said that delivery was a deciding factor. and some said customer service was also very important. 2002). while another said that he enjoyed using coupons. While this theme manifested in a number of aspects. and a couple said that recommendation by others has inﬂuenced their decisions. the other main theme that inﬂuenced purchase decisions was product quality. The most frequently mentioned reason for why panelists purchase take-out food was for personal consumption. similar consumer studies. and the ability of an establishment to pass health inspections. That the increase of take-out food sales is driven by busy. assortment of food. and price. as well as health inspection reports. by themselves or their families. as to what people look for in take-out food. working people is obvious. As convenience was a major theme of the discourse. Finally. despite these differences in how the food gets to the consumer. The panelists were referred to a poster placed near the table. a preponderance of the panelists based purchase decisions on the ability to consume the food in their own homes. Another panelist said that she was loyal to a particular brand of diet soft drink. Several others mentioned car-side service. a small minority of participants mentioned that the quality of an establishment’s ice was a factor in their decision to purchase take-out food. this demographic is proving valuable to establishments that are willing to cater to their needs (Binkley and Ghiselli. Finally. similarities occurred among such concerns as freshness of uncooked product. Several panelists from this study mentioned drive-through service as the most important factor inﬂuencing a purchase decision. A fair number of participants mentioned the taste of the food.The second key question had to do with several factors which may or may not have been instrumental in the panelists’ decision to purchase take-out food. Several participants felt that important factors were ease of pick-up. freshness of cooked product. there were also a signiﬁcant number of responses as to speciﬁc services provided by the restaurant. it is perhaps not surprising that this motif was underlying most of the inﬂuence factors. Surprisingly. one panelist mentioned the number of people that he knows who purchase take-out food for their pets. Discussion The ﬁndings of this project are consistent with those of other. Aside from convenience factors. A few participants mentioned the reputation of the restaurant. 2005). the take-out market grows steadily (Prewitt. as those particular participants had small children. Finally. their knowledge of food safety. Some panelists said cleanliness was an important factor. Although a handful Consumer perspectives 825 . one panelist said that drive-through service was important. and that this factor inﬂuences him to avoid certain restaurants and to patronize others.
However. For instance. the research from this study suggests that consumers are not as actively safety conscious as would be ideal. virtually all participants said that the primary factor that inﬂuenced their decision to purchase was convenience. Some other important factors included tight-sealing lids that keep the food contained.BFJ 110. this practice is still the exception to the norm. a step that this panelist found inconvenient. even with the growing numbers of consumers purchasing take-out food (Klara. either as a function of structural integrity. or to replicate the in-store dining experience in their homes. Barriers to participation in a widespread cooperative action might include cost. several of this study’s participants considered the printing or logos on the outside of the packaging to be the least important factors. making risk-avoidance the onus of individual consumers and food preparers/packagers. Interestingly. The public is not afraid to point at restaurants as being the source of foodborne illness. families in hospital waiting rooms. 2005). Due to a lack of governmental oversight of take-out labeling and handling instructions. panelists’ responses were varied. and to serve as a marketing tool with the very visible logos printed on the outside of their take-out containers (Shea. the restaurant industry should regard the growing trend of take-out sales as a potential for increasing risk factors. 2004). or the package’s ability to contain the product. Despite the fact that three quarters of polled consumers said they would ﬁnd it useful for take-out containers to be labeled with food handling/re-heating instructions. several participants said that the ability to microwave the container was not important at all. and the ability of the packaging to be re-heated in the microwave. Conversely. The panelist said that while the foil-wrapped product stayed hot longer. or parties. to simulate the chain’s dining room place settings in the consumer’s home. not a single panelist mentioned the ability of the containers to withstand sharp utensils. and need to include instructions on how to properly handle the product once it has left the store. When asked about their opinions concerning take-out food packaging. divided compartments to keep the food separated during transportation. On a similar note. Pertaining to food safety issues. it was not possible to reheat the product in the microwave without transferring it to another container. however. establishments are providing this commodity. Though take-out food continues to be packaged without state or federal oversight. an educated clientele will generate far more business for the industry than will unsafe products and practices. . In addition.8 826 mentioned purchasing take-out to take to gatherings such as funerals. while the other establishment used a standard wax paper wrapper. time and inconvenience. one participant mentioned the different packaging used by two local Mexican take-out stores. rather than just a source of proﬁt. thermal integrity. however. As such. and that they tend to let restaurant management and health inspectors make their safety decisions for them. The panelist explained that one restaurant wrapped their product in a foil-lined paper. 2004). several of the packaging features required by chain restaurants were not considered important criteria by this consumer focus group. establishments serving take-out food are entirely self-regulated (Binkley and Ghiselli. nearly all participants mentioned the fact that the containers needed to keep the food hot. Applebee’s packaging is designed to withstand sharp utensils. The consumer panel’s perceptions of aesthetic value in take-out containers paled in comparison to those of use-value.
The time factor. however. as functions of location and convenience. logo-intensive take-out packaging to be used as marketing tools. “In good times and bad. Most of the participants indicated that they purchased take-out for themselves or their families. and the fact that the data were gleaned from a single focus group session. Editor’s Comment. The overlying theme as to when to consume take-out food was “as soon as possible”. R. Though a few of the participants admitted to not being as educated or conscious about food safety issues as they would like. R. (2005). the most important feature of a take-out food container was that it kept the food hot. 96. According to the panelists. Packaging Digest. most paid attention to the general environment of cleanliness when deciding to purchase take-out food from a given establishment. this is despite the fact that many chain concepts are purchasing customized. Journal of Environmental Health. and a good number said that health inspections were a crucial factor in the decision making process. available at: www. and the ability to arrive at home with hot food were the main factors inﬂuencing purchase. the location of a store was the primary reason for patronage.php Consumer perspectives 827 . “Customer satisfaction: HMR/takeout”. Interestingly. (1999). This qualitative case study yielded interesting but limited ﬁndings. and Ghiselli. “Food safety issues and training methods for ready-to-eat foods in the grocery industry”. 2002. Other important container features included separate food compartments. as well as the scarcity of food safety knowledge among consumers. References Allen. Americans will still eat”. Several mentioned hand-washing/glove wearing. January. September 13. M. to get the packaged food home as quickly as possible where it would be consumed immediately. p. pp. and expected to return home and consume the product immediately. At the foundation of this risk is the lack of proper handling instructions included with take-out packaging. In addition. More often than not. This study sought to focus on why consumers purchased take-out food. Though the group represented a fairly diverse demographic. virtually all participants said that they felt most comfortable with packaging that kept the food hot. why they chose various concepts over others. what features of take-out containers they liked/disliked. the convenience. Binkley.A. The participants of the focus group seemed to be far more concerned with functionality rather than aesthetic value. and the ability to be re-heated in a microwave. Falkman. the superﬁcial design or logos printed on the outside of the container were considered to be of very little importance. Vol. and the ability. well-sealed lids. Nations Restaurant News. 27-31. Future studies would include hosting several more focus groups in larger metropolitan areas in multiple regions of the USA.com/EdComments/ 0102comment. future focus groups might include restaurant managers as well as consumers. 3. the risk for widespread foodborne illness increases. 68 No. and to what degree they understood safe food handling practices. data collected from a medium sized city in West Texas cannot be said to represent the nation as a whole. Limitations included the narrow geographic region from which panelists were recruited. M. (2002).packagingdigest.Conclusion As consumers purchase more take-out food each year.
The Demand for Food Away From Home. 4 No.rimag. G. “New frontiers in takeout”. “Takeout boom parallels home-cooking inroads”. “Take it outside”. Nation’s Restaurant News.J. T. p.html Comments from case study editor The subject of the paper is a rarely studied but potentially important commercially and in public health. Prewitt. (2004). N. 8. based upon a small sample size but points the way for further more detailed investigation. R. 3. P. Warner.. 17.J. March No. “Takeout trend redeﬁning restaurant industry”. 97-105. M..asp Sheridan. 31. J. Economic Research Service/USDA Report AER-829.M.nytimes.com/story/index. Restaurants and Institutions.com. Bhuyan. M. 607-28.. Matsumoto. The qualitative study is. “Packaging demands in the food service industry”. M. Broz can be contacted at: charles. A. E. (2004). Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online. and Nayga. 36 No. DC. (2004). Foodservice and Packaging Institute (2007).aspx?id ¼ 226418 Terpstra. H.BFJ 110. 39. Restaurant Business. May 1. VA.asp Silayoi. Steenbekkers.A. Corresponding author Charles C.jsonline. “Get out of here”. S.com/reprints . “Food storage and disposal: consumer practices and knowledge”. Blisard. British Food Journal. (2004). M. (2002). de Maertelaere. Stewart.edu To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. Food to Go. 80 No. (2003). St. and Nijhuis. 6.broz@ttu. National Restaurant Association (2007). 7. pp. pp. “Packaging and purchase decisions: an exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure”. Food Protection Trends. Shea. November 15. and Speece. 26 No. The New York Times. “Consumer decisions on storage of packaged foods”. Vol. (2004). 107 No.. “Curbing appetites”.restaurant. (2006). USDA. Vol.8 828 Food Institute Report (2007). 307-13.. pp. 526-33. Food Service Technology. Falls Church. Food Institute Report. by default. 18-20. “Packing up proﬁts”.rimag. S. Petterson. pp. com/archives/2003/06b/ops1. available at: www. Swartz.com/2006/06/06/business/06restaurants. pp. British Food Journal. Restaurant.P. Restaurants and Institutions. Vol. Foodservice Packaging.cfm Olsson. and Jonson. “Pack mentality”. “2007 Restaurant industry overview”. available at: www. available at: www. p. Foodservice and Packaging Institute Single-Use Foodservice Packaging: A Tutorial. 1. (2004). (2000). Lando. Restaurants and Institutions. Vol. June 6. N.com/archives/2004/11b/custom-carryout-packaging. (2007). 85-6. 5. (2005). Vol. 106 No. S. 15. A. Klara.org/research/ind_glance. and Fein.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. pp. available at: www.C.emeraldinsight. M. particularly in some countries. available at: www. L. Vol. M. Vol. R. 103 No. Washington.org.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.