As good as fresh nutritionally but not perceived that way: Implicit and explicit biases towards canned and frozen fruits and vegetables

Abstract

Globally, fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is lower than recommended, with inadequate consumption linked to many non-communicable diseases. Inadequate F&V consumption can, in part, result from the cost and access barriers to fresh F&V that are present in certain parts of the world. While use of canned and frozen F&Vs may provide a solution, their consumption/acceptability tends to be lower than fresh F&V. This study explored the explicit and implicit biases that may exist towards canned and frozen F&V in comparison to fresh equivalents. In Study 1, participants were administered self-report scales that measured their beliefs towards canned, frozen and fresh F&V across health, convenience, and appeal, including the impact of Australia's health star rating system. In Study 2, Implicit Association Tests were administered for canned and frozen F&V, versus fresh. In Study 1, explicit ratings confirmed a strong preference for fresh F&V, particularly regarding health, even when participants were informed about the equivalent health star ratings. The study also highlighted a convenience advantage for canned and frozen foods, although these benefits did not outweigh the bias towards fresh produce. In Study 2, an implicit bias against canned and frozen F&V was evident, with significantly slower categorization times for positive associations, compared to fresh F&V. These findings indicate the existence of an attitudinal bias against frozen and canned F&V. To increase intake of F&V, especially when fresh F&V is not accessible/affordable, future research needs to understand how to target the identified biases that limit consumption of canned and frozen alternatives.