1. Introduction
The natural and organic products industry has expanded tremendously, growing from USD 97 billion in 2007 to over USD 300 billion in 2023, demonstrating consistent annual growth. Consumer sales exceeded USD 250 billion in 2020, with an average annual growth rate of 8% over the previous decade [1]. This upward trend has reflected the transition of natural products from niche markets to widespread mainstream adoption [1,2]. However, whether consumers fully comprehend the meaning of the term “natural” on food labels remains uncertain.
Within the food industry, the term “natural” has been used extensively despite the absence of a clear definition, and many products are not subject to regulation by a competent authority [3]. Manufacturers frequently display the term “natural” on product packaging even when the items contain artificial ingredients. The 2015 Consumer Reports Natural Food Labels Survey [4] highlighted consumer confusion stemming from inconsistent labeling, which led several organizations to initiate legal action against food companies for using potentially misleading claims. These cases specifically targeted terms such as “natural” and “healthy”, alleging that their usage was deceptive.
Food safety experts from Consumer Reports supported these concerns, characterizing the use of the word “natural” as a marketing tactic designed to mislead consumers. They further emphasized that regulators should either prohibit the term entirely or establish a uniform definition [4]. Even in the absence of strategic marketing, inherent consumer bias has been repeatedly demonstrated in studies showing a preference for “natural” over terms such as “artificial” or “chemical” [3]. Accordingly, scientists, manufacturers, retailers, and regulatory agencies must continue to collaborate to enhance consumer understanding of potential risks related to food choices. Given the commercial importance of the term “natural” to brands, manufacturers, and other stakeholders, it is essential to monitor shifts in consumer behavior and gain a comprehensive understanding of how preferences evolve over time [5].
In December 2015, the Consumer Reports National Research Center conducted a survey involving 1005 adults to assess their views on natural food labeling. Sixty-two percent of respondents reported that they typically purchased food labeled as natural. Most believed that the term should imply the absence of chemical processing (85%), artificial ingredients or colors (84%), toxic pesticides (84%), and genetically modified organisms (82%). Despite consumer reliance on the term in purchasing decisions, regulatory oversight remains limited. The Consumers Union [6] petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restrict the use of the term “natural” on food labels in order to reduce consumer misunderstanding. In response, the FDA [7] collected public input, which revealed a wide range of interpretations, including perceptions that natural denotes “healthy” or that “not fresh should not be considered healthy”. The FDA [8] also invited comments on whether the term should be officially defined. Although no definition has been formally adopted, the FDA has traditionally interpreted “natural” to mean that “nothing artificial or synthetic has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food”.
Román [9] noted that the concept of naturalness in food is inherently abstract and often linked to health, freshness, and the perception that products are organically or locally sourced. Moreover, studies examining naturalness in foods have reported considerable variation in the composition of such foods and inconsistency in how the term is defined by different authors [9,10,11,12,13,14]. While research on consumer perceptions of “natural” has primarily focused on the United States, the term remains widely used in numerous countries without regulatory clarity [10]. Furthermore, the term can be misleading, as certain naturally occurring compounds, such as arsenic and Clostridium botulinum toxin, are highly harmful to human health. Similarly, excessive intake of natural nutrients, such as Vitamin A, may result in fatal outcomes.
However, comparative studies evaluating consumer interpretations of naturalness across different regions are limited. In particular, few studies have examined how demographic variables influence perceptions of what is considered natural. Most existing research has focused on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) populations, resulting in a significant knowledge gap with respect to consumer behavior in non-WEIRD countries [11]. This gap also complicates efforts to accurately interpret cross-cultural consumer psychology and decision-making processes [12].
In this study, we aimed to identify whether specific ingredients are perceived as natural by consumers from 13 countries, including both WEIRD and non-WEIRD regions. Additionally, the study examined how perceptions of naturalness vary by demographic characteristics, including age, sex, education level, and the number of adults or children in the household.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participant Profiles
Participants (n = 8191) were recruited via the online survey platform Qualtrics (Provo, UT, USA) from existing consumer databases in 13 countries (n = 630 per country, with 631 in India). Each database contained approximately 1,000,000 potential respondents. The selected countries were Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA). These countries represented all permanently inhabited continents (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania) and included both WEIRD and non-WEIRD populations with varied dietary habits. Eligibility was further determined by the size of each country’s database and the anticipated survey response rate. For instance, Egypt and Ghana were initially tested but excluded from the final sample due to low response rates. Ghana returned fewer than 300 responses, and Egypt yielded minimal participation in the 55+ age group. Data from the USA were not collected as part of this study but were sourced from a previously published study by one of the authors for comparative purposes. The demographic profile for each country was balanced by sex (50% male, 50% female) and by age (33% each for 18–34, 35–54, and 55+ years). Information on education level and household composition (number of adults and children) was also collected; although, this information was not balanced by sex, age, or country (Table 1). Participants were compensated by Qualtrics using its standard reward system.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire assessed consumer perceptions regarding whether specific ingredients (Table 2) were considered natural. A check-all-that-apply (CATA) format was used, whereby participants marked each ingredient they perceived as natural. The 20 tested ingredients were derived from a previously published USA questionnaire [13]. All ingredients were available or approved in the respective countries. All participants completed all questions with no branching logic, and the ingredient order was randomized for each respondent.
If English was not the respondent’s primary language, the questionnaire was translated into the respective language (Brazilian Portuguese, Mandarin Simplified Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Spanish, Russian, Afrikaans, or Thai). A modified version of the translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation (TRAPD) method [14,15] was followed.
The initial translation was conducted by a native speaker with subject-matter expertise and proficiency in English. A second subject-matter expert conducted a back-translation and made necessary revisions. Discrepancies between the original and the back-translated version were addressed, whether due to translation errors or other inconsistencies [16,17].
The two translators for each language reviewed the final version collaboratively, either in person or online, to ensure semantic equivalence. This approach has been applied in other multilingual surveys [18,19,20,21]. A soft launch involving 50 participants per country was conducted to assess clarity and timing. The translated questionnaires [14] were verified for comprehensibility and completion feasibility.
Soft launch data were monitored, and no missing responses were detected. Responses to validity check items designed to evaluate attentiveness were appropriately scored. In India and South Africa, participants could choose between English and the translated version, given that a substantial portion of the population regularly uses English and may not use the other offered language (e.g., Afrikaans in South Africa).
2.3. Data Analysis
Frequencies and percentages were calculated using Excel (Microsoft Office LTSC Professional Plus 2021). XLSTAT ver. 2024.4.0 (Addinsoft, New York, NY, USA) was used to analyze CATA data for the 20 ingredients across 13 countries. Multiple comparisons were performed using the critical difference (Sheskin) procedure to identify significant differences in ingredient perception between countries (p < 0.05).
The Kruskal–Wallis test, a non-parametric method suitable for comparing two or more independent samples [22], was used to assess differences in mean naturalness perception across age groups (18–34, 35–54, 55+). The Mann–Whitney U test was applied to compare perception differences by education level (primary/less with high school vs. college/university), sex (male vs. female), number of adults in the household (1–2 vs. 3 or more), and presence of children under 18 years (none vs. one or more) [22].
SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used to perform cluster analysis, grouping countries based on perception frequency. Correspondence analysis was conducted to visualize the results.
3. Results
3.1. Overall Perceptions of 20 Ingredients as Natural
Overall, consumers differed in their perceptions of the various ingredients as natural (Table 2). Three ingredients, corn (73.10%), wheat flour (69.77%), and soybeans (69.05%), were most frequently thought to be natural by consumers. Only two other ingredients, pea flour (58.77%) and salt (57.22%), were considered natural by most consumers. Lecithin (8.69%), sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP; 2.04%), and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA; 1.43%) were perceived as natural by less than 10% of consumers.
3.2. Consumer Perception Differences for 20 Ingredients According to Country
The participants’ perceptions of whether the 20 ingredients were natural are shown for each country in Table 3. More than 50% of the respondents in every country identified no single ingredient as natural. However, corn (excluding Thailand), wheat flour (excluding Brazil), and soybeans (excluding Russia and the UK) were considered as natural by 50% or more of the consumers in most countries. BHA and SAPP were not considered natural (less than 5%) by consumers in any country. All other ingredients showed a range of differences across countries. Black beans, canola oil, maltodextrins, and sorghum flour showed the largest differences with at least one country having over 50% of consumers agree that the ingredient was natural; whereas, in one other country, less than 10% of respondents agreed that the ingredient was natural. Evidently, the concept of natural is perceived differently across the 13 countries. Although the reasons for consumers’ determinations of naturalness were not explored in this study, the differences likely occurred because of differences in familiarity with the ingredient, perceived healthfulness, or the chemical-sounding name of the ingredient in various countries. Additionally, clear differences were evident in the perception of ingredients, such as baking soda and sodium bicarbonate, which are the same ingredient with common and chemical names. Those differences likely occurred because of familiarity, countries using different names for these ingredients, and the chemical name sounding less natural in some contexts. Differences were also observed in consumer perceptions of insect powder, canola oil, maltodextrins, and molasses.
3.3. Consumer Perceptions of 20 Ingredients According to Country Clusters
Figure 1 shows the results of the correspondence analysis, which maps the relationship of consumer perceptions of naturalness in terms of ingredients and countries. These two dimensions explained 67.8% of the variability, with 53.5% in the first dimension and 14.2% in the second. Groupings from cluster analysis are also indicated as ellipses that overlay the map. Cluster 1 consisted of Australia, India, Japan, South Africa, the UK, and the USA. Cluster 2 contained only Russia, and Cluster 3 comprised Brazil, China, Mexico, Peru, and Spain. Cluster 4 included only Thailand.
The perception of each cluster can be explained in high–low terms, considering a frequency higher than 50% to be high. Countries in Cluster 1 generally considered corn, wheat flour, soybean, black beans, and salt as natural. Most consumers in South Africa also consider canola oil to be natural. In Cluster 2, wheat flour, corn, salt, sugar, and pea flour were considered natural ingredients by most consumers. Interestingly, sodium bicarbonate (46.3%) and baking soda (7.8%) differed considerably in terms of consumer perceptions of naturalness. In Cluster 3, corn, soybean, pea, and wheat flours were commonly evaluated as having high naturalness; whereas, sorghum flour, salt, and maltodextrins were recognized as natural in China, Mexico, Spain, and Peru, respectively. Wheat flour from Brazil and pea flour from Spain were considered natural ingredients by fewer consumers. In Cluster 4, salt, soybean, pea flour, wheat flour, maltodextrins, and sorghum flour were recognized as natural by a high percentage of consumers, and the frequencies of people in that cluster selecting these as natural were generally higher than those in other countries.
3.4. Consumer Perceptions of 20 Ingredients According to Demographics
The differences in how participants from each country perceived naturalness of the 20 ingredients were analyzed according to the following demographic characteristics: age, education, sex, number of adults in the household, and number of children in the household. The results are presented in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8.
3.4.1. Analysis by Age Group
In the comparison of age groups (Table 4), five countries (Australia, the UK, the USA, China, and Mexico) showed significant perception differences in more than 50% of the ingredients across age groups. Typically, when perception differences were found across ingredients, older consumers were more likely than younger consumers to say that those ingredients were natural. Only China had more than one perception difference in corn, maltodextrins, and sorghum flour, where a higher percentage of younger consumers than older consumers said that the ingredients were natural. BHA and insect powder showed no differences in the percentage of consumers who perceived them as natural in any country. Notably, in both cases, the percentages were low for all countries.
3.4.2. Analysis by Education Level
Among all the countries, significant perception differences were observed between the education groups for approximately 35% of the ingredients. Specifically, ingredients were perceived more frequently as natural by consumers with a higher education level in Australia (xanthan gum), Japan (molasses, sorghum flour, and soybean), South Africa (maltodextrins and soybean), the UK (canola oil and insect powder), the USA (insect powder and sorghum flour), Russia (lecithin), Brazil (sodium bicarbonate and sugar), China (corn syrup, maltodextrins, pea flour, soybean, wheat flour, and xanthan gum), Peru (canola oil, corn, and soybean), Spain (gluten, lecithin, and sorghum flour), and Thailand (baking soda, pea flour, salt, and soybean).
Only India (BHA, lecithin, SAPP, and sodium bicarbonate) and South Africa (baking soda and sugar) had more than one ingredient that was perceived as natural by more consumers with lower education levels.
3.4.3. Analysis by Sex
In the comparison of the sex groups (Table 6), some differences in the perception of the various ingredients as natural were observed. Only two ingredients (sorghum and wheat flours) showed significant (p < 0.05) perception differences between males and females in more than four countries. In both cases, six countries showed that males were more likely than females to say that the ingredients were natural. For the other four ingredients (lecithin, salt, SAPP, and sugar), three or more countries showed perception differences between males and females. Lecithin had four countries with perception differences, with three countries having more females and one country having more males that perceived the ingredient as natural. Sugar had four countries showing differences in perceptions of naturalness between sexes, and more males in three countries and more females in one country perceived sugar as natural. Salt and SAPP showed perception differences between sexes in three countries, but salt was considered natural by more males, and SAPP was considered natural by more females.
3.4.4. Analysis by Number of Adults in the Household
In the comparison of the two groups categorized by the number of adults in the household (Table 7), it was hypothesized that a higher number of adults in a household would be associated with a stronger recognition of natural ingredients compared to households with fewer adults. This hypothesis was supported only in India and China, where statistically significant perception differences were found between the groups for most ingredients. Notably, these two countries showed contrasting tendencies in the perception of ingredients as natural. For example, in India, the group with one to two adults recognized black beans as natural at a significantly higher rate; whereas, in China, the group with three or more adults showed a significantly higher recognition of black beans as natural. This trend was observed for nearly all the ingredients evaluated. In addition, although the UK, South Africa, and Australia showed significant perception differences for a few ingredients, only one or no ingredients showed such differences in the remaining eight countries.
3.4.5. Analysis by Number of Children in the Household
The presence or absence of children under the age of 18 in the household (Table 8) was compared to determine whether households with children were more likely to consider factors such as health and nutrition when evaluating food ingredients. For example, the study investigated whether consumers with children were more likely to penalize ingredients and not identify them as natural because of potential health concerns. Baking soda and BHA showed no perception differences among the two groups in any country. Australia was the only country in which significant perception differences were observed between groups for most ingredients. Interestingly, in every case in Australia where significant perception differences were observed, those with no children were more likely to identify ingredients as natural. The same finding (no children in the household gave higher natural responses) occurred in the other two countries (South Africa and the UK), where there were more than three significant perception differences. Only China had more than one significant perception difference between the no-child and with-children households, where those with children were more likely to perceive some ingredients as natural (maltodextrins, sorghum flour, and soybean). Furthermore, countries where perceptions of two or fewer ingredients were found to differ between those with and without children were also of interest. Three countries had no significant perception differences (Japan, Mexico, and Peru); Russia and Spain had only one perception difference; and India, Brazil, and Thailand had two perception differences for ingredients between those with and without children in the household. Thus, in only a few countries was there much evidence of a difference in the perception of naturalness when there were no children in the household versus when children were present.
4. Discussion
Shared perceptions of natural ingredients recognized by consumers were observed in each country (Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1); however, notable perception differences also emerged. Some variations in the tendency for significant perception differences across these factors were based on demographic factors, such as age, education level, sex, and the numbers of adults and children in the household (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8). However, many ingredients showed significant perception differences based on age, whereas the differences related to the number of adults and children in the household exhibited contrasting trends. Therefore, in this study, the following trends are discussed: (1) ingredients perceived as natural by nearly all countries (corn, wheat flour, and soybean); (2) ingredients generally considered natural but not in certain countries (black beans, canola oil, pea flour, salt, and sugar); (3) ingredients rarely perceived as natural (BHA and SAPP); and (4) ingredients perceived as natural in limited countries. Differences in demographic information are also discussed.
4.1. Overall Consumer Perceptions
4.1.1. Natural Ingredients: Corn, Soybean, and Wheat Flour
As mentioned previously, the three primary ingredients (corn, wheat flour, and soybeans) are widely recognized as natural ingredients and are actively produced, consumed, imported, and exported in most countries. However, various factors, such as cultivation technologies, policies, GMO cultivation practices [23,24], and consumption behaviors, may influence consumer perceptions of these ingredients in different ways across countries. Furthermore, the relationship between production and consumption is often disproportionate. This suggests that these factors may have a complex and nuanced effect on how consumers perceive ingredients as natural.
In Thailand, only 3.2% of consumers considered corn a natural ingredient, a perception unique to the country. Therefore, it is important to consider the potential influence of cultural factors. Thai consumers rarely eat corn-based products compared to consumers in many other countries. Corn production in Thailand is less than one-fifth that in Mexico [25]. The processed sweet corn industry has received more attention in Thailand’s domestic market than in the past [26]. This industry primarily produces various products, including cornstarch and grilled sweet corn.
Wheat flour is widely regarded as a natural ingredient in many countries. Wheat consumption is expected to rise steadily due to population growth and increased middle-class income [27]. However, it was perceived as natural by less than 50% of consumers in Brazil despite the country’s significant consumption of bread, biscuits, and pasta. The Wheat Industry Association (Abitrigo) of Brazil highlights the urgent need for quality improvement, as only approximately 30% of Brazilian wheat flour meets the standards required for bread production, owing to its poor quality [27]. This quality problem may influence Brazilians’ belief that corn is natural.
4.1.2. Ingredients Generally Considered as Natural: Black Beans, Canola Oil, Pea Flour, Salt, and Sugar
Black beans are classified as NOVA Group 1 (minimally processed foods); and canola oil, pea flour, salt, and sugar are classified as NOVA Group 2 (processed culinary ingredients [28]. They were considered natural by more than 40% of the consumers in at least seven countries.
Black beans have been a staple food in the North American diet for at least 7000 years. Known as ‘turtle beans’ in English and ‘frijoles negros’ in Spanish, they are recognized as a valuable source of essential nutrients that offer various health benefits, including blood sugar regulation, cancer prevention, eye and heart health, and weight management [29]. The global production of black beans is primarily concentrated in Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, with the USA also contributing substantially to the international market and Brazil being the largest consumer of black beans [30]. However, in this study, only 8.1% of consumers in Brazil perceived black beans as natural. Thai consumers did not consider black beans natural. However, consumers in Brazil and Thailand may not have understood the question. The Portuguese translation of black beans is quite similar to that of black bean stew, a common food in Brazil. Therefore, it is possible that the respondents confused the term with black bean stew and did not consider it an ingredient. Similarly, in Thailand, the term black bean has multiple translations, depending on the type of black bean and use. Hence, the translation and use of only one term may have confused consumers, resulting in a low percentage of consumers saying that black beans are natural. Furthermore, Rotjanapaiboon [31] indicated that there is generally a high acceptance of dishes made with dried black beans in Thailand. Moreover, studies on consumer patterns and perceptions of black beans in Thailand are relatively limited. Although the perception is generally perceived as positive, further exploring the perceptions of Thai consumers of black beans based on the findings of this study will be valuable.
The global pea flour market is estimated to reach USD 22.2 billion in 2023, with a projected Compound Annual Growth Rate of 14.5% from 2023 to 2030 [32]. Pea flour is widely recognized as a popular ingredient in the food industry, owing to its extensive use in baking, cooking, and as a protein supplement. Increasing consumer demand for plant-based and gluten-free products has contributed considerably to the growth of the pea flour market. Because consumers actively seek alternatives to animal-based protein sources, they are likely to be attracted to the nutritional benefits of pea flour. This trend is further supported by an increase in clean-label products that emphasize minimal processing and easily recognizable ingredients [32].
Unexpectedly, the overall proportion of consumers perceiving salt and sugar as natural varied across countries. Chambers [33] showed that more than 70% of respondents in a study of 30 ingredients answered that sea salt was natural. In this study, it was presented as salt and consumers may have thought of iodized salt or reduced-sodium salts available in countries with high risk of iodine deficiency [34] or cardiovascular diseases [35], respectively.
Additionally, the results of Chambers [33] for sugar should be compared with those of this study. Chambers [33] found that sugar was generally perceived as natural with a few consumers responding that it is ‘probably from a factory (5.1%)’, ‘an artificial ingredient (6.0%)’, or ‘artificial chemical used in processing (7.8%)’.
Canola oil is a unique type of rapeseed oil. Global production data from the United States Department of Agriculture [36] showed that four countries/regions produce the most rapeseed oil (European Union: 30%, China: 22%, Canada: 14%, and India: 12%). In most countries, the perception of canola oil was moderate, perhaps because it is generally used in North America and Australia, with many other countries referring to it as rapeseed oil. In both Russia and Spain, canola oil had a low percentage of consumers who considered it natural. This may be partly due to a terminology issue. However, this may also be associated with distrust in Russia. Russian consumers have a widespread perception that imported products with long expiration dates incorporate large amounts of additives [37]. Other authors have shown that foods with high import and export may be associated with some level of distrust related to aspects, such as organic status, which is associated with being natural by some [38]. However, South Africa’s canola oil has been found to be safe for human consumption, of high quality, and more cost-effective than olive oil [39]. Thus, this consumer-friendly information may have contributed to the highest rate (61%) of natural perceptions among all the countries.
4.1.3. Ingredients Rarely Perceived as Natural: BHA and SAPP
BHA and SAPP are classified as NOVA Group 4, and any foods containing these ingredients would be classified as ultra-processed foods [28]. These ingredients were not expected to be perceived as natural by most consumers. Accordingly, consumers rarely considered them natural, with the highest percentage (4.0%) found in India (Table 3). Therefore, perceptions of these ingredients are commonly unaffected by country differences. According to a study of consumers in the United States, BHA was the ingredient with the lowest percentage of consumers recognizing it as natural, with approximately 60% of respondents answering the question ‘Do not know what it is [33]’. Similarly, SAPP, an ingredient in baking powder, has a chemical-sounding name and is a chemically manufactured product. As most consumers in developed countries want natural foods free from synthetic ingredients [9], it is important to educate consumers about the roles of BHA and SAPP.
4.1.4. Mixed Natural Ingredient Perceptions
In addition to the previously mentioned ingredients, a pronounced proportion of the remaining 10 ingredients were considered natural only in specific countries. Notably, corn syrup was perceived as more natural than corn. Furthermore, differences in the perception of baking soda and sodium bicarbonate, which are different names for the same product, were observed. These differences reflect the ambiguous boundaries of what consumers perceive as natural.
Respondents in Peru (70.6%) and Thailand (65.1%) considered maltodextrins as a natural ingredient at a high percentage compared with respondents in other countries. Both of these countries tax sugar-sweetened beverages and, in both countries, the use of maltodextrins is widespread as an addition to beverages to provide some sweetness and thickness to beverages. They can also be made from locally sourced materials (rice in Thailand and corn and potatoes in Peru). Thus, it may be possible that these countries recognize the ingredient more than respondents in other countries that may perceive the term as chemical-sounding. However, it is unclear why this is not true in other countries with sugar taxes or the widespread use of maltodextrins. Maltodextrins are ingredients that the FDA [40] generally recognizes as safe and are widely used as an affordable additive because they share similar properties with sugar [41].
According to the United States Department of Agriculture [42], global sorghum production has reached 61 million tons, with the United States accounting for 19% of the total production. Sorghum is primarily grown in Asia, which hosts some of the main sorghum-producing countries. More than 80% of the global sorghum production is concentrated in Africa (61%) and Asia (22%) [43,44]. In Asia, sorghum cultivation is concentrated in India and China, where it is used to produce roti (flatbread), porridge, starch, and alcoholic beverages [44,45]. Sorghum is cultivated across Thailand, with the central and northeastern regions being the most prominent areas of growth. Although a substantial portion of the sorghum produced is exported, some is used domestically for animal feed and ethanol production [46,47,48,49]. Given this context, it is believed that the perception of sorghum flour as a natural ingredient may be more pronounced in Thailand, China, and South Africa compared with that in the other countries. This is likely because of the country’s self-sufficiency in sorghum production and its widespread use of foods commonly consumed by consumers.
Corn syrup is an ingredient made from cornstarch that is partially decomposed using acids and enzymes. The ingredient was considered a natural ingredient by nearly 50% of the consumers in Thailand (48.4%), Mexico (46.3%), and Spain (44.6%). In contrast, only a small percentage of Japanese consumers (9.2%) perceived it as natural. Notably, more Thai respondents than those from other countries regarded corn syrup as natural, where the proportion of those who considered corn syrup natural was about 16 times greater than those who perceived corn as natural. This difference in perception could be due to various factors in Thailand, such as import restrictions, environmental concerns, and production practices. Thailand does not allow the production of genetically modified (GM) crops for commercial use, but imports GM crops, which may have contributed to the perception that corn is less natural [50,51] than corn syrup.
In 2021, the global market for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was estimated to be approximately USD 9.1 billion. Furthermore, Market Research Report [52] projects that this figure will reach around USD 10.6 billion by 2030. Notably, North America and Europe produce the highest volumes of products containing corn-syrup-based sweeteners. The report [52] also indicated that owing to its distinct characteristics, HFCS has broader applications in processed and convenient foods than cane sugar, leading to an increase in consumer preference. Despite the increasing inclusion of HFCS in various packaged foods over the past decade, consumers tend to avoid packaged goods labeled with HFCS or, the newer term, corn sugar [52]. Additionally, Chambers [33] found that only 11.3% of respondents were unfamiliar with the term HFCS as either a product or ingredient. Approximately 27% of consumers associated the term with artificial ingredients, whereas nearly 17% described it using terms such as processed, artificial, or chemical ingredient and expressed concerns that it ‘sounds dangerous’ or ‘bad for health [33]’. In comparison, fewer than 5% of consumers expressed such views regarding corn itself, thus suggesting a more favorable perception of corn compared to HFCS.
Several contrasting results between baking soda and sodium bicarbonate were found. Russia, which perceived the chemical name of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate; 46.4%) as natural, did not recognize baking soda (7.8%) as natural. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the term sodium bicarbonate was used on packaging, and since then, both soda for baking and sodium bicarbonate are used interchangeably [53]. Most participants in this study were most likely accustomed to the term sodium bicarbonate and not baking soda, which explains this difference. In some other countries, it is commonly used in ingredient lists as bicarbonate of soda. In the USA, linguistic familiarity with baking soda is generally high, and the result was 33.2% higher than that of sodium bicarbonate (13.0%), which is the highest level among the 13 countries. The types of products available in the United States vary slightly. Although both ingredients are listed in the food product ingredient lists, there is a tendency to differentiate between them based on the type of product. In contrast, consumers in Japan and Thailand were the only ones where respondents tended not to consider either of the two ingredients natural.
In general, the proportion of consumers who consider insect powder a natural ingredient was low. However, in Mexico, Russia, and Japan, a slightly higher percentage of consumers perceived it as natural than in other countries. Furthermore, Castro [17] found that more than 60% of respondents in these countries expressed a willingness to consume insect powder as a familiar product. Although the findings of this study indicated that consumers did not consider insect powder a natural ingredient, positive responses regarding the intention to consume insect powder have also been observed in other countries [20,54]. This phenomenon is believed to be influenced by factors such as unfamiliarity, consumer beliefs, and culture of entomophagy [17,55,56]. In Mexico, over 500 species of insects are used as food ingredients, often enjoyed as appetizers, or incorporated into meals through various recipes [54]. Insect-based products are recognized and consumed locally [21].
The perception of gluten, a constituent and a byproduct of wheat flour [33], generally was not perceived as natural and certainly not at the level of wheat flour. A prior study in the USA found that gluten was not considered natural, although it was perceived as healthy, but not organic. However, more than 25% of the consumers in Australia, China, and the UK perceive gluten as natural. This result could be caused by the lack of emphasis on gluten intolerance in social media in those countries. Notably, in Thailand, Russia, and India, the percentage of consumers considering wheat flour as natural was seven to ten times higher, a much wider gap than that in other countries.
In a similar vein, ingredients such as molasses, xanthan gum, and lecithin were unfamiliar to nearly 60% of respondents, and they were also considered as a chemical or artificial ingredient by consumers [33]. Furthermore, given that lecithin exists in various forms, such as egg lecithin, soy lecithin, and sunflower lecithin, it is likely that perception for a natural ingredient will differ across countries depending on which type of lecithin is commonly used in each country.
4.1.5. Demographic Characteristics
Older individuals were expected to have more background knowledge of food and ingredients. This held true for most countries, including those with the largest differences in ingredients by age group (Australia, the UK, the USA, China, and Mexico). Among the 72 studies reviewed by Román [9] on the importance of food naturalness, a significantly higher proportion of older adult participants considered it important [57,58,59,60,61,62].
The mixed results for the differences in education levels were not surprising. Previous studies have explored the effects of educational level on food choice and naturalness. Two studies that included educational levels showed unclear results, and one study showed no differences due to education level [63]. Another study [64] found that of those groups most interested in naturalness, two had higher levels of education and one did not. This suggests that although education level might be important, it does not seem to be a primary influence.
Román [9] found that women were significantly more likely to consider food naturalness important. This study did not show notable sex differences, similar to previous studies [57,65]. The importance of naturalness to women may not translate into differences in the likelihood that women will perceive specific ingredients as more natural.
In China, the health and wellness of the food market has been continuously growing due to increased interest in health driven by economic growth and an aging population. In particular, the emergence and rapid rise in Green Food can be attributed to Chinese consumers’ growing concerns and diminished trust in domestic food products, especially after food safety incidents, such as the melamine milk scandal [66,67]. Thus, both the national focus on green foods and organic food industries along with heightened consumer interest in health-related dietary habits have likely influenced these shifts in consumer behavior [68].
The study findings suggest that the presence of children may influence perceptions, possibly because of heightened awareness and caution regarding food choices and consumption. For example, one study [69] found that children and adolescents are generally more taste-oriented in their food choice, and they are influenced by factors other than food preferences to a greater extent than adults. Thus, adults often assume the role of gatekeepers and may be more selective toward foods containing natural ingredients when children are present. Notably, the demographic effect of children in the household was not universal, with countries such as Japan, Mexico, and Peru showing no significant effects of having children in the household on the perception of ingredients as natural. Cultural differences are likely to explain some of these differences. In countries such as Japan, where processed foods constitute only 25% of a child’s caloric intake [70], the impact of ingredients may be less important.
4.2. Limitations
A key limitation of this study is that only ingredient terms were listed and no additional information on why consumers thought those ingredients were natural was obtained. Although the study attempted to make comparisons with prior research on the perception of natural ingredients and eating patterns, the study included questions related to familiarity or other issues, such as those in prior studies [33], which would have allowed additional analyses.
In addition, the data collection was based exclusively on the CATA method. This approach does not provide in-depth insights into why the participants selected certain ingredients or how they defined and perceived the term natural. Consequently, interpreting and standardizing findings in a specific direction can be challenging. Therefore, to better understand the reasoning and perceptions of participants, future research should aim to gather additional information [33,71] that complements CATA data, such as surveys [33,72,73,74,75] or eye-tracking [76,77,78,79,80]. In addition, the CATA method may underestimate the actual percentages [81,82], and when foods are perceived as natural, the CATA method does not allow for understanding of the levels of variables that other methods may allow [83].
As with surveys conducted in multiple languages, translation and adaptation issues may arise. It is possible that the terms used in English do not translate well into other languages and can cause misunderstanding by consumers. Although an accepted method for translation was used, the terms may have not completely aligned among the languages. In addition, although online surveys are common, there may be bias, especially when testing internationally, with lower participation by those without easy access to technology.
5. Conclusions
Countries have different perceptions of which ingredients are natural. Demographics such as age, sex, and, to a lesser extent, number of adults or children in the household impact those differences depending on which country is being studied. Based on these results and the extant literature, consumer perceptions appear to be influenced by familiarity and various geographic and demographic factors. Furthermore, consumers lack awareness of what natural is. This study shows that the term natural is clearly interpreted differently when it comes to various food ingredients. Thus, creating a single universally accepted definition of ‘natural’ is challenging and probably impossible. This study provides information that brings us closer to fully understanding the differences in ingredients and perceptions of naturalness globally. By obtaining insights into the perceptions of consumers from both WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries, this research contributes to the transformation of the food industry with a focus on the differences among countries and demographics.
The insights gained from this research provide valuable data for improving marketing strategies and encouraging better food choices for consumers in the natural product sector.
Conceptualization, E.C.I.; methodology, J.C. and J.L.; software, J.C.; validation, J.L. and E.C.I.; formal analysis, J.C.; investigation, E.C.I.; resources, E.C.I.; data curation, J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.; writing—review and editing, E.C.I. and J.L.; visualization, J.C.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, E.C.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Kansas State University (proposal number 8492) for all countries on 6 November 2018.
All participants provided informed consent and were allowed to opt out of the study at any time.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this study will be made available by the authors upon request.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| FDA | U.S. Food and Drug Admonition |
| WEIRD | Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic |
| CATA | check-all-that-apply |
| TRAPD | translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation |
| BHA | butylated hydroxyanisole |
| UK | United Kingdom |
| USA | United States of America |
| SAPP | sodium acid pyrophosphate |
| GMO | genetically modified organism |
| GM | genetically modified |
| HFCS | high-fructose corn syrup |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Correspondence analysis showing the similarities and differences between 20 ingredients considered as natural by consumers in 13 countries. Abbreviations: USA, United States of America; UK, United Kingdom; SAPP, sodium acid pyrophosphate; and BHA, butylated hydroxyanisole.
Consumer demographic percentages *.
| Demographic Characteristics | Variables | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 18–34 | 33% |
| 35–54 | 33% | |
| 55+ | 33% | |
| Education Level | Primary School or Less | 2% |
| High School | 25% | |
| College or University | 73% | |
| Sex | Male | 50% |
| Female | 50% | |
| Number of Adults Living at Residence | 1 | 10% |
| 2 | 32% | |
| 3 | 27% | |
| 4 | 16% | |
| 5+ | 14% | |
| Number of Children Living at Residence | 0 | 54% |
| 1 | 26% | |
| 2 | 15% | |
| 3+ | 5% |
* Percentages were calculated based on a total of 8191 consumers.
Percentage of consumers who perceived specific ingredients as natural.
| Ingredient | Frequency of Consumers Perceiving as Natural | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Corn | 5988 | 73.10 |
| Wheat flour | 5715 | 69.77 |
| Soybean | 5656 | 69.05 |
| Pea flour | 4814 | 58.77 |
| Salt | 4687 | 57.22 |
| Black beans | 3354 | 40.95 |
| Sugar | 3338 | 40.75 |
| Canola oil | 2821 | 34.44 |
| Sorghum flour | 2534 | 30.94 |
| Corn syrup | 2368 | 28.91 |
| Maltodextrins | 1887 | 23.04 |
| Molasses | 1620 | 19.78 |
| Gluten | 1513 | 18.47 |
| Baking soda | 1232 | 15.04 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 1186 | 14.48 |
| Xanthan gum | 964 | 11.77 |
| Insect powder | 893 | 10.90 |
| Lecithin | 712 | 8.69 |
| SAPP (Sodium acid pyrophosphate) | 167 | 2.04 |
| BHA (Butylated hydroxyanisole) | 117 | 1.43 |
| Total | 8191 | 100.00 |
Cochran’s Q test of the frequency that 20 ingredients are perceived as natural in 13 countries.
| Australia | Brazil | China | India | Japan | Mexico | Peru | Russia | South | Spain | Thailand | United | USA | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baking soda | 21.0 b * | 18.1 bc | 16.3 bc | 14.9 bc | 1.7 e | 18.4 bc | 6.3 de | 7.8 de | 12.9 cd | 18.4 bc | 5.6 e | 21.0 b | 33.2 a | <0.0001 |
| BHA | 2.2 abc | 1.7 abc | 1.1 bc | 3.0 ab | 0.2 c | 1.4 bc | 0.6 c | 0.2 c | 1.0 bc | 0.6 c | 1.1 bc | 1.6 abc | 3.8 a | <0.0001 |
| Black beans | 61.4 ab | 8.1 ef | 12.2 e | 54.6 b | 62.5 ab | 24.1 d | 10.3 ef | 65.2 a | 68.1 a | 36.0 c | 1.1 f | 65.7 a | 62.7 ab | <0.0001 |
| Canola oil | 43.3 cd | 45.1 bc | 52.9 ab | 34.3 de | 27.9 ef | 40.6 cd | 30.2 ef | 9.7 g | 61.0 a | 11.1 g | 22.2 f | 27.6 ef | 41.9 cd | <0.0001 |
| Corn | 79.5 cde | 83.3 bcd | 74.8 def | 82.9 bcd | 61.6 g | 92.2 a | 89.5 ab | 84.9 abc | 77.0 cdef | 80.2 cde | 3.2 h | 72.2 ef | 69.0 fg | <0.0001 |
| Corn syrup | 22.1 c | 22.5 c | 27.8 bc | 21.9 c | 9.2 d | 46.3 a | 32.9 b | 27.0 bc | 26.3 bc | 44.6 a | 48.4 a | 27.3 bc | 19.5 c | <0.0001 |
| Gluten | 26.2 ab | 11.6 ef | 28.3 ab | 12.7 ef | 13.5 ef | 14.4 def | 16.0 cde | 10.0 ef | 21.3 bcd | 24.1 b | 7.3 f | 31.7 a | 23.0 bc | <0.0001 |
| Insect powder | 4.8 f | 12.2 bcde | 14.1 bcd | 4.4 f | 15.9 bc | 27.8 a | 7.1 ef | 18.1 b | 3.7 f | 10.8 cde | 8.6 def | 7.1 ef | 7.1 ef | <0.0001 |
| Lecithin | 21.4 a | 4.8 cd | 7.5 c | 5.9 cd | 5.9 cd | 3.8 cd | 0.8 d | 15.2 b | 15.9 b | 4.3 cd | 1.0 d | 13.0 b | 13.7 b | <0.0001 |
| Maltodextrins | 6.5 e | 38.9 bc | 42.2 b | 3.8 e | 1.4 e | 21.1 d | 70.6 a | 2.7 e | 3.0 e | 34.0 c | 65.1 a | 5.6 e | 4.6 e | <0.0001 |
| Molasses | 39.4 ab | 3.2 de | 9.5 d | 23.8 c | 36.8 b | 1.9 de | 2.1 de | 8.1 de | 44.6 a | 2.1 de | 1.1 e | 39.5 ab | 45.1 a | <0.0001 |
| Pea flour | 38.4 fg | 77.5 bc | 66.7 d | 49.5 e | 30.0 g | 86.7 ab | 80.3 ab | 69.2 cd | 50.2 e | 47.3 ef | 88.3 a | 41.9 ef | 38.1 fg | <0.0001 |
| Salt | 57.9 cd | 35.2 f | 33.0 f | 62.2 c | 49.8 de | 57.0 cde | 48.3 e | 78.1 b | 57.0 cde | 62.7 c | 93.7 a | 54.4 cde | 54.4 cde | <0.0001 |
| SAPP | 2.7 ab | 2.4 ab | 2.2 ab | 4.0 a | 1.3 ab | 1.6 ab | 0.6 b | 1.3 ab | 2.2 ab | 1.1 b | 1.6 ab | 2.4 ab | 3.2 ab | 0.001 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 19.5 bc | 10.5 def | 6.2 ef | 6.0 ef | 3.8 f | 25.1 b | 13.2 cd | 46.3 a | 11.0 de | 13.3 cd | 3.8 f | 16.5 cd | 13.0 cd | <0.0001 |
| Sorghum flour | 36.3 c | 18.3 fg | 60.3 a | 26.7 def | 2.1 h | 35.4 cd | 22.4 fg | 32.1 cde | 45.4 b | 20.8 fg | 63.3 a | 15.1 g | 24.0 efg | <0.0001 |
| Soybean | 68.9 cd | 81.1 b | 67.0 cde | 81.7 b | 71.6 c | 61.9 de | 69.7 cd | 41.3 f | 69.8 cd | 70.0 cd | 94.1 a | 58.9 e | 61.6 de | <0.0001 |
| Sugar | 50.3 bcd | 41.3 de | 20.8 g | 50.8 bc | 45.1 bcd | 32.5 ef | 32.5 ef | 72.5 a | 41.9 cde | 24.6 fg | 17.1 g | 46.3 bcd | 53.8 b | <0.0001 |
| Wheat flour | 65.7 cde | 42.5 f | 68.7 bcde | 86.0 a | 61.3 e | 64.9 de | 75.9 b | 91.9 a | 71.9 bcd | 73.8 bc | 73.2 bcd | 68.3 bcde | 62.9 e | <0.0001 |
| Xanthan gum | 8.9 ef | 16.3 bc | 15.4 bcd | 4.8 fg | 1.4 g | 31.1 a | 21.3 b | 4.8 fg | 7.8 ef | 13.0 cde | 9.7 def | 10.3 cdef | 8.3 ef | <0.0001 |
* Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between countries based on pairwise comparisons.
Influence of age on the perception of 20 ingredients as natural.
| Ingredient | Age | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | India | Japan | South | United Kingdom | USA | Russia | Brazil | China | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Thailand | ||
| Baking soda | 18–34 yrs | 21.0 ab | 20.4 a | 1.9 | 10.5 | 16.7 | 26.3 b | 4.8 | 7.1 b | 9.5 b | 8.1 c | 2.4 b | 8.6 b | 4.8 |
| 35–54 yrs | 15.7 b | 13.3 b | 2.4 | 13.8 | 22.9 | 33.2 ab | 11.0 | 20.5 a | 22.4 a | 18.6 b | 6.2 ab | 21.4 a | 3.3 | |
| 55 yrs + | 26.2 a | 11.0 b | 1.0 | 14.3 | 23.3 | 40.0 a | 7.6 | 26.7 a | 17.1 a | 28.6 a | 10.5 a | 25.2 a | 8.6 | |
| p-value | 0.031 | 0.019 | 0.524 | 0.447 | 0.174 | 0.012 | 0.060 | <0.0001 | 0.002 | <0.0001 | 0.003 | <0.0001 | 0.053 | |
| BHA | 18–34 yrs | 2.4 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2.4 |
| 35–54 yrs | 2.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | |
| 55 yrs + | 1.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 0.5 | |
| p-value | 0.930 | 0.072 | 0.368 | 0.133 | 0.492 | 0.302 | 0.368 | 0.228 | 0.364 | 1.000 | 0.778 | 0.172 | 0.099 | |
| Black beans | 18–34 yrs | 51.9 b | 53.6 | 50.0 c | 61.9 b | 57.1 b | 50.2 b | 63.3 | 7.1 | 11.9 | 21.0 b | 9.5 | 30.5 | 1.4 |
| 35–54 yrs | 58.1 b | 55.7 | 61.4 b | 65.7 b | 70.0 a | 66.4 a | 68.6 | 6.2 | 10.5 | 19.5 b | 10.0 | 36.7 | 0.0 | |
| 55 yrs + | 74.3 a | 54.8 | 76.2 a | 76.7 a | 70.0 a | 71.4 a | 63.8 | 11.0 | 14.3 | 31.9 a | 11.4 | 41.0 | 1.9 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.905 | <0.0001 | 0.003 | 0.006 | <0.0001 | 0.460 | 0.167 | 0.485 | 0.005 | 0.800 | 0.080 | 0.153 | |
| Canola oil | 18–34 yrs | 32.9 b | 30.3 b | 27.6 | 52.9 b | 24.3 | 33.5 b | 12.9 | 44.8 | 52.4 | 38.1 | 29.5 | 11.9 | 12.4 b |
| 35–54 yrs | 39.0 b | 29.5 b | 27.6 | 61.9 ab | 32.9 | 43.6 a | 9.5 | 42.9 | 59.0 | 39.5 | 29.0 | 11.0 | 23.8 a | |
| 55 yrs + | 58.1 a | 42.9 a | 28.6 | 68.1 a | 25.7 | 48.6 a | 6.7 | 47.6 | 47.1 | 44.3 | 31.9 | 10.5 | 30.5 a | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.005 | 0.969 | 0.006 | 0.110 | 0.006 | 0.100 | 0.615 | 0.050 | 0.401 | 0.792 | 0.894 | <0.0001 | |
| Corn | 18–34 yrs | 71.0 c | 85.8 | 51.9 b | 80.0 | 61.4 b | 65.6 | 82.9 | 81.0 | 78.6 a | 91.4 | 84.8 b | 76.2 | 4.8 |
| 35–54 yrs | 79.5 b | 81.0 | 61.9 a | 72.9 | 80.5 a | 70.6 | 86.7 | 85.2 | 81.0 a | 90.0 | 91.4 a | 80.0 | 1.9 | |
| 55 yrs + | 88.1 a | 81.9 | 71.0 a | 78.1 | 74.8 a | 71.0 | 85.2 | 83.8 | 64.8 b | 95.2 | 92.4 a | 84.3 | 2.9 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.379 | 0.000 | 0.198 | <0.0001 | 0.408 | 0.545 | 0.487 | 0.000 | 0.117 | 0.021 | 0.115 | 0.236 | |
| Corn syrup | 18–34 yrs | 15.7 b | 21.8 | 9.0 | 21.4 b | 18.6 b | 13.4 b | 26.2 | 25.2 | 28.6 ab | 41.4 b | 38.6 | 33.8 b | 50.5 |
| 35–54 yrs | 16.7 b | 24.8 | 8.6 | 22.9 b | 26.7 b | 21.3 a | 30.0 | 18.6 | 33.8 a | 44.3 ab | 27.6 | 40.0 b | 52.4 | |
| 55 yrs + | 33.8 a | 19.0 | 10.0 | 34.8 a | 36.7 a | 23.8 a | 24.8 | 23.8 | 21.0 b | 53.3 a | 32.4 | 60.0 a | 42.4 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.367 | 0.876 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.020 | 0.458 | 0.228 | 0.013 | 0.039 | 0.057 | <0.0001 | 0.094 | |
| Gluten | 18–34 yrs | 23.8 b | 13.7 | 10.0 b | 19.0 | 30.5 | 26.8 | 10.0 | 8.1 b | 25.2 b | 16.2 a | 10.5 b | 21.9 | 9.5 |
| 35–54 yrs | 18.1 b | 14.8 | 18.6 a | 19.0 | 31.9 | 21.8 | 11.9 | 11.0 ab | 38.1 a | 9.0 b | 14.3 b | 21.4 | 3.8 | |
| 55 yrs + | 36.7 a | 9.5 | 11.9 b | 25.7 | 32.9 | 20.5 | 8.1 | 15.7 a | 21.4 b | 18.1 a | 23.3 a | 29.0 | 8.6 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.232 | 0.026 | 0.156 | 0.870 | 0.270 | 0.429 | 0.048 | 0.000 | 0.021 | 0.001 | 0.124 | 0.055 | |
| Insect powder | 18–34 yrs | 5.2 | 6.2 | 17.1 | 5.7 | 9.0 | 7.7 | 20.5 | 12.4 | 14.8 | 25.7 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 8.6 |
| 35–54 yrs | 6.7 | 2.9 | 13.3 | 2.9 | 7.6 | 7.1 | 18.1 | 12.4 | 11.9 | 28.1 | 6.2 | 13.3 | 7.6 | |
| 55 yrs + | 2.4 | 4.3 | 17.1 | 2.4 | 4.8 | 6.7 | 15.7 | 11.9 | 15.7 | 29.5 | 8.1 | 11.9 | 9.5 | |
| p-value | 0.111 | 0.256 | 0.468 | 0.144 | 0.222 | 0.926 | 0.448 | 0.985 | 0.507 | 0.679 | 0.751 | 0.101 | 0.785 | |
| Lecithin | 18–34 yrs | 9.5 b | 6.2 | 3.8 | 4.8 c | 7.1 b | 9.1 b | 12.4 | 3.3 | 7.6 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 4.8 | 1.4 |
| 35–54 yrs | 13.8 b | 5.2 | 8.1 | 12.4 b | 12.4 b | 11.4 b | 18.1 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 0.0 | |
| 55 yrs + | 41.0 a | 6.2 | 5.7 | 30.5 a | 19.5 a | 20.5 a | 15.2 | 5.7 | 10.0 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 4.3 | 1.4 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.894 | 0.174 | <0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.266 | 0.480 | 0.124 | 0.403 | 0.818 | 0.891 | 0.220 | |
| Maltodextrins | 18–34 yrs | 9.0 a | 3.3 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 2.4 b | 4.3 | 3.3 | 39.0 | 46.2 a | 15.2 b | 66.7 | 27.6 b | 62.9 |
| 35–54 yrs | 2.9 b | 3.3 | 1.4 | 4.8 | 7.1 a | 3.8 | 3.3 | 39.0 | 51.4 a | 22.9 ab | 71.0 | 34.8 ab | 64.8 | |
| 55 yrs + | 7.6 a | 4.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 7.1 a | 5.7 | 1.4 | 38.6 | 29.0 b | 25.2 a | 74.3 | 39.5 a | 67.6 | |
| p-value | 0.027 | 0.674 | 1.000 | 0.135 | 0.049 | 0.623 | 0.381 | 0.993 | <0.0001 | 0.032 | 0.229 | 0.035 | 0.589 | |
| Molasses | 18–34 yrs | 24.8 b | 18.5 | 32.4 | 26.7 c | 20.0 c | 34.4 c | 7.6 | 4.3 | 11.4 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 1.0 |
| 35–54 yrs | 29.0 b | 25.2 | 35.7 | 44.8 b | 42.4 b | 45.5 b | 7.1 | 2.4 | 6.2 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| 55 yrs + | 64.3 a | 27.6 | 42.4 | 62.4 a | 56.2 a | 55.2 a | 9.5 | 2.9 | 11.0 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 1.4 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.074 | 0.097 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.000 | 0.639 | 0.512 | 0.130 | 0.466 | 0.578 | 0.088 | 0.866 | |
| Pea flour | 18–34 yrs | 31.4 b | 47.4 | 21.0 b | 42.9 b | 35.2 | 32.1 b | 62.9 | 74.3 | 71.0 a | 82.9 b | 70.0 b | 41.4 b | 84.8 |
| 35–54 yrs | 33.8 b | 47.6 | 35.2 a | 48.1 b | 46.2 | 38.4 ab | 72.4 | 78.1 | 75.7 a | 85.2 b | 81.9 a | 45.7 ab | 88.6 | |
| 55 yrs + | 50.0 a | 53.8 | 33.8 a | 59.5 a | 44.3 | 43.8 a | 72.4 | 80.0 | 53.3 b | 91.9 a | 89.0 a | 54.8 a | 91.4 | |
| p-value | 0.000 | 0.329 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.052 | 0.047 | 0.051 | 0.362 | <0.0001 | 0.018 | <0.0001 | 0.020 | 0.104 | |
| Salt | 18–34 yrs | 52.9 b | 66.4 | 52.9 a | 54.3 | 47.1 b | 51.2 | 72.9 | 34.3 | 33.3 | 48.6 b | 40.0 b | 56.2 b | 91.9 |
| 35–54 yrs | 50.5 b | 61.4 | 41.9 b | 55.2 | 56.2 ab | 56.4 | 77.6 | 33.3 | 37.6 | 56.2 b | 50.0 a | 61.0 b | 95.2 | |
| 55 yrs + | 70.5 a | 59.0 | 54.8 a | 61.4 | 60.0 a | 55.7 | 83.8 | 38.1 | 28.1 | 66.2 a | 54.8 a | 71.0 a | 93.8 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.289 | 0.018 | 0.276 | 0.025 | 0.510 | 0.025 | 0.558 | 0.116 | 0.001 | 0.009 | 0.006 | 0.373 | |
| SAPP | 18–34 yrs | 2.9 | 6.6 a | 1.0 | 4.8 a | 1.0 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
| 35–54 yrs | 2.4 | 2.9 b | 1.9 | 1.4 b | 3.8 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | |
| 55 yrs + | 2.9 | 2.4 b | 1.0 | 0.5 b | 2.4 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.9 | |
| p-value | 0.941 | 0.050 | 0.603 | 0.008 | 0.159 | 0.954 | 0.413 | 0.159 | 0.161 | 0.666 | 0.778 | 0.562 | 0.666 | |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 18–34 yrs | 15.2 b | 8.1 | 3.8 | 6.7 b | 11.0 b | 9.6 | 40.5 | 7.1 b | 5.2 ab | 21.4 b | 8.6 b | 8.1 b | 8.1 a |
| 35–54 yrs | 15.2 b | 5.7 | 3.8 | 10.5 ab | 18.6 a | 12.3 | 46.7 | 9.0 b | 3.8 b | 21.0 b | 14.3 ab | 10.5 b | 0.5 b | |
| 55 yrs + | 28.1 a | 4.3 | 3.8 | 15.7 a | 20.0 a | 17.1 | 51.9 | 15.2 a | 9.5 a | 32.9 a | 16.7 a | 21.4 a | 2.9 b | |
| p-value | 0.001 | 0.260 | 1.000 | 0.012 | 0.027 | 0.066 | 0.063 | 0.018 | 0.041 | 0.006 | 0.042 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| Sorghum flour | 18–34 yrs | 22.4 b | 27.0 | 1.4 | 30.5 b | 9.0 b | 16.3 b | 23.3 b | 14.3 | 61.4 a | 24.8 b | 18.6 | 14.8 b | 59.5 |
| 35–54 yrs | 28.1 b | 28.6 | 3.3 | 49.0 a | 17.6 a | 22.7 b | 35.7 a | 19.0 | 70.5 a | 37.1 a | 22.4 | 17.6 b | 62.9 | |
| 55 yrs + | 58.6 a | 24.8 | 1.4 | 56.7 a | 18.6 a | 32.9 a | 37.1 a | 21.4 | 49.0 b | 44.3 a | 26.2 | 30.0 a | 67.6 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.676 | 0.285 | <0.0001 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.156 | <0.0001 | 0.000 | 0.174 | 0.000 | 0.224 | |
| Soybean | 18–34 yrs | 65.7 b | 81.5 | 63.8 b | 66.2 | 9.0 b | 52.6 b | 33.3 b | 81.0 | 73.3 a | 59.5 b | 59.0 c | 71.0 | 92.4 |
| 35–54 yrs | 61.0 b | 79.5 | 73.8 a | 68.1 | 17.6 a | 65.4 a | 45.2 a | 81.4 | 74.8 a | 55.7 b | 70.0 b | 69.5 | 94.3 | |
| 55 yrs + | 80.0 a | 84.3 | 77.1 a | 75.2 | 18.6 a | 66.7 a | 45.2 a | 81.0 | 52.9 b | 70.5 a | 80.0 a | 69.5 | 95.7 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.447 | 0.007 | 0.104 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.017 | 0.990 | <0.0001 | 0.005 | <0.0001 | 0.934 | 0.346 | |
| Sugar | 18–34 yrs | 41.4 b | 53.6 | 45.2 | 38.1 | 39.5 | 44.5 b | 69.0 | 22.9 c | 21.0 | 20.0 c | 20.0 b | 16.7 b | 20.0 |
| 35–54 yrs | 43.8 b | 47.6 | 42.9 | 40.0 | 49.5 | 59.7 a | 70.0 | 44.3 b | 21.0 | 29.5 b | 35.2 a | 27.6 a | 16.7 | |
| 55 yrs + | 65.7 a | 51.4 | 47.1 | 47.6 | 50.0 | 57.1 a | 78.6 | 56.7 a | 20.5 | 48.1 a | 42.4 a | 29.5 a | 14.8 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.468 | 0.677 | 0.112 | 0.052 | 0.004 | 0.055 | <0.0001 | 0.990 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.004 | 0.354 | |
| Wheat flour | 18–34 yrs | 59.5 b | 84.8 | 60.5 | 71.0 | 63.3 | 63.6 | 88.6 b | 38.6 | 72.9 a | 56.7 b | 79.0 | 66.7 b | 76.2 |
| 35–54 yrs | 53.8 b | 87.6 | 59.0 | 70.5 | 69.5 | 62.1 | 91.0 b | 40.5 | 81.4 a | 66.2 a | 77.1 | 70.5 b | 72.4 | |
| 55 yrs + | 83.8 a | 85.7 | 64.3 | 74.3 | 71.9 | 62.9 | 96.2 a | 48.6 | 51.9 b | 71.9 a | 71.4 | 84.3 a | 71.0 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.701 | 0.523 | 0.639 | 0.150 | 0.947 | 0.014 | 0.089 | <0.0001 | 0.004 | 0.165 | <0.0001 | 0.457 | |
| Xanthan gum | 18–34 yrs | 8.6 ab | 4.3 | 1.0 | 6.7 | 5.7 b | 7.2 | 5.2 | 15.2 | 19.0 | 31.0 | 24.3 | 14.3 | 8.1 |
| 35–54 yrs | 6.2 b | 4.8 | 1.4 | 6.2 | 12.4 a | 8.5 | 5.7 | 16.7 | 15.7 | 31.4 | 17.1 | 12.9 | 12.9 | |
| 55 yrs + | 11.9 a | 5.2 | 1.9 | 10.5 | 12.9 a | 9.0 | 3.3 | 17.1 | 11.4 | 31.0 | 22.4 | 11.9 | 8.1 | |
| p-value | 0.118 | 0.896 | 0.713 | 0.199 | 0.027 | 0.773 | 0.480 | 0.860 | 0.096 | 0.993 | 0.180 | 0.766 | 0.163 |
The data are presented in three columns: 18–34 years old, 35–54 years old, and more than 55 years old, and p-values are listed vertically. Ingredients with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the Kruskal–Wallis test are highlighted in bold. Different letters in percentages indicate statistically significant differences among the three age groups based on pairwise comparisons.
Influence of education level on the perception of 20 ingredients as natural.
| Ingredient | Education | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | India | Japan | South | United Kingdom | USA | Russia | Brazil | China | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Thailand | ||
| Baking soda | ≤HS | 19.5 | 26.7 | 0.9 | 17.7 | 22.9 | 35.0 | 1.8 | 18.9 | 14.2 | 10.7 | 8.2 | 15.9 | 1.1 |
| COL+ | 21.9 | 14.3 | 2.2 | 10.0 | 19.7 | 31.5 | 8.4 | 17.5 | 16.9 | 18.8 | 6.2 | 20.7 | 6.3 | |
| p-value | 0.473 | 0.064 | 0.233 | 0.005 | 0.349 | 0.354 | 0.080 | 0.654 | 0.445 | 0.283 | 0.534 | 0.123 | 0.047 | |
| BHA | ≤HS | 2.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
| COL+ | 2.4 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 1.3 | |
| p-value | 0.751 | <0.0001 | 0.463 | 0.308 | 0.218 | 0.739 | 0.759 | 0.362 | 0.651 | 0.517 | 0.513 | 0.905 | 0.279 | |
| Black beans | ≤HS | 59.4 | 36.7 | 63.1 | 64.5 | 67.3 | 61.6 | 62.5 | 8.1 | 10.4 | 32.1 | 8.2 | 32.1 | 1.1 |
| COL+ | 62.8 | 55.6 | 62.3 | 70.2 | 64.7 | 63.7 | 65.5 | 8.1 | 12.7 | 23.8 | 10.5 | 39.5 | 1.1 | |
| p-value | 0.386 | 0.043 | 0.842 | 0.141 | 0.492 | 0.582 | 0.653 | 0.992 | 0.480 | 0.311 | 0.567 | 0.053 | 1.000 | |
| Canola oil | ≤HS | 44.2 | 33.3 | 28.4 | 63.6 | 22.0 | 40.1 | 10.7 | 45.9 | 47.8 | 60.7 | 16.4 | 9.5 | 14.4 |
| COL+ | 42.7 | 34.3 | 27.7 | 59.4 | 31.2 | 43.5 | 9.6 | 44.5 | 54.2 | 39.7 | 31.6 | 12.6 | 23.5 | |
| p-value | 0.714 | 0.916 | 0.856 | 0.294 | 0.013 | 0.401 | 0.785 | 0.715 | 0.183 | 0.027 | 0.014 | 0.215 | 0.055 | |
| Corn | ≤HS | 80.5 | 73.3 | 61.7 | 76.6 | 75.1 | 69.4 | 87.5 | 86.5 | 69.4 | 100.0 | 80.3 | 80.7 | 5.6 |
| COL+ | 78.9 | 83.4 | 61.5 | 77.2 | 70.4 | 68.8 | 84.7 | 81.1 | 76.2 | 91.9 | 90.5 | 79.6 | 2.8 | |
| p-value | 0.630 | 0.155 | 0.962 | 0.870 | 0.198 | 0.863 | 0.573 | 0.076 | 0.108 | 0.116 | 0.014 | 0.730 | 0.165 | |
| Corn syrup | ≤HS | 21.9 | 23.3 | 9.5 | 29.4 | 24.9 | 18.7 | 26.8 | 22.4 | 20.9 | 64.3 | 44.3 | 42.9 | 41.1 |
| COL+ | 22.2 | 21.8 | 9.1 | 24.6 | 28.8 | 20.2 | 27.0 | 22.6 | 29.6 | 45.5 | 31.6 | 46.1 | 49.6 | |
| p-value | 0.941 | 0.843 | 0.872 | 0.181 | 0.281 | 0.629 | 0.972 | 0.942 | 0.045 | 0.052 | 0.046 | 0.420 | 0.135 | |
| Gluten | ≤HS | 22.7 | 10.0 | 11.3 | 22.9 | 31.8 | 22.4 | 5.4 | 10.4 | 25.4 | 14.3 | 8.2 | 18.9 | 3.3 |
| COL+ | 28.5 | 12.8 | 14.7 | 20.3 | 31.7 | 23.5 | 10.5 | 12.4 | 29.0 | 14.5 | 16.9 | 28.7 | 8.0 | |
| p-value | 0.106 | 0.652 | 0.227 | 0.435 | 0.969 | 0.752 | 0.226 | 0.447 | 0.404 | 0.981 | 0.080 | 0.004 | 0.119 | |
| Insect powder | ≤HS | 5.2 | 10.0 | 13.5 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 19.6 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 28.6 | 6.6 | 9.1 | 3.3 |
| COL+ | 4.5 | 4.2 | 17.2 | 3.5 | 8.8 | 9.2 | 17.9 | 13.2 | 15.1 | 27.7 | 7.2 | 12.3 | 9.4 | |
| p-value | 0.690 | 0.130 | 0.232 | 0.803 | 0.039 | 0.030 | 0.753 | 0.367 | 0.169 | 0.924 | 0.853 | 0.203 | 0.055 | |
| Lecithin | ≤HS | 19.1 | 16.7 | 5.4 | 15.2 | 12.2 | 12.9 | 5.4 | 3.5 | 8.2 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 |
| COL+ | 23.0 | 5.3 | 6.1 | 16.3 | 13.5 | 14.3 | 16.2 | 5.7 | 7.3 | 3.8 | 0.9 | 6.0 | 1.1 | |
| p-value | 0.252 | 0.010 | 0.713 | 0.707 | 0.647 | 0.620 | 0.031 | 0.206 | 0.711 | 0.948 | 0.464 | 0.025 | 0.316 | |
| Maltodextrins | ≤HS | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 5.4 | 37.8 | 26.1 | 25.0 | 70.5 | 31.1 | 60.0 |
| COL+ | 7.4 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 4.3 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 2.4 | 39.6 | 46.6 | 20.9 | 70.7 | 36.5 | 65.9 | |
| p-value | 0.272 | 0.892 | 0.905 | 0.016 | 0.566 | 0.560 | 0.199 | 0.652 | <0.0001 | 0.607 | 0.980 | 0.150 | 0.275 | |
| Molasses | ≤HS | 38.2 | 16.7 | 31.1 | 41.6 | 39.6 | 46.6 | 5.4 | 1.5 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 |
| COL+ | 40.1 | 24.1 | 40.0 | 46.4 | 39.5 | 43.8 | 8.4 | 4.3 | 10.1 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 1.3 | |
| p-value | 0.641 | 0.350 | 0.028 | 0.243 | 0.978 | 0.474 | 0.432 | 0.051 | 0.360 | 0.452 | 0.234 | 0.237 | 0.279 | |
| Pea flour | ≤HS | 35.5 | 40.0 | 28.8 | 47.6 | 42.4 | 37.1 | 67.9 | 77.2 | 55.2 | 82.1 | 73.8 | 44.9 | 81.1 |
| COL+ | 40.4 | 50.1 | 30.6 | 51.6 | 41.6 | 39.0 | 69.3 | 77.6 | 69.8 | 86.9 | 81.0 | 49.4 | 89.4 | |
| p-value | 0.215 | 0.282 | 0.637 | 0.333 | 0.826 | 0.622 | 0.819 | 0.904 | 0.002 | 0.472 | 0.176 | 0.263 | 0.023 | |
| Salt | ≤HS | 54.6 | 76.7 | 48.6 | 60.2 | 56.3 | 55.4 | 80.4 | 33.2 | 26.9 | 71.4 | 47.5 | 59.8 | 86.7 |
| COL+ | 60.2 | 61.6 | 50.5 | 55.1 | 53.2 | 53.6 | 77.9 | 36.7 | 34.7 | 56.3 | 48.3 | 65.3 | 94.8 | |
| p-value | 0.166 | 0.096 | 0.659 | 0.219 | 0.450 | 0.639 | 0.669 | 0.373 | 0.088 | 0.115 | 0.907 | 0.157 | 0.003 | |
| SAPP | ≤HS | 2.4 | 13.3 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 3.7 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2.2 |
| COL+ | 2.9 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 1.5 | |
| p-value | 0.699 | 0.007 | 0.894 | 0.526 | 0.930 | 0.449 | 0.720 | 0.659 | 0.192 | 0.494 | 0.513 | 0.082 | 0.604 | |
| Sodium bicarbonate | ≤HS | 16.7 | 20.0 | 3.6 | 9.5 | 15.5 | 12.6 | 39.3 | 6.9 | 10.4 | 35.7 | 11.5 | 12.2 | 4.4 |
| COL+ | 21.4 | 5.3 | 3.9 | 11.8 | 17.1 | 13.4 | 47.0 | 12.9 | 5.0 | 24.6 | 13.4 | 14.4 | 3.7 | |
| p-value | 0.151 | 0.001 | 0.843 | 0.383 | 0.591 | 0.764 | 0.267 | 0.016 | 0.021 | 0.185 | 0.680 | 0.416 | 0.735 | |
| Sorghum flour | ≤HS | 35.1 | 20.0 | 0.5 | 40.7 | 13.9 | 19.4 | 33.9 | 17.0 | 53.0 | 39.3 | 16.4 | 15.5 | 58.9 |
| COL+ | 37.2 | 27.1 | 2.9 | 48.1 | 15.8 | 28.0 | 31.9 | 19.1 | 62.3 | 35.2 | 23.0 | 25.4 | 64.1 | |
| p-value | 0.584 | 0.391 | 0.036 | 0.071 | 0.502 | 0.012 | 0.755 | 0.493 | 0.051 | 0.660 | 0.238 | 0.002 | 0.345 | |
| Soybean | ≤HS | 65.3 | 83.3 | 66.7 | 64.9 | 59.6 | 61.9 | 53.6 | 82.6 | 56.0 | 46.4 | 50.8 | 66.6 | 88.9 |
| COL+ | 71.2 | 81.7 | 74.3 | 72.7 | 58.4 | 61.3 | 40.1 | 80.1 | 70.0 | 62.6 | 71.7 | 73.1 | 95.0 | |
| p-value | 0.118 | 0.822 | 0.044 | 0.041 | 0.775 | 0.879 | 0.050 | 0.418 | 0.002 | 0.085 | 0.001 | 0.076 | 0.023 | |
| Sugar | ≤HS | 51.8 | 53.3 | 41.4 | 47.2 | 49.0 | 53.7 | 71.4 | 35.1 | 19.4 | 25.0 | 16.4 | 21.6 | 12.2 |
| COL+ | 49.3 | 50.7 | 47.1 | 38.8 | 44.7 | 53.9 | 72.6 | 45.6 | 21.2 | 32.9 | 34.3 | 27.2 | 18.0 | |
| p-value | 0.547 | 0.783 | 0.176 | 0.041 | 0.291 | 0.975 | 0.846 | 0.009 | 0.655 | 0.384 | 0.005 | 0.102 | 0.181 | |
| Wheat flour | ≤HS | 68.9 | 86.7 | 57.7 | 75.3 | 69.0 | 65.3 | 85.7 | 42.5 | 56.7 | 71.4 | 75.4 | 76.4 | 70.0 |
| COL+ | 63.6 | 86.0 | 63.2 | 69.9 | 67.8 | 60.7 | 92.5 | 42.6 | 72.0 | 64.6 | 75.9 | 71.6 | 73.7 | |
| p-value | 0.168 | 0.922 | 0.170 | 0.147 | 0.755 | 0.235 | 0.076 | 0.977 | 0.001 | 0.461 | 0.930 | 0.172 | 0.463 | |
| Xanthan gum | ≤HS | 6.0 | 6.7 | 0.5 | 5.2 | 7.8 | 8.8 | 5.4 | 15.8 | 9.7 | 35.7 | 34.4 | 10.8 | 7.8 |
| COL+ | 10.8 | 4.7 | 2.0 | 9.3 | 11.9 | 7.7 | 4.7 | 16.7 | 16.9 | 30.9 | 19.9 | 15.0 | 10.0 | |
| p-value | 0.037 | 0.615 | 0.128 | 0.066 | 0.092 | 0.616 | 0.827 | 0.769 | 0.040 | 0.591 | 0.008 | 0.122 | 0.510 |
The data are divided into two levels: ≤HS indicates primary school level or less or high school level or less, and COL+ indicates college or university level. Ingredients with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the Mann–Whitney U test are highlighted in bold.
Influence of sex on the perception of 20 ingredients as natural.
| Ingredient | Sex | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | India | Japan | South | United Kingdom | USA | Russia | Brazil | China | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Thailand | ||
| Baking soda | Male | 20.0 | 14.3 | 1.3 | 13.0 | 22.6 | 31.8 | 4.8 | 16.5 | 17.1 | 16.2 | 5.4 | 13.3 | 4.4 |
| Female | 21.9 | 15.5 | 2.2 | 12.7 | 19.3 | 34.5 | 10.8 | 19.7 | 15.6 | 20.6 | 7.3 | 23.5 | 6.7 | |
| p-value | 0.557 | 0.667 | 0.362 | 0.906 | 0.308 | 0.481 | 0.005 | 0.301 | 0.591 | 0.151 | 0.328 | 0.001 | 0.224 | |
| BHA | Male | 2.9 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.3 |
| Female | 1.6 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
| p-value | 0.280 | 0.811 | 0.319 | 1.000 | 0.531 | 0.093 | 0.319 | 0.362 | 0.008 | 0.738 | 0.045 | 0.317 | 0.705 | |
| Black beans | Male | 58.7 | 57.1 | 60.3 | 67.9 | 63.4 | 62.4 | 64.4 | 8.3 | 14.0 | 22.9 | 6.7 | 33.3 | 1.6 |
| Female | 64.1 | 52.2 | 64.8 | 68.3 | 68.0 | 63.0 | 66.0 | 7.9 | 10.5 | 25.4 | 14.0 | 38.7 | 0.6 | |
| p-value | 0.165 | 0.214 | 0.250 | 0.932 | 0.218 | 0.886 | 0.676 | 0.884 | 0.181 | 0.457 | 0.003 | 0.159 | 0.255 | |
| Canola oil | Male | 48.9 | 33.0 | 27.0 | 61.0 | 27.4 | 43.0 | 9.8 | 47.3 | 51.4 | 38.7 | 27.3 | 10.8 | 18.7 |
| Female | 37.8 | 35.4 | 28.9 | 61.0 | 27.8 | 40.8 | 9.5 | 42.9 | 54.3 | 42.5 | 33.0 | 11.4 | 25.7 | |
| p-value | 0.005 | 0.521 | 0.595 | 1.000 | 0.898 | 0.581 | 0.893 | 0.263 | 0.473 | 0.331 | 0.119 | 0.800 | 0.035 | |
| Corn | Male | 76.2 | 84.4 | 61.0 | 80.3 | 73.2 | 73.9 | 81.9 | 87.6 | 73.3 | 92.1 | 91.7 | 80.6 | 2.9 |
| Female | 82.9 | 81.3 | 62.2 | 73.7 | 71.2 | 64.2 | 87.9 | 79.0 | 76.2 | 92.4 | 87.3 | 79.7 | 3.5 | |
| p-value | 0.038 | 0.299 | 0.744 | 0.047 | 0.567 | 0.009 | 0.035 | 0.004 | 0.410 | 0.882 | 0.069 | 0.765 | 0.650 | |
| Corn syrup | Male | 23.5 | 23.5 | 9.8 | 27.9 | 29.6 | 24.2 | 26.0 | 26.7 | 25.4 | 49.5 | 35.6 | 45.4 | 49.8 |
| Female | 20.6 | 20.3 | 8.6 | 24.8 | 25.0 | 14.9 | 27.9 | 18.4 | 30.2 | 43.2 | 30.2 | 43.8 | 47.0 | |
| p-value | 0.388 | 0.326 | 0.582 | 0.366 | 0.194 | 0.003 | 0.591 | 0.013 | 0.183 | 0.110 | 0.150 | 0.689 | 0.474 | |
| Gluten | Male | 25.4 | 11.7 | 13.3 | 19.7 | 31.8 | 25.5 | 7.0 | 12.7 | 27.3 | 11.7 | 16.5 | 20.0 | 6.0 |
| Female | 27.0 | 13.6 | 13.7 | 22.9 | 31.6 | 20.6 | 13.0 | 10.5 | 29.2 | 17.1 | 15.6 | 28.3 | 8.6 | |
| p-value | 0.651 | 0.483 | 0.908 | 0.331 | 0.957 | 0.144 | 0.012 | 0.384 | 0.596 | 0.054 | 0.745 | 0.016 | 0.221 | |
| Insect powder | Male | 6.3 | 4.1 | 18.4 | 5.1 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 16.2 | 14.9 | 10.5 | 27.0 | 8.3 | 9.5 | 9.2 |
| Female | 3.2 | 4.7 | 13.3 | 2.2 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 20.0 | 9.5 | 17.8 | 28.6 | 6.0 | 12.1 | 7.9 | |
| p-value | 0.062 | 0.706 | 0.081 | 0.056 | 0.158 | 0.158 | 0.215 | 0.039 | 0.009 | 0.657 | 0.279 | 0.305 | 0.570 | |
| Lecithin | Male | 19.4 | 6.3 | 5.4 | 14.6 | 11.8 | 16.9 | 9.8 | 2.5 | 7.3 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 4.8 | 1.6 |
| Female | 23.5 | 5.4 | 6.3 | 17.1 | 14.2 | 10.4 | 20.6 | 7.0 | 7.6 | 5.4 | 1.0 | 3.8 | 0.3 | |
| p-value | 0.207 | 0.605 | 0.612 | 0.384 | 0.360 | 0.019 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.880 | 0.038 | 0.655 | 0.556 | 0.101 | |
| Maltodextrins | Male | 8.3 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 3.8 | 5.4 | 6.7 | 3.2 | 40.0 | 42.5 | 19.4 | 71.7 | 30.8 | 66.3 |
| Female | 4.8 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 5.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 37.8 | 41.9 | 22.9 | 69.5 | 37.1 | 63.8 | |
| p-value | 0.076 | 0.684 | 0.315 | 0.245 | 0.878 | 0.013 | 0.462 | 0.568 | 0.872 | 0.283 | 0.541 | 0.093 | 0.504 | |
| Molasses | Male | 38.1 | 25.1 | 32.4 | 45.1 | 37.9 | 46.2 | 8.6 | 2.9 | 8.3 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 3.5 | 0.6 |
| Female | 40.6 | 22.5 | 41.3 | 44.1 | 41.1 | 44.0 | 7.6 | 3.5 | 10.8 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 1.6 | |
| p-value | 0.515 | 0.442 | 0.021 | 0.810 | 0.406 | 0.581 | 0.662 | 0.650 | 0.278 | 0.244 | 0.162 | 0.012 | 0.255 | |
| Pea flour | Male | 39.0 | 49.8 | 31.1 | 48.3 | 40.4 | 40.8 | 67.0 | 81.9 | 66.3 | 88.3 | 80.0 | 48.9 | 87.9 |
| Female | 37.8 | 49.4 | 28.9 | 52.1 | 43.4 | 35.4 | 71.4 | 73.0 | 67.0 | 85.1 | 80.6 | 45.7 | 88.6 | |
| p-value | 0.744 | 0.905 | 0.543 | 0.339 | 0.460 | 0.169 | 0.227 | 0.008 | 0.866 | 0.242 | 0.842 | 0.452 | 0.805 | |
| Salt | Male | 61.0 | 66.7 | 51.1 | 62.2 | 57.3 | 56.1 | 79.7 | 42.2 | 32.1 | 59.7 | 47.9 | 64.8 | 92.1 |
| Female | 54.9 | 57.9 | 48.6 | 51.7 | 51.6 | 52.8 | 76.5 | 28.3 | 34.0 | 54.3 | 48.6 | 60.6 | 95.2 | |
| p-value | 0.126 | 0.023 | 0.524 | 0.008 | 0.148 | 0.420 | 0.336 | 0.000 | 0.612 | 0.172 | 0.874 | 0.285 | 0.103 | |
| SAPP | Male | 3.2 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| Female | 2.2 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 2.5 | |
| p-value | 0.462 | 0.151 | 0.478 | 0.105 | 0.804 | 0.169 | 0.478 | 0.192 | 0.590 | 0.056 | 0.317 | 0.705 | 0.056 | |
| Sodium bicarbonate | Male | 18.4 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 12.1 | 16.2 | 15.6 | 43.8 | 9.8 | 6.7 | 19.7 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 4.4 |
| Female | 20.6 | 7.0 | 4.1 | 9.8 | 16.8 | 10.4 | 48.9 | 11.1 | 5.7 | 30.5 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 3.2 | |
| p-value | 0.482 | 0.321 | 0.678 | 0.372 | 0.858 | 0.054 | 0.202 | 0.603 | 0.621 | 0.002 | 0.013 | 0.010 | 0.406 | |
| Sorghum flour | Male | 39.0 | 28.3 | 1.9 | 53.7 | 18.5 | 27.7 | 30.5 | 22.5 | 61.0 | 40.0 | 25.7 | 18.1 | 65.4 |
| Female | 33.7 | 25.3 | 2.2 | 37.1 | 11.7 | 20.3 | 33.7 | 14.0 | 59.7 | 30.8 | 19.0 | 23.5 | 61.3 | |
| p-value | 0.160 | 0.405 | 0.780 | <0.0001 | 0.018 | 0.029 | 0.394 | 0.005 | 0.745 | 0.016 | 0.045 | 0.095 | 0.283 | |
| Soybean | Male | 71.4 | 84.8 | 71.7 | 72.4 | 56.1 | 60.8 | 40.3 | 83.2 | 68.6 | 57.5 | 68.3 | 65.1 | 93.3 |
| Female | 66.3 | 78.8 | 71.4 | 67.3 | 61.7 | 62.3 | 42.2 | 79.0 | 65.4 | 66.3 | 71.1 | 74.9 | 94.9 | |
| p-value | 0.169 | 0.053 | 0.930 | 0.165 | 0.149 | 0.697 | 0.628 | 0.186 | 0.397 | 0.022 | 0.436 | 0.007 | 0.398 | |
| Sugar | Male | 53.7 | 57.8 | 48.6 | 48.3 | 51.9 | 57.3 | 75.9 | 40.3 | 19.7 | 31.7 | 34.6 | 20.3 | 16.8 |
| Female | 47.0 | 44.0 | 41.6 | 35.6 | 40.8 | 50.3 | 69.2 | 42.2 | 21.9 | 33.3 | 30.5 | 28.9 | 17.5 | |
| p-value | 0.095 | 0.001 | 0.078 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.078 | 0.061 | 0.628 | 0.492 | 0.671 | 0.269 | 0.013 | 0.833 | |
| Wheat flour | Male | 66.7 | 88.9 | 65.4 | 78.1 | 71.7 | 66.6 | 93.0 | 52.4 | 67.9 | 72.1 | 79.0 | 73.0 | 76.8 |
| Female | 64.8 | 83.2 | 57.1 | 65.7 | 64.9 | 59.2 | 90.8 | 32.7 | 69.5 | 57.8 | 72.7 | 74.6 | 69.5 | |
| p-value | 0.615 | 0.040 | 0.034 | 0.001 | 0.068 | 0.055 | 0.307 | <0.0001 | 0.668 | 0.000 | 0.063 | 0.651 | 0.039 | |
| Xanthan gum | Male | 9.5 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 9.5 | 9.9 | 10.2 | 2.5 | 17.5 | 14.0 | 30.8 | 19.0 | 10.8 | 12.1 |
| Female | 8.3 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 6.0 | 10.8 | 6.3 | 7.0 | 15.2 | 16.8 | 31.4 | 23.5 | 15.2 | 7.3 | |
| p-value | 0.576 | 0.702 | 0.315 | 0.102 | 0.715 | 0.079 | 0.009 | 0.451 | 0.321 | 0.864 | 0.173 | 0.098 | 0.044 |
Data are presented in three columns: male, female, and p-values listed vertically. Ingredients with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the Mann–Whitney U test are highlighted in bold.
Influence of number of adults in the household on the perception of 20 ingredients as natural.
| Ingredient | No. of Adults | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | India | Japan | South | United Kingdom | USA | Russia | Brazil | China | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Thailand | ||
| Baking soda | 1–2 | 21.8 | 16.8 | 1.5 | 13.4 | 22.9 | 31.6 | 7.7 | 18.6 | 14.0 | 23.1 | 3.8 | 17.5 | 5.8 |
| 3+ | 18.4 | 17.0 | 2.0 | 12.1 | 14.8 | 37.9 | 7.9 | 17.5 | 14.2 | 18.13 | 6.5 | 18.5 | 5.5 | |
| p-value | 0.379 | 0.933 | 0.613 | 0.618 | 0.031 | 0.141 | 0.954 | 0.733 | 0.951 | 0.439 | 0.594 | 0.838 | 0.884 | |
| BHA | 1–2 | 2.5 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| 3+ | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.1 | |
| p-value | 0.385 | 0.008 | 0.290 | 0.694 | 0.281 | 0.950 | 0.187 | 0.869 | 0.205 | 0.539 | 0.036 | 0.506 | 0.921 | |
| Black beans | 1–2 | 62.8 | 55.5 | 61.7 | 71.2 | 67.6 | 64.0 | 63.1 | 8.8 | 14.7 | 30.8 | 3.8 | 36.5 | 1.6 |
| 3+ | 57.2 | 11.5 | 63.5 | 63.8 | 60.0 | 59.0 | 69.0 | 7.3 | 54.4 | 23.7 | 0.5 | 36.0 | 0.9 | |
| p-value | 0.223 | <0.0001 | 0.635 | 0.048 | 0.085 | 0.262 | 0.135 | 0.475 | <0.0001 | 0.318 | 0.269 | 0.934 | 0.469 | |
| Canola oil | 1–2 | 45.2 | 34.7 | 26.0 | 59.5 | 26.9 | 42.2 | 9.7 | 43.6 | 51.0 | 43.6 | 23.1 | 6.3 | 19.9 |
| 3+ | 37.5 | 53.4 | 30.1 | 63.0 | 29.7 | 41.0 | 9.6 | 46.7 | 34.1 | 40.4 | 30.5 | 11.6 | 23.2 | |
| p-value | 0.096 | <0.0001 | 0.262 | 0.366 | 0.510 | 0.786 | 0.962 | 0.436 | 0.000 | 0.699 | 0.422 | 0.205 | 0.355 | |
| Corn | 1–2 | 79.9 | 80.9 | 59.6 | 76.2 | 74.1 | 69.9 | 85.5 | 84.5 | 66.4 | 92.3 | 84.6 | 73.0 | 2.1 |
| 3+ | 78.3 | 77.2 | 63.9 | 78.1 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 83.8 | 82.1 | 83.6 | 92.2 | 89.7 | 81.0 | 3.6 | |
| p-value | 0.666 | 0.310 | 0.272 | 0.567 | 0.065 | 0.411 | 0.568 | 0.433 | <0.0001 | 0.984 | 0.405 | 0.134 | 0.308 | |
| Corn syrup | 1–2 | 23.6 | 17.9 | 7.8 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 20.3 | 25.7 | 26.8 | 23.8 | 53.8 | 30.8 | 47.6 | 50.3 |
| 3+ | 17.1 | 29.0 | 10.8 | 23.8 | 23.9 | 17.4 | 29.3 | 17.9 | 23.4 | 45.9 | 32.9 | 44.3 | 47.6 | |
| p-value | 0.091 | 0.005 | 0.190 | 0.212 | 0.270 | 0.429 | 0.332 | 0.007 | 0.919 | 0.333 | 0.818 | 0.612 | 0.541 | |
| Gluten | 1–2 | 26.8 | 14.5 | 12.9 | 24.4 | 32.0 | 24.1 | 10.0 | 12.2 | 25.9 | 23.1 | 11.5 | 27.0 | 4.7 |
| 3+ | 24.3 | 29.0 | 14.2 | 17.0 | 31.0 | 19.9 | 10.0 | 10.9 | 12.0 | 13.9 | 16.2 | 23.8 | 8.4 | |
| p-value | 0.552 | 0.000 | 0.630 | 0.025 | 0.811 | 0.273 | 0.978 | 0.620 | <0.0001 | 0.114 | 0.525 | 0.577 | 0.100 | |
| Insect powder | 1–2 | 4.4 | 5.2 | 14.4 | 3.3 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 17.7 | 11.0 | 11.2 | 23.1 | 7.7 | 14.3 | 6.8 |
| 3+ | 5.9 | 15.0 | 17.6 | 4.2 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 18.8 | 13.6 | 4.1 | 28.1 | 7.1 | 10.4 | 9.3 | |
| p-value | 0.442 | 0.001 | 0.274 | 0.569 | 0.004 | 0.111 | 0.737 | 0.320 | 0.002 | 0.499 | 0.913 | 0.347 | 0.297 | |
| Lecithin | 1–2 | 22.6 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 18.6 | 14.7 | 14.3 | 15.2 | 4.3 | 5.6 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 2.1 |
| 3+ | 17.8 | 8.0 | 4.4 | 12.1 | 7.7 | 11.8 | 15.3 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 4.4 | 0.5 | |
| p-value | 0.207 | 0.651 | 0.137 | 0.026 | 0.025 | 0.429 | 0.981 | 0.545 | 0.951 | 0.676 | 0.644 | 0.647 | 0.052 | |
| Maltodextrins | 1–2 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 3.8 | 6.5 | 4.9 | 2.0 | 39.3 | 30.8 | 23.1 | 57.7 | 39.7 | 62.8 |
| 3+ | 7.9 | 45.6 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 2.6 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 38.4 | 3.9 | 21.0 | 71.2 | 33.3 | 66.1 | |
| p-value | 0.427 | <0.0001 | 0.410 | 0.159 | 0.063 | 0.539 | 0.150 | 0.814 | <0.0001 | 0.757 | 0.139 | 0.313 | 0.435 | |
| Molasses | 1–2 | 41.8 | 24.3 | 35.6 | 46.0 | 43.6 | 46.3 | 9.0 | 2.7 | 8.4 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.5 |
| 3+ | 31.6 | 9.9 | 38.2 | 42.6 | 27.1 | 41.6 | 6.6 | 3.6 | 23.6 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.4 | |
| p-value | 0.024 | <0.0001 | 0.509 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.306 | 0.283 | 0.521 | <0.0001 | 0.757 | 0.516 | 0.781 | 0.354 | |
| Pea flour | 1–2 | 38.9 | 49.7 | 31.4 | 52.3 | 43.8 | 40.5 | 67.6 | 78.7 | 55.2 | 84.6 | 69.2 | 49.2 | 86.9 |
| 3+ | 36.8 | 70.0 | 28.4 | 47.2 | 36.1 | 31.1 | 72.1 | 76.2 | 49.6 | 86.8 | 80.8 | 47.1 | 88.8 | |
| p-value | 0.648 | <0.0001 | 0.404 | 0.202 | 0.094 | 0.033 | 0.243 | 0.454 | 0.236 | 0.698 | 0.147 | 0.750 | 0.490 | |
| Salt | 1–2 | 60.5 | 65.9 | 50.9 | 57.0 | 57.9 | 54.8 | 77.6 | 36.9 | 25.9 | 48.7 | 38.5 | 58.7 | 90.1 |
| 3+ | 50.0 | 35.1 | 48.6 | 57.0 | 43.9 | 53.4 | 79.0 | 33.4 | 60.9 | 57.5 | 48.7 | 63.1 | 95.2 | |
| p-value | 0.023 | <0.0001 | 0.573 | 0.999 | 0.002 | 0.762 | 0.666 | 0.366 | <0.0001 | 0.282 | 0.308 | 0.493 | 0.015 | |
| SAPP | 1–2 | 3.1 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 2.6 |
| 3+ | 1.3 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |
| p-value | 0.228 | 0.590 | 0.050 | 0.302 | 0.306 | 0.564 | 0.022 | 0.534 | 0.045 | 0.414 | 0.680 | 0.706 | 0.173 | |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 1–2 | 20.7 | 5.2 | 3.0 | 13.4 | 17.9 | 14.5 | 45.4 | 10.7 | 4.2 | 38.5 | 23.1 | 19.0 | 4.7 |
| 3+ | 15.8 | 6.8 | 4.7 | 7.5 | 12.3 | 8.7 | 48.0 | 10.3 | 6.3 | 24.2 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 3.4 | |
| p-value | 0.183 | 0.467 | 0.257 | 0.020 | 0.101 | 0.059 | 0.522 | 0.868 | 0.342 | 0.047 | 0.128 | 0.160 | 0.436 | |
| Sorghum flour | 1–2 | 39.3 | 28.9 | 2.4 | 45.8 | 16.0 | 25.4 | 32.9 | 17.4 | 49.7 | 33.3 | 11.5 | 17.5 | 57.1 |
| 3+ | 27.0 | 63.4 | 1.7 | 44.9 | 12.3 | 19.9 | 30.6 | 19.2 | 26.0 | 35.5 | 22.8 | 21.2 | 66.1 | |
| p-value | 0.006 | <0.0001 | 0.535 | 0.833 | 0.259 | 0.159 | 0.544 | 0.554 | <0.0001 | 0.781 | 0.176 | 0.493 | 0.032 | |
| Soybean | 1–2 | 70.5 | 78.6 | 70.4 | 69.3 | 62.3 | 62.5 | 42.4 | 81.1 | 53.1 | 69.2 | 76.9 | 65.1 | 92.7 |
| 3+ | 63.8 | 71.0 | 73.0 | 70.6 | 48.4 | 59.0 | 39.3 | 81.1 | 83.0 | 61.4 | 69.4 | 70.5 | 94.8 | |
| p-value | 0.121 | 0.054 | 0.468 | 0.736 | 0.002 | 0.436 | 0.449 | 0.993 | <0.0001 | 0.331 | 0.413 | 0.370 | 0.306 | |
| Sugar | 1–2 | 52.3 | 50.9 | 44.6 | 41.4 | 49.3 | 54.6 | 71.6 | 43.0 | 16.8 | 35.9 | 26.9 | 23.8 | 18.8 |
| 3+ | 44.1 | 22.0 | 45.6 | 42.6 | 37.4 | 51.6 | 74.2 | 39.4 | 50.9 | 32.3 | 32.8 | 24.7 | 16.4 | |
| p-value | 0.078 | <0.0001 | 0.802 | 0.750 | 0.010 | 0.506 | 0.472 | 0.362 | <0.0001 | 0.645 | 0.533 | 0.878 | 0.454 | |
| Wheat | 1–2 | 67.8 | 90.2 | 59.9 | 70.1 | 68.6 | 63.5 | 91.0 | 43.9 | 58.7 | 74.4 | 69.2 | 77.8 | 70.7 |
| 3+ | 59.2 | 71.7 | 62.8 | 74.3 | 67.1 | 60.9 | 93.4 | 41.1 | 84.5 | 64.3 | 76.2 | 73.4 | 74.3 | |
| p-value | 0.053 | <0.0001 | 0.447 | 0.247 | 0.722 | 0.546 | 0.283 | 0.471 | <0.0001 | 0.203 | 0.420 | 0.451 | 0.352 | |
| Xanthan gum | 1–2 | 9.2 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 8.2 | 11.6 | 9.2 | 4.5 | 18.0 | 11.2 | 35.9 | 19.2 | 7.9 | 7.3 |
| 3+ | 7.9 | 16.6 | 1.0 | 7.2 | 6.5 | 5.6 | 5.2 | 14.6 | 5.2 | 30.8 | 21.4 | 13.6 | 10.7 | |
| p-value | 0.622 | <0.0001 | 0.410 | 0.628 | 0.069 | 0.155 | 0.671 | 0.247 | 0.013 | 0.506 | 0.796 | 0.207 | 0.188 |
Ingredients with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the Mann–Whitney U test are highlighted in bold.
Influence of number of children in household on the perception of 20 ingredients as natural.
| Ingredient | No. of Children | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | India | Japan | South | United Kingdom | USA | Russia | Brazil | China | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Thailand | ||
| Baking soda | None | 21.7 | 16.5 | 1.5 | 13.9 | 20.7 | 34.9 | 6.1 | 20.3 | 15.3 | 18.9 | 7.7 | 18.2 | 6.6 |
| 1+ | 19.4 | 13.8 | 2.5 | 11.7 | 21.4 | 29.6 | 9.5 | 15.3 | 17.1 | 18.1 | 5.5 | 18.7 | 4.6 | |
| p-value | 0.506 | 0.361 | 0.377 | 0.416 | 0.836 | 0.186 | 0.111 | 0.103 | 0.540 | 0.803 | 0.277 | 0.875 | 0.254 | |
| BHA | None | 2.1 | 2.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 1+ | 2.4 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | |
| p-value | 0.859 | 0.748 | 0.567 | 0.067 | 0.810 | 0.340 | 0.302 | 0.504 | 0.453 | 0.783 | 0.144 | 0.175 | 0.075 | |
| Black beans | None | 68.3 | 56.9 | 64.1 | 73.2 | 70.3 | 66.3 | 63.8 | 8.3 | 12.3 | 25.2 | 10.9 | 36.1 | 0.7 |
| 1+ | 47.9 | 53.2 | 58.0 | 62.2 | 57.6 | 55.3 | 66.8 | 7.8 | 12.2 | 23.5 | 9.9 | 35.9 | 1.5 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.364 | 0.172 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.008 | 0.434 | 0.827 | 0.952 | 0.621 | 0.705 | 0.946 | 0.307 | |
| Canola oil | None | 47.5 | 33.7 | 28.3 | 59.9 | 27.2 | 42.2 | 10.1 | 44.1 | 49.6 | 37.4 | 27.0 | 10.3 | 22.9 |
| 1+ | 35.1 | 34.6 | 26.8 | 62.2 | 28.4 | 41.3 | 9.2 | 46.3 | 55.2 | 42.6 | 32.2 | 12.2 | 21.6 | |
| p-value | 0.003 | 0.826 | 0.703 | 0.553 | 0.746 | 0.820 | 0.699 | 0.592 | 0.163 | 0.197 | 0.167 | 0.458 | 0.686 | |
| Corn | None | 84.0 | 81.6 | 63.2 | 78.5 | 74.8 | 70.5 | 83.7 | 80.2 | 70.9 | 93.3 | 87.5 | 79.3 | 2.0 |
| 1+ | 70.6 | 83.8 | 56.7 | 75.3 | 67.7 | 66.0 | 86.2 | 87.2 | 77.6 | 91.6 | 90.8 | 81.3 | 4.3 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.470 | 0.146 | 0.341 | 0.055 | 0.252 | 0.393 | 0.020 | 0.055 | 0.442 | 0.182 | 0.546 | 0.106 | |
| Corn syrup | None | 26.0 | 19.6 | 10.4 | 28.9 | 30.2 | 20.0 | 25.2 | 22.3 | 28.7 | 47.5 | 33.5 | 47.8 | 45.5 |
| 1+ | 14.2 | 23.4 | 5.7 | 23.4 | 22.3 | 18.4 | 28.9 | 22.8 | 27.1 | 45.7 | 32.5 | 40.1 | 51.1 | |
| p-value | 0.001 | 0.258 | 0.083 | 0.116 | 0.032 | 0.635 | 0.284 | 0.899 | 0.646 | 0.658 | 0.793 | 0.054 | 0.164 | |
| Gluten | None | 31.3 | 10.6 | 13.5 | 25.7 | 32.4 | 24.1 | 9.5 | 14.6 | 26.1 | 16.8 | 19.4 | 27.2 | 6.6 |
| 1+ | 16.1 | 14.1 | 13.4 | 16.2 | 30.6 | 20.9 | 10.5 | 7.8 | 29.8 | 13.0 | 13.9 | 19.8 | 7.9 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.194 | 0.961 | 0.004 | 0.632 | 0.374 | 0.671 | 0.008 | 0.306 | 0.189 | 0.067 | 0.034 | 0.545 | |
| Insect powder | None | 3.3 | 3.1 | 16.1 | 2.4 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 19.6 | 12.9 | 11.9 | 31.5 | 7.7 | 10.3 | 7.0 |
| 1+ | 7.6 | 5.3 | 15.3 | 5.2 | 7.4 | 6.8 | 16.4 | 11.4 | 15.7 | 25.5 | 6.8 | 11.5 | 10.0 | |
| p-value | 0.018 | 0.192 | 0.817 | 0.063 | 0.837 | 0.814 | 0.300 | 0.567 | 0.176 | 0.103 | 0.685 | 0.655 | 0.172 | |
| Lecithin | None | 27.7 | 5.1 | 6.6 | 20.6 | 15.5 | 14.9 | 15.0 | 4.3 | 7.5 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 4.1 | 0.7 |
| 1+ | 9.0 | 6.4 | 3.8 | 10.3 | 8.7 | 11.2 | 15.5 | 5.3 | 7.5 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 4.6 | 1.2 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.501 | 0.208 | 0.000 | 0.016 | 0.206 | 0.881 | 0.543 | 0.999 | 0.978 | 0.978 | 0.759 | 0.478 | |
| Maltodextrins | None | 6.9 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 6.5 | 4.7 | 2.5 | 38.4 | 37.7 | 20.2 | 70.2 | 35.3 | 65.4 |
| 1+ | 5.7 | 4.5 | 0.6 | 3.4 | 3.9 | 4.4 | 3.0 | 39.5 | 45.6 | 21.7 | 70.9 | 32.1 | 64.7 | |
| p-value | 0.554 | 0.253 | 0.336 | 0.568 | 0.179 | 0.846 | 0.696 | 0.777 | 0.048 | 0.652 | 0.834 | 0.394 | 0.853 | |
| Molasses | None | 47.7 | 28.2 | 36.6 | 53.4 | 45.9 | 47.2 | 8.9 | 3.2 | 11.2 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 |
| 1+ | 22.7 | 20.7 | 37.6 | 34.4 | 28.4 | 40.8 | 7.2 | 3.2 | 8.3 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 2.1 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.030 | 0.821 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.131 | 0.446 | 0.972 | 0.220 | 0.749 | 0.947 | 0.366 | 0.011 | |
| Pea flour | None | 41.8 | 54.9 | 30.4 | 53.7 | 43.6 | 40.8 | 70.6 | 78.2 | 65.3 | 85.3 | 80.6 | 48.4 | 87.7 |
| 1+ | 31.8 | 46.0 | 28.7 | 46.0 | 38.9 | 32.5 | 67.8 | 76.5 | 67.7 | 87.5 | 80.1 | 45.8 | 88.8 | |
| p-value | 0.015 | 0.029 | 0.673 | 0.056 | 0.243 | 0.045 | 0.449 | 0.610 | 0.531 | 0.430 | 0.868 | 0.525 | 0.684 | |
| Salt | None | 62.3 | 66.3 | 50.3 | 60.2 | 57.6 | 54.5 | 79.1 | 37.8 | 32.8 | 58.4 | 52.4 | 63.9 | 92.7 |
| 1+ | 49.3 | 59.6 | 48.4 | 53.3 | 48.9 | 54.4 | 77.0 | 32.0 | 33.1 | 56.1 | 45.5 | 61.1 | 94.5 | |
| p-value | 0.002 | 0.089 | 0.679 | 0.081 | 0.035 | 0.979 | 0.512 | 0.131 | 0.934 | 0.576 | 0.092 | 0.476 | 0.345 | |
| SAPP | None | 2.4 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| 1+ | 3.3 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 2.1 | |
| p-value | 0.497 | 0.383 | 0.409 | 0.170 | 0.401 | 0.795 | 0.003 | 0.492 | 0.107 | 0.885 | 0.144 | 0.402 | 0.257 | |
| Sodium bicarbonate | None | 22.7 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 12.4 | 18.7 | 14.4 | 45.7 | 11.5 | 4.1 | 25.6 | 16.1 | 14.9 | 3.3 |
| 1+ | 13.3 | 6.4 | 3.2 | 9.3 | 12.7 | 10.2 | 47.0 | 9.3 | 7.7 | 24.7 | 11.3 | 11.1 | 4.3 | |
| p-value | 0.005 | 0.644 | 0.638 | 0.213 | 0.050 | 0.143 | 0.738 | 0.369 | 0.062 | 0.804 | 0.078 | 0.159 | 0.542 | |
| Sorghum flour | None | 43.7 | 29.4 | 1.7 | 48.1 | 16.7 | 25.9 | 34.0 | 19.2 | 55.6 | 33.2 | 20.6 | 22.3 | 62.8 |
| 1+ | 21.8 | 25.0 | 3.2 | 42.3 | 12.2 | 19.9 | 29.9 | 17.1 | 63.8 | 36.7 | 23.6 | 18.7 | 63.8 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.220 | 0.255 | 0.144 | 0.131 | 0.096 | 0.269 | 0.495 | 0.037 | 0.368 | 0.379 | 0.276 | 0.787 | |
| Soybean | None | 74.5 | 83.1 | 71.7 | 71.4 | 61.3 | 63.2 | 44.5 | 81.1 | 60.8 | 64.7 | 72.2 | 69.3 | 95.0 |
| 1+ | 57.8 | 80.9 | 71.3 | 68.0 | 54.6 | 58.3 | 37.8 | 81.1 | 71.5 | 60.2 | 68.1 | 71.0 | 93.3 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.466 | 0.936 | 0.362 | 0.097 | 0.231 | 0.091 | 0.988 | 0.005 | 0.260 | 0.273 | 0.647 | 0.364 | |
| Sugar | None | 58.0 | 54.5 | 46.3 | 43.7 | 48.9 | 57.8 | 72.4 | 44.7 | 17.9 | 33.6 | 34.3 | 25.8 | 14.3 |
| 1+ | 35.1 | 48.4 | 41.4 | 39.9 | 41.9 | 45.6 | 72.7 | 37.0 | 22.9 | 31.9 | 31.4 | 22.9 | 19.8 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.133 | 0.286 | 0.336 | 0.092 | 0.004 | 0.932 | 0.052 | 0.125 | 0.654 | 0.455 | 0.403 | 0.069 | |
| Wheat flour | None | 72.6 | 88.6 | 61.5 | 71.4 | 70.6 | 63.7 | 92.6 | 41.8 | 67.2 | 60.9 | 72.6 | 75.8 | 68.8 |
| 1+ | 52.1 | 84.3 | 60.5 | 72.5 | 64.2 | 61.2 | 91.1 | 43.4 | 69.9 | 67.3 | 78.0 | 71.0 | 77.2 | |
| p-value | <0.0001 | 0.125 | 0.822 | 0.755 | 0.098 | 0.541 | 0.485 | 0.690 | 0.466 | 0.102 | 0.120 | 0.175 | 0.017 | |
| Xanthan gum | None | 9.8 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 10.6 | 12.7 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 14.6 | 13.8 | 29.8 | 19.4 | 12.5 | 8.0 |
| 1+ | 7.1 | 4.5 | 1.3 | 4.5 | 6.1 | 8.7 | 5.9 | 18.5 | 16.6 | 31.9 | 22.5 | 13.7 | 11.2 | |
| p-value | 0.266 | 0.739 | 0.852 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.759 | 0.188 | 0.190 | 0.342 | 0.589 | 0.344 | 0.649 | 0.166 |
Ingredients with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the Mann–Whitney U test are highlighted in bold.
1. SPINS Marketing. Available online: https://www.spins.com/resources/blog/the-state-of-natural-and-organic-4-macrotrends-to-know/ (accessed on 22 April 2025).
2.New Hope Network Available online: https://www.newhope.com/natural-product-trends/organic-and-natural-food-trends (accessed on 22 April 2025).
3. Bobo, J.; Chakraborty, S. Predictably irrational consumer food preferences. Eur. J. Risk Regul.; 2016; 7, pp. 604-609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00006759]
4. Rock, A. Consumer Reports. Available online: https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/peeling-back-the-natural-food-label/ (accessed on 22 April 2025).
5.New Hope Network Available online: https://www.newhope.com/market-data-and-analysis/natural-products-industry-consumer-indexes-faq (accessed on 22 April 2025).
6. Consumers Union, Nonprofit Publisher of Consumer Reports. Available online: https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CRCaramelColorPetitionFDA.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2025).
7. Regulations.gov. Available online: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2014-N-1207-0001 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/use-term-natural-food-labeling (accessed on 22 April 2025).
9. Román, S.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M.; Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2017; 67, pp. 44-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010]
10. Shilling, B. Supermarket News. Available online: https://www.supermarketnews.com/organic-natural/state-of-the-natural-food-industry (accessed on 22 April 2025).
11. Tran, H.; Veflen, N.; Jørgensen, E.J.B.; Velasco, C. Multisensory food experiences in Northern Norway: An exploratory study. Foods; 2024; 13, 2156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13132156]
12. Henrich, J.; Heine, S.J.; Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature; 2010; 466, 29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/466029a] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20595995]
13. Chambers, E., V; Chambers, E., IV; Castro, M. What is “natural”? Consumer responses to selected ingredients. Foods; 2018; 7, 65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods7040065]
14. Curtarelli, M.; van Houten, G. Questionnaire translation in the European company survey: Conditions conducive to the effective implementation of a TRAPD-based approach. Transl. Interpret.; 2018; 10, pp. 34-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12807/ti.110202.2018.a04]
15. Harkness, J.A. Questionnaire Translation. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods; Harkness, J.A.; van de Vijver, F.J.R.; Mohler, P.P. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 35-56. ISBN 78-0-471-38526-4
16. Behr, D. Assessing the use of back translation: The shortcomings of back translation as a quality testing method. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.; 2017; 20, pp. 573-584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1252188]
17. Harkness, J.; Pennell, B.-E.; Schoua-Glusberg, A. Survey Questionnaire Translation and Assessment. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires; Presser, S.; Rothgeb, J.M.; Couper, M.P.; Lessler, J.T.; Martin, E.; Martin, J.; Singer, E. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 453-473. ISBN 978-0-471-45841-8
18. Castro, M.; Chambers, E., IV. Willingness to eat an insect based product and impact on brand equity: A global perspective. J. Sens. Stud.; 2019; 34, e12486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joss.12486]
19. Koppel, K.; Suwonsichon, S.; Chitra, U.; Lee, J.; Chambers, E. Eggs and poultry purchase, storage, and preparation practices of consumers in selected Asian countries. Foods; 2014; 3, pp. 110-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods3010110]
20. Koppel, K.; Chambers, E., IV; Vázquez-Araújo, L.; Timberg, L.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A.; Suwonsichon, S. Cross-country comparison of pomegranate juice acceptance in Estonia, Spain, Thailand, and United States. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2014; 31, pp. 116-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.009]
21. Castro, M.; Chambers, E., IV. Consumer avoidance of insect containing foods: Primary emotions, perceptions and sensory characteristics driving consumers considerations. Foods; 2019; 8, 351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods8080351] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31426524]
22. Effah-Manu, L.; Wirek-Manu, F.D.; Agbenorhevi, J.K.; Maziya-Dixon, B.; Oduro, I.N. Gender-disaggregated consumer testing and descriptive sensory analysis of local and new yam varieties. Foods; 2023; 12, 537. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12030537] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36766066]
23. Cui, K.; Shoemaker, S.P. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A nationwide Chinese consumer study. Npj Sci. Food; 2018; 2, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4]
24. Wesseler, J.; Smart, R.D.; Thomson, J.; Zilberman, D. Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE; 2017; 12, e0181353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181353] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28749984]
25. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/countrysummary/default.aspx?id=TH (accessed on 22 April 2025).
26. Pitakpakorn, P. Corn Milk Consumption Behavior of Consumers in Bangkok Metropolitan Area; University of Srinakharinwirot: Bangkok, Thailand, 2003; Available online: http://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/Mark/Pavinee_P.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2025).
27. Kotra. Available online: https://dream.kotra.or.kr/kotranews/cms/news/actionKotraBoardDetail.do?SITE_NO=3&MENU_ID=180&CONTENTS_NO=1&bbsGbn=243&bbsSn=243&pNttSn=194830 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
28. Monteiro, C.A.; Cannon, G.; Levy, R.B.; Moubarac, J.; Louzada, M.L.C.; Rauber, F.; Khandpur, N.; Cediel, G.; Neri, D.; Martinez-Steele, E.
29. Zelman, K.M. WebMD, Health & Diet Guide. Available online: https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-black-beans (accessed on 22 April 2025).
30. GOLDEXIM. Available online: https://goldexim.net/news/black-beans (accessed on 15 May 2025).
31. Rotjanapaiboon, T. Study to promote nutritional status using black beans as a protein supplement. Available online: https://tarr.arda.or.th/preview/item/jZq5k34OZAm7Bkdkbe7ux (accessed on 22 April 2025).
32. Research and Markets. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/report/pea-flour (accessed on 22 April 2025).
33. Chambers, E., V; Tran, T.; Chambers, E., IV. Natural: A $75 billion word with no definition-Why not?. J. Sens. Stud.; 2019; 34, e12501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joss.12501]
34. Sáez-Ramírez, D.M.; Chacon-Torrico, H.; Hernández-Vásquez, A. Household consumption of adequately iodized salt: A multi-country analysis of socioeconomic disparities. Nutrients; 2024; 16, 3787. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu16213787]
35. Bibbins-Domingo, K.; Chertow, G.M.; Coxson, P.G.; Moran, A.; Lightwood, J.M.; Pletcher, M.J.; Goldman, L. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. N. Engl. J. Med.; 2010; 362, pp. 590-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907355]
36. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/4239100 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
37. Honkanen, P.; Voldnes, G. Russian consumers’ food habits: Results from a qualitative study in Moscow. Fiskeriforskning; 2006; 27, pp. 1-13. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2576781 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
38. Bruschi, V.; Shershneva, K.; Dolgopolova, I.; Canavari, M.; Teuber, R. Consumer perception of organic food in emerging markets: Evidence from Saint Petersburg, Russia. Agribusiness; 2015; 31, pp. 414-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agr.21414]
39. Opperman, M.; Benadé, A.J.S.; Abrecht, C.F.; Matsheka, L.L. South African seed oils are safe for human consumption. S. Afr. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2016; 29, pp. 7-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16070658.2016.1215879]
40. Code of Federal Regulations. Available online: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I (accessed on 22 April 2025).
41. Valdez, R. Verywell Health. Available online: https://www.verywellhealth.com/maltodextrin-7481887#citation-6 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/cropview/commodityView.aspx?cropid=0459200&sel_year=2021&rankby=Production#:~:text=*%20Sorghum%202021.%20*%20World%20Production:%2061%2C451%20(1000%20MT)%20*%20(PS&D%20Online%20updated%2012/2024) (accessed on 22 April 2025).
43. Bhagavatula, S.; Rao, P.P.; Basavaraj, G.; Nagaraj, N. Sorghum and Millet Economies in Asia—Facts, Trends and Outlook. Patancheru; 2013; 502, 324.Available online: https://oar.icrisat.org/7147/1/sme_asis.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2025).
44. Mundia, C.W.; Secchi, S.; Akamani, K.; Wang, G. A regional comparison of factors affecting global sorghum production: The case of North America, Asia and Africa’s Sahel. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 2135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11072135]
45. Taylor, J.R.N.; Schober, T.J.; Bean, S.R. Novel food and non-food uses for sorghum and millets. J. Cereal Sci.; 2006; 44, pp. 252-271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.06.009]
46. Ariyajaroenwong, P.; Laopaiboon, P.; Jaisil, P.; Laopaiboon, L. Repeated-batch ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice by Saccharomyces cerevisiae immobilized on sweet sorghum stalks. Energies; 2012; 5, pp. 1215-1228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en5041215]
47. Boon Long, T. Sorghum diseases in Thailand. Sorghum and Millets Diseases: A Second World Review; de Milliano, W.A.J.; Frederiksen, R.A.; Bengston, G.D. ICRISAT: Patancheru, India, 1992; pp. 41-43. ISBN 92-9666-201-8
48. Nuanpeng, S.; Laopaiboon, L.; Srinophakun, P.; Klanrit, P.; Jaisil, P.; Laopaiboon, P. Ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice under very high gravity conditions: Batch, repeated-batch and scale up fermentation. Electron. J. Biotechnol.; 2011; 14, pp. 1-6. Available online: https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-34582011000100004 (accessed on 22 April 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2225/vol14-issue1-fulltext-2]
49. Mohamed Nor, N.M.I.; Salleh, B.; Leslie, J.F. Fusarium species from sorghum in Thailand. Plant Pathol. J.; 2019; 35, pp. 301-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.OA.03.2019.0049]
50. Napasintuwong, O. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. Available online: https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/1383 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
51. Byrne, J. AgTechNavigator. Available online: https://www.agtechnavigator.com/Article/2024/02/08/thailand-corn-cultivation-link-to-toxic-air-pollution/ (accessed on 22 April 2025).
52. Straits Research. Available online: https://straitsresearch.com/report/high-fructose-corn-syrup-market (accessed on 22 April 2025).
53. Nevsky, A. Fonts in Use. Available online: https://fontsinuse.com/uses/62407/baking-soda-by-bashkir-soda-company (accessed on 22 April 2025).
54. Grose, R. The Spruce Eats. Available online: https://www.thespruceeats.com/mexican-food-edible-insects-4129391 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
55. Ghosh, S.; Lee, S.-M.; Jung, C.; Meyer-Rochow, V.B. Nutritional composition of five commercial edible insects in South Korea. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol.; 2017; 20, pp. 686-694. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2017.04.003]
56. Kelemu, S.; Niassy, S.; Torto, B.; Fiaboe, K.; Affognon, H.; Tonnang, H.; Maniania, N.K.; Ekesi, S. African edible insects for food and feed: Inventory, diversity, commonalities and contribution to food security. J. Insects Food Feed; 2015; 1, pp. 103-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2014.0016]
57. Honkanen, P.; Frewer, L. Russian consumers’ motives for food choice. Appetite; 2009; 52, pp. 363-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.009]
58. Roininen, K.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Tuorila, H. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite; 1999; 33, pp. 71-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0232] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10447981]
59. Lindeman, M.; Väänänen, M. Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite; 2000; 34, pp. 55-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0293] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10744892]
60. Prescott, J.; Young, O.; O’Neill, L.; Yau, N.J.N.; Stevens, R. Motives for food choice: A comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Qual. Prefer.; 2002; 13, pp. 489-495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00010-1]
61. Lockie, S.; Lyons, K.; Lawrence, G.; Grice, J. Choosing organics: A path analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australian consumers. Appetite; 2004; 43, pp. 135-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.02.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15458800]
62. Renner, B.; Sproesser, G.; Strohbach, S.; Schupp, H.T. Why we eat what we eat. The eating motivation survey (TEMS). Appetite; 2012; 59, pp. 117-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.004]
63. Steptoe, A.; Wardle, J. Motivational factors as mediators of socioeconomic variations in dietary intake patterns. Psychol. Health; 1999; 14, pp. 391-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870449908407336]
64. Kornelis, M.; van Herpen, E.; van der Lans, I.; Aramyan, L. Using non-food information to identify food-choice segment membership. Food Qual. Pref.; 2010; 21, pp. 512-520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.01.007]
65. Mooney, K.M.; Walbourn, L. When college students reject food: Not just a matter of taste. Appetite; 2001; 36, pp. 41-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0384]
66. Liu, R.; Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W. Food-related hazards in China: Consumers’ perceptions of risk and trust in information sources. Food Control; 2014; 46, pp. 291-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.033]
67. Lee, I.W. Foodbank. Available online: https://www.foodbank.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=46887 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
68. Oh, J.E.; Yoon, H.-R. A study on dietary behavior of Chinese consumers segmented by dietary lifestyle. J. Korean Soc. Food Cult.; 2017; 32, pp. 383-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7318/KJFC/2017.32.5.383]
69. Nguyen, S.P.; Girgis, H.; Robinson, J. Predictors of children’s food selection: The role of children’s perceptions of the health and taste of foods. Food Qual. Pref.; 2015; 40, pp. 106-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25530674]
70. Shinozaki, N.; Murakami, K.; Kimoto, N.; Masayasu, S.; Sasaki, S. Highly processed food consumption and its association with overall diet quality in a nationwide sample of 1,318 Japanese children and adolescents: A cross-sectional analysis based on 8-day weighed dietary records. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet.; 2025; 125, pp. 303-322.E5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2024.06.001]
71. Rozin, P. The meaning of “Natural”: Process more important than content. Psychol. Sci.; 2005; 16, pp. 652-658. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16102069]
72. Srisukwatanachai, T.; Jiang, B.; Boonkong, A.; Kassoh, F.S.; Senawin, S. The impact of sensory perceptions and country-of-origin practices on consumer preferences for rice: A comparative study of China and Thailand. Foods; 2025; 14, 603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods14040603] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40002046]
73. Platta, A.; Mikulec, A.; Radzymińska, M.; Kowalski, S.; Skotnicka, M. Willingness to consume and purchase food with edible insects among generation Z in Poland. Foods; 2024; 13, 2202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13142202]
74. Symmank, C. Extrinsic and intrinsic food product attributes in consumer and sensory research: Literature review and quantification of the findings. Manag. Rev. Q.; 2019; 69, pp. 39-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0146-6]
75. Atabek-Yĭgit, E.; Köklükaya, N.; Yavuz, M.; Demirhan, E. Development and validation of environmental literacy scale for adults (ELSA). J. Balt. Sci. Educ.; 2014; 13, pp. 425-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.425]
76. Tavares Filho, E.R.; Silva, R.; Campelo, P.H.; Platz, V.H.C.B.; Spers, E.E.; Freitas, M.Q.; Cruz, A.G. Think and choose! The dual impact of label information and consumer attitudes on the choice of a plant-based analog. Foods; 2024; 13, 2269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13142269]
77. Cong, L.; Luan, S.; Young, E.; Mirosa, M.; Bremer, P.; Torrico, D.D. The application of biometric approaches in agri-food marketing: A systematic literature review. Foods; 2023; 12, 2982. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12162982]
78. Valtakari, N.V.; Hooge, I.T.C.; Viktorsson, C.; Nyström, P.; Falck-Ytter, T.; Hessels, R.S. Eye tracking in human interaction: Possibilities and limitations. Behav. Res. Methods; 2021; 53, pp. 1592-1608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01517-x]
79. Zuschke, N. The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 116, pp. 337-350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.009]
80. Fazio, M.; Reitano, A.; Loizzo, M.R. Consumer preferences for new products: Eye tracking experiment on labels and packaging for olive oil based dressing. Proceedings; 2021; 70, 59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods_2020-08124]
81. Seninde, D.R.; Chambers, E., IV. A comparison of the percentage of “yes” (agree) responses and importance of attributes (constructs) determined using check-all-that-apply and check-all-statements (yes/no) question formats in five countries. Foods; 2020; 9, 1566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9111566] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126769]
82. Seninde, D.R.; Chambers, E., IV. Comparing the impact of check-all-that-apply (CATA) and check-all-statements (CAS) question formats on “agree” responses for different consumers’ age groups and genders across five countries. J. Sens. Stud.; 2021; 36, e12697. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joss.12697]
83. Seninde, D.R.; Chambers, E., IV. Comparing the rate-all-that-apply and rate-all-statements question formats across five countries. Foods; 2021; 10, 702. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10040702]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Chambers Edgar IV 2
; Lee, Jeehyun 1
1 Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Human Ecology, Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Republic of Korea
2 Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA