What is the most important factor that influences food choice?

22.4.1 The Complexity of Food Choice

Food choice is an extremely complex phenomenon (Sobal & Bisogni, 2009). It is influenced by both physiological and psychosocial impulses (Sobal, Bisogni, & Jastran, 2014), is both a conscious and an unconscious process, is affected by both internal and external (ie, social) forces, and has been approached from a myriad of theoretical positions and disciplines—psychologists, behavioral economists, social scientists, public health researchers, and neuroscientists are all represented in the quest to better understand why we choose to eat what we do. With over 200 food choices made by a person each day (Wansink & Sobal, 2007), the task of unpicking and evaluating the motivations that drive these choices seems daunting.

There have been attempts to develop frameworks through which food choice can be better understood. Steptoe, Pollard, and Wardle (1995) developed a food choice questionnaire that identified nine factors that affected food choice: health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity, and ethical concern. Of these, sensory appeal, health, convenience, and price were found to be the most salient factors for the majority of food consumption decisions, although the authors stress the multidimensional character of food choice. A combination of some or all of these factors may play a role. Furthermore, each of these factors was more or less important dependent on demographic characteristics such as sex, age, and income. Furst, Connors, Bisogni, Sobal, and Falk (1996) argued that life course, influences, and personal systems were the main determinants of food choice. Life course influences were deemed to form the bedrock of food choice, and are those which result from the personal experience of living in a particular cultural and social era—for example living with rationing during a war may lead one to become less particular with the foods that they eat. Influences refers to the interconnected “ideals, personal factors, resources, social framework and food context” (Furst et al., 1996, p. 252) that lead individuals to make food choices. Finally, personal systems are comprised of value negotiations, which are considerations towards taste, cost, convenience, ethics, etc., and strategies, which are the habits and routines which are formed and employed in food purchasing, preparation, and consumption.

Even considering these two examples of efforts to understand food choice only, it is clear that although there is some overlap in the different components that the authors deem relevant in food choice behaviors, there is also a great deal of difference. This serves to highlight how difficult it is to make sense of why we choose to eat what we do. When specifically considering food choice concerning meat- and plant-based alternatives, we can see that factors such as the taste and enjoyment derived from eating meat, the perceived “naturalness” of humans consuming meat, and lack of knowledge and time to prepare alternatives are all important. These intricacies are relevant when we consider how to go about changing eating patterns on a societal level.

Abstract:

Food choice and energy intake are often motivated by the expectation or experience of pleasure (wanting and liking for food). An extension to the conventional ‘homeostatic’ model of appetite control recognises that these ‘hedonic’ aspects operate through their interaction with episodic mechanisms involved in satiation and satiety. More recently, evidence is emerging to show how tonic signals from nutrient status and energy balance affect liking and wanting to influence food preference and nutrient composition of the diet. Finally, enhanced hedonic response to highly palatable foods predicts loss of appetite control; raising the question of whether liking or wanting could be targeted to reduce overconsumption.

Abstract

Food choices that older adults make based on the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) vary greatly by gender, education level, and race to some degree. Achieving healthy aging often means they must change their ideas about food selection. Encouraging the increased intake of milk and milk products and seafood is based on research that supports multiple benefits from the nutrients and, especially in the case of dairy, bioactive content of these products. Research supporting a high-protein intake for older adults includes preserving function and avoiding frailty and other diseases and emphasizes the need to reconsider the Recommended Dietary Allowance for protein. While cardiovascular and diabetes risk may be slightly increased in individuals, eggs are a wise food choice for older adults because of the high quality of their protein and the bioavailability of lutein and zeaxanthin. A high-protein Mediterranean diet would be a good choice. Healthy eating is one step toward helping older adults have their last years be more about life than about disease.

Questionnaires to assess an individual's motives for food choices

While questionnaires to assess aspects of food choice such as those related to attitudes and beliefs had been used previously, the first psychometrically validated instrument specifically designed to assess motives for food choices came in 1995 with The Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) (Steptoe et al., 1995). This questionnaire consists of 37 items separated into nine factors. Four of the nine factors – sensory appeal, health, convenience, and price – emerged as most important for understanding food choice. The other five factors – weight control, familiarity, mood, natural content, and ethical concern – were reported less frequently. The FCQ remains a standard method for measuring motives for food choices and has been extended to include additional dimensions such as those related to culture, ethical concerns, and sustainability (Onwezen et al., 2019).

While there have been extensions of the original FCQ, a recent study sought to facilitate broader use and reduce participant burden by shortening it. The shortened FCQ retains the original nine factors but includes a single question for each. This short instrument was shown to have comparable predictive validity to the original FCQ and can be used to understand context-specific motives for food choices such as those in home versus restaurant settings (Onwezen et al., 2019). To investigate individual differences in food choice motives, the most suitable version of the FCQ can be administered along with anthropometric measures and other validated questionnaires such as the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (Stunkard and Messick, 1985). While these questionnaires provide an overview of the motives that typically underlie an individual's food choices, additional measures are needed to provide insight into the types and nutritional characteristics of foods individuals choose.

Introduction

Food choice decisions are not the same as intake volume decisions. The former determine what we eat (soup or salad); the latter determine how much we eat (half of the bowl or all of it). Large amounts of money, time, and intelligence have been invested into understanding the physiological mechanisms that influence food choice. Much less has been invested in understanding how and why our environment influences food consumption volume. Yet environmental factors (such as package size, plate shape, lighting, variety, or the presence of others) increase our food consumption volume far more than we realize.

This is one of the puzzles of food consumption research. Although people can acknowledge that environmental factors influence others, they wrongly believe they are unaffected. Perhaps they are influenced at a basic level of which they are not aware or do not monitor. Understanding these drivers of consumption volume has immediate implications for research, policy, and personal interventions. There are three objectives of this chapter: (1) explain why environmental factors may unknowingly influence consumption; (2) identify two resulting myths that may lead to misspecified models or misguided policy recommendations; and (3) offer implications to move research, policy, and personal dietary efforts forward with more certainty and focus.

Introduction

Food choice and consumption behaviors are of interest to both the food industry and health professionals. Increasingly the health consequences associated with many lifestyle decisions have drawn attention to the role of food in supporting and maintaining good health and as a main culprit in the emergence, and growth, of particular health problems. Indeed, it is now well established that a number of health-related problems could be partly addressed through diet-related behaviors (WHO, 2011). Over recent times we have witnessed increasing waistlines globally, which in turn is linked to the growing incidence of noncommunicable diseases ranging from cardiovascular conditions to cancers and type 2 diabetes. Significant changes to the environments in which we live and work require us to move less while simultaneously our food systems have developed to provide ready access to food almost anywhere at any time thus facilitating increased consumption and/or overconsumption. These food systems are designed to be efficient and effective. To be effective they offer products that are designed to meet individual needs, focusing on core benefits that consumer's value and are willing to pay for. Today's consumers seek foods which satisfy multiple needs in tandem and thus the desire for convenient, tasty, healthy, socially acceptable, easily accessible foods that offer value for money frame many food decisions.

The relative importance of such needs varies across the population, as does what is understood to satisfy these needs. This is very much the case for healthy eating which can involve the: (1) absence or presence (or level) of particular food components; (2) production and processing practices applied in the creation of the food (e.g., minimum processing, low input foods versus highly processed ‘value add’ foods); and (3) structure of overall diet (balance, variety, and moderation). This presents many market opportunities, but due to the idiosyncratic character of humans it also presents challenges.

In this article we explore the multitude of influences that shape and frame consumer interpretations of food, diet, and health, consider how contemporary food choices are driven by health motives, and reflect on how the responses of the commercial food industry.

25.2.4 Diet Change, Consumers, and Policies

Food choice is a complex function of both sensory and nonsensory factors. Among the nonsensory factors are included food-related attitudes and expectations, moods, health claims, price, ethical concerns, environmental, sustainability, and social aspects of food selection. Today’s consumer understands that good eating habits are important to support a healthy lifestyle. Flavor and taste remain the top sensory attributes influencing food choices. In addition, several changes are shaping consumer choices. Many people understand that their dietary habits and other activities affect the environment. As a result, consumers have modified daily activities such as eating local, switching to plant-based diets, recycling, riding public transportation, and driving more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The United Nations has urged people to move to diets without meat or dairy (Guardian, 2010). Not only are plant-based diets more sustainable for the planet, they provide protein, phytonutrients and minerals that are protective for people’s health. A large study of 73,000 ethnically diverse participants found that diet modifications towards a plant-based diet and away from animal proteins, can help mitigate climate change while improving longevity (Science Daily, 2014). Small changes within individual diets across a broad population base do contribute to meaningful reductions in GHG emissions. Considering several aspects (such as health, environmental, and socioeconomic elements), the implementation of plant-based diet policies is a suggested solution to ensure that the earth will have a sustainable food supply for future generations (Sabate & Soret, 2014). The implementation of such policy initiatives requires a broad understanding of the challenges ahead and the willingness of consumers to make necessary sacrifices. Consumers around the globe understand that human activities affect the planet and that changes are required to reduce their carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of a vegetarian diet is slightly higher than that of a vegan diet, while a meat-based diet has been shown to produce twice the carbon emissions of a vegan diet (Scarborough et al., 2014). An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet has been shown to use less natural resources (land, water, energy) and found to be more sustainable than a meat-based diet when comparing isocaloric diets (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003).

Changing food habits or behaviors is not an easy task. Requiring people to reduce their meat consumption and tying such changes to global warming becomes a complicated topic. Some sections of the population do not believe that global warming is real and that the threat of a major catastrophe is overstated. Others are likely to question whether their reduced meat consumption would even make a meaningful impact on GHG reductions. Humankind can debate the veracity of climate change or claim that these changes are a natural weather cyclic phenomenon. However, with the addition of 3 billion people in the next 30 years, it is imperative that we consider the impact on future generations of taking no action today.

The recent agreement to cap the increase in global warming from the birth of the Industrial Age to 2°C over the next few decades, is a major step in shifting to an alternate path for the greater good of human civilization (http://www.wsj.com/articles/final-draft-of-global-climate-change-deal-is-complete-1449906731). The ramifications of the Climate Change Treaty illustrate the complexities in aligning the needs of various countries in the world. Not every country will feel the effects of climate change to the same degree. Emerging economies with higher populations will likely experience the greatest impact and will need to allocate additional resources towards feeding their citizens. Therefore, developing countries will require more assistance and leeway, while developed economies can better withstand disruptions in socioeconomic conditions. Finding common ground and educating consumers on food habits and water usage and its impact on climate change will be a step in the right direction. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world” (John Muir, 1838–1914). Thus, the act of reducing meat consumption in favor of plant-based diets can begin the process of better resource utilization. This is especially important in the case of water, which has become a precious commodity in a warmer planet.

2.5.2 Psychological Factors

These are strong determinants of food choices people make and indicate the amount of satisfaction one derives from the sensory attributes of food products. Taste being considered to be the most important aspect in food selection followed by texture, color, shape, form, size of pieces, and temperature (Ganasegeran et al., 2012; Lyman, 1989). Preferences also develop based on social experiences and degree of a liking toward food; different people have different food preferences, but some foods are particularly popular or unpopular. The taste, texture or appearance of food products strongly impacts the consumers’ food purchasing behavior.

3.2.1 Food choice (Table 3.1)

It is generally recognized that food choice may be affected by biological determinants such as hunger, appetite and taste, by economic elements (cost, income, availability), structural determinants (access, education, cooking facilities, skills and time), social characteristics (culture, family, peers and meals patterns) attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about food (EUFIC, 2005).

Table 3.1. Food choice determinants

•

Biological determinants

satiety signals (macronutrients, energy density of diets)

palatability (taste, smell, texture, sound and sight)

Economic elements

cost and income

availability

Structural determinants

access

education

food variety

cooking facilities

skills

time

Social characteristics

culture

family

peers and meals patterns

Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about food

Psychological determinants (stress, mood)

Humans need energy and nutrients in order to survive and will respond to the feelings of hunger and satiety (satisfaction of appetite, state of no hunger between two eating times). The balance between hunger, appetite stimulation and food intake is regulated by the central nervous system. The macro-nutrients i.e. carbohydrates, proteins and fats generate satiety signals of varying strength. Fat seems to have the lowest satiating power, whereas protein has been found to be the most satiating and carbohydrates have an intermediate effect (Stubbs et al., 1996). On this subject, the energy density of diets has been shown to exert potent effects on satiety; low energy density diets generate greater satiety than high energy density diets.

Consumer preferences

Consumer food preferences and expectations are important drivers of change in products sold by retailers. Whether they are also major drivers of change in the size and structure of farms depends on how they influence new opportunities or create challenges for producers. An important preference of consumers is convenience, as more and more households rely on two people in the workforce to provide adequate family income. Food safety is an accompanying concern for consumers who rely on the convenience of food prepared by others, such as packaged produce that has been handled in large-volume processing facilities. Foodborne illnesses, especially occurring in fresh produce and in meats, have received prominent attention in recent years and even partially eroded confidence in safety of the US food system. This led to the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011 (Kinsey, 2013). The regulations that implement that Act will have direct implications for costs to producers who will need to increase food safety efforts on the farm. For example, food safety hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) plans require knowledge about foodborne pathogens and their control. However, as the complexity of products and processes increases, more sophisticated approaches and skills are required to successfully implement an effective HACCP plan. Larger-scale farmers are generally more likely to possess the skills, or to have employees with those skills, to carry out a successful farm-level food safety program based on HACCP plans. This is likely to foster the trend toward larger size farms to spread the cost of such implementation over more units of production. However, farms are exempt from compliance with the FSMA if they sold less than US$25 000 or if they sold less than US$500 000 in the past 3 years and sell at least 51% of product directly to consumers or retail food establishments within their state or a 275-mile radius from their farm. This exemption may offset at least some of the pressure to increase farm size to spread food safety compliance costs over larger acreages.

There is increased interest by relatively smaller segments of the consumer and general population in nonmarket social values – including environmental sustainability, local and regional food systems, humane treatment of food animals, and fair wages for farm workers, to name some of the most prominent. These market segments may increase opportunities for relatively smaller farms to thrive, at least in earlier stages of developing differentiated products for these market niches.