Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat

Les Cahiers de l’IFIP
Revue R&D de la filière porcine française
Vol 1 - N° 1 - 2014
Development of an edible protective
coating for fresh meat
French consumers’ perception
Mariem ELLOUZE et Sabine JEUGE
IFIP-Institut du Porc, 7 avenue du général de Gaulle, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France
[email protected]
MeatCoat is an EU co-funded project, in which deals an edible protective coating for fresh meat was developed. This article
reports a survey about French consumers’ perception towards this innovative solution.
An online questionnaire divided in three parts (Identification of the participants and of their consumption habits, previous knowledge of edible coating, and perception of the MeatCoat) was disseminated by internet and 305 answers were collected. Most of
consumers were in favor of the use of edible films for fresh meat, they identified possible advantages in terms of freshness, shelf
life and food safety Improvement due to the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of the coating.
They would like to test the edible coating and to have more information on this new packaging.
2014 -Ifip-Institut du porc - All rights reserved
Développement d’un enrobage comestible pour les viandes fraîches.
Perception des consommateurs français
MeatCoat est un projet co-financé par la commission Européenne dont le but est de développer un enrobage protecteur comestible
pour les viandes fraîches. Dans le cadre de ce projet, une enquête a été conduite auprès des consommateurs français pour évaluer
leur perception vis-à-vis de cette innovation.
Pour cela, un questionnaire en ligne composé de trois parties (Identification des participants et de leurs habitudes de consommation,
connaissance des films d’emballage comestible, perception du film MeatCoat) a été diffusé par internet et 305 réponses ont été collectées. Les personnes interrogées étaient majoritairement favorables à l’utilisation de l’enrobage comestible pour les viandes fraîches,
mettant en avant les avantages en termes de fraîcheur, d’augmentation de la durée de vie des produits, l’amélioration de la sécurité
sanitaire des produits grâce aux propriétés antimicrobiennes de l’enrobage.
Les consommateurs sont en attente de plus d’informations sur ce nouveau conditionnement et souhaitent tester par eux-mêmes des
viandes couvertes par cet emballage pour se faire une meilleure idée de cette technologie.
Keywords: edible coating - fresh meat - consumer’s perception - antimicrobial - antioxidant.
Mots clés : enrobage comestible - viande fraîche - perception consommateur - antimicrobien - antioxydant.
Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014
69
Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception
Reducing food wastage is a major challenge worldwide.
According to the FAO, one third of the food produced
is wasted every year, representing an annual loss of 1.3
billion tons (Gustavsson, 2011). The food giving rise to the
most costly wastage is fresh meat. This waste results from
micro-biological or organoleptic spoilage associated with
problems of colour and/or oxidation.
The European MeatCoat project (www.meatcoat.eu) was
developed to address this issue. Its aim was to develop an
edible coating for fresh meat that possessed antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. Such a coating would not
only reduce wastage of fresh meat, but also cut packaging
costs by replacing non-recyclable multilayer oxygen barrier plastic films.
This project, which brought together ten partners from
seven European countries, has allowed an edible coating
to be developed and characterised. Pilot-scale tests have
also been carried out to check the technical feasibility of
applying this new technology in industrial conditions.
Keepability validations and technical measurements were
used to assess antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, and
the effect of the coating on reducing sweating.
Lastly, a survey was conducted to assess consumers’ perception of this innovation. French consumers were asked
to reply to a questionnaire on their knowledge of edible
coatings and give their impressions of this new packaging
method. This survey and its results are described here.
The findings will be used to set prior requirements for the
implementation of this technology and its general use in
industry.
Methods
Similar questionnaires were sent out by the different
European partners of the project in France and in the participating countries. This article concerns the study carried
out in France.
The aim of the questionnaire was to collect information on
the respondents’
•Demographics (gender, region, socio-occupational category, family composition, etc.),
•Fresh meat consumption habits, e.g. place of purchase
(large retail chains / high street butchers), frequency of
purchase, type of packaging (vacuum-packed, packaged
in a protective atmosphere, shrink-wrapped), etc.,
•Prior knowledge of edible coatings,
•Perceptions of this type of innovation after a brief imagebased description.
The questionnaire was posted online and sent out from
November 2013 to February 2014 mainly by email or via
the social networks. Paper versions were also used to enable
persons without internet access to respond.
Results and Discussion
Demographics of respondents
13
2
1
3
75
41
8
5
9
6
18
38
1
2
2
25
14
2
10
9
9
10
Age
Age(
Figure 1: Geographical distribution of respondents
(n = 301, 4 non-determined)
A total of 305 responses were collected from the different
French regions as shown in Figure 1. The three most
strongly represented regions were Île-de-France (24.6%),
Brittany (13.5%) and Alsace (12.5%).
1 fois par
Once
semaine
a week
Distribution by gender was balanced, with 43% men
a week
2 fois Twice
par semaine
and
57%
women
responding. The different sociooccupational categories represented were: executive
Once1 or
à 2twice
fois par
a month
mois
managers
(49%),
clerical-manual (16%), intermediate occupations (10%), retired (8%), students (10%),
<1
< once
fois par
a month
mois
self-employed (farming, retailing, artisans) (4%), and
unemployed (3%).
tousEvery
les jours
day
Figure 2 shows the
distribution
the respondents.
0% age 10%
20% of 30%
40%
50%
Three quarters were aged 21–50 years, 13% 51–60 years,
8% were over 60, and 4% were under 20.
Lastly, the questionnaire recorded the family composition of the respondents: 54% were in families with children, 19% were unmarried, and 27% were in couples.
2014 -Ifip-Institut du porc - All rights reserved
Introduction
Ind
Rent
Quality
Qualit
Sécur
He
70
Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014
EnvE
Conser
Preser
Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception
4%
8%
Once a week
24%
13%
6
Twice a week
38
Once or twice a month
< once a month
1
Every day
26%
10
24%
Age (years) : < 20
21-30
31-40
41-50
0%
51-60
> 60
Of the respondents, 5% reported buying only beef, and
1% only poultry, but most reported buying meat of different animals: 40% reported buying beef, lamb, pork and
poultry, and 38% bought beef, pork and poultry.
These purchases were mostly made once or twice a week
(46% and 28% of cases, respectively) as shown in Figure 3.
Very important
None
Meat choice
40%
50%
Fairly important
Hea
E
Preserv
No view
Not very important
Not important
No view
2014 -Ifip-Institut du porc - All rights reserved
Quality, fresheness Use-buy date
Health security
170
Appearance
Environment
Preservation, UBD
0
20
40
60
154
80
12
17
104
30
10 4
8 1
100
68
Packaging
10 8
89
72
Quality label
Brand
64
149
Price
117
64
47
66
101
26
30
45
7
9
30
Figure 4 : Critères de choix des viandes fraîches en supermarché (n=250)
Advantages
Very important
Ind
Quality,
Lastly, the respondents who bought fresh meat in supermarkets were asked whether they could distinguish among
different packaging methods: air, protective atmosphere and
vacuum. The survey showed that the respondents were unfamiliar with these packaging methods, which are nevertheless commonly used for meat. Despite an illustration
showing them the different types of packaging, 25% of the
respondents could not tell the difference between packaging under air and under a protective atmosphere. Shrinkwrapped meat was bought by 44%. Vacuum-packed meat
was seldom purchased (10%).
Large retail chains were where the respondents most often
made their purchases: 29% bought their fresh meat only in
supermarkets, and 53% bought it in either supermarkets
or from high street butchers. Only 18% of the respondents
reported buying their meat solely from high street butchers.
The respondents who bought their meat off the self-service
shelves of supermarkets (n = 250) were asked to score on
a five-point scale the importance to them of certain purchasing criteria: use-by date, price, visual appearance of
gain
products,Industrial
in particular
colour, type of packaging, and the
Other
30%
presence of a quality certification label or brand. The results
obtained are shown in Figure 4.
The respondents reported that the use-by date and the
visual appearance of the products were the most important criteria. Price, also important, was ranked third. The
presence of a quality certification label or how the meat was
packaged also influenced purchasing, but to a lesser degree.
Product brand was not a purchasing criterion for most of
the consumers surveyed.
Consumption habits
50%
20%
Figure 3: Frequency of purchase of meat in high street
butchers and/or supermarkets (n = 305).
Figure 2 : Age des participants (n=305)
40%
10%
Fairly important
No view
Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014
Not very important
Not important
71
18
1
2
2
25
26%
Development of an edible protective coating for14fresh meat. French consumers’ perception
24%
10
9
9
10
Age (years) : < 20
Knowledge of edible packaging
Of the respondents, 14% knew about edible coatings
used for food products. This information came from
the Internet (14 respondents), the press (12), specialised
magazines (6), television (7), or an occupational context
(4). Known food products with an edible coating included
meat, sandwiches and hamburgers, fruits, cheese, cured
meat products, butter, fish, biscuits and ready-to-eat
meals.
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
> 60
No coating
With coating
< once a month
Impressions
of French consumers
Every day
First perception
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Industrial gain
After reading a short description of a MeatCoat coating
film, the respondents were asked to give their first impression of the product.
Other
An overall positive opinion was voiced by 53%, who
said the edible protective film was « interesting», «promising», «useful», «a good idea», and «good for cutting
waste». Irrespective of the age of the respondents,
the initial opinion was favourable in most cases. The
proportion of favourable opinions was greater in respondents aged under 30 years and over 60. Opinions
were thus mostly positive regardless of socio-occupational category, except for the self-employed (farming,
retailing and artisans), who were less favourable to using
this type of coating.
A negative opinion of this innovation was voiced by 28%,
because of insufficient knowledge. Some consumers
preferred to buy products directly from producers, or in
smaller quantities rather than using a product with an
additive to protect it and prolong its shelf life.
h’
Reservations were expressed by 19%. These respondents
would rather see and try the product first: «I’m going to wait
until I’ve tried it», «I’ll see», «I haven’t tried [the coating] yet,
I’m still doubtful».
Advantages and disadvantages
After reading the description, the respondents stated what
they thought were the main advantages and disadvantages
of edible coatings. These free responses were grouped in
72
categories as shown in Figure 5. This figure shows that the
advantages felt are linked to the later sell-by date and the
longer shelf life of the products. Environmental concerns
such as reducing food spoilage through using natural components, and reducing waste by using less plastic were also
important. The respondents also emphasised health safety
(safer product, avoiding microbial proliferation), freshness
and better overall organoleptic quality of meat.
Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014
None
No view
Quality, fresheness
Health security
Environment
Preservation, UBD
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 5: Advantages of MeatCoat edible film
according to respondents (free response, n = 305).
Some disadvantages were also stated, mainly linked to
health and safety concerns about the ingredients in the
coating (unknown health risk of components), ease of
use and appearance (removability of the film, behaviour
during cooking and freezing, etc.), cost (increased overall price, cost of film), lack of knowledge (new product,
concerns about possible negative effects, distrust), taste
of the coating (interference with meat taste).
Lastly, the characteristics of the edible packaging were
appraised by the respondents. In the list of film characteristics (Figure 6), freshness ranked first (criterion judged very
important by 61% (90% important or very important). The
natural composition of the film was judged very important
by 53% (82% important and very important). Reduced waste/
spoilage was a very important factor, together with longer
2014 -Ifip-Institut du porc - All rights reserved
Of these 14 respondents, only four had already tried products packaged using this technology. These products
Once a week or tortilla with a protective edible coawere confectionery
ting. The opinions recorded were unenthusiastic «I tried
Twice a out
weekof curiosity», «nothing special», «[I have]
[the product]
no special opinion» but are weakened by the small sample
Once
or twice
a month
number
(n =
4). We note that the protective coatings tried
did not include fresh meat.
Brand
12
64
Very important
Meat choice
101
No view
Fairly important
45
Not very important
30
Not important
Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception
Use-buy date
170
Very important
Fairly important
149
AdvantagesAppearance
Price
Freshness
72
Quality label
Natural composition
68
Packaging
Less waste
Brand
No view
154
104
158
90
117
78
7
30
11 12
9
45
122
49
26
11 15
35
101
110
8 1
66
112
64
17
14 6 10
47
35
88
137
12
10 8
Not very important Not important
89
10 4
189
30
Longer shelf life
Invisibility
64
30
45
92
37
19 12
51
Very of
important
important(all respondents,
No view n =Not
very
important Not important
Figure 6: Importance
coating filmFairly
characteristics
297)
– Advantages.
Advantages
keepability. Invisibility was not among the criteria underlined
In all, 75% of the respondents were ready to taste meats
as an advantage by the respondents
(32%
no
view).
(not ready 17%,
189 with edible protective coatings 90
14 6no
10 view
Freshness
Big problem
Problem
Not respondents
a big problem who
Nowere
problem
8%). The
not ready to try this type
No trend
was discernable in the responses for age, socioof product emphasised a lack of knowledge about this new
Disadvantages
occupationalNatural
category,
family structure, or habits of fresh
product (origin of the 88
components, possible
158
35
11allergies),
15
composition
meat consumption (place or frequency of purchase, etc.).
the negative connotation of the term «packaging», and
Price
97
124
80
9
The main disadvantages are listed in Figure 7. Shininess
lack of confidence in the agrifood business and in food
137pro112
35
11 12
waste(39%, 71% with «no
was not considered aLess
problem
innovation, etc.
blem»). Likewise, the visibility of the film when meat was
Visible when irregularly cut
48
95 with an edible
Readiness 94
of consumers to buy meat
cut up irregularly did not bother consumers,
unlike 70
pos110
122
45
19 12
Longer
shelf
life
protective
coating
sible extra cost, which was scored as a problem for 73% of
the respondents.
Shinier appearance
30
58
124
95
The proportion
of positive opinions
concerning rea92
37
51
Invisibility
Readiness of consumers
to taste meat 49
with an edible 78
diness to buy meat with edible protective coatings was
protective coating
58% (not ready 27%, no view 13%). The reservations
Most of the respondents thought the coating films would
recorded were linked to the same factors as previously
be useful (definitely for 27%, probably for 42%), while 15%
stated: distrust of the food industry, components used,
saw no direct utility from their use.
reluctance to eat «packaging».
Big problem
2014 -Ifip-Institut du porc - All rights reserved
Disadvantages
Price
97
Visible when irregularly cut
Shinier appearance
Not a big problem
124
48
30
Problem
70
58
94
124
No problem
80
9
95
95
Figure 7 : Importance des caractéristiques des films d’enrobage (tous participants, n=297) - Inconvénients
Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014
73
Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception
The aim of this study, conducted as part of the European
MeatCoat project (www.meatcoat.eu), was to assess knowledge and perception of edible coating films among French
consumers.
Most of the consumers surveyed were in favour of using
this edible protective coating for fresh meat (53% favourable, 28% unfavourable, 19% no view).
The main advantages put forward were maintained
freshness and appearance of products, longer shelf-life,
and more environment-friendly packaging permitting less
waste.
However, the consumers would like to have more information on this type of product. They would like to be fully
informed so as to be sure about the harmlessness of the
products used in the manufacture of the coating.
Acknowledgements
MeatCoat is co-funded by the European Commission
(7th Framework Programme for Research – Capacities –
Research for the benefit of SMEs), Grant Agreement
No. 280387.
References
• Ellouze M., Jeuge S., Hillerström A., Lindqvist-Hoffmann J., Herrero M., San Martín E., 2013. Development of a new antimicrobial edible film for fresh
meat products. [poster] 8th Dubai International Food Safety Conference.
• Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., van Otterdijk R., 2011. Global food losses and food waste, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Rome 2011
Reference to this article
• Ellouze M., Jeuge S., 2014. Development of an edible protective coating for fresh meat. French consumers’ perception. Les Cahiers de
l’IFIP, 1(1), 69-74.
74
Les Cahiers de l’IFIP - Vol 1- n° 1 - 2014
2014 -Ifip-Institut du porc - All rights reserved
Conclusion

Download Report