*3.1. Acceptance of Enhancement of Animal-Derived Food Products as a Quality Improvement Method*

The acceptance of animal-derived food products' enhancement as the quality improvement method for respondents declaring diverse quality determinants is presented in Table 3. The additional analysis conducted for the subgroups stratified by income, place of living, and educational background is presented in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary Tables S1–S6).

It was stated that declaring diverse quality determinants influenced acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method (*p* = 0.0264). In the studied group, the highest number of respondents accepted food products' enhancement in the sub-group of respondents not able to define quality determinants (42.9%), while a lower number of respondents accepted it in the sub-groups of respondents declaring as quality determinants: origin (33.6%), production technology (26.6%), manufacturer (35.4%), components and nutritional value (32.8%), visual and sensory characteristics (26.1%), expiry date (29.7%), and cost (35.0%). At the same time, the highest number of respondents did not accept food products' enhancement in the sub-group of respondents declaring expiry date as a quality determinant (41.5%), while a lower number of respondents did not accept it in the sub-groups of respondents declaring as quality determinants: origin (37.7%), production technology (34.4%), manufacturer (23.1%), components and nutritional

value (31.2%), visual and sensory characteristics (37.0%), and cost (32.3%), or in the sub-group of respondents not being able to define quality determinants (19.8%).


**Table 3.** Level of acceptance of enhanced animal-derived food products for respondents stratified by perceived quality determinants.

\* 1–3 negative answers (1—definitely; 2—moderately; 3—slightly do not accept); 4—neutral answer; 5–7 positive answers (5—slightly; 6—moderately; 7—definitely accept); 0—do not observe such method for food products of animal origin in Poland.

The acceptance of animal-derived food products' enhancement as a quality improvement method, for respondents declaring diverse known methods of quality improvement, is presented in Table 4.

**Table 4.** Level of acceptance of enhanced animal-derived food products for respondents stratified by known methods of quality improvement.


\* 1–3 negative answers (1—definitely; 2—moderately; 3—slightly do not accept); 4—neutral answer; 5–7 positive answers (5—slightly; 6—moderately; 7—definitely accept); 0—do not observe such method for food products of animal origin in Poland.

It was stated that indicating product enhancement as a method of quality improvement did not influence acceptance of animal-derived food products' enhancement as the quality improvement method (*p* = 0.0783). The acceptance was comparable in sub-groups of respondents indicating product enhancement, methods other than product enhancement, and those who did not know any method to improve quality.

## *3.2. Acceptance of the Application of Novel Packaging for Animal-Derived Food Products as the Quality Improvement Method*

The acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents declaring diverse quality determinants, is presented in Table 5. The additional analysis conducted for the sub-groups stratified by income, place of living, and educational background is presented in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary Tables S7–S12).

**Table 5.** Level of acceptance of novel packaging in animal-derived food products for respondents stratified by perceived quality determinants.


\* 1–3 negative answers (1—definitely; 2—moderately; 3—slightly do not accept); 4—neutral answer; 5–7 positive answers (5—slightly; 6—moderately; 7—definitely accept); 0—do not observe such method for food products of animal origin in Poland.

It was stated that declaring diverse quality determinants influenced the acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method (*p* = 0.0314). In the studied group, the highest number of respondents accepted the application of novel packaging in the sub-group of respondents not able to define quality determinants (69.2%) and declaring manufacturer as a quality determinant (69.2%), while a lower number of respondents accepted it in the sub-groups of respondents declaring as quality determinants: origin (67.8%), production technology (60.9%), components and nutritional value (64.0%), visual and sensory characteristics (67.4%), expiry date (62.6%), and cost (65.0%). At the same time, the lowest number of respondents did not accept the application of novel packaging in the sub-group of respondents declaring visual and sensory characteristics (4.3%), while a higher number of respondents did not accept it in the sub-groups of respondents declaring as quality determinants: origin (16.4%), production technology (7.8%), manufacturer (9.2%), components and nutritional value (8.8%), expiry date (18.3%) and cost (18.1%), or in the sub-group of respondents not able to define quality determinants (7.7%).

The acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents declaring diverse known methods of quality improvement, is presented in Table 6.

It was stated that indicating the application of novel packaging as a method of quality improvement influenced acceptance of novel packaging application for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method (*p* = 0.0044). The acceptance was comparable in sub-groups of respondents indicating product enhancement, methods other than product enhancement, and those who did not know any method to improve quality. In the case of respondents indicating the application of novel

packaging as a known method of quality improvement, the lowest number of respondents accepted the application of novel packaging (33.3%) than for the sub-group indicating methods other than novel packaging application (61.9%) and those who did not know any method to improve quality (66.1%).


**Table 6.** Level of acceptance of novel packaging for animal-derived food products for respondents stratified by known methods of quality improvement.

\* 1–3 negative answers (1—definitely; 2—moderately; 3—slightly do not accept); 4—neutral answer; 5–7 positive answers (5—slightly; 6—moderately; 7—definitely accept); 0—do not observe such method for food products of animal origin in Poland.

#### **4. Discussion**

The main observation from the obtained results indicated that those individuals who do not accept the analyzed methods of product enhancement may not accept such methods probably because they equate them with the addition of food preservatives (respondents who perceived expiration date as a major determinant of quality). Meat products are traditional foods in many countries, so in order to implement dietary behavior changes in those populations, culinary knowledge and understanding of the needed changes are required, as well as providing time to adapt and accept those changes [30]. Moreover, it should be recognized that specific factors determine the perceived quality, such as the cut used and method of thermal treatment applied [31].

The low level of acceptance in this group may be a serious problem for producers and distributors. However, in the study conducted by Bearth et al. [32] in a large sample of Swiss-German households, analyzing consumers' perception of artificial food additives, the factors that influenced the perceived level of risks and benefits were identified. The study concluded that acceptance of food additives is associated with perceived risks and benefits, which are influenced by the knowledge of legal regulations, trust in legal regulators, and a general preference for natural products [32]. Educating consumers may not only increase their knowledge of regulations but also improve their perception of food additives and minimize their worries, as education is indicated as one of the elements of intervention used for treating adult food neophobia [33].

The knowledge that product enhancement is applied does not relieve the stress resulting from the concerns of artificial additives. It is indicated that the names of food additives are sometimes even difficult to pronounce for consumers, and thus, could create an impression of unfamiliarity [22]. In spite of the fact that consumers can be provided reasonable information about risk assessment applied for food additives, it is difficult in practice [34]. Moreover, it should be emphasized that designing functional food products dedicated to specific groups of consumers with more concerns about product enhancement may be a promising strategy, but these products must be accompanied by information about health issues. Consumers with more modern health concerns (associated with the risk of diet-related diseases) tend to accept functional food products that are developed either to reduce the risk of the disease or to help in its cure [35].

The most important observation of the study was that respondents who perceived appearance and taste as major determinants of food quality accepted novel packaging methods. It must be indicated that for some animal-derived food products, appearance may be the main determinant, and therefore, applying suitable packaging is crucial. The study by Grebitus et al. [36] showed that in the case of packaged meat, consumers had a higher preference for meat having a brighter red color (aerobic packaging or carbon monoxide atmosphere packaging applied) and were willing to pay more if such a color was warranted. Nevertheless, it must be stated that consumers have higher preferences for products that they know and like [37]; therefore, the color of products must be characteristic, not changed by packaging.

The study by Giles et al. [38] indicated that improvement in taste, which was perceived as a beneficial modification of food products, especially when accompanied by a lower price, may be accepted as a reason for applying nanotechnology in food production. However, it was emphasized that nanotechnological components were accepted if they were applied only for food packaging, but not when they were integrated into food products [38].

The obtained results are in agreement with other studies conducted on carbon monoxide atmosphere packaging, which is promising for meat production [39]. In the study by Grebitus et al. [34], it was stated that a higher level of knowledge, gained through sources such as media, led to the lower acceptance of carbon monoxide atmosphere packaging.

The study by Chen et al. [40] measured the resistance to the use of new technology in food production, with an example of vacuum packaging used for beef in Canada, which is not uncommon in Europe. The information that vacuum packaging was applied influenced consumers' choices and increased their acceptability. The authors also highlighted that, in general, there was a problem with a low share of respondents being well-informed about this technology. This suggests that, in some cases, consumers' knowledge about the risks and benefits of the packaging system could dispel their doubts and have positive effects on market demands.

In addition, the microbiological safety of meat, which is another aspect associated with the risks and benefits of packaging, must be considered in the context of consumers' preferences and acceptances. The perspective of consumers should be regarded irrespective of the fact that novel packaging methods could prevent quality deterioration of enhanced products, as well as reduce product spoilage, as a part of sustainable development. The study of Dastile et al. [41] emphasized that visual assessment, rather than knowledge, may be a crucial determinant of sustainable meat consumption.

In the study of Akehurst et al. [42], the gap between purchase intentions and behaviors was stated to be less visible among respondents who had a higher level of consciousness. This may be due to the fact that respondents generally underestimated the impact of the meat industry and meat consumption on the environment [43]; therefore, proper knowledge could help in transmitting attitudes into purchase decisions.

Although the study presents some novel observations in a population-based sample, it has certain limitations that must be addressed. It should be mentioned that the study analyzed only declarative acceptance of the quality improvement methods applied for food products of animal origin, and such assessment is associated with self-reporting bias [44]. This is because conscious and unconscious behaviors differ, and even if the respondents do not intend to report false answers, their responses may be different from their unconscious preferences [45].

#### **5. Conclusions**

The results obtained in the study indicated that for the application of novel packaging, a higher level of knowledge may be a reason for consumers' rejection of the resulting products, but the appearance and taste of products may contribute to the higher acceptance of novel packaging. Educating consumers may improve their acceptance of product enhancement, as concerns about the addition of food preservatives, due to insufficient knowledge, may lead them to reject enhanced products.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/11/1526/s1. Supplementary Table S1. Acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for low income respondents who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 261). Supplementary Table S2. Acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for high income respondents who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 324). Supplementary Table S3. Acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents of primary and vocational education level who declared diverse quality

*Foods* **2020**, *9*, 1526

determinants (*n* = 462). Supplementary Table S4. Acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents of secondary and higher education level respondents who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 529). Supplementary Table S5. Acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents living in cities and villages of less than 100,000 inhabitants who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 688). Supplementary Table S6. Acceptance of the enhancement of animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents living in cites of more than 100,000 inhabitants who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 314). Supplementary Table S7. Acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for low income respondents who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 261). Supplementary Table S8. Acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for high income respondents who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 324). Supplementary Table S9. Acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents of primary and vocational education level declaring diverse quality determinants (*n* = 462). Supplementary Table S10. Acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents of secondary and higher education level who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 529). Supplementary Table S11. Acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents living in cities and villages of less than 100,000 inhabitants who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 688). Supplementary Table S12. Acceptance of the application of novel packaging for animal-derived food products as the quality improvement method, for respondents living in cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants who declared diverse quality determinants (*n* = 314).

**Author Contributions:** D.G. (Dominika Guzek) and D.G. (Dominika Gł ˛abska) made study conception and design; D.G. (Dominika Guzek), D.G. (Dominika Gł ˛abska), M.S., and K.G. performed the research; D.G. (Dominika Guzek) and D.G. (Dominika Gł ˛abska) analyzed the data; D.G. (Dominika Guzek) and D.G. (Dominika Gł ˛abska) interpreted the data; D.G. (Dominika Guzek), D.G. (Dominika Gł ˛abska), M.S., and K.G. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The presented study was conducted within the project "BIOFOOD–innovative, functional products of animal origin" no. POIG.01.01.02-014-090, co-financed by the European Union from the European Regional Development Fund within the Innovative Economy Operational Programme. The analysis was co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education within funds of Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS), for scientific research.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
