PAPER Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 221 - Keywords: conjoint analysis, consumer acceptance, consumer segmentation, nanotechnology, purchase intention, wine - CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS IN ITALIAN WINE N. CASOLANIa, G.M. GREEHY b, A. FANTINIa, E. CHIODOa* and M.B. MCCARTHYb a Facoltà di Bioscienze e Tecnologie Agro-Alimentari e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Teramo, Via C.R. Lerici 1, 64023 Mosciano Sant’Angelo (TE), Italia b Department of Food Business and Development, University College Cork, Western Road, Cork, Ireland *Corresponding author: Tel. +39 0861 266898, Fax +39 0861 266915, email: echiodo@unite.it ABSTRACT This paper examines Italian consumer acceptance of nanotechnology applications in wine pro- duction, surveying wine consumers from the Abruzzo Region. Conjoint and post-hoc segmenta- tion analysis establishes how consumers value different wine product attributes and place them within the context of applications of nanotechnology. Consumers appear relatively unfamiliar with nanotechnology applications, both generally and specifically to food. Although, an overall rejec- tion of the concept of “nano wine” is evident, low acceptance scores disguise a somewhat more open attitude to specific applications of the technology. In particular, consumers appear more re- ceptive to applications that enhance certain wine attributes. Practical implications are discussed. mailto:echiodo%40unite.it?subject= 222 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Nanotechnology applications in food and wine Nanotechnology is the science that studies the manipulation of matter at atomic and mo- lecular scales; a nanometre refers to one-bil- lionth of a metre. Nanotechnology is perceived to offer many potential benefits (MURA et al., 2014), such as producing healthier foods with- out compromising taste (WEISS et al., 2006). Applications in food packaging and food con- tact material include microfilms that incorpo- rate nanomaterials to improve packaging prop- erties, e.g. flexibility and moisture stability, and “smart packaging” that incorporates nano-sen- sors that detect pathogens and contaminants in food (SORRENTINO et al., 2007; CHAUDHRY et al., 2008). OBERDÖRSTER et al. (2005) argue that the properties of materials at the nanoscale can differ considerably from conventional mate- rials. Therefore, nanotechnology-based foods have generated significant debate, particular- ly about potential associated risks (CHAUDHRY et al., 2008; SIEGRIST et al., 2008). Specifical- ly, concerns have been expressed regarding po- tential negative impacts of certain nanoparticles on the health of humans, animals and the envi- ronment (KUZMA and VERHAGE, 2006). Further- more, the FAO/WHO (2009) argues that when the size of particles decreases, this increases the surface-to-volume ratio and therefore, cre- ates new properties, potentially resulting in al- tered toxicity profiles. To date, a limited number of “nanofoods” ap- pear to have been made available on the mar- ket (SIEGRIST et al., 2008). That said, it is dif- ficult to truly establish the extent of the appli- cation of nanotechnology in food and beverage production at present across international mar- kets, as there is currently no legal requirement to declare the use of such ingredients on prod- uct labels. Nevertheless, there is some indica- tion of nanotechnology being applied within the food domain (MOMIN et al., 2013; DURÁN and MARCATO, 2013). Focusing on the wine sector, nanotechnol- ogy could potentially be applied at the follow- ing stages of production: grape-growing, wine making and packaging. Specifically, nano-com- pounds could improve grape growth when added to pesticides and fertilizers to increase soil fertil- ity and crop production (ALLIANZ AG and OECD, 2005). Furthermore, nanoparticle-based pesti- cides could be more easily absorbed by plants than conventional pesticides, or could equally be programmed to be released more gradually over time, thereby optimising their usage (Ibid). Hy- pothetically, yet plausibly, nanotechnology could be applied during wine making to alter the char- acteristics of the wine including its taste, flavour or other product characteristics, including the calorie or alcohol content of the wine (ALLIANZ AG And OECD, 2005; WEISS et al., 2006; DURÁN and MARCATO, 2013). Other possible applications of nanotechnol- ogy during wine production include the use of nanotechnology-based devices and materials for nano-filtration and water treatment (MO- MIN et al., 2013). Nanotechnology-based de- vices could also potentially improve surveil- lance systems and the tracking of products as they move through the supply chain (WEISS et al., 2006), thereby enhancing authenticity measures. Finally, pertaining to wine bottling, nanotechnology could be used to produce bot- tle caps that more effectively regulate gas ex- change with the outside environment (DURÁN and MARCATO, 2013). 1.2. Consumer acceptance of nanofoods It is important to understand public percep- tions of nanofoods (SIEGRIST et al., 2008). How- ever, these may be difficult to measure at pres- ent, as opinions may not yet have formed, given low levels of public awareness of nanotechnolo- gy (FELL et al., 2009; SIEGRIST, 2010). GASKELL et al. (2010) found that approximately ½ of EU- 27 citizens (46%) and just over 1/ 3 of Italian citi- zens (37%) were aware of nanotechnology. Gas- kell and colleagues also found that a significant minority (40%) of EU-27 citizens is likely to be unsure about their feeling towards applications of nanotechnology and that awareness general- ly resulted in more positive views regarding its safety. However, as more information becomes available through mass media, public attitudes will become more solidified (DUDO et al., 2010). Although several studies have found the impact of awareness on attitudes towards novel food technologies to be mixed (FELL et al., 2009; SAC- CHETTI et al., 2009); KAHAN et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between awareness of nanotechnology in general and the belief that associated benefits outweigh potential risks. Attitudes towards and, in turn, willingness to buy nanofoods may be influenced by gener- al values, for example risk sensitivity and atti- tudes towards nature, the environment, science and technology (RONTELTAP et al., 2007; FELL et al., 2009; STAMPFLI et al., 2010). For example, numerous studies suggest that the dichotomy between nature and technology is important in determining receptivity (ROZIN, 2005; SIEGRIST et al., 2008). In addition to naturalness, oth- er product characteristics, including taste and price may impact consumer acceptance (FELL et al., 2009). Willingness to buy nanofoods is also strongly influenced by risk and benefit percep- tions (STAMPFLI et al., 2010). Personal belief in the ability to control exposure to the technolo- gy may also influence acceptance (SIEGRIST et al., 2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 223 Consumers use intrinsic and extrinsic cues to form opinions regarding objective and sub- jective product quality (VEALE et al., 2006). Grunert (2005), among others, notes that sub- jective hedonic characteristics, e.g. taste and pleasure, are important determinants of pur- chase and consumption decisions. This is par- ticularly evident in the case of wine (OLSEN et al., 2007). Wine purchase decisions are based on a complex array of factors including region of origin, grape variety and price (ATKIN et al., 2006; LOCKSHIN et al., 2006), in addition to other aspects including health and authentic- ity characteristics (CHIODO et al., 2011; BAR- REIRO-HURLÉ et al., 2008). That said, given the hedonistic nature of wine, certain health characteristics may not have the same preva- lence for wine as they do for other food prod- ucts. Furthermore, a greater focus by consum- ers on environmental aspects of wine produc- tion and distribution systems is emerging (RE- MAUD et al., 2008). Elsewhere, CARDELLO et al. (2007) and VON SCHOMBERG and DAVIES (2010) describe how the public may have concerns about novel food technologies, including nanofoods. These con- cerns, if not addressed, can lead to consum- ers rejecting these technologies and searching the supermarket shelves for products claiming to be “nano-free” (KUZMA and VERHAGE, 2006). Some of the applications of nanotechnology in wine production outlined may be negatively per- ceived by consumers, due to perceptions of un- naturalness and tampering with winemaking traditions. Potential concerns may also emerge in terms of the unknown health and environ- mental consequences of applying nanotech- nology in wine production, as indicated in var- ious studies (e.g. KUZMA and VERHAGE, 2006; CHAUDHRY et al., 2008). Nonetheless, potential associated benefits may be positively perceived. These includes benefits to: 1) consumers, for example improv- ing the wine’s health characteristics (WEISS et al., 2006) by, for instance, reducing its calo- rie or alcohol content; 2) industry, for example improving production processes, such as the bottling process (DURÁN and MARCATO, 2013); and, 3) the environment, for example decreas- ing the use of pesticides during grape culti- vation (ALLIANZ AG and OECD, 2005). In turn, this may lead to nanotechnology application to wine being acceptable to consumers and adopt- ed by industry. Following these considerations, the aim of this study was to understand the impact of the application of nanotechnology in wine produc- tion on consumers’ wine purchase intention. Possible consumer reactions towards nano- technology application to wine and varying de- terminants of consumer acceptance were ex- plored, as well as the homogeneity of consum- ers’ responses. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Overview The study involved wine consumers from the Abruzzo Region of Italy completing a face- to-face administered questionnaire. An over- all profile of respondents and also profiles us- ing an a-priori segmentation variable (frequen- cy of wine consumption) is presented. Following this, consumers’ preferences are analysed us- ing a Conjoint Analysis (CA) approach. The in- fluence of production methods (conventionally produced versus produced using nanotechnolo- gy) and product attributes (e.g. associated with health and naturalness) on product preference are examined. Within this study, conventional methods refer to production practices current- ly in place which comply with present PDO pro- duction regulations. “Produced using nanotech- nology” refers to the use of nanotechnology in any one or more phases of the production chain, e.g. during the cultivation of grapes or packag- ing of wine. Conjoint and post-hoc segmenta- tion analysis establishes how respondents value different wine attributes and place them within the context of the application of nanotechnolo- gy. Both the a-priori and post hoc segments are profiled based on importance placed on differ- ent wine attributes, perceptions of different ap- plications of nanotechnology to wine and demo- graphic variables. The wine used within the experiment was “Montepulciano d’Abruzzo DOC”, the predomi- nant PDO wine in the Abruzzo Region and one of the largest wine denominations in Italy. Data collection was completed in October-De- cember 2011. In total, 221 wine consumers completed the survey. No incentive was offered to respondents to complete the questionnaire. Similarly to VERDÜ JOVER et al. (2004), sam- ple stratification was based on previous stud- ies carried out which included a similar number of study items. The sample of wine consumers is representative of the regional population in terms of age and gender, based on demograph- ic data provided by the Italian National Insti- tute of Statistics and referred to the same peri- od (ISTAT, 2014), as follows: 6% of women and 5.7% of men aged 18-24 years; 10% of wom- en and 10.3% of men aged 25-34 years; 12.2% of women and 12.2% of men aged 35-44 years; 11.8% of women and 11.4% of men aged 45-54 years; and, 10.3% of women and 9.8% of men aged 55-64 years. 2.2. Questionnaire Respondents were screened to ensure: 1) they did not work in the agro-food sector; 2) pur- chased or consumed wine at least once a month on average; 3) were between the ages of 18 and 64; and, 4) were either an Italian citizen or had 224 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 been living in Italy for at least five years. The questionnaire, presented in Italian, posed ques- tions regarding frequency of wine consumption and habits; attitudes towards wine production and wine purchasing/consumption habits; fac- tors that influence choice of wines; and, aware- ness of nanotechnology and its applications in food and beverage production. Low levels of public awareness of nanotech- nology, as previously outlined, presented a clear challenge in terms of deciding whether to pre- sent prior information about the technology to respondents. Consequently, in designing this experiment, we looked to those who have exam- ined consumers’ appraisals of novel food tech- nologies in the past and best practice in terms of an appropriate CA approach (e.g. SIEGRIST et al., 2009; SCHNETTLER et al., 2012). An underlying principle of conjoint analysis research is that it should be as realistic, reason- able and understandable as is feasibly possible (COX et al., 2008). Thus, similar to SIEGRIST et al. (2009), our study was conducted in terms of a “virtual market”, i.e. what consumers would do if they were informed (via a label) that a prod- uct is produced using nanotechnology and had some prior awareness of the concept of nano- technology. Therefore, following the aforemen- tioned general questions, in the context of ensur- ing a minimal level of awareness of nanotechnol- ogy among respondents in advance of complet- ing the CA experiment, a brief (neutral) defini- tion of nanotechnology and its potential food ap- plications (Appendix 1) was presented. The def- inition provided is similar in content and struc- ture to that which was included in SIEGRIST et al.’s (2009) study. Following the provision of this definition, the 10 wine labels (based on the conjoint analysis profiles generated - see section 2.3) were pre- sented for scoring. Attitudes towards the use of nanotechnology in wine production were then measured. Specifically, questions were posed regarding attitudes towards the use of nanotechnology in wine production in general and attitudes towards different applications in wine production for a variety of purposes. Fi- nally, demographic information was gathered. All statements and associated scales are sum- marised in Table 1. 2.3. Conjoint analysis Conjoint analysis (CA), a market research ap- proach used to support product and service de- sign, has been widely applied to consider the impact of different product attributes on food and beverage purchase decisions (MAKOKHA et al., 2006; SZOLNOKI et al., 2010). CA assumes that consumers are able to evaluate a range of products/services along key dimensions, called factors (attributes) and involves constructing a series of different product profiles (concepts) that represent a possible product or service. In the case of this research, the CA experiment in- volved different combinations of information about wine that may (or may not) be modified using nanotechnology, i.e. different profiles. The aim of this approach is to estimate the impor- tance of each factor (product attribute) present- ed to consumers. For categorical product attributes, the utility function consists of part-worth estimates for each level of the attribute. Market simulation models use this information to predict how each respon- dent would choose among alternative products. Therefore, CA enables an understanding of how people make choices between products or ser- vices across different combinations of levels and attributes. The CA method has several advan- tages, including the possibility to measure con- sumer preferences for each attribute level using more realistic decision models (SCHAUPP, 2005). Using CA, the researcher can answer questions such as what product attributes are important/ unimportant to the consumer. CA has previously been applied to explore con- sumer perceptions of the application of specif- ic novel food technologies (e.g. ARES and GAM- BARO, 2007; BECH-LARSEN and GRUNERT, 2003; CARDELLO et al., 2007; COX et al., 2008; HAILU et al., 2009; SCHNETTLER et al., 2012; ANNUNZIA- TA and VECCHIO, 2013), including nanotechnolo- Appendix 1: Definition of nanotechnology presented to respondents in advance of conjoint analysis experiment (English version) “New and advanced technologies with applications in food are constantly being developed. Nanotechnology is one such technology, which deals with nanoparticles (particles that are 100 nanometres or less in dimension). A nanometre is one-billionth of a metre. A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometres thick. Some nanoparticles are naturally occur- ring, for instance, it is nano-size particles that make milk appear white. Materials can possess new properties at this nanoscale and this technology makes interesting innovations possible in food. Nanotechnology, potentially, has widespread applications in food, including uses in food products, processing and pack- aging. It can be used to make food products with additional benefits such as better availability of vitamins or longer shelf-life without altering the taste, appearance or texture of food. However, possible consequences or risks of using na- notechnology for humans and the environment are largely unknown. On the one hand, additional benefits may enhance our health and improve products. On the other hand, the use of na- notechnology in food stuffs may be associated with potential risks”. Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 225 gy (SIEGRIST et al., 2009), and associated product attributes. Furthermore, various CA studies have explored preferences for different wine attributes (e.g. GIL and SÁNCHEZ, 1997; ATKIN et al., 2006; MARTÍNEZ-CARRASCO et al., 2006) including, for instance, price, origin and grape variety/vintage. Bearing in mind the attributes examined across these CA studies, within this work, a full profile conjoint analysis was applied in order to determine consumers’ preference (purchase in- tention) for the following wine attributes: price, method of production and benefits. The con- joint experiment was generated using SPSS 19. Product profiles were presented as wine labels with different information included on each la- bel (Appendix 2 includes an example of one of the labels). The text included in each wine label was presented in Italian. Table 1. Type of Questions Question or Statements Posed/ Attributes Listed Scales Source Frequency of consump- tion. How often do you consume wine on average? 4-point frequency scales (1 is “everyday” and 4 is “at least once a month”) Developed by re- searchers. Wine consumption hab- its. I always drink the same variety of wine. I always drink wine produced in my region. I always drink wine from the same territory. 7- p o i n t L i k e r t scales ( 1 i s “ d i s a g r e e strongly” and 7 is “agree strongly”) Developed by re- searchers and adapt- ed from Seghieri et al. (2007). Attitudes towards wine production and wine pur- chasing/ consumption habits. Wine is an important part of Italians’ culture. I am proud of Italian tradition in wine production. I spend a lot of time deciding which bottle of wine to purchase. 7- p o i n t L i k e r t scales ( 1 i s “ d i s a g r e e strongly” and 7 is “agree strongly”) Developed by re- searchers. Attr ibutes influencing wine choice. How important are each of the following when se- lecting wine? Region of production; brand; type of cork; price; age of the wine; grape variety; packaging; territory of origin; alcohol content; sulphite content; and, calorie content. 7-point importance scales (1 is “extremely im- portant” and 7 is “extremely unim- portant”) Developed by re- searchers and adapt- ed from and Gil & Sánchez (1997) and Atkins & Johnson (2010). Awareness of nanotech- nology. Have you ever heard of nanotechnology? Have you ever heard of nanotechnology being used in food and beverage production? Yes/No Developed by re- searchers. Nanotechnology accept- ance. I do not want nanotechnology to be applied in wine production. I consider the use of nanotechnology in wine produc- tion to be acceptable. I would be happy to consume wine produced using nanotechnology. 7- p o i n t L i k e r t scales ( 1 i s “ d i s a g r e e strongly” and 7 is “agree strongly”) Developed by re- searchers. Acceptance of nanotech- nology applications in wine production. How acceptable do you consider it to use nano- technology to: Produce lower calorie wine. Produce lower alcohol content wine. Modify the colour of wine. Modify the structure and properties of the cork. Enhance the taste of wine. Reduce the amount of pesticides used when grow- ing the grape. Produce less expensive wine. Enhance authenticity. 7-point acceptance scales (1 is “extremely un- acceptable” and 7 is “extremely ac- ceptable”) Developed by re- searchers. Overview of questionnaire statements and associated scales. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329305001461 226 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 Similar to O’ CONNOR et al. (2005), SORENSON and BOGUE (2006) and SIEGRIST et al. (2008), a ten-point purchase intention rating scale was used to measure purchase preference. Assign- ing a score from 1 to 10, based on willingness to purchase the product, emulated a real-life wine purchase situation. A rating, rather than rank- ing, scale was considered most suitable as the former “avoid[s] validity and reliability problems as a consequence of the large number of concepts presented to respondents for evaluation” (SOREN- SON and BOGUE, 2006: 705) The wine attributes that varied across the pro- files are outlined in Table 2. In order to make the conjoint labels present- ed were as realistic as is feasibly possible (COX et al., 2008; SIEGRIST et al., 2009), the labels included additional standardised information. This approach is not novel, as several other CA studies (e.g. LABOISSIÈRE et al., 2007) have included additional attributes in their experi- ments, which were not then included in the CA plan. Each of the labels contained the following standardised information: • Name of the producer: “Azienda Agricola La Collina” • Designation of origin: “Montepulciano d’Abru- zzo DOC” • Product description: “This red wine is ideal to serve with roast meat. Serve at 18-20°C” The product attributes (e.g. price) that varied were the specific focus of consideration. In terms of the variable attributes, the selected price lev- els (€5.99 and €11.99) are reflective of two differ- ent price segments; premium and super-premi- um wines, as recommended by HEIJBROEK (2003). Furthermore, they are representative of the price points for several brands of Montepulciano d’Abru- zzo wine currently offered in Italian supermarkets. Where the wine was not produced using nan- otechnology, i.e. was produced using conven- tional methods, the method of production was not stated on the label. In many conjoint stud- ies applied to food labelling (e.g. SILAYOI and SPEECE, 2007; COX et al., 2008), the level “ab- sence of information” or “no claim” is included for certain attributes. This results in various de- grees of information being included on the dif- ferent product labels (i.e. for some of the prod- uct profiles). This lack of information for cer- tain attributes is reflective of real life purchase situations. In comparison, when produced us- Appendix 2: Example of a wine label used in the conjoint experiment (English and Italian versions of Profile 8). Table 2. Attribute Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Price €5.99 €11.99 Method of Production Conventionally produced Produced using (Method of production nanotechnology not stated on label) (stated on label) Benefits Lower sulphite levels Lower calorie content Lower alcohol content No claim on label (Sulphite information (9% instead of 12.5%) excluded from label) Attributes (and levels) that varied across wine profiles. Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 227 ing nanotechnology, it was explicitly stated on the wine label. Within this conjoint experiment, if the wine had a sulphite level lower than 10 mg/l (the limit established from the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 for omitting the indication of the presence of sulphites from the label), sulphite information was not included on the label. Thus, in keep with our research goals, this attribute level best resembles market place situations. Therefore, how the “benefit” attribute levels were presented is based on what is practical, relevant and realistic within the marketplace (GIL and SÁNCHEZ, 1997). Furthermore, the ap- proach used for the “benefit” attribute levels is similar to that of other published CA studies in the context of the inclusion of a “no claim” or “no information” level (e.g. DELIZA et al., 2003; KRYSTALLIS and NESS, 2005). The rating task was carried out applying the full-profile conjoint analysis method using SPSS 19.0. This software calculated the utility values for each level of each factor. CA is useful in eval- uating purchase intentions (SÁNCHEZ and GILL, 1998). An “average importance” value was also calculated for each factor that reflects the rela- tive range of utility values for the levels within each factor (CARDELLO et al., 2007). When adopting the full-profile method, the number of possible profiles can increase rap- idly due to the various combinations of factors and levels. The design must be balanced with a sufficient rotation of the factors and number of profiles in order to maintain the overall signifi- cance of the experiment. Therefore, a fraction- al factorial design (orthogonal array) was used which presented a suitable fraction of all pos- sible combinations of the factor levels. Table 3 summarises the 10 profiles generated in SPSS 19; two holdouts were included to ensure the validity of the test. In the results section, an overall profile of respondents is presented as well as profiling using an a-priori segmentation variable (fre- quency of wine consumption). Following this, perspectives on nanotechnology are consid- ered. Conjoint and post-hoc segmentation anal- ysis establishes how respondents value differ- ent wine product attributes. The influence of production methods (conventionally produced versus produced using nanotechnology) and other product attributes (e.g. associated with health and naturalness) on product preference are examined. 3. RESULTS 3.1 Consumers’ behaviours and attitudes to wine Fifteen percent, 33% and 24% of respondents indicated that they had a daily, weekly or fort- nightly wine consumption habit respectively. The remaining 28% were relatively infrequent consumers, with consumption levels at around once monthly. Respondents reported that they do not always drink the same varieties of wine (x̄ = 4.69; S.D. = 1.63), drink wine from their re- gion (x̄ = 4.01; S.D. = 1.91) or drink wine from the same territory (x̄ = 4.07; S.D. = 1.94). Gen- erally, participants indicated that they spend Table 3. Profile Price Method of Production Benefits 1 € 5.99 Conventionally produced Lower sulphite content Design (Method of production not stated on label) (Sulphite information excluded from label) 2 € 11.99 Produced using nanotechnology Lower sulphite content (Sulphite information excluded from label) Design 3 € 5.99 Conventionally produced (Method of production not stated on label) Lower calorie content Design 4 € 5.99 Produced using nanotechnology No claim on label Design 5 € 5.99 Produced using nanotechnology Lower alcohol content Design 6 € 11.99 Conventionally produced (Method of production not stated on label) No claim on label Design 7 € 11.99 Conventionally produced (Method of production not stated on label) Lower alcohol content Design 8 € 11.99 Produced using nanotechnology Lower calorie content Design 9 € 5.99 Produced using nanotechnology Lower sulphite content (Sulphite information excluded from label) Holdout 10 € 11.99 Produced using nanotechnology Lower alcohol content Holdout List of profiles used in conjoint analysis experiment (fractional factorial design). 228 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 some time selecting which wine to purchase (x̄ = 4.55; S.D. = 1.50). The general sentiment of the sample to Italian wine was very positive, which was reflected in their view that wine forms an important part of Italian culture (x̄ = 5.84; S.D. = 1.52) and in their expression of pride in Italian wine tradition (x̄ = 5.97; S.D. = 1.28). When selecting wine, price, re- gion of production and grape variety were among the most important selection attributes (Fig. 1). A paired sample t-test highlighted that as an in- formation cue, price was significantly more im- portant than all other cues (p < 0.001). Using frequency of consumption as an a-prio- ri segmentation variable, we observed significant differences in wine behaviour patterns. One-way ANOVA analysis (p ≤ 0.002) highlights that eve- ryday consumers were more likely to drink wine from a variety of territories when compared to the fortnightly and monthly consumers. While the patterns of the daily and weekly consumers were similar, the weekly consumers (p ≤ 0.001) were also more likely to spend time engaging in the selection of wine than their fortnightly or monthly counterparts. In addition to this anal- ysis, evidence of differences in the importance of quality attributes in the selection of wine was also apparent. Levels of importance for territo- ry of origin (p = 0.03), cork (p < 0.01), price (p < 0.01), age (p < 0.01), variety (p = 0.018) and packaging (p < 0.01) varied across the segments (ANOVA analysis with post hoc Bonferroni). The everyday consumers placed more importance on territory of origin (p ≤ 0.031) and variety (p < 0.02) than the fortnightly consumers; while the weekly consumers placed more importance on the age (p < 0.01) and less importance on the price (p ≤ 0.03) than the fortnightly and month- ly consumers. Interestingly, irrespective of their consumption level, all held similar sentiments towards Italian wine. To assess the relative importance of each at- tribute for each segment, a paired sample t-test was applied. This indicated that it was only in the case of fortnightly and monthly consumers that price was significantly more important than other key information cues. In the case of both everyday and weekly consumers, no significant differences were identified in terms of price, re- gion, grape variety and territory of origin. This suggests that frequent consumers of wine rely equally on a greater variety of information cues in their selection of wine. The segments differed significantly (χ² = 9.46; p = 0.024) based on gender, with males being more likely to be daily drinkers, accounting for 71% of the everyday category. In comparison, 62% of the monthly category was female. There were no significant differences with regard to age and frequency of consumption. Fig. 1 - Mean importance of attributes influencing wine purchase decisions by frequency of consumption. Note: Scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is extremely important, 7 is extremely unimportant and 4 is neither important nor unimportant. Letters above the bars reflect significant differences between frequencies of consumption groups at the 95% confidence level. Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 229 To provide a rich account of consumer accep- tance of adopting nanotechnology in wine pro- duction, the next section explores respondents’ awareness of and perspectives on nanotechnol- ogy. It examines acceptance of nanotechnology applications in wine, both generally and specif- ically, at the segment level based on frequency of consumption. 3.2. Awareness and attitude towards nanotechnology The majority of the sample was unaware of nanotechnology applications in general (58%). This lack of awareness increased considerably for food applications (84%). To get an initial indi- cation of attitudes towards nanotechnology, fol- lowing the provision of information on this tech- nology, respondents were asked about their lev- el of acceptance of the use of nanotechnology in wine production using three statements (Table 1). Unidimensionality of this measure was as- sured on the basis of principal axis factor anal- ysis, with 84% of variation explained by a single factor and factor loadings ranging from 0.51 to 0.86. Reliability of the measure was also good (α = 0.936). An overall acceptance score was calcu- lated based on a mean score for the three state- ments. Widespread acceptance of nanotechnolo- gy in wine production is unlikely (x̄ = 3.06; S.D. = 1.75) and was not significantly different across consumption levels. To further understand levels of acceptance, an examination of potential applications of na- notechnology that offer specific benefits was undertaken. Although the applications pre- sented are hypothetical at present, they may become a reality in the future. This suggest- ed that certain applications are more accepta- ble than others, as summarised in Fig. 2. En- hancing the authenticity of wine, relates to im- proving the traceability and safety of the wine and ensuring the preservation of product char- acteristics linked to its origins. This enhance- ment was considered the most acceptable ap- plication, followed by reducing the use of pes- ticides and enhancing sensory characteristics. Paired sample t-tests highlight that the appli- cation of nanotechnology to enhance the au- thenticity of wine was significantly more accept- able (p < 0.001) than its applications for other purposes. However, this disguised differences across consumption levels. While the monthly consumers displayed the same pattern as the overall sample, the everyday and weekly con- sumers considered applications to reduce the Fig. 2 - Acceptance of applying nanotechnology to obtain the following benefits by frequency of consumption. Note: Scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is extremely unacceptable, 7 is extremely acceptable and 4 is neither acceptable or unacceptable. Letters above the bars reflect significant differences between frequencies of consumption groups at the 95% confidence level. 230 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 usage of pesticides equally as acceptable as ap- plications to enhance authenticity. Enhancing taste was the third most accept- able application and was significantly less ac- ceptable than authenticity improvements. That said, in the case of the fortnightly group, taste along with modifying cork and reducing calories were judged as equally as acceptable as authen- ticity improvements. Furthermore, taste bene- fits were significantly less acceptable than ben- efits such as price and reduced alcohol content for everyday consumers. ANOVA analysis con- firmed that the everyday and weekly consum- ers were significantly less accepting (p ≤ 0.01) of taste benefits when compared with the fort- nightly consumers. Finally, colour modification was the least acceptable application across all consumption levels. ANOVA analysis highlights that the everyday consumers were significantly more accepting of low alcohol benefits when compared to weekly (p = 0.008) or fortnightly (p = 0.019) consum- ers. Furthermore, they were significantly less ac- cepting of modifications to the cork and colour in comparison to the fortnightly (p = 0.018) and weekly (p = 0.013) consumers respectively. The weekly consumers were significantly more ac- cepting of modifying colour than the monthly (p = 0.031) and were significantly less accepting of reducing calories than the fortnightly (p = 0.008) consumers. No other significant differences in acceptance were noted across the segments. The following section further explores wine preferences, presenting the findings of the con- joint experiment which involved wine products based on combination of attributes, one of which was “produced using nanotechnology”. This con- joint analysis therefore provides additional in- sights into varying levels of acceptance of appli- cations of nanotechnology in wine production across the sample. Post-hoc segmentation anal- ysis enables further understanding of how dif- ferent consumer value different wine attributes and place them within the context of the appli- cation of nanotechnology. 3.3. Conjoint and post-hoc segmentation analysis The conjoint analysis suggests that, across the sample, price was the most important fac- tor influencing wine preference (47.8%) with a preference for lower priced wine (utility = 1.08) being evident (Table 4). Method of production (35%) was the second most important attribute. In this case, conventionally produced wine (util- ity =0.79) was preferred over wine produced us- ing nanotechnology (utility = -0.79). Benefits (17.2%) were the least important factor influ- encing preference. Benefits with positive utility values were lower sulphite levels (0.4) and lower calorie content (0.21). In fact, the negative utility of applying nanotechnology (-0.79) may be trad- ed-off against, for example, the positive utility of a lower price (1.08) coupled with either low- er sulphite levels (0.4) or lower calorie content (0.21). In terms of the other benefits offered, a negative utility for lower alcohol content (-0.23) indicates that consumers disliked this suggest- ed benefit. Table 4. % of Sample Total Sample Price Sensitive Traditionalist Indifferent (n = 221) (n = 131) (n = 46) (n = 44) 100% 59.3% 20.8% 19.9% Intercept 4.77 4.96 4.40 4.62 Price €5.99 1.08 1.61 0.49 0.13 €11.99 -1.08 -1.61 -0.49 -0.13 Relative importance (%) 47.80 50.78 20.40 18.44 Method of Production Conventionally produced 0.79 0.90 1.07 0.19 Produced using Nanotechnology -0.79 -0.90 -1.07 -0.19 Relative importance (%) 34.99 28.37 43.95 27.46 Benefits Lower sulphite levels 0.40 0.12 1.14 0.46 Lower calorie content 0.21 0.66 -0.59 -0.29 Lower alcohol content -0.23 -0.11 -0.52 -0.27 No claim on label -0.38 -0.67 -0.03 0.11 Relative importance (%) 17.20 20.85 35.65 54.10 R of Pearson 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.90 Utility values of levels in the conjoint experiment and cluster segment. Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 231 The “ideal” profile (i.e. the profile respondents were most willing to purchase) was Profile 1, with the following characteristics: €5.99, convention- ally produced (method of production not stated on label) and lower sulphite content (sulphite infor- mation excluded from label). The least preferred profile is hypothetical and was not presented in the profiles that respondents scored. This hy- pothetical profile did not include any proposed benefits, was priced at €11.99 and produced us- ing nanotechnology. To identify different consumer segments based on product attribute utility scores derived from the conjoint experiment, “K-MEANS cluster anal- ysis” was employed across two to five clusters. Each of these was evaluated and three clusters were identified as best representing the data. Of these three segments, the first and larg- est segment (59.3% of respondents), labelled“- price sensitive”; price (50.8%) was the most im- portant product attribute, followed by method of production (28.4% of importance) and subjec- tive benefits (20.8% of importance). Low priced (1.61), conventionally produced (0.9), lower cal- orie (0.66) and lower sulphite (0.12) wine offered the greatest positive utilities. The second segment (20.8% of respondents), labelled“traditionalist”, placed most importance on method of production (43.9%), followed by subjective benefits (35.6%) and price (20.4%). They displayed a strong negative utility for nano- technology produced wine (-1.07) relative to con- ventionally produced wine. This negative utility may not be traded-off by the positive utility of a lower price (0.49). The only benefit offering a positive utility was lower sulphite levels (1.14). Finally, the third segment (19.9% of respon- dents), labelled “indifferent”, considered benefits to be the most important attribute (54.1%), fol- lowed by method of production (27.5%) and then price, which they considered to be the least im- portant attribute (18.4%). However, not all pro- posed benefits offered utility; the benefit of in- terest for this segment was low sulphite levels (0.46), with no other benefits offering utility. Compared to the other segments, the “price sensitive” included significantly (χ² = 11.395; p = 0.003) more females (60%) than males (40%) and were among the least frequent consumers of wine, with 73% of them consuming wine, at most, once fortnightly (Table 5) compared to 19% and 23% for the “traditionalist” and “indifferent” segments respectively (χ² = 108.092; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the consumers belonging to the first segment were more inclined to always pur- chase the same variety of wine (p ≤ 0.001), from the same territory (p ≤ 0.034) when compared to the consumers of the other two segments. ANOVA analysis with post hoc Bonferroni sug- gests that, in comparison to the two other seg- ments, the price sensitive placed greater impor- tance on price and region and less importance on age and packaging when selecting wine (p ≤ 0.022). They were also the most open to appli- Table 5. Price Construct Level Total Sensitive Traditionalist Indifferent χ2 (%) (%) (%) (%) (P-value) Male 50 40 61 66 Gender Female 50 60 39 34 11.40 (<0.001) Total 100 100 100 100 18-24 12 8 0 34 25-34 20 22 0 36 Age 35-44 25 33 4 21 108.1 45-54 23 24 35 9 (< 0.001) 55-64 20 13 61 0 Total 100 100 100 100 Everyday 15 11 28 16 Frequency Weekly 33 16 52 61 62.92 (<0.001) of consumption Fortnightly 24 32 9 14 Monthly 28 41 11 9 Total 100 100 100 100 Segment characteristics. 232 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 cations of nanotechnology that reduced calorie content and the least open to those to modify colour (p ≤ 0.026) (Table 6). They placed great- er importance on alcohol and calorie content of wine and were more receptive to applications that reduce alcohol content and enhance taste than the traditionalist (p ≤ 0.032). However, the price sensitive had the lowest overall acceptance score (x̄ = 2.83; S.D. = 1.87), which was signifi- cantly lower (p < 0.01) than that of the indiffer- ent segment (x̄ = 3.75; S.D. = 1.73) The traditionalist segment was older, in fact 90% were 45 years or over; this compares to 9% and 37% for the indifferent and price sensi- tive segments respectively. They also represent- ed the most frequent consumers of wine, with almost 30% consuming wine everyday and al- most 80% of the segment consuming wine at least weekly. The traditionalists were the most different to the price sensitive in their perspec- tives on wine and were less interested in chang- es to the current characteristics of wine, as in- dicated by their lower receptivity to many of the suggested benefits associated with the applica- tion of nanotechnology. However, no significant difference in overall acceptance (x̄ = 3.08; S.D. = 1.31) was evident between the traditionalist and two other segments. The indifferent segment included predomi- nately younger respondents; 70% were 36 or younger. Furthermore, males (66%) were dis- proportionately represented within the seg- ment. They were also quite frequent consum- ers of wine, with 77% consuming wine at least weekly. The findings illustrate that utility scores of- fer an effective means of dividing the market and establishing different perspectives on wine attributes across the post hoc segments. Each segment displayed a negative utility for apply- ing nanotechnology. However, the extent of such negative attitudes (utilities) and the relative im- portance placed on applying nanotechnology in comparison to the other attributes (i.e. price and benefits) varied across the segments. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we sought to understand con- sumer acceptance of nanotechnology within a product category that is strongly embedded in Italian culture. The analysis of consumers in- dicates that tradition continues to be impor- tant in choice decisions in the wine category; however, price plays a more important role in wine choice. These factors combined with re- gion of production and grape variety are key choice attributes. Based on the findings, Italians are relatively unfamiliar with applications of nanotechnolo- gy, both generally and specifically to food. As suggested by others (e.g. FELL et al., 2009), we observed a cautious response to the concept of nanotechnology. Indeed, within the sample, there was an overall rejection of the concept of “nano wine”. However, low acceptance scores disguised a somewhat more open attitude to specific applications of this technology. It is clear that for many, acceptance is considered on a case by case basis, and the bundle of ben- efits offered by a product is central to evalua- tions of the associated technology. Acceptance of the technology increases when the specific application satisfies an unfulfilled need. Thus, while the concept of the technology results in a reluctant response, this changes when more concrete product examples of personal rele- vance are considered. Within this study, consumers were most re- ceptive to applications that result in improved authenticity and reduced use of pesticides. The findings therefore concur with the views of Bruhn (2007) and Siegrist (2008) that if an objec- tive of a communication is to successfully mar- ket and sell novel food technology products, in- cluding nanotechnology-based foods and bev- erages, attention should be given to communi- cating explicit, tangible benefits of relevance to consumers. The conjoint analysis results suggest that, across the sample, price was the most signifi- Table 6. Please indicate how acceptable you Sample Price Sensitive Traditionalist Indifferent consider it to use nanotechnology to: Mean Mean Mean Mean (St. Dev.) (St. Dev.) (St. Dev.) (St. Dev.) Enhancing the authenticity wine. 5.55 (1.58) 5.65 (1.81) 5.24 (1.32) 5.57 (0.97) Reducing the amount of pesticides used when growing the grape. 4.96 (1.87) 4.81 (2.09) 4.98 (1.39) 5.41 (1.53) Enhancing the taste of wine. 4.62 (1.72) 4.89 (1.76) 3.91 (1.66) 4.57 (1.47) Modifying the structure and properties of the cork. 4.57 (1.62) 4.63 (1.85) 4.37 (1.10) 4.64 (1.33) Reducing the calorie content of wine. 4.26 (1.75) 4.57 (1.89) 3.35 (1.21) 4.30 (1.47) Reducing the alcohol content of wine 4.22 (1.84) 4.50 (2.05) 3.70 (1.41) 3.95 (1.38) Producing less expensive wine. 4.10 (1.70) 4.08 (1.72) 3.85 (1.75) 4.43 (1.56) Modifying the colour of wine. 2.62 (1.42) 2.29 (1.35) 2.91 (1.26) 3.32 (1.49) Acceptance of applications of nanotechnology by segment. Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 233 cant factor influencing wine preference followed by method of production; with consumers dis- playing a preference for conventionally produced rather than “nano” wine. Given the significance of price, it is not surprising that some consum- ers may be willing to purchase “nano wine” if it is priced lower than its conventional counterpart and additional benefits are offered. This work implies that segmentation is a use- ful platform for exploring consumer accept- ance of nanotechnology application in wine production. For example, while the price sen- sitive, traditionalist and indifferent segments all displayed negative utility for nanotechnolo- gy, the extent of such negative attitudes (util- ities) could be traded-off against a lower price and the enhancement of other product charac- teristics which were valued by particular seg- ments (e.g. lower sulphite levels). However, the extent of “trading-off” between these attributes clearly depended on the segment in question. In addition, the a-priori and post hoc segmen- tation analysis demonstrates that variation ex- ists in how groups of individuals evaluate and consume wine. In particular, significant varia- tion was evident in wine behaviour patterns and the importance placed on different wine attri- butes (i.e. region of origin, cork, price, age, va- riety and packaging) and was also apparent in consumers’ evaluations of the different nano- technology applications. Heterogeneity in behaviour across consum- er segments, in addition to variation in terms of the importance placed on wine product at- tributes have been highlighted in several other studies. Empirical evidence supports the find- ing of this work that frequent consumers of wine rely on a greater variety of information cues in their wine selection. Specifically, ATKIN and JOHNSON (2010) found that core consumers (i.e. those who drink wine at least once a week) draw more heavily on place-of-origin cues than infre- quent consumers. Elsewhere, PERROUTY et al. (2006) found that perceived expert consumers make use of a greater number of attributes, par- ticularly region, brand, variety and price when evaluating wine products compared to perceived non-expert (novice) consumers. The former also evaluate relationships between attributes more deeply than novices. Within this study, although authenticity im- provements were considered the most acceptable application of nanotechnology to wine overall, the segments were not homogenous in their as- sessments of the other applications presented. For example, the more frequent wine consum- ers considered applications to reduce the use of pesticides to be as acceptable as those that en- hance authenticity. Furthermore, the conjoint and post-hoc segmentation analysis illustrate how, although the price sensitive segment had the lowest overall acceptance score, they were more responsive than the indifferent and tradi- tionalist segments to applications that reduce calorie content. This finding, once again, demon- strates that acceptance is lower at the concep- tual/abstract level than the product attributes level, thereby illustrating the merits of segment- ing the population. Both segmentation approaches can guide ap- proaches to targeting different consumer groups. In particular, insights from the utility based seg- mentation may be useful in designing and devel- oping a “nano wine” that is targeted at the most suitable market segments. Based on the find- ings, a traditionalist segment would be an inap- propriate target market for “nano wine”, given the high importance this cautious group places on conventional production methods. Converse- ly, considering optimum commercialisation and marketing strategies for “nano wine”, producers and distributors may be interested in offering a competitively priced “nano wine” that has re- duced sulphite levels to an indifferent segment that frequently consume wine and could there- fore be a profitable target market. Furthermore, another strategy might be to offer a competitive- ly priced “nano wine” with reduced calorie con- tent to price sensitive consumers. The emerging positive reactions towards ap- plications that enhance wine authenticity align with the connotations of wine being a “natural” product, strongly associated with heritage, ori- gin and region, as ROMANO and NATILLI (2009) have previously argued. This “natural” percep- tion of wine is particularly evident in the case of traditional wine producing and consuming coun- tries including Italy, where PDO and PGI wines are prevalent. Building on this research, market- ers should recognise the influence of perceived “naturalness” on wine preferences and develop communication strategies around emphasising how nanotechnology can, in fact, enhance “nat- ural” qualities of wine, e.g. improve authentic- ity and lower sulphite levels, rather than tam- per with its “natural” properties. To sum, although the application of nano- technology is not generally positively perceived in wine production, low measures of overall ac- ceptance may conceal greater acceptance of spe- cific applications which enhance valued wine at- tributes. Finally, we recognise the potential limitations of this study. Specifically, while this work is in keeping with the approach of SIEGRIST et al. (2009) and SCHNETTLER et al. (2012), we are cog- nisant that the provision of information about one of the product attributes, i.e. nanotechnolo- gy, may be viewed by some as a departure from traditional CA approaches. Equally, within this work, we acknowledge the argument previously made by Siegrist et al. (2009) in their conjoint study that provision of a different description of nanotechnology, may have more positively or negatively impacted responses to the application of nanotechnology within the CA experiment. 234 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This collaborative research builds on work completed as part of a FIRM (Food Institutional Research Measure) pro- ject funded through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Ireland) under the National Development Plan 2007-2013. The authors would like to thank Dr. Giampiero Sacchetti for his useful suggestions. REFERENCES Allianz A.G. and OECD. 2005. Small sizes that matter: Op- portunities and risks of nanotechnologies. Allianz Cen- ter for Technology Report in co-operation with the OECD International Futures Programme. Edited by C. Laut- erwasser. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/ nanosafety/37770473.pdf Annunziata A. and Vecchio R. 2013. Consumer perception of functional foods: A conjoint analysis with probiotics. Food Qual. Prefer. 28: 348-355. Ares G. and Gambaro A. 2007. Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived health- iness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite 49: 148-158. Atkin T. and Johnson R. 2010. Appellation as an indicator of quality. Int. J. Wine Busin. Res. 22(1): 42-61. Atkin T., Garcia R. and Lockshin L. 2006. A multination- al study of the diffusion of a discontinuous innovation. Australasian Marketing J. 14: 17-33. Barreiro-Hurlé J., Colombo S. and Cantos-Villar E. 2008. Is there a market for functional wines? Consumer pref- erences and willingness to pay for resveratrol-enriched red wine. Food Qual. Pref. 19: 360-371. Bech-Larsen T. and Grunert K.G. 2003. The perceived healthiness of functional foods. A conjoint study of Dan- ish, Finnish and American consumers’ perception of func- tional foods. Appetite 40: 9-14. Bruhn C.M. 2007. Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 8: 555-558. Cardello A.V., Schutz H.G. and Lesher L.L. 2007. Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerg- ing technologies: A conjoint analytic study. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 8: 73-83. Chaudhry Q., Scotter M., Blackburn J., Ross B., Boxall A., Castle L., Aitken R. and Watkins R. 2008. Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Addit. Contam. 25(3): 241-258. Chiodo E., Casolani N. and Fantini A. 2011. Regulatory poli- cies and consumers quality perception in the wine sector. Enometrica, Rev. of the European Assoc. of Wine Econ- omists and VDQS 4(2). Cox D.N., Evans G. and Lease H.J. 2008. Australian con- sumers’ preferences for conventional and novel sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids: A conjoint study. Food. Qual. Pref. 19: 306-314. Deliza R., MacFie H. and Hedderley D. 2003. Use of com- puter-generated images and conjoint analysis to inves- tigate sensory expectations. J. Sens. Stud. 18: 465-486. Dudo A., Choi D-H. and Scheufele D.A. 2010.Food na- notechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and the- matic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56: 78-89. Durán N. and Marcato P.D. 2013. Nanobiotechnology per- spectives: Role of nanotechnology in the food industry: A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 48: 1127-1134. Fell D., Wilkins C., Kivinen E., Austin A. and Fernandez M. 2009. An evidence review of public attitudes to emerg- ing food technologies. A Brook Lyndhurst Report for the Food Standards Agency, UK. Available at www.food.gov. uk/multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodtech.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/ World Health Organization 2009. FAO/WHO Expert meet- ing on the application of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors: Potential food safety implications. Meeting Report. Rome. Gaskell G., Stares S., Allansdottir A., Allum, N., Castro P., Esmer Y., Fischler C., Jackson J., Kronberger N., Hampel J., Mejlgaard N., Quintanilha A., Rammer A., Revuelta, G., Stoneman P., Torgersen H. and Wagner W. 2010. Euro- peans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? Pub- lications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg. Gil M.J. and Sánchez M. 1997. Consumer preferences for wine attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. Brit. Food J. 99: 3-11. Grunert K.G. 2005. Food Quality and Safety: Consumer per- ception and demand. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 32(3): 369-391. Hailu G., Boecker A., Henson S. and Cranfield J. 2009. Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceu- ticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Ap- petite 52: 257-265. Heijbroek A. 2003. Wine is business. Shifting demand and distribution: Major drivers reshaping the wine indus- try. Rabobank International, Food and Agribusiness Re- search. ISTAT 2014. Resident Population. Year 2011. Available at: http://www.demo.istat.it/archive.html Kahan D.M., Slovic P., Braman D., Gastil J. and Cohen G.L. 2007. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk percep- tions: An experimental investigation. Cultural Cognition, Working Paper No. 22. Connecticut: Yale Law School. Krystallis A. and Ness M. 2005. Consumer preferences for quality foods from a South European perspective: A con- joint analysis implementation on Greek olive oil. Int. Food Agribus. Man. 8(2): 62-91. Kuzma J. and VerHage P. 2006. Nanotechnology in agricul- ture and food production: Anticipated applications. PEN 4.Washington, D.C., Project on Emerging Nanotechnolo- gies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Laboissière L.H.E.S., Deliza R., Barros-Marcellini A.M. Rosenthal A., Camargo L.M.A. and Junqueira R.G. 2007. Food processing innovation: A case study with pressur- ized passion fruit juice. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2(3): 108-123. Lockshin L., Jarvis W., d’Hauteville F. and Perrouty J.P. 2006. Using simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price and awards. Food Qual. Prefer. 17: 166-178. Makokha S., Karugia J., Staal S. and Oluoch-Kosura W. 2006. Valuation of cow attributes by conjoint analysis: A case study of Western Kenya. Paper prepared at Inter- national Association of Agricultural Economists Confer- ence. Gold Coast, Australia, August 12-18. Martínez-Carrasco  L., Brugarolas M.,  Del Campo Gomis F.J. and Martínez Poveda, Ā. 2006. Influence of purchase place and consumption frequency over quality wine pref- erences. Food Qual. Prefer. 17(5): 315-327. Momin J.K., Jayakumar C. and Prajapati J.B. 2013. Poten- tial of nanotechnology in functional foods. Emir. J. Food Agric. 25(1): 10-19. Mura S., Carta D., Roggero P.P., Chelic F. and Greppi G.F. 2014. Nanotechnology and its applications in food and animal science. Ital. J. Food Sci. 26: 91-102. O’Connor E., Cowan C., Williams G., O’Connell J. and Bo- land M. 2005. Acceptance by Irish consumers of a hypo- thetical GM dairy spread that reduces cholesterol. Brit. Food J. 107(6): 361-380. Oberdörster G., Oberdörster E. and Oberdörster J. 2005. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Persp. 113(7): 823-839. Olsen J., Nowak L. and Thach L. 2007. Integrating environ- mentally friendly behavior with hedonic consumption: the case of organic wine. Paper prepared at 13th World Mar- keting Congress. Verona, Italy, July 12-14. Perrouty J., d’Hauteville F. and Lockshin, L. 2006. The in- fluence of wine attributes on region of origin equity: An analysis of the moderating effect of consumer’s perceived expertise. Agribusiness 22(3): 323-341. Remaud H., Mueller S., Chvyl P. and Lockshin L. 2008. Do http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329305001461 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329305001461 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329305001461 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09503293/17/5 Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 27 - 2015 235 Australian wine consumers value organic wine? Paper prepared at 4th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research. Siena, 17-19 July. Romano M.F. and Natilli M. 2009.Wine tourism in Italy: New profiles, styles of consumption. Ways of touring. Tour- ism 57(4): 463-476. Ronteltap A., Van Trijp J.C.M., Renes R.J. and Frewer L.J. 2007. Consumer acceptance of technology-based food in- novations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Ap- petite 49(1): 1-7. Rozin P. 2005. The meaning of ‘natural’. Psychol. Sci. 16: 652-658. Sacchetti G., Chiodo E., Neri L., Dimitri G., Fantini A. (2009). Consumers’ liking towards roasted chestnuts from fresh and frozen nuts.Influence of Psycho-Social Factors and Familiarity with Product. Acta Hort. 844: 53-57 Sánchez M. and Gil J.M. 1998. Consumer preferences for wine attributes in different retail stores: A conjoint ap- proach. Int. J. Wine Mark. 10(1): 25-38. Schaupp L.C. 2005. A conjoint analysis of online consumer satisfaction. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 6(2): 95-111. Schnettler B., Miranda H., Sepulveda J. and Denegri M. 2012. Consumer preferences of genetically modified foods of vegetal and animal origin in Chile. Ciênc. Tecnol. Ali- ment. 32(1): 15-25. Seghieri C., Casini L. and Torrisi F. 2007. The wine consum- er’s behaviour in selected stores of Italian major retail- ing chains. Int. J. of Wine Business Res. 19(2): 139-151. Siegrist M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 19: 603-608. Siegrist M. 2010. Predicting the future: Review of public per- ception studies of nanotechnology. Human Ecol. Risk As- sess. 16(4): 837-846. Siegrist M., Stampfli N. and Kastenholz. H. 2009. Acceptance of nanotechnology foods: A conjoint study examining con- sumers’ willingness to buy. Brit. Food J. 111(7): 660-668. Siegrist M., Stampfli N., Kastenholz H. and Keller C. 2008. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nan- otechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51: 283-290. Silayoi P. and Speece M. 2007. The importance of packag- ing attributes: a conjoint analysis approach. Eur. J. Mar- keting 41: 1495-1517. Sorenson D. and Bogue J. 2006. Modelling soft drink pur- chasers’ preferences for stimulant beverages. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 41: 704-711. Sorrentino A., Gorrasi G. and Vittoria V. 2007. Potential per- spectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging ap- plications. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 18: 84-95. Stampfli N., Siegrist M. and Kastenholz H. 2010. Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: A path model analysis. J. Risk Res. 13(3): 353-365. Szolnoki G., Hermann R. and Hoffmann D. 2010. Origin, grape variety or packaging? Analyzing the buyer deci- sion for wine with a conjoint experiment. AAWE Work- ing Paper. 72: 1-17. Veale R., Quester P. and Karunaratna A. 2006. The role of intrinsic (sensory) cues and the extrinsic cues of coun- try of origin and price on food product evaluation. Paper prepared at 3rd International Wine Business & Marketing Research Conference. Montpellier, 6-8 July. Verdü Jover A.J., Llorēns Montes F.J. and Fuentes Fuentes M. 2004. Measuring perceptions of quality in food prod- ucts: The case of red wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 15(5): 453- 469. Von Schomberg R. and Davies, S. 2010. Understanding pub- lic debate on nanotechnologies options for framing pub- lic policy. A Report from the European Commission Ser- vices. Directorate-General for Research. Weiss J., Takhistov P. and McClements J. 2006. Function- al materials in food nanotechnology. J. Food Sci. 71(9): R107-R116. Paper Received April 28, 2014 Accepted August 19, 2014