| Literature DB >> 34945576 |
Tejal K Gajaria1,2, Vaibhav A Mantri1,2.
Abstract
Seaweeds are inevitable resources of nutrition bearing favorable rheological characteristics, which has resulted in their inclusion in a variety of daily consumer products. India, with its vast coastline and over 1000 species of seaweeds, presents tremendous potential to bring this resource into nutraceuticals and the food sector. The present survey was designed for the Indian population, which was further classified according to diet preferences, age groups, gender and various occupations. Their perceptions regarding nutritional aspects, sensory views, safety hazards and resource reliability were recorded. Among all groups studied, gender represented significant differences upon the various safety opinions recorded (p < 0.001) compared to the occupations, age groups and diet preferences studied. In addition, the dataset revealed the pro-phycological behavior of consumers subjected to vital concerns about bioresource reliability and pre-processing to avoid health hazards related to wild harvest or on-shore cultivated samples. In addition, consumer responses also revealed potential inhibitory factors in edible applications such as taste and smell. This study suggests that collaborative efforts among media, culinary experts and phycologists could play a pivotal role in promoting seaweeds in the rapidly expanding food sector industry of India.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; bioactive; consumer attitude; functional foods; gastronomy; macroalgae
Year: 2021 PMID: 34945576 PMCID: PMC8702041 DOI: 10.3390/foods10123026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
The mean values of scores as represented for each group per safety question analyzed (* p < 0.05).
| Risk | Pre- | Heavy Metal | Association with Pathogens | Inclusion into Food | Good for | Overall | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupation | μ |
| μ |
| μ |
| μ |
| μ |
| μ |
| μ |
|
| Academic/educational duties, i.e., Teachers/Lab. Assistant/Assistant Prof./Associate Prof./Professor | 1.28 | 0.40 | 1.34 | 0.22 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.71 | 0.23 | 1.60 | 0.44 | 1.53 | 0.95 | 1.18 | 0.91 |
| Business | 0.78 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 1.29 | 1.86 | 1.86 | 1.25 | |||||||
| Government service | 1.64 | 1.50 | 1.14 | 0.93 | 1.36 | 1.43 | 1.33 | |||||||
| Homecare/homemaker | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.56 | |||||||
| Other | 1.28 | 1.52 | 0.95 | 0.76 | 1.38 | 1.38 | 1.21 | |||||||
| Private sector service | 1.21 | 1.36 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 1.54 | 1.50 | 1.24 | |||||||
| Pursuing higher studies, i.e., PhD/MS/MD | 1.03 | 1.21 | 0.55 | 1.24 | 1.76 | 1.63 | 1.24 | |||||||
| Retired person | 0.57 | 1.86 | 0.86 | 1.14 | 1.71 | 1.71 | 1.31 | |||||||
| Self-employed | 1.43 | 1.14 | 0.57 | 0.71 | 1.71 | 1.43 | 1.17 | |||||||
| Undergraduate or postgraduate students | 1.20 | 1.56 | 0.73 | 0.91 | 1.44 | 1.57 | 1.24 | |||||||
| Taking secondary or higher secondary education | 1.64 | 1.45 | 0.45 | 1.09 | 1.64 | 1.73 | 1.33 | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 15–20 | 1.39 | 0.42 | 1.39 | 0.15 | 0.61 | 0.42 | 0.96 | 0.48 | 1.22 | 0.09 | 1.35 | 0.62 | 1.15 | 0.72 |
| 21–30 | 1.20 | 1.32 | 0.73 | 0.88 | 1.64 | 1.55 | 1.22 | |||||||
| 31–50 | 1.12 | 1.52 | 0.69 | 0.89 | 1.48 | 1.60 | 1.22 | |||||||
| 50 and above | 1.44 | 1.52 | 0.74 | 1.19 | 1.59 | 1.59 | 1.35 | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Female | 1.23 | 0.0059 * | 1.34 | 0.34 | 0.75 | 0.02 * | 0.84 | 0.11 | 1.55 | 0.84 | 1.50 | 0.19 | 1.20 | 0.0004 * |
| Male | 1.19 | 1.47 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 1.55 | 1.61 | 1.25 | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Eggetarian and Vegetarian | 1.19 | 0.68 | 1.35 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.091 | 0.79 | 0.36 | 1.52 | 0.81 | 1.50 | 0.13 | 1.16 | 0.38 |
| Partly non-vegetarian | 1.25 | 1.33 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 1.56 | 1.51 | 1.22 | |||||||
| Strictly non-vegetarian | 1.14 | 1.14 | 0.43 | 1.07 | 1.43 | 1.14 | 1.06 | |||||||
| Strictly vegetarian | 1.19 | 1.50 | 0.70 | 1.01 | 1.57 | 1.64 | 1.27 | |||||||
The consumer attitude scores and modified attitude scores according to groups provided.
| n | Attitude Score | Modified Attitude Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Academic/educational duties, i.e., Teachers/Lab. Assistant/Assistant Prof./Associate Prof./Professor | 73 | 1.18 | 0.30 |
| Business | 14 | 1.25 | 0.35 | |
| Government service | 14 | 1.33 | 0.37 | |
| Homecare/homemaker | 3 | 0.56 | 0.13 | |
| Other | 1.21 | 0.33 | ||
| Private sector service | 28 | 1.24 | 0.34 | |
| Pursuing higher studies, i.e., PhD/MS/MD | 38 | 1.24 | 0.34 | |
| Retired person | 7 | 1.31 | 0.36 | |
| Self-employed | 7 | 1.17 | 0.30 | |
| Undergraduate or postgraduate students | 93 | 1.24 | 0.33 | |
| Taking secondary or higher secondary education | 11 | 1.33 | 0.34 | |
|
| 15–20 | 23 | 1.15 | 0.32 |
| 21–30 | 165 | 1.22 | 0.32 | |
| 31–50 | 94 | 1.22 | 0.33 | |
| 50 and above | 27 | 1.35 | 0.35 | |
|
| Female | 157 | 1.20 | 0.30 |
| Male | 152 | 1.25 | 0.35 | |
|
| Eggetarian and Vegetarian | 52 | 1.16 | 0.30 |
| Partly non-vegetarian | 103 | 1.22 | 0.31 | |
| Strictly non-vegetarian | 14 | 1.06 | 0.36 | |
| Strictly vegetarian | 140 | 1.27 | 0.34 |
Environmental outlook of survey population.
| NEP | Frequency | μ | σ | Facet | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA | A | NA | DS | SD | ||||
| We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support. | 124 | 62 | 70 | 28 | 22 | 2.22 | 1.27 | Limits to growth |
| Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. | 41 | 26 | 53 | 50 | 136 | 3.70 | 1.44 | Anti-anthropocentrism |
| When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences. | 201 | 48 | 17 | 13 | 27 | 1.75 | 1.27 | Balance of nature |
| Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable. | 86 | 80 | 89 | 25 | 26 | 2.43 | 1.22 | Balance of nature |
| Humans are severely abusing the environment. | 191 | 61 | 22 | 9 | 23 | 1.73 | 1.19 | Eco-crisis |
| The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. | 184 | 74 | 24 | 12 | 13 | 1.69 | 1.06 | Limits to growth |
| Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. | 236 | 33 | 17 | 8 | 13 | 1.47 | 1.01 | Anti-anthropocentrism |
| The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. | 84 | 44 | 72 | 68 | 38 | 2.78 | 1.38 | Balance of nature |
| Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature. | 189 | 59 | 37 | 15 | 7 | 1.67 | 1.02 | Anti-exemptionalism |
| The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. | 62 | 68 | 81 | 38 | 57 | 2.87 | 1.38 | Eco-crisis |
| The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. | 114 | 58 | 62 | 36 | 36 | 2.42 | 1.39 | Limits to growth |
| Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. | 30 | 22 | 40 | 45 | 169 | 3.98 | 1.36 | Anti-anthropocentrism |
| The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. | 79 | 68 | 75 | 55 | 29 | 2.63 | 1.30 | Balance of nature |
| Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. | 68 | 73 | 81 | 46 | 38 | 2.72 | 1.30 | Anti-exemptionalism |
| If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. | 196 | 51 | 30 | 13 | 16 | 1.70 | 1.14 | Eco-crisis |
Figure 1(A) Influence of diet preference upon consumer attitude score towards safety aspects of seaweeds; (B) Overall impression of respondent distribution attitude score towards safety aspects of seaweeds.
Figure 2Consumer preferences over inclusion of seaweeds in their diet.
Figure 3(A) Consumer safety concerns based on age group and (B) gender.
Figure 4Safety response distribution of participants based on their respective occupations.