The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Consumers’ perceptions of naturalness are important for the acceptance of foods and food technologies. Thus, several studies have examined the significance of naturalness among consumers. Nonetheless, the aspects that are considered essential in perceiving a food item as natural may vary across consumers and different stakeholder groups. This systematic review identified 72 studies conducted in 32 countries involving 85,348 consumers. We aimed to answer the following questions: 1) How has the perceived importance of naturalness for consumers been defined and measured? 2) To what extent is perceived naturalness important to consumers? 3) Are there individual differences regarding the importance given to food naturalness that can be explained by consumers' characteristics? 4) Do consumers’ attitudes toward food naturalness influence their intentions and behavior? The review clearly shows that for the majority of consumers, food naturalness is crucial. This finding could be observed across countries and in the different years when the studies were conducted. Therefore, neglecting the aspect of naturalness in the food industry may be very costly in the end. Our review also reveals differences across studies in how naturalness has been defined and measured. Based on a content analysis of the measurement scales, the items used to measure the importance of naturalness can be classified into three categories: 1) the way the food has been grown (food origin), 2) how the food has been produced (what technology and ingredients have been used), and 3) the properties of the final product.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
STEPTOE, A., POLLARD, T. M., & WARDLE, J. (1995) · Appetite · doi:10.1006/appe.1995.0061 · Cited by 2,176
Chen, M.-F. (2007) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.004 · Cited by 870
Quantification of Consumer Attitudes to Health and Hedonic Characteristics of Foods
ROININEN, K., LÄHTEENMÄKI, L., & TUORILA, H. (1999) · Appetite · doi:10.1006/appe.1999.0232 · Cited by 790
Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects
Post, M. J. (2012) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.008 · Cited by 780
Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010 · Cited by 656
Self-citation
Cited by
Baptista, R. C., Horita, C. N., & Sant'Ana, A. S. (2020) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108762 · Cited by 268
de Araújo, P. D., Araújo, W. M. C., Patarata, L., & Fraqueza, M. J. (2022) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108952 · Cited by 186
Carfora, V., Cavallo, C., Catellani, P., Del Giudice, T., & Cicia, G. (2021) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu13061904 · Cited by 144
Sustainability matters: consumer acceptance of different vertical farming systems
Jürkenbeck, K., Heumann, A., & Spiller, A. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11154052 · Cited by 118
Bioactive peptides from milk: Animal determinants and their implications in human health
Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E., Márquez-Hernández, R. I., & Hernández-Castellano, L. E. (2019) · Journal of Dairy Research · doi:10.1017/s0022029919000384 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M.
- Venue
- Trends in Food Science & Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-09
- Volume
- 67
- Pages
- 44-57
- ISSN
- 0924-2244 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2626699140
- Cited by
- 760
- References
- 94
- FWCI
- 10.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
- The paper
- Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.