We know much more about information acquisition in the pre-purchase than in the post-purchase phase. How do consumer beliefs about a food product change during preparation and consumption, BIBF 1120 and what are these changes based on, apart from the sensory sensations under consumption? Consumers may read the food label after the purchase, they may engage in word-of-mouth or communicate via social media, but we know little about it. We know generally speaking surprisingly little about how consumers

prepare food and compose meals, even though this is a crucial aspect affecting consumer beliefs about and satisfaction with the product. For example, there is a widespread belief that consumers’ cooking skills are deteriorating [e.g., 38] and that new product development should take this into account, but there is no data showing that this is actually the case. We do have some insights into the trade-offs and synergies between sensory and informational impressions, mainly with regard to perceived taste-health trade-offs 39 and 40, but we know little about what consumers would perceive as the authentic or sustainable taste. Our understanding of consumer behaviour with regard to food and drink needs to follow the changes that we currently observe in the way consumers perceive and choose food products. In order to achieve

this, we need to follow the relationship between product and consumer Avasimibe from first shelf exposure to post ingestion. We need to regard the physical product not only as a source of sensory pleasure, but also as an information source and as an ingredient in the meal production process. We need to understand the role of labelling, branding and packaging not only in the pre-purchase, but also in the post-purchase phase. Amylase We need to understand the social context of food-related consumer behaviour in the shopping, in the preparation and in the consumption phase. If sensory and consumer sciences joined forces, this is challenge can be tackled. The insights obtained would have

huge potentials for increasing both consumer well-being and industry competitiveness. “
“In the article, “Outcomes of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma patients,” by Tian et al., which appeared in the December 2011 issue of GIE (Gastronintest Endosc 2011;74:1201-6), there was an error in the Abstract and in the list of abbreviations. The correct version of each follows. Conclusion: Among the patients with T1b EAC found in EMR specimens who uderwent esophagectomy, one third had regional LNM. In our small series, patients who underwent esophagectomy did not have a significantly different survival duration from that of those who did not, indicating that these patients may have similar outcomes. Abbreviations: T1b EAC, submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma; LNM, lymph node metastasis; PET, positron emission tomography.

No related posts.