| Literature DB >> 32717894 |
Raquel P F Guiné1, Sofia G Florença2, Keylor Villalobos Moya3, Ofélia Anjos4,5.
Abstract
This study investigated the knowledge and use of edible flowers (EF) in two countries, Portugal, in Europe, and Costa Rica, in Latin America, and aimed to evaluate the similarities and/or differences regarding the utilization of EF in gastronomy. This work consisted of a questionnaire survey, undertaken on a sample of 290 participants. The results indicate that most people surveyed (87%) have heard about EF but believe there is not enough information about them (96%). Only one third of participants consider there are risks associated with the consumption of EF, being those related to toxicity and pesticides. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between participants from the two countries but not with different professional areas. About half (48%) of the participants had already consumed EF, mostly for decoration or confection of dishes (77% positive answers) and in salads (75%). The flowers consumed most frequently were chamomile and rose, respectively, in Costa Rica and Portugal. Reasons pointed out to consume EF include decoration, taste, novelty and aroma, while aspects such as nutritional value or antioxidant capacity are prized by fewer consumers. EF were mostly acquired in supermarkets, cultivated at home or collected in the wild. In general, most participants (85%) consider the use of EF in gastronomy interesting, but less than one third (27%) believe we should eat EF more often. Finally, discriminant function analysis revealed that country was the variable for which the differences in the consumption of EF was more pronounced, while education level and age group showed the lowest variability between groups.Entities:
Keywords: edible flowers; food security; gourmet kitchen; knowledge; questionnaire survey
Year: 2020 PMID: 32717894 PMCID: PMC7466067 DOI: 10.3390/foods9080977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Sociodemographic characterization of the study sample.
| Variable | Costa Rica | Portugal | Total (1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dimension: N (%) | 139 (47.9) | 151 (52.1) | 290 (100) | |
| Age (2) (MV ± SD years) | 38 ± 12 | 41 ± 13 | 40 ± 13 | |
| Age group | Young adults (18–30 years) (%) | 30.2 | 23.8 | 26.9 |
| Middle aged adults (31–50 years) (%) | 52.6 | 53.0 | 52.7 | |
| Senior adults (51–65 years) (%) | 15.8 | 20.5 | 18.3 | |
| Elderly (≥66 years) (%) | 1.4 | 2.6 | 2.1 | |
| Sex | Women (%) | 62.6 | 80.8 | 72.1 |
| Men (%) | 37.4 | 19.2 | 27.9 | |
| Education level | Basic (%) | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.1 |
| Secondary (%) | 12.2 | 15.2 | 13.8 | |
| University (%) | 84.9 | 81.5 | 83.1 | |
| Living environment | Urban (%) | 66.2 | 68.0 | 67.2 |
| Suburban (%) | 12.9 | 7.3 | 10.0 | |
| Rural (%) | 20.9 | 24.7 | 22.8 | |
(1) Combined results of Portugal and Costa Rica. (2) Age expressed as mean value (MV) ± standard deviation (SD).
Professional area of the participants.
| Professional Area | Costa Rica | Portugal | Total (1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (%) | No (%) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Yes (%) | No (%) | |
| Nutrition/Food | 17.3 | 82.7 | 58.0 | 42.0 | 38.4 | 61.6 |
| Agriculture | 31.2 | 68.8 | 29.3 | 70.7 | 30.2 | 69.8 |
| Hotels/Restaurants | 5.0 | 95.0 | 12.1 | 87.9 | 8.7 | 91.3 |
| Not related to any of the above | 43.5 | 56.5 | 38.3 | 61.7 | 47.0 | 53.0 |
(1) Combined results of Portugal and Costa Rica.
Information about edible flowers (EF), according to country.
| Question | Total (1) | Costa | Portugal | CST (2) | CC (3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 |
| V | |||||
| Have you heard about EF? | Yes (%) | 86.9 | 76.3 | 96.7 | 26.530 | <0.0005 (5) | 0.302 |
| No (%) | 13.1 | 23.7 | 3.3 | ||||
| Do you think there is enough information about EF? | Yes (%) | 3.8 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 0.028 | 0.557 (5) | - |
| No (%) | 96.2 | 96.4 | 96.0 | ||||
| Do you think there are risks associated with consumption of EF? | Yes (%) | 35.2 | 27.4 | 42.4 | 7.342 | 0.025 | 0.159 |
| No (%) | 31.0 | 33.8 | 28.5 | ||||
| M (4) (%) | 33.8 | 38.8 | 29.1 | ||||
| Do you think toxicity is a risk? | Yes (%) | 83.8 | 71.2 | 93.5 | 12.237 | 0.001 (5) | 0.300 |
| No (%) | 16.2 | 28.8 | 6.5 | ||||
| Do you think pesticides are a risk? | Yes (%) | 80.9 | 68.3 | 91.8 | 12.105 | <0.0005 (5) | 0.298 |
| No (%) | 19.1 | 31.7 | 8.2 | ||||
| Do you think there are other risks? | Yes (%) | 50.5 | 39.6 | 58.7 | 3.995 | 0.035 | 0.190 |
| No (%) | 49.5 | 60.4 | 41.3 | ||||
(1) Combined results of Portugal and Costa Rica. (2) CST: chi-square test (level of significance of 5%: p < 0.05) for country differences. (3) CC: Cramer’s coefficient, only indicated if there were significant differences. (4) This option accounts for Maybe/I do not know. (5) Fisher’s exact test.
Information about edible flowers (EF), according to professional areas in Portugal and Costa Rica (considered together).
| Question | Related (1) | Not Related (1) | CST (2) | CC (3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 |
| V | ||||
| Have you heard about EF? | Yes (%) | 94.7 | 22.2 | 17.901 | <0.0005 (5) | 0.250 |
| No (%) | 5.3 | 77.8 | ||||
| Do you think there is enough information about EF? | Yes (%) | 5.3 | 2.2 | 1.794 | 0.151 (5) | - |
| No (%) | 94.7 | 97.8 | ||||
| Do you think there are risks associated with consumption of EF? | Yes (%) | 46.7 | 22.2 | 19.234 | 0.442 | - |
| No (%) | 27.0 | 35.6 | ||||
| M (4) (%) | 26.3 | 42.2 | ||||
| Do you think toxicity is a risk? | Yes (%) | 86.7 | 77.8 | 1.738 | 0.142 (5) | - |
| No (%) | 16.3 | 22.2 | ||||
| Do you think pesticides are a risk? | Yes (%) | 80.5 | 81.3 | 0.012 | 0.552 (5) | - |
| No (%) | 19.5 | 18.7 | ||||
| Do you think there are other risks? | Yes (%) | 50.0 | 50.0 | 0.000 | 0.579 (5) | - |
| No (%) | 50.0 | 50.0 | ||||
(1) Related or not related with the following areas: Nutrition/Food, Agriculture, Hotels/Restaurants. (2) CST: chi-square test (level of significance of 5%: p < 0.05) for country differences. (3) CC: Cramer’s coefficient, only indicated if there were significant differences. (4) This option accounts for Maybe/I do not know. (5) Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 1Possible ways in which the participants consumed edible flowers.
Figure 2Types of flowers consumed by the participants.
Figure 3Reasons pointed out by the participants for consumption of EF.
Figure 4Places where participants consumed EF for the first time.
Figure 5Forms of consumption of EF.
Figure 6Places where the participants buy EF.
Figure 7Availability of EF.
Figure 8Opinions about the use of EF for culinary purposes.
Discriminant function analysis summary (p-value).
| Questions | Country | Age Group | Sex | Living Environment | Education Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you eat the flowers? | In salads | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| In starters |
| ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| In jelly | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| As aroma intensifiers | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Decoration and confection of dishes | ns | ns |
| ns | ns | |
| Others |
| ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Which flowers have you already eaten? | Orchid | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Pansy |
| ns |
| ns | ns | |
| Sunflower | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Chamomile | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Calendula | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Pumpkin flower |
| ns | ns |
| ns | |
| Rose | ns | ns | ns |
| ns | |
| Others | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Frequency of consumption of EF? |
| ns | ns | ns |
| |
| What motivates you to consume them? | Decoration | ns |
| ns | ns | ns |
| Taste | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Aroma | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Nutrition | ns |
| ns | ns | ns | |
| Antioxidant activity | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Novelty | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Other | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| If you consume EF, in what form? | Fresh |
| Δ | ns | ns | Δ |
| Cooked |
| ns | ns | |||
| Other | ns | ns | ns | |||
| If you use EF, where do you buy them? | Supermarket | ns | Δ | ns | ns | Δ |
| Home cultivation | ns | ns | ns | |||
| Flower shop | ns | ns | ns | |||
| Collect in wild | ns | ns | ns | |||
| Other | ns | ns |
| |||
| Is there enough information about EF? | ns | ns |
| ns | ns | |
| Risks associated with consumption of EF | Toxicity | ns | ns | ns | ns | Δ |
| Pesticides |
| ns |
| ns | ||
| Other | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||
| EF are easy to obtain? | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| In your opinion we should eat EF more often? | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
EF: edible flowers. ns: p > 0.05; * 0.01 < p < 0.05; ** 0.001 < p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Δ—some groups contain only a valid case.