3d food printing - jason szymanski - edible insights team
TRANSCRIPT
3D FOOD PRINTING Knowledge and Attitudes of Millennials in the GTA
Edible Insights Team:
Jason Szymanski
Tracey Haefele
Juhi Agarwal
Ankita Singh
Anjali Sharma
3D Food Printing
Acknowledgement
We express our esteem and profound sense of gratitude to Dr. Mary Takacs, Program Coordinator,
Humber College Research Analyst Postgraduate-Program, for her valuable support, constructive
criticism and day to day guidance in completing this project work. The project work and the shaping
of the final project would not have been possible without her active and constant involvement.
We would like to convey heartfelt thanks to Humber College Liberal Arts and Sciences Faculty &
Staff who were always a constant support and source of encouragement.
The completion of this project would not have been accomplished without the support of our
fellow classmates and participants.
3D Food Printing
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
ABSTRACT 4
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 4
AIMS & OBJECTIVES 5
RESEARCH DESIGN 6
Methods 6
Population and Exclusions 6
Sampling and Recruitment 6
Tools & Instruments 7
Procedures 11
Survey 11
Focus Groups 11
Justification for methods and tools 12
Limitations to methods and tools 14
Assumptions 17
Assumptions about the GTA Millennial Population 17
Assumptions about the Findings 17
Assumptions about the Literature Review 18
Major risks 18
Current 3D Food Printers 20
ChefJet 21
Impact of 3D Food Printers 23
Why Study 3D Food Printing? 26
Why Target Millennials? 29
BUDGET 32
TIMELINE 34
SURVEY REPORT 35
Executive Summary 35
Overview of Survey Design 37
Survey Objective 37
Statement of Research Questions 37
Standard of Ethics 38
Summary of Contents 38
Participants and Recruitment 38
The Survey 38
Detailed Statement of Work 38
Ethics 39
Questionnaire Design 40
Survey Question Types 40
Questionnaire details 40
3D Food Printing
Individual Question Details 42
Analysis 56
Statistical Analysis 56
Variable transformation 56
Relationships between different variables 57
Reliability and Validity 71
QUALITATIVE REPORT 72
Abstract 72
Introduction 72
Methodology 73
Subjects 73
Setting 74
Analysis Techniques 74
Findings/Results 76
Concerns 76
Benefits 77
Customize 79
Cost 80
Meal Preparation 81
Social Acceptance 83
Ideas/Features Generated 84
Novelty vs. Need 86
Discussion 87
Will Millennials be interested in 3D food printing for home use? 87
What barriers exist for this new technology? 87
What potential opportunities exist for 3D food printers? 87
What price point and features will be required for Millennials to purchase 3D food printers for home use? 88
FINAL ANALYSIS 89
Meal Preparation 89
Knowledge 89
Benefits 89
Minimizing Food Waste 90
Time Efficient 90
Customization 90
Concerns 91
Taste of food 91
Food safety and quality 91
Cost 92
Maintenance 92
Purchase Intent 93
RECOMMENDATIONS & INSIGHTS 94
Marketing Communications 94
General Interest and Buying Preferences 95
3D Food Printing
Potential Marketing Angles 95
3D Food Printing and Social Media 95
Potential Marketing Barriers and Concerns 95
Potentially Ineffective Development Strategies 96
Concept Design Recommendations 96
3D Food Printing Model #1 (The Economy Saver) 96
3D Food Printing Model #2 (The Health Booster) 96
EVALUATION 97
Philosophical Theoretical Framework 97
How the Work is situated in the current literature? 98
Did We Meet Our Research Aims? 98
Is it Valid and Reliable? 98
Intercept Surveys 98
Online Surveys 99
Focus Groups 99
Validity of Analysis 100
Reliability of Analysis 100
Triangulation 101
APPENDICES 102
Appendix A. Bibliography 102
Appendix B. Original Documents 106
INFORMATION LETTER— FOCUS GROUP—“3-D FOOD PRINTING” 106
CONSENT LETTER— FOCUS GROUP—“3-D FOOD PRINTING” 109
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE 110
FOCUS GROUP RECRUITMENT PAMPHLET 113
DRAFT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: 3D FOOD PRINTING 114
INFORMATION LETTER—INTERCEPT SURVEY—“3-D FOOD PRINTING” 116
CONSENT LETTER— INTERCEPT SURVEY—”3-D FOOD PRINTING” 119
DRAFT: 3D Food Printing Concept Survey 119
RECRUITMENT NOTICE—ONLINE SURVEY— “3-D FOOD PRINTING” 124
INFORMATION LETTER—ONLINE SURVEY—”3-D FOOD PRINTING” 125
CONSENT LETTER— ONLINE SURVEY— “3-D FOOD PRINTING” 127
INFORMATION LETTER – INTERCEPT SURVEY & ONLINE SURVEY 128
Appendix C. The Survey Instrument 130
Appendix D. REB Forms 132
Appendix E. Consent Forms 142
Appendix F. Information Letter 142
Appendix G. Survey Protocols 145
Appendix H. Original Survey 147
Appendix I. Moderator’s Guide 151
Appendix J. Pre-Test Guide 153
Appendix K. Other Interview or Survey Protocols: Online Survey 157
Appendix N. Bios of Researchers 165
3D Food Printing
List of Tables Table 1. Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 2. Project Resources .................................................................................................................... 33
Table 3. Budget Reconciliation ............................................................................................................. 33
Table 4. Final Budget Reconciliation ..................................................................................................... 33
Table 5. Timeline of the project ............................................................................................................ 34
Table 6. Year of birth ............................................................................................................................. 42
Table 7. Proposed features and benefits of 3D food printers .............................................................. 48
Table 8. Considerations for 3D food printers........................................................................................ 49
Table 9. Number of meals prepared each day ...................................................................................... 52
Table 10. Highest level of education ..................................................................................................... 53
3D Food Printing
List of Figures Figure 1: Chefjet (Source: 3D Systems) ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 2. Millennials awareness of 3D printing ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 3. Awareness of 3D printed products ........................................................................................ 45
Figure 4. Millennials interest in purchasing a 3D food printer ............................................................. 46
Figure 5. Millennials willingness to spend on a 3D food printer (in dollars) ........................................ 47
Figure 6. Time spent in preparing meals............................................................................................... 50
Figure 7. Number of people for whom meal is prepared ..................................................................... 51
Figure 8. Personal income (in dollars)................................................................................................... 54
Figure 9. Sex of the respondents .......................................................................................................... 55
Figure 10. Age vs awareness of 3D printing .......................................................................................... 57
Figure 11. Sex vs interest in purchasing a 3D food printer ................................................................... 58
Figure 12. Sex vs adding vitamins and minerals as desired .................................................................. 58
Figure 13.Sex vs minimizing food preparation time ............................................................................. 59
Figure 14.Sex vs importance of cost ..................................................................................................... 59
Figure 15.Sex vs importance of maintenance ....................................................................................... 60
Figure 16.Sex vs importance of user friendly ........................................................................................ 60
Figure 17.Sex vs importance of size of unit .......................................................................................... 61
Figure 18.Personal income vs printing food in new shapes and textures ............................................ 62
Figure 19.Personal income vs minimizing food preparation time ........................................................ 62
Figure 20.Personal income vs using sustainable protein sources ........................................................ 63
Figure 21.Personal income vs printing the exact form of traditional food........................................... 63
Figure 22.Personal income vs importance of size of unit ..................................................................... 64
Figure 23.Personal income vs importance of energy efficiency ........................................................... 64
Figure 24.Awareness of 3D printing vs sharing food designs on social media ..................................... 65
Figure 25.Awareness of 3D printing vs tracking calories accurately .................................................... 66
Figure 26.Awareness of 3D printing vs printing food in new shapes and textures .............................. 66
Figure 27.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs sharing food designs on social media .............. 67
Figure 28.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs tracking calories accurately ............................. 68
Figure 29.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs printing food in new shapes and textures ....... 68
Figure 30.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs minimizing food preparation time ................... 69
Figure 31.Interest in purchasing 3D food printer vs style & design...................................................... 69
Figure 32.Interest in purchasing 3D food printer vs importance of variety of food ............................. 70
Figure 33.Time spent preparing meals vs style & design...................................................................... 71
Figure 34. Focus group thematic word cloud ....................................................................................... 75
Figure 35.Multiple lines of action in triangulation.............................................................................. 101
3D Food Printing
1 | P a g e
Executive Summary 3D food printing, a subcategory of the more commonly known 3D printing technology, is an
emerging technology that uses extruded ingredients to generate three-dimensional meals by
placing layers of compounded food on top of each other. 3D food printers are expected to
change the food industry and have the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with food.
There are currently a number of 3D food printers on the market each with different benefits
and uses (Wiggers, 2015). However, the technology is still being developed and remains
reasonably expensive and complex. As the technology of 3D food printers continues to
improve, it is anticipated to become widely available for home use to consumers in a decade
(IFT, 2015).
In order for the potential benefits of this technology to be realized, 3D food printing must to
be accepted by consumers, as well as society. In order to help marketers, developers, and
researchers create a 3D food printer for home-based use, there needs to be considerable
consumer insight into their development. There are many hurdles that researchers and
developers will need to overcome in order to produce a marketable product to the general
population (Charlebois, 2015). Failure to understand consumers, as well as consumer
neophobia (the aversion to anything new, novel, or unfamiliar) can contribute to product
failure rates (Gourville, 2006). In addition, consumer perceptions about the safety, cost, and
risk/benefits associated with novel technologies can negatively influence consumer choice and
purchasing decisions (Cardelo et al. 2007). As 3D food printing is an emerging technology, there
is limited research on consumer perceptions of this technology and the factors involved with
possible acceptance or rejection on behalf of the consumer.
Therefore, with this study, we hope to bridge the gap between consumer insight and product
development. In order to understand people’s perception about this emerging technology, our
study was conducted and conveniently called ‘3D Food Printing: Knowledge and Attitudes of
Millennials in the GTA’. Millennials have been selected as our target population for a variety
of different reasons, as we believe that Millennials unique set of interests and preferences
make them ideal candidates for adoption of 3D food printing technology. As the largest
generation in the Canadian workforce, Millennials are entering their prime spending years and
are poised to reshape the economy with their unique set of habits and preferences (StatsCan,
2012).
3D Food Printing
2 | P a g e
For instance, it is known that Millennials have higher food innovation consumption levels and rank
higher when it comes to adopting novel products (Barrernar et al., 2015). They are more likely to
value convenience and purchase ready-made meals (Alix Partners, 2012). Millennials are also a
generation that is more likely to be concerned about environmental sustainability (BCG, 2012).
Finally, Millennials are likely to pay a premium for healthy attributes of food (Nielsen, 2015) and
desire personalized and customizable products (Sweeney, 2006). All of which, 3D food printers
hope to deliver.
The findings of this study aim to provide researchers and investors with actionable insights leading
to refined product development, enhanced target marketing, and increased adoption rates of 3D
food printers intended for home use among this cohort. Recommendations and insights for
product development and advertising are provided in order to help create a more marketable 3D
food printer.
Based on our research findings, we found that 3D food printing technology is not a relatively well
known concept. For example, 88% of survey respondents indicated they while they were aware of
3D printing technology, while only 32% of respondents had heard of 3D food products. This
indicates that although 3D printing in general has managed to infiltrate into the mind of Millennials
in the GTA, 3D food printing is still a relatively new concept. We recommend a strong educational
and promotional campaign that increases Millennials awareness of this technology.
It has been noted that Millennials in the GTA are particularly interested in a number of health
related aspects of this technology. For instance, the ability to add vitamins and minerals as desired
and the ability to track calories accurately were among the most important features that
Millennials desired from a potent 3D food printer. Based on this finding, we suggest that 3D food
printers should continue to develop this capability in order incorporate precision dieting as a
feature of 3D food printers (Hatic, 2016).
The ability for 3D food printers to minimize food waste and minimize food preparation time was
also of particular importance to Millennials in the GTA. This is not surprising as Millennials are more
environmentally friendly than previous generations (Timm, 2014) and Millennials are also more
reliant on convenience food (Alix Partners, 2012). These two benefits of 3D food printers will likely
important features and will likely increase the success of 3D food printers by Millennials.
Additional results from this study indicate that there may be some concerns regarding this
technology that may pose a barrier to its adoption. These concerns will need to be addressed in
order to reduce minimize resistance to 3D food printing form the public. It appears that Millennials
in the GTA are concerned about many aspects of this technology from a health safety perspective
as food safety and taste of food were important to Millennials in the GTA. Evidence of this fact
came overwhelmingly from the survey, as well as the focus groups. Some areas of inquiry will
include how the food is to be preserved in the cartridges, how the device will remain sanitized and
3D Food Printing
3 | P a g e
cleaned, and how healthy the food will actually be and if it is safe for consumption. Some of these
concerns are shared and common to other types of foods containing preservatives (Brookover,
2016).
After all things considered, developers and marketers want to know if people will buy this
technology. According to our study, 49% of respondents say they would be interested in purchasing
a 3D food printer, while 51% said they would not be interested. Lack of knowledge about this
technology, concerns about its use, as well as unwillingness to change engrained food perceptions
may pose as barriers to adoption of this technology. Marketing strategies should address details of
this technology, its potential benefits as well as addressing areas of concern to alleviate fears and
make this technology seem more like a regular home appliance.
Upon further analysis, it appears that males and females differ in their attitude towards purchasing
a 3D food printer. 63% of males said they would be interested in purchasing a 3D food printer,
while only 40% of females would be interested. This is consistent with previous studies that indicate
that males are more likely to adopt new technologies (Accenture, 2015).
Based on our results, it seems that the interest of Millennials in the GTA towards 3D food printing
is divided. The next aspect to consider is how much are Millennials willing to spend on a 3D food
printer? Our survey results indicate that 56% of respondents would be willing to spend between
$101 and $500. A smaller proportion (23%) would be willing to spend between $501 and $1000. It
is advised that developers produce at least two models of varying price ranges in order to saturate
this wide market.
The recommendations and insights provided were developed after a careful examination of our
data. Data was obtained using surveys and focus groups. The survey was used in order to obtain
quantitative data, which would allow us to understand what features and benefits of 3D food
printers are most important to our sample of GTA Millennials. Focus groups were conducted in
order to obtain qualitative data regarding opinions about this technology, to identify key attributes
of 3D food printing that Millennials desire, and gain further insight into concerns about its use, as
well as what obstacles or barriers may exist that could prevent the successful adoption of this
technology.
The survey was created using the Q-Fi solutions online survey platform. A live link was generated
and was shared over popular social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as
through email. Approximately 50 intercept surveys were administered via iPad at Humber
Lakeshore Campus. In total, 330 surveys were collected and analyzed using IBM SPSS version 23.
Although we did not obtain a random sample, we did uncover some trends that we believe to be
valid and reliable.
Focus groups were conducted at a home of one of the researchers. In total, two focus groups were
conducted with a total of 13 participants. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed
into text format. Text was analyzed using HyperResearch and Excel, in order to conduct content
analysis. Although we recruited some focus group participants from our survey sample, we believe
the results to be valid and reliable, though directional in nature.
3D Food Printing
4 | P a g e
Abstract This study explores the knowledge and attitudes of Millennials in the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) towards 3D food printing. The findings aim to provide researchers and investors with
actionable insights leading to refined product development, enhanced target marketing,
and increased adoption rates of 3D food printers intended for home use. A hybrid research
design was implemented whereby data was collected using an online survey and focus
groups. A total of 330 surveys were completed and collected using the online Q-Fi survey
platform. Two focus groups with a total of 13 participants were conducted in order to
obtain qualitative data. Survey data was analyzed using SPSS, while focus group data was
analyzed using content analysis via HyperResearch software tool and Excel. Based on the
information obtained from this study, we believe that 3D food printers should be marketed
to Millennials as economical and efficient (minimizes food waste and preparation time), as
well as health promoting (focuses on nutritional qualities such as the ability to add vitamins
and minerals and the ability to track calories). A potential barrier that may prevent some
Millennials from adopting 3D food printing technology is concerns regarding the taste of
food and food safety. As traditional cooking methods are important to some, unwillingness
to change traditional engrained food preparation methods may also act as a barrier to
adoption of this technology.
Statement of Significance The findings of this study are intended to provide investors, researchers and developers of
3D food printing technology with actionable insights leading to refined product
development, enhanced target marketing, and increased adoption rates of 3D food printers
intended for home use. 3D food printing offers a range of possible benefits and as this
technology advances it is expected to revolutionize the way we interact with food. In order
for the potential benefits of this technology to be realized, 3D food printing must be
accepted by consumers, as well as society. There are many hurdles that researchers and
developers will need to overcome to produce a marketable home-based 3D food printer to
the general public. Failure to understand consumers, as well as consumer neophobia (the
aversion to anything new, novel, or unfamiliar) can contribute to product failure rates
(Gourville, 2016).
3D Food Printing
5 | P a g e
In addition, consumer perceptions about the safety, cost, and risk/benefits associated with novel
technologies can negatively influence consumer choice and purchasing decisions (Cardello, Schutz,
& Lesher, 2007). As 3D food printing is an emerging technology, there is limited research on
consumer perceptions of this technology and the factors involved with possible acceptance or
rejection on behalf of the consumer. With this study, we hope to bridge the gap between consumer
insight and product development by exploring Greater Toronto Area Millennials (born between
1980-1998) knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing, which may influence the
development and marketing of 3D food printers and encourage successful adoption among this
cohort.
Aims & Objectives
The aim of this study is to gain an understanding of Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Millennials
knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing. By obtaining this target sample’s knowledge,
insights and opinions regarding the possible use and perceived benefits/obstacles regarding this
technology, we can provide researchers, developers and investors of 3D food printers with insights
which can provide enhanced target marketing, improved product development and increased
adoption rates.
The study objectives are as follows:
To determine Millennials level of knowledge regarding 3D Food Printing
To examine key areas of interest or concern to Millennials about 3D Food
Printing
To investigate what features Millennials desire in 3D Food Printers
To evaluate Millennials purchase intent and price point for 3D Food Printers
1
2
3
4
3D Food Printing
6 | P a g e
Research Design
Methods
A mixed methodology approach integrating qualitative and quantitative methods was adopted
for this research study. Qualitative data was obtained using Focus groups. Quantitative data was
obtained using Surveys. Both types of data were obtained in order to ensure that we were
conducting reliable and valid exploratory research. Previous studies on the topic had shed light
on some of the quantifiable aspects, but any qualitative findings were limited. In order to conduct
proper market research regarding 3D food printing, we wanted to collect information from
people using closed-ended questions, as well as qualitative open-ended questions.
Population and Exclusions
The goal of this project was to explore knowledge and attitudes of Millennials aged between 18-
35 years, residing in the Greater Toronto Area. The study aimed to obtain a sample size of 500
participants for the survey, and 14 participants for the focus groups. The survey was administered
through two modes, online using the Q-fi platform and in person via intercept surveying. The
focus groups were held at a member of the research team’s home.
Sampling and Recruitment
A non-probability convenience sample and snowball sample was used to select participants for
the focus groups and online surveys. The online survey was disseminated across social media
(Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn) to various social groups and among the research team’s social
network, as well as through email. A convenience sample was used to select participants for the
intercept survey and intercepts took place at the Humber College Lakeshore campus. Focus
group participants were recruited from the survey respondent pool and interested participants
were given the option to provide their information upon completing the survey to participate in
the focus group. A snowball sample of focus group participants were also obtained through word-
of-mouth among other researchers, of whom were also conducting focus groups and had
interested participants. Additionally, an online advertisement was also posted on Kijiji and
Craigslist to recruit focus group participants.
3D Food Printing
7 | P a g e
Tools & Instruments
The survey was administered online and in-person. The online survey was administered using Q-fi
software. The online software allows users to create a survey, share a live link to the survey and
download the data for analysis. The same survey used online was administered in-person using
iPads and data was analyzed using SPSS software. Focus groups were conducted at the home of a
member of the research team. Various tools were used during the focus group to assist with data
collection from the use of a recording device and note takers. Data was analyzed using
HyperResearch software which allows users to conduct content analysis on data in text form and
also by Excel.
Type Online Survey (included interview protocols)
Objective To ascertain Millennials knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing in
a quantifiable nature
Description 14 closed ended questions: 2 screener, 3 demographic, 9 3D food printing
How was Tool
Designed
Combination of repurposed 3D food printing studies (outlined in survey
design), textbook (Johnny Blair, 2014) and research team input
Administered Shared link through e-mail or social media
Average Length 7.36 minutes
Type Intercept Survey
Objective To ascertain Millennial knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing in
a quantifiable nature
Description 14 closed ended questions: 2 screener, 3 demographic, 9 3D food printing
How was Tool
Designed
Combination of repurposed 3D food printing studies (outlined in survey
design), textbook (Johnny Blair, 2014) and research team input
Administered Face-to-face following interview protocol
Average Length 7.36 minutes
Type Moderators Guide (included interview protocols)
Description Structured guide with a group activity
How was Tool
Designed
With the assistance of textbook (Berg & Lune, 2012), literature review and
research team input
Administered Face-to-face focus group conducted by moderator in group setting
Average Length Each group was approximately 45 minutes
3D Food Printing
8 | P a g e
Type Pre-test of Online Survey
Description Testing of the online survey link to ensure that there were no technical
issues, question information obtained as intended or any other issues users
indicated as problem areas when taking the survey electronically
How was Tool
Designed
Research team each conducted a series of testing with the survey link.
Followed the questions as the survey displayed electronically online.
Administered Within Q-fi testing mode
Average Length 10 minutes per survey trial (each member conducted at least 4 pre-tests)
Type Pre-test of Intercept Survey
Description A trial run of the survey administered to an individual from the target
population to obtain feedback on design including ease of understanding,
question flow, identify discrepancies in what was wanting to be obtained
and the response received
How was Tool
Designed
Followed the outline given in Designing Survey class by Prof. Mary Takacs,
PhD.
Administered Face-to-face
Average Length 10 minutes approximately (each team member conducted a minimum of 2
pre-tests each
Type Pre-Test of Moderators Guide
Description Team participated in a trial run of the moderators guide in a library study
room to review if structure and exercises would flow within the intended
focus group time
How was Tool
Used
Moderator’s guide was followed in a ‘mock’ focus group session and
updated based on our feedback during the session. We utilized the library
study room monitor so that we could all contribute to the guide and update
as we went along using MS Word
Administered Face-to-Face in a focus group setting (5 members of research team present)
Average Length 1.5 hours
Type Interview Protocol for Intercept Surveys
Description A set of instructions that are outlined before an intercept survey is
conducted. This will ensure that the same instructions, probes and detail
will be given to each participant so that interviewer bias is minimized
How was Tool
Used
Based on outline provided by Prof. Mary Takacs, PhD in Survey Design class
3D Food Printing
9 | P a g e
Administered Face-to-Face
Average Length 30 – 40 minutes for each interviewer
Type Software – Microsoft Office
Description We utilized MS Office throughout our entire project including Excel
(developing timelines, charts, tables, data base and analysis, etc.), Word
(document and report writing, Power Point (presentation building), MS
Project (WSB and Gantt charts) and Outlook Mail (for e-mail communication)
How was Tool
Used
Used in multiple capacities throughout our study
Administered Each team member had their own laptop with software available
Average Length 100 -200 hours spent in total by each member throughout the project
Type Software – SPSS
Description A statistical software tool for analyzing data sets
How was Tool
Used
Used to clean and analyze data for analysis using descriptive statistical
procedures
Administered Humber College laptops were used to access software packages
Average Length 10 hours per group member
Type Software - HyperResearch
Description A qualitative analysis tool for coding and analyzing qualitative data
How was Tool
Used
Used to code qualitative focus group transcripts
Administered Humber College laptops were used to access software packages
Average Length 5 hours per group member
Type Online Social Media: Facebook
Description An online social media application to enable group communication and
share functionality
How was Tool
Used
Our research team formed a nutrition group to post relevant 3D food
printing articles, share communication updates using the ‘Messenger’
capability, commented on articles and provided minor project updates
Administered Each team member had their own laptop with application downloaded
Average Length 10 hours per group member
3D Food Printing
10 | P a g e
Type Online Application - Q-Fi
Description Online survey platform to develop market research tools and questionnaires
How was Tool
Used
We deployed our online survey using the Q-fi platform. The online tool was
also used for testing, monitoring and reporting purposes.
Administered Each Humber RAPP student was given an access code and able to download
on their own laptops
Average Length Each team member spent approximately 4-6 hours on the Q-fi platform.
Type Online Application – Infogram and Piktocharts
Description Online application tools to develop infographics
How was Tool
Used
Data findings were used to employ the use of these online tools to build
visual data representations
Administered Each Humber RAPP student was given an access code and able to download
on their own laptops
Average Length Each team member spent approximately 5 hours researching and reviewing
Type Online Search Engines: Google and Humber Library
Description Online search engines
How was Tool
Used
Much of our literature review and project background was obtained through
the online Humber Library access as well as Google Scholar and additional
3D printing technology websites, articles and reviews
Administered Each team member could access through their own Humber library card
search engine on their laptop.
Average Length Each team member spent approximately 20 hours researching and
reviewing.
3D Food Printing
11 | P a g e
Procedures
Survey
The survey instrument was one of two primary data collection methods used in this study. The
survey was designed on a word document as a team effort. The survey was then pretested with 10
participants, and necessary changes were made. Once the survey was finalized, it was transferred
to the Q-fi online software. After the survey testing using the online software was completed, a live
link was generated. The live link was shared online on various social media platforms, online
advertisements, personal emails and university groups/programs. Social media platforms included
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and online advertisements include Kijiji, and Craigslist. The survey was
also shared via email among the research team’s network and through snowball sampling. The
survey was also shared to mass email communication servers on various forum pages. In order to
increase the number of survey respondents, intercept surveys were conducted on Humber College
campus using iPads. Researchers, with iPads in hand, intercepted passerby's and asked them if they
had a few minutes to spare. If the participant was interested, the researchers explained that the
survey was part of Humber College Research Analyst Program and that their participation was
greatly appreciated. Upon completion of the survey, the researcher thanked the participants for
their help and mentioned that the results would be disseminated on March 30th 2016 through the
Humber College RAPP Forum. The data from the intercept surveys was grouped with the data from
the online survey, since both procedures used the same live link, and so the data was unable to be
partitioned into separate groupings. Data collection was seized once 330 survey completes were
collected, and was halted primarily due to time constraints. The data from the survey was than
downloaded directly into excel. The data from excel was transferred into SPSS for analysis. The
codebook used for analysis was created at the time the survey was launched. The codebook was
created using the survey instrument and the answer options for each question.
Focus Groups
Qualitative data was obtained from two focus groups. Both focus groups were conducted at a home
of one of the researchers. The first focus group had a total of 7 participants and the second focus
group had a total of 6 participants. In total, two data sets were obtained from a total of 13
participants. Each of the focus groups was moderated by a different researcher, to reduce any
researcher bias. At each of the focus groups, three researchers acted as note takers. The note
takers were responsible for writing down on pen and paper the general ideas presented as well as
any nuances in the interactional dynamic of the focus group. The moderators of the focus groups
followed a semi-structured guide. Upon entering the focus group room, participants were
instructed to write down their name on a name tag and review and sign and information letter and
consent form. They were kindly asked to sign the consent form if they agreed to all statements and
to hand it in before the commencement of the discussion. The participants were also instructed to
keep the information letter and a blank copy of the consent form for their own records. Food and
drink was available to the participants at all times and was situated in the middle of the table. The
incentives ($10 gift cards) were provided at the end of each focus group. Focus groups were
recorded using three separate recorders to ensure accuracy, and to prevent any recording errors.
The three recording devices used were: a laptop, a cell phone and a sole-purposed recording
3D Food Printing
12 | P a g e
device. Audio data was transcribed into text format and was analyzed using HyperResearch, a
software platform which allows for content analysis of qualitative data, as well as in Excel. The
HyperResearch software was licensed through Humber College. The codebook used for content
analysis was developed by three researchers in isolation of each other and reviewed together. This
was done in order to reduce and bias and improve intercoder reliability.
Justification for methods and tools
After lot of brainstorming and discussion, the team decided to do research the topic of knowledge
and attitudes of Millennials towards 3D food printing. Initially, we thought of conducting face-to-
face interviews of industry experts, nutritionists, and culinary experts. This was being planned in
order to gather their knowledge about this new technology, their opinions about how this
technology could revolutionize their industry, what features of 3D food printers they consider to
be most important, as well as concerns of this technology for use in their industry. After several
sessions of discussion, we dropped this idea. Given time and resource constraints, we decided that
this would be a difficult to explore. Instead, we thought that it would be more beneficial to target
Millennials living in the GTA.
We decided that our research question would be best if geared towards a market research
approach. We decided conduct a market research study because we knew that our population
would not know how this technology would affect society, or what industries would be impacted
by this technology. Even if our population had an idea, the results would be meaningless and of no
importance to anyone. There wouldn't be any actionable insights produced from conducting social
research regarding a new technology that isn’t even widely available. Thus, we decided to do
market research, and our stakeholders became developers, researchers, and marketers.
We specifically targeted Millennials in the GTA for a number of reasons. As the largest generation
in the Canadian workforce, Millennials are entering their prime spending years and are poised to
reshape the economy with their unique set of habits and preferences (StatsCan, 2012). With 8.9
million Millennials in Canada, and 1.7 million in the Greater Toronto Area alone, Millennials possess
incredible buying power (StatsCan, 2011). Millennials unique set of interests and preferences make
them ideal candidates for adoption of 3D food printing technology. For instance, it is known that
Millennials have higher food innovation consumption levels and rank higher when it comes to
adopting novel products (Barrernar et al., 2015). They are more likely to value convenience and
purchase ready-made meals (Alix Partners, 2012). Millennials are also a generation that is more
likely to be concerned about environmental sustainability (BCG, 2012). Finally, Millennials are more
willing to pay a premium for healthy attributes of food (Nielsen, 2015) and desire personalized and
customizable products (Sweeney, 2006). All of which, 3D food printers hope to deliver. Research
also suggests that 3D food printing technology would be widely available in about 10 years (Kira,
2015d). Given the age of millennials in about 10 years, they would be the traditionally targeted age
group for marketing campaigns.
The reason we decided to research Millennials specifically in the GTA is to simplify our analysis. It
is known that people living in urban centers are different from people living in rural settings. The
access to internet reflects existing inequalities in society with rural or urban settings (Haight, Quan-
3D Food Printing
13 | P a g e
Hasse, & Corbett, 2014). Further studies could be done to assess people living in areas outside of
the GTA. We would have researched people outside the GTA if we knew we would be able to obtain
a large enough sample size of people in rural areas to complete our survey (otherwise the data
would not necessarily be reliable or valid). The reason we believed we would not be able to obtain
a sample size large enough from the rural and suburban population has to do with how we
disseminated our survey. Since we disseminated our survey mainly across social media, the survey
was effectively snowballed to friends of friends. Since a great proportion of our friends-and their
friends- live entirely in the GTA, we knew that our survey would not be effectively disseminated to
those rural and suburban settings. We knew that if we had opened it up to the rural setting, we
would likely only obtain a small group of respondents from that population, whom would be
systematically different from the GTA population. It would negatively affect our research in two
ways: (1) Since the suburban and rural sample of respondents would be so small, we would not be
able to see any clear trends and thus not be able to generalize to that population, and (2) Our
results from the survey would be slightly skewed in a direction towards the rural and suburban
population, thereby reducing our ability to generalize to an urban population.
If the population to which a sample comes from has a large degree of variance. Then the sample
size needs to be large in order for that sample to be representative (Gravetter & Wallanu, 2013).
The greater the population variance, the greater the sample size required to make generalizations
valid and reliable. Effectively, we wanted to reduce the population variance by excluding people
living outside of the GTA and by limiting our age inclusionary criteria to just Millennials. Again, for
both of these decisions, we considered the fact that we would be surveying groups on our social
media. The sampling frame would be mostly Millennials living in the GTA. Thus the rationalization
to limit our sample to this group is justified.
We realized that a survey and focus groups would be best to research our population. As our goal
was to understand the target audience’s opinions about 3D food printing, a host of research
methods will provide many different viewpoints for seeing the big picture. Triangulation of
methods provides a better and more substantive picture of reality. It helps in corroboration of
findings, minimizes key plausible alternative explanations for conclusions drawn from the research
data, and elucidates the divergent aspects of a phenomenon (Tashakkori, 2003; Berg & Lune,
2012).
Surveys were planned to be conducted both online and intercept. Surveys were to be administered
online and not through mail or telephone because they are low cost and allows to increase the
speed of data collection. The online and social media platforms are also commonly used among
the millennial cohort. Intercept surveys were conducted at Humber Lakeshore Campus, in addition
to online, to increase the response rate. Intercept surveys at convenient location provide access to
a population that is appropriate for most consumer research (Blair, Czaja, & Blair, 2014).
We ensured to increase the response rate by (1) Keeping the survey short, less than 5 min, and (2)
Allowing the participants to go to next question only after they have answered the previous
question. This was to ensure that all survey information was completed.
3D Food Printing
14 | P a g e
To minimize any errors in data collection and missing any information, we planned to have
intercept surveys through iPad. So, technically intercept participants also filled out the survey
online. This also helped us to save time and errors in data entry.
We also decided to conduct focus groups, so that we could delve deeper inside the ‘why’
component of Millennials attitudes about 3D food printing. Focus groups were designed to be used
supplementary to a survey, used after preliminary survey results to expand and illuminate
particular issues and help us obtain more information regarding the trends found in our survey.
We decided to have 7-8 members in each focus group in order to limit the size. It has been
suggested that focus group size should be kept to no more than about seven participants. The basic
reason for this is that it allows the moderator to effectively elicit the breadth of responses that
distinguishes focus groups as a useful data gathering strategy. Moreover, large groups are difficult
to manage and there are chances of formation of small sub-groups. This can lead to group think,
where the participants come under subgroup pressure. As such the collected data is not the actual
understanding and feeling of the participants (Berg & Lune, 2012).
Moreover, we ensured that all the focus group participants had filled out our survey. This was
designed as a kind of pre-focus group activity or exercise. Research has shown that pre-focus group
activities allow the participant to think about the certain ideas and attitudes about the topics to be
discussed during the group session (Berg & Lune, 2012).
Thus, we think our approach to targeting Millennials living in GTA through surveys and focus
groups, so as to understand their knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing is justified.
Limitations to methods and tools
The primary limitation of the study is its’ generalizability. Survey respondents came from a non-
probability convenience sample. The demographics of our respondents are most likely
systematically different from the general Millennial population in the GTA. Although all of our
respondents were Millennials in the GTA, our respondent pool was limited to those whom we could
contact either online or in-person, and those who agreed to participate in the survey. Although the
Total Survey Error cannot be calculated, we presume the following sources to be the most
impactful.
3D Food Printing
15 | P a g e
Following is the list of some of the limitations to methods and tools —
Method/
Tool
Possible biases Mitigation steps
Survey
(in general)
We cannot measure the degree to which respondents’ responses may change over time
This was a cross-sectional study, so no steps were taken to mitigate this. We tried to capture the attitude and beliefs of respondents at the time they are taking the survey.
We cannot measure the degree to which respondents’ perceptions and interpretations of the questions differ. The wording of a question can influence the outcome to a great deal.
To increase the validity of the survey, we made attempts to ensure that respondents accurately interpreted the survey questions as intended. Through pretesting, we observed how people interpreted the responses and compared those interpretations with our intentions.
Survey participants were recruited through personal connections and snowball sampling which will introduce an additional element of bias.
We tried to increase the sample size to overcome this bias
The survey had all the closed ended question and this limits the respondent to list of responses.
We tried to make the closed ended options as exhaustive as possible.
Chances of response bias, because it was a self-report survey. This could have a large impact on the validity of the survey. The survey using Likert scale are more vulnerable to the effects of response bias, as these scales cause cognitive load for the participants.
To avoid this bias, we tried to keep the matrix for the Likert Scale question short and very brief. Moreover, instead of having an interval scale we kept it as an ordinal scale.
Intercept survey
Intercept surveys at Humber campus. This could bias the results as the respondents at Humber College have something in common i.e. they are all students. It is appropriate to presume that the population of students or faculty at Humber College would be different than a general population sample of equivalent size. We cannot predict the direction of the bias among any variables, except that it may be plausible to presume that students will be more inclined to favor the idea of new technology (noting the fact that this is market research).
We tried to conduct a small number of intercept surveys outside Humber college. Though, the intercepts were not conducted at malls, but were conducted with friends and relatives of the team members.
Interviewer bias Interview protocol was developed for intercept surveys and all the interviewers followed that protocol.
3D Food Printing
16 | P a g e
Method/
Tool
Possible biases Mitigation steps
Online survey
The fact that the respondents are on the internet and are social media users biases the results. The sample of respondents who use social media and have the internet is presumably different from a sample from the general population of equal sample size.
In order to reduce any bias and mitigate the limitations of the study, we tried to maximize the number of respondents by targeting several different social media platforms.
Focus group
Focus groups with participants who all the participants had demonstrated some interest in this technology, therefore results may not be externally valid, since not everyone in the general population shares this common interest. Also, since they have some systematic differences, the data will be skewed in some unknown direction.
We attempt to obtain unbiased data by remaining as neutral as possible when moderating the focus groups.
They represent small sample sizes. Because of the cost of running focus groups, only few focus groups can be run. We aimed to run 2 focus groups with 7-8 participants each. This would give us sample size of 14-16 participants, which is too small to generalize from. Therefore, from focus groups we cannot estimate:
What proportion of Millennials are interested in buying a 3D food printer?
What proportion of Millennials give importance to particular features?
Each focus group data will be considered as one dataset, and not as individual person data.
Participants are likely to say things that may make them look good i.e. socially desirable things, even if that is not true.
Moderator will try to probe the issue in different ways so that we can get valid and true data.
Participants may be reluctant to speak about certain issues.
We tried not to include any sensitive topics in our focus group, so that participants can feel free to talk.
3D Food Printing
17 | P a g e
Method/
Tool
Possible biases Mitigation steps
Mixed methods research
As it was a mixed method research, so the major limitation was that it took much more time and resources to plan and implement it. It may have been unclear how to resolve discrepancies that arise in the interpretation of findings.
If any discrepancy was found in the data, we planned to conduct more focus groups and try to find out the reason underlying that discrepancy.
Moreover, we followed sequential explanatory design i.e. the design involving collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. This requires a substantial length of time to complete all data collection given the two separate phases.
During the planning phase of the study, enough time was allocated to both the phases.
Assumptions
Assumptions about the GTA Millennial Population
There have been a number of assumptions made about the GTA Millennial population which
affected our research design. We were aware of our Millennial population as being generally more
tech savvy than the other age cohorts (Loechner, 2014), and so we knew that we would have
greater success with an online-based survey. As well, we assumed that we would be best to reach
this population using an online survey disseminated across social media because Millennials are
the age cohort that most uses social media (Bergh, 2013).
The language used in the survey was created by our research team, which are largely Millennials
and/or are in touch with Millennials on a regular basis; so we assumed that our language would be
understood appropriately by this population. In addition, we assumed that because our population
is tech savvy, as previously described, they would be more willing to complete a survey about 3D
food printing, since it is a new and emerging technology.
We assumed, based on our literature review, that this population would have limited knowledge
regarding this technology, thus furthering their interest in completing the survey. In addition, in
order to obtain more reliable and valid results, we excluded people outside of the GTA and those
outside of the Millennial age group. We assumed that because of these exclusions, our population
became increasingly homogenous.
Assumptions about the Findings Based on our assumptions about the population and from our review of the literature, we can
reasonably assume that the Millennial population in the GTA will have a fairly low level of
knowledge regarding 3D food printers. We also assume that based on the unique attributes that
3D Food Printing
18 | P a g e
the Millennial generation possess, Millennials will be most interested in 3D food printers that
minimize food preparation time, track caloric information and that allow them to customize their
nutrition. Based on Millennials concern over both cost (Business Insider, 2015) and chemical
exposure in food (GPI, 2014) we suspect that perceptions regarding these issues may hinder their
interest in this technology. In addition, we expect that socio-demographic factors may influence
interest in 3D food printers (Fell et al., 2009).
Assumptions about the Literature Review
The literature review included dozens of articles from varying sources. We assumed that the
sources provided reliable and valid information regarding 3D food printing. For the most part, our
literature review articles did not come from peer reviewed journals. They mostly came from
websites, blogs, and media journals due to the young age of this technology. Indeed, it was our
assumption that the information was valid, however we were careful to ensure that there was no
conflicting or contradictory information therein.
Since most of the articles were not peer reviewed, and most articles were written by a single
author, there is a possibility that there would be some unknown bias. We did not obtain
information from sources that were making sales, so we can assume that the bias would not be in
the direction to promote sales in any way. The information obtained from these articles was
corroborated with other sources so we can assume that the literature is valid and reliable.
Major risks Some of the major risks that have been identified for the 3D food printing study have been
calculated using a Risk Management Calculator, as shown in the Appendix, and are outlined as
follows (abbreviated chart):
Financial related risks are a major risk for our project since this is the first research project for Edible
Insights to undertake. The costs will need to be monitored closely to ensure that budgets are
maintained. These risks if not managed properly could result in reduced project quality for the
client, unmet timelines and possibility of going over budget, which could potentially compromise
the continuation of Edible Insights. In order to maintain budget constraints, frequent cross
checking of financial figures and meetings with the accountant will need to be prioritized.
Planning issues will also need constant monitoring and priority during the onset and throughout
this project to ensure minimal risk. Due to the nature of research, dealing with human participants
and assuring ethical procedures and guidelines are met will be of the utmost importance. If these
elements of the research design are compromised the project could be in jeopardy and abandoned.
The Edible Insights team will ensure that all Research Ethics Board (REB) guidelines are followed to
ensure that there are no comprises to ethical credibility along the way. The use of information and
consent forms will be distributed and collected throughout the data collection phase, as well as
participant information protected as per REB guidelines.
19
I Page
Communications will also be a considerable risk for the Edible Insights team, as this will be the first project that we have all completed together. Timelines
are tight due to external constraints amongst team members and lack of engagement could possibly occur amongst the group. The team lead will
mitigate this factor by effective use of communication skills and team building techniques.
Risk Type Result Risk Priority
Strategies to Avoid this Risk (Planning)
Solutions to mitigate impact, or exploit opportunity (Planning and Monitoring)
Revisited
Inaccurate cost estimates and forecast
Budget Budget blowout means cost savings must be identified
First Maintain accurate and realistic numbers.
Mitigate by researching costs and monitor timelines are kept on schedule.
No
Lack of decision making by the group
Communications
Compromise overall project quality
Second Team Lead will ensure all members are contributing equally through meeting task complete review.
Mitigate by engaging team members to ensure participation.
No
Survey is not launched properly/ Unforeseen technical difficulties
Technical Issues
Timelines compromised and insufficient data collected
Second Test fully before deployment commences.
Mitigate by testing fully and early. No
Do not get enough respondents recruited for surveys
Planning Timeslines delayed Second Adjust times or request relaxing of sample criteria.
Mitigate by over extending search within the GTA from multiple options.
Yes, change in sample size was reduced and approved.
Not enough participants for focus group
Planning Timeslines delayed Second Over invite for each focus group. Mitigate by over inviting and release participants if needed.
No
Research question does not get ethical approval
Project Planning
Project will halt and not able to continue with research
Third Research REB protocols to ensure we are within recommended guidelines.
Mitigate by careful team review of REB guidelines.
No
Lack of funds Budget
Reduce output quality, extended timeframes, outcomes will be delayed
Third Accountant check financials monthly.
Mitigate by monitoring monthly finances accurately.
No
Project does not get ethical approval
Planning Project will halt and not able to continue with research
Third Ensure REB rules and guidelines are followed and outlined in all communications.
Mitigate by structuring research question in a very ethical manner.
No
3D Food Printing
20 | P a g e
Literature Review 3D Food Printing
Background
The concept of printing 3D food products began at Cornell University’s Computation Synthesis
Lab (CSL) in 2007 as part of the Fab@home project. The Fab@home project was designed to
offer open source blue prints for 3D printing to the general public in order to initiate a 3D
printing global community aimed at hobbyists for sharing ideas and projects. It was here that
interest levels sparked to apply this 3D printing technology with food creation. One of the
first discussed food applications with 3D food printing was created by a Kentucky high school
girl that used a heated syringe to extrude a layer printed chocolate cookie (Higgins, 2011).
3D Food printing, also known as additive manufacturing, aims to produce food products which
are created layer by layer using a powder, liquid or a cartridge without the specific
requirement of tooling, molding, or human intervention. A 3-D Computer-Assisted
Design (CAD) software is used to create a virtual design to be printed in the form of edible
food (Jie Sun, 2015).
At present, 3D printed food is constructed using 3 differing techniques. The layering or ‘fused
deposition modeling’ technique utilizes software elicited instructions to deposit layer upon
layer of lines from food filled cartridges such as vegetable puree, sugar or chocolate to build
a 3 dimensional object. An extrusion technique squeezes or pushes the food material such as
dough or pasta through a die to create 3D printed objects into a particular
shape. And thirdly, bio-printing uses 3D supported cell cultures to engineer edible meat
products (Council & Petch, 2015).
Current 3D Food Printers
As 3D food printing technology continues to improve, it is anticipated to become widely
available for mainstream use in a decade (IFT, 2014). There are dozens of different concepts,
prototypes, and currently available models of 3D food printers. The broad range of 3D food
printer models that presently exist differ in their benefits, uses, and features. In this section
we highlight some of the most discussed 3D food printing models in development as well as
those available on the market.
3D Food Printing
21 | P a g e
ChefJet
Developed by 3D Systems, the ChefJet crosses
candy with art. It allows the user to turn sugar
based substrates into unique shapes and
textures, and offers the ability to create artistry
images directly onto the candy; all of which are
edible. The current model comes in two types;
a standard version (about $5000), and an
advanced version called the ChefJet Pro (about
$10,000)—the ChefJet Pro allows users to print
candy in colour (Sun, 2014). In addition, the Pro
version offers the ability to use other types of
sweet foods for enhanced flavoring, such as
chocolate, vanilla, mint, cherry, sour apple, and
watermelon (Wong, 2014). Originally created
by a small company called the Sugar Lab, it was intended to cater to artistry and confectionary
chefs. The price tag on this printer was slated to be around $5,000 in 2014 (Sun, 2014; Brooke,
2014). Since 2014, 3D Systems has developed dozens of different models, of varying price ranges.
In 2015, ChefJet opened digital kitchen in Los Angeles which allows food artists and members of
the hospitality, culinary, and event communities to gather and explore the possibilities and
potential of 3D printed food (3D Systems, 2015).
Foodini
Developed by Natural Machines, the Foodini focuses on attracting the health conscious consumer
by using fresh ingredients, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains, to create pastes that can be used
to create a variety of food products such as ravioli (Natural Machines, 2016). The Foodini is
marketed to those primarily interested in organic and non-processed food products (Sun, 2014;
Wong, 2014). The development of the Foodini was originally supported via crowdfunding, although
their kick-starter goal was never met. The retail price was originally set at around $1000. After
some technological and funding hurdles, the Foodini is currently in re-development (Sun, 2014;
Soutar, 2016).
F3d printer
Developed by students at Imperial College London, the f3d has a unique feature that incorporates
an oven powered by a 1400W halogen bulb. This allows the food product to be cooked immediately
after it has been extruded from the cartridge. The students had experimented with this device in
order to print and then cook a pizza (Sun, 2014; Alec, 2014). The cost of this 3D food printer was
around $1900, however this model is not currently for sale and was only intended for further
research into the area of 3D food printing. Although this model is no longer being developed, the
idea of having an oven in a 3D food printer is gaining attention from developers (Sun, 2014; Alec,
2014).
Figure 1: Chefjet (Source: 3D Systems)
3D Food Printing
22 | P a g e
NASA Food Printer
Developed by SMRC with the intent to feed astronauts in space, the NASA food printer has gained
considerable attention for its ability to create and then cook a variety of food products such as
pizza. Developers plans to use layers of protein, which can be derived from animals, milk or plants;
instead of traditional pizza toppings (Chow, 2013).
Since space travel takes a great deal of time, the development of this model is focused around the
ability to preserve food contents for up to 30 years. As this model is currently in development and
intended to be used on space-shuttles and space-stations, it is not available for purchase by the
public (Sun, 2014; Soutar, 2016; Wong, 2014; Chow, 2013).
Choc Creator
Developed by Choc Edge, the Choc Creator focuses exclusively on creating intricate 3-dimensional
chocolate shapes. It was the world’s first commercially available 3D chocolate printer (Choc Edge,
2016). This model was designed to specialize in chocolate artistry, and so it targets a niche market
of confectionary and artistry chefs (Sun, 2014; Wong, 2014). Currently, there are a number of
models of the Choc Creator (although there is limited availability for most countries), each with
different abilities and price ranges (Choc Edge, 2016).
The Cake and Chocolate Extruder
Developed by a company known as ZMorph, the cake and chocolate extruder focuses on creating
artistically designed cakes and chocolates (Jaworski, 2015).
The Discov3ry Extruder
Developed by Structur3D, the Discov3ry Extruder is able to print chocolate, frosting, and other
types of pastes. Currently, the company is focusing on using the printer to print non-edible pastes,
such as silicone and latex, which can be used for functional purposes (Structur3d Printing, 2016).
Nufood 3D Fruit Printer
Developed by Dovetailed, the 3D fruit printer is unique since it uses an innovative cooking method
known as spherification. This allows the user to transform any food item, but particularly fruit
based food items, into small spheres that resemble Jell-O in consistency. Its target market includes
professional chefs as well as the consumer population. It caters to those interested in fresh and
healthy food delivered in an innovative new way (Kalnikaite, 2016).
The 3D Everything Printer
Developed by TNO, the 3D Everything Printer has received considerable attention due to its
innovative and ambitious design and features (TNO, 2015). This model is special because it provides
a tool for people to finally apply and implement precision diets. The printer is attempting to create
food items with precise macro and micro nutrient contents, which will allow for individualized and
customized meals (Sun, 2014). The company is also developing the technology to use sustainable
food sources such as algae and insects to turn them into more edible forms of food. One unique
feature of this printer is that it enables the use of living materials, such as plants and fungi, to be
used to create dynamic food items (TNO, 2015). For example, a biscuit can be printed with fungal
3D Food Printing
23 | P a g e
spores and over time these fungal spores may grow into full mushrooms and flavor the biscuit (Sun,
2014).
Goop Printer
Developed by Biozoon, the Goop Printer is able to alter the consistency of food and subsequently
making it easier to swallow. This model uses 48 nozzles and a gelling agent to produce food items
from almost any food substrate. For example, the printer can use chicken meat and transform it
into food that doesn’t require chewing, but still has the nutritional content and flavor of chicken
(Witter, 2014; Sun, 2014; Krassenstein, 2014).
Food Printer
Developed by Fab@Home, this 3D food printer was one of the first entire 3D food printers.
Originally designed as an experiment at Cornell University in 2010, this model was intended to
produce a variety of food products from various food substrates, including baked goods, seafood,
meat, sweets and even pizza (Sun, 2014).
Green Onyx
Created by an Israeli engineering couple, the Green Onyx was created with the intention of making
plant materials, such as fruits and vegetables, more edible and visually appealing. Furthermore, the
designers of the Green Onyx wanted to go one step further by creating a 3D food printer that could
use sustainable (but not conventionally consumed) food sources. In particular, they have focused
on a plant called Khai-nam (traditionally grown in Thailand), which contains many vitamins and
minerals and can grow from 1kg to 16kg in just a month (Simon, 2014; Greenonyx, n.d.). The Green
Onyx comes in three versions, of varying sizes and price ranges, based on needs for either home
use, commercial restaurant use, or for agricultural farming purposes. The version of the Green
Onyx—meant for home use—is one of the smallest 3D food printers, and it is meant to easily fit on
a kitchen counter top. It is intended to attract customers due to its ability to provide healthy
vegetable based food products in an economical and efficient fashion (Simon, 2014).
3D FoodJet
Developed by De Grood Innovations, the 3D FoodJet is one of the most versatile of the current 3D
food printers available. It is able to create a large variety of food types, and specializes in turning
food into varying consistencies and textures (Kira, 2015d). It can use a wide number of food
substrate types, such as eggs, olive oil, cheese, meat pastes and sugar icing. There are currently
several models available which are designed for commercial purposes (Sweeney, 2006).
Impact of 3D Food Printers
With the advent of 3D printing technology, food as a 3D printing product is just being realized as a
worldwide problem solver. 3D food printing is important for many reasons: It will improve our
ability to feed certain groups, it will improve our ability to ensure we are receiving adequate and
customized nutritional intake and it may have a vast impact on the food industry in terms of the
types of foods we can create, and the time with which it takes to prepare them (Charlebois, 2015;
3D Food Printing
24 | P a g e
Mims, 2013; Wiggers, 2015). Below, we highlight some of the most commonly discussed ways in
which 3D food printing may impact people, industry, and society.
Advanced culinary artistry
3D food printing will offer culinary artists new ways to create food. This technology has the
potential to revolutionize food artistry production by allowing food to be created into any shape
and texture imaginable; which no pastry or confectionary chef can currently do. With the freedom
to print food in any shape, texture, or flavor, it will add a whole new level of enjoyment for artistry
chefs, as well as the average person, when it comes to designing food. Moreover, culinary artists
will have the ability to share their designs over the internet, thus further creating a new market of
online recipe and design sharing (Charlebois, 2015; Linden, 2015; Wiggers, 2015).
Sustainable food sources
3D food printing may have the potential to help solve ever-growing global food security issues. 3D
food printing will encourage food sustainability by using sustainable protein sources, such as algae
and insects, turning them into easily edible and digestible forms. Some 3D printers are using plant
materials, such as Khai-nam, that are currently indigestible in their natural form, and are turning
them into more ingestible forms. In addition, 3D food printers will be able to use these sustainable
protein sources and turn them into food items that mimic traditional and commonly consumed
forms of foods. This will greatly affect our ability to feed mass populations, as well as to ensure that
during times of famine, people are still able to get the nutrition they need (Charlebois, 2015; Simon,
2014; Wiggers, 2015).
Saving resources
3D food printers could revolutionize our global food systems. 3D food printers are important for
the environment, and will minimize food waste, by taking advantage of substances known as
hydrocolloids (Wiggers, 2015). 3D food printers and their ability to reduce waste may affect all
sections of the food continuum— from processors to distributors to consumers—and will allow us
to manage our resources better (Charlebois, 2015). 3D food printers intended for home use will be
able to keep food preserved for up to 30 years, thereby ensuring that no food spoils and goes
wasted. It may also be an environmentally friendly alternative to more common wasteful food
cooking and dining practices (Mims, 2013).
Lab grown beef
3D food printers could help combat the environmental problems currently faced by the process of
farmed beef. Currently, conventionally farmed beef—as well as meat from other animal sources—
is thought to be destructive to our environment and unsustainable in the long run (Mims, 2013). A
single cow needs 23 gallons of water a day, requires a considerable amount of energy and land,
and produces large amounts of methane which damages the ozone (Kira, 2015b). 3D food printers
will be able to convert lab grown beef (or other types of meat) into more traditional looking and
tasting dishes (Kira, 2015b). With this method, energy consumption can be cut down by 45%,
greenhouse gas emissions by 96%, and land use by 99% (Kira, 2015b). 3D food printing developers
are working closely with scientists on this challenge and it is expected that lab grown meat will be
3D Food Printing
25 | P a g e
available in the next 5 years. A company known as Mosa Meats is expecting to have a marketable
3D food printer by the year 2020 (Kira, 2015b).
Smooth food
3D food printing is important for aging populations, and particularly for those suffering from eating
conditions such as dysphagia. Dysphagia is common in senior populations, because it is often a
resulting condition of stroke, dementia, or Parkinson’s. A project titled Performance, which began
in Brussels several years ago, has successfully implemented 3D food printers to increase the ingest
ability and digestibility of food in order to combat these types of eating conditions (Kira, 2015c). In
particular, 3D FoodJet food printers are currently being used to help those suffering from dysphagia
by creating specially prepared meals that are easy to swallow (Foodjet, 2016). With 3D FoodJet,
people with dysphagia can obtain the nutrition they require while eating a meal that also mimics
more traditional forms of food (Foodjet, 2016). For example, 3D food printers can use mashed
vegetables or fruits such as carrots, peas, and broccoli and turn them into more edible forms of
food, such as gnocchi (Charlebois, 2015; Kira, 2015c; Wiggers, 2015). 3D food printers are proving
to be effective in this area, because the meals they prepare are enjoyed more than purees or
smoothies, which are what most people with dysphagia currently consume. For example, in a study
conducted by the Performance project, 54% of respondents rated the 3D printed “easy to swallow”
meal as good (Kira, 2015c).
Food conversion
Making food more edible for those suffering from eating conditions is not the only benefit of
converting food into different textures or consistencies. A 3D food printer known as the Green
Onxy was developed to make vegetables more edible and fun to eat for the younger generation
(Greenonyx, n.d.). The model will allow parents to promote healthy eating to their children, and
will make eating vegetables more fun and creative. In the future, it is hypothesized that people will
be able to get all the same nutrition from fruits and vegetables, but in a form that is more appealing
to our youth (Simon, 2014).
Precision dieting
3D food printers can allow users to create precision diets which provides the ability to individually
customize the amount of macro and micronutrients in foods. This is a tremendous step forward in
the nutrition industry as it gives individuals and nutritionists the power to actually implement
customized diets. A Health & Food survey found that 79% of respondents are interested in eating
food with customized macro and micronutrient contents, while 69% of those respondents would
be interested in trying a 3D Food Printer that could make any meal with such properties (Kira,
2015c). When it comes to eating, it is not one size fits all, as people from different background and
different genomes have varying nutritional intake requirements. For this reason, Canada’s Food
Guide has become a controversial hot topic (Hatic, 2016; Kira, 2015c; Wiggers, 2015; Smolin et al.,
2012). Although Canada’s Food Guide is respected by most nutrition professionals, it falls short in
terms of its ability to meet individual differences between people. Canada’s food guide was
developed based on population averages and the average person requires a certain number of
vitamins and minerals, and not less or more. However, genetic variation in the population, as well
3D Food Printing
26 | P a g e
as environmentally based individual differences, means that each person in the population actually
requires a specific amount of macro and micronutrients in order to be at optimal health (Smolin et
al., 2012). This is one of the reasons why nutritionists have begun developing precision diets.
However, they are actually very difficult to implement because there is currently no accurate way
to determine how many vitamins and minerals a person is eating, let alone how much they are
actually absorbing. With 3D food printers, the amount of vitamins and minerals can be calculated,
monitored, and tracked, by the device itself. In the future, we will be able to determine, using
advanced genetic analysis and nutritional testing, exactly how many macro and micronutrients
individuals need, and use 3D food printers to implement specific individualized diets. As a result,
3D food printers could have a tremendous influence on the health of our entire population
(Charlebois, 2015; Hatic, 2016; Smolin et al., 2012).
Social experience
3D food printing may take advantage of the increasing connectivity of people and devices over the
internet and social media. It is believed that people will be able to create their own food designs
or recipes, and then share them over social media. The design or recipe will be sent as a set of
instructions to other printers (connected through the internet). This could add a new level of
interaction between people who enjoy sharing food ideas, which may lead to a whole new online
social group that focuses on this technology in particular, such as an app store intended entirely
for personalized food recipes and designs (Linden, 2015; Mims, 2013).
Space-travel
3D food printing is currently being developed by NASA in order to prepare meals while in space.
One of the problems of space-travel, besides the enormous technological leaps that must be made,
is rather simple; astronauts need to be fed nutritious meals in order to stay healthy. Long distance
space travel can take decades, and so scientists have turned to 3D food printing technology to help
produce meals while in flight. One of the benefits of 3D food printing technology for space travel
is that the food cartridges are expected to have a shelf life of up to 30 years (Mims, 2013). NASA is
already working on a 3D food printer that makes pizza. Not only will these cartridges help save food
on Earth, they may help us reach our next destination in the course of humanity (Mims, 2013;
Molitch-Hou, 2014).
Why Study 3D Food Printing? With a vast array of potential benefits, 3D food printing is anticipated to have widespread effects
across numerous industries, resulting in impacts to the global economy and a shift in the way
people interact with food. 3D food printers are expected to become a regularly used appliance in
many industries, including large food companies, food service industries, and retail stores such as
supermarkets and small specialized food shops (Linden, 2015). And, despite 3D food printing still
being in its initial stages of research, development and implementation, many companies and
national organizations have already begun to embrace this technology (Linden, 2015). Brands such
as Hershey’s, Barilla and Mondalez are just a few of the food brands exploring the possibilities of
3D food printers (Wiggers, 2015). Furthermore, there is great potential for home-based 3D food
printers. It is anticipated that in the near future every home may have a 3D food printer, allowing
3D Food Printing
27 | P a g e
individuals to create fully customized and convenient meals, from food substrates bought at their
local grocery store (Mims, 2013). With such advancements, researchers project that the 3D
printing industry alone will be worth $17 billion by the year 2020, suggesting incredible growth in
the next 10 years (Sher, 2015). While 3D food printing is only a small part of the 3D printing
industry, it is expected continue to continue to grow alongside this lucrative industry (Linden, 2015;
Sher, 2015; Kira, 2015a) . Valued at $487 million, the 3D bio-printing market is expected to reach
$1.82 billion by the year 2022, which includes the 3D food printing industry (Kira, 2015a).
In order for the potential benefits of this technology to be realized and to maximize profitability,
3D food printing must to be accepted by consumers, as well as the wider society. There are many
hurdles that researchers and developers will need to overcome in order to produce a marketable
product to the general population (Charlebois, 2015; Kira, 2015c).
Adoption
Failure to understand consumers, as well as consumer neophobia (the aversion to anything new,
novel, or unfamiliar) can contribute to product failure rates (Gourville, 2006). In addition, consumer
perceptions about the safety, cost, and risk/benefits associated with novel technologies can
negatively influence consumer choice and purchasing decisions (Cardello et al., 2007).
In order to help marketers, developers, and researchers create a 3D food printer for home-based
use, there needs to be considerable consumer insight and research into the development of these
appliances. It is thought that with time and technological advancements, 3D food printers will be
able to do what we can only currently imagine (Charlebois, 2015). However, as 3D food printing is
in its early stages of development, there is still a lot that is unknown about this technology. Many
potential barriers or rather questions exist, such as how to print a variety of foods? What can and
can’t be printed? Will the public embrace this technology? (Council & Petch, 2015). These
questions can all be answered with the help of research.
At present, there are numerous technological obstacles that must be solved in order to create a
marketable 3D food printer for mainstream adoption (Charlebois, 2015). While the ability to print
any conceivable food item would certainly make investors huge sums of money, a product of this
capability is unlikely to be available at any point in the near future (Council & Petch, 2015).
Currently, the storage capacity of 3D food printers is a limiting factor, as the number of ingredients
required to print wide varieties of food products would become unwieldy (Council & Petch, 2015).
In addition, the chemical reaction that occurs when several ingredients are combined can vary
significantly depending on the temperature, proportions and combination of methods (Council &
Petch, 2015). As a result, existing 3D food printers and prototypes are more specialized in the
types of 3D food products that they create. Cost is also an important factor in bringing 3D food
printers into the home as currently most systems depend on proprietary materials and
components available at high costs (Council & Petch, 2015). This prevents cross-platform
experimentation and ensures costs remain high for this technology (Council & Petch, 2015). These
hurdles can potentially be overcome as technology advances.
In addition, there are many potential societal barriers that may inhibit the adoption of 3D food
printing technology into the public. Perhaps the greatest barrier of this technology is that it is still
3D Food Printing
28 | P a g e
widely unknown and strange to many people (Council & Petch, 2015). As well, it is understood that
3D food may be considered unpalatable to some, and fears may exist pertaining to food safety and
over-processing (Council & Petch, 2015). This may be especially prevalent as demands for organic
food and concern over GMO foods have risen in recent years, and thus it can be seen that the
introduction to a new form of processed food would be met with skepticism (Council & Petch,
2015). Consequently, it remains to be seen as to how 3D food printing will fit into this landscape
(Council & Petch, 2015).
Furthermore, many kitchen inventions and appliances have come and gone for a variety of reasons.
While product innovation is important in terms of business strategy and growth, success rates for
newly launched products are relatively low, with failure rates between 40 - 90% (Barrenar et al.,
2015). This is often caused by a failure to understand consumers, a lack of market orientation from
businesses, and by consumer neophobia (Barrenar et al., 2015). 3D food printing is not the first
example of technological food applications that have been met with hesitation (Council & Petch,
2015). The microwave, for instance, was invented in 1945 and commercially released in 1947 to
minimal interest. The original microwave was over 6ft tall, weighed 750 pounds and had a price
tag of $5000. It was not until 1967, that the first affordable microwave was made available at $495
(Council & Petch, 2015). Ten years later, in 1976, 60% of North American households owned a
microwave and today 95% of North American homes have a microwave (Council & Petch, 2015).
Cultural, social and technological factors limited the acceptance of microwaves for years, requiring
a great deal of investment in consumer education in order to facilitate adoption into mainstream
culture (Council & Petch, 2015). Many felt unwilling to change traditional engrained food
preparation methods which acted as a barrier to its adoption (Council & Petch, 2015). This
unwillingness to change food preparation methods could pose a similar threat to adoption of 3D
food printing technology into the home (Council & Petch, 2015). In order to overcome this barrier,
it will be necessary to provide in-depth education and demonstrate significant benefits of this
technology in order to avoid the fate of previous kitchen inventions (Council & Petch, 2015).
In many cases it is consumer perception, rather than reality, which is most important when
adopting new technologies (FIRM, 2013). The public may perceive and evaluate technologies in
various and often unanticipated ways which is usually shaped (consciously and unconsciously) by
prior beliefs and expectations (FIRM, 2013). Some of these influencers on consumer perceptions
of technology include socio-demographic factors such as age, gender and level of education (Fell
et al., 2009). For example, studies have shown that men are more likely to accept a new technology
than women based on the benefits and advantages perceived (Accenture, 2015). Meanwhile,
women display higher concern levels for new technologies (Cardello A. , 2003). Also, attitudes
towards nature, environment and ethical and moral concerns can also shape perceptions (Bredahl,
2001). Perceived knowledge, understanding and available information (FIRM, 2013), as well as
perception of tangible benefits (Siegrist, 2008; Fell et al., 2009) or perceived risks associated with
the technology and foods (Cardello A. , 2003) may also effect beliefs. Therefore, as investments
are made into the development of novel technologies, it is important to take public concerns and
interests into consideration during the early stages of development (Siegrist, 2008). As 3D food
printing is an emerging technology, there is limited research on consumer perceptions of this
technology and the factors involved with possible acceptance or rejection on behalf of the
3D Food Printing
29 | P a g e
consumer, all of which remains largely hypothetical. Studies that were examined suggested that
more research should be conducted on “this technology to obtain a better understanding of
decision processes and consumer behavior” (Yepes, 2015) to ensure opportunities and threats are
fully examined. Therefore, with this study, we intend to bridge the gap between consumer insight
and product development.
Why Target Millennials?
Millennials, defined as those born between the years 1980-1998, have grown up in a time of rapid
change which has provided them with a different set of experiences from previous generations.
This section highlights some of the characteristics that Millennials possess which may make them
a well suited target market for 3D food printing technology and thereby more likely to adopt this
product. By understanding the different characteristics and preferences of this generation, 3D
food printing developers and marketers can create relevant 3D food printers and features that
better meet their needs.
3D Food Printing
30 | P a g e
Consumer Market of the Future
As the largest generation in the Canadian workforce (37%), Millennials are entering their prime
spending years and are poised to reshape the economy with their unique set of habits and
preferences (Statistics Canada , 2014). With 8.9 million Millennials in Canada, and 1.7 million in the
Greater Toronto Area alone, Millennials possess incredible buying power (Statistics Canada, 2011).
Early Adopters of New Technology
Coming of age during a time of technological advancements, means that Millennials are more likely
to adopt new technologies. Research indicates that Millennials are 2.5 times more likely to be an
early adopter of technology, with 56% of Millennials reporting that they are usually the first to try
a new technology (Barkley, 2011). In comparison, 35% of non-Millennials reported that they usually
wait a year before trying a new technology and 22% wait until a technology becomes established
in mainstream culture before trying it (Barkley, 2011).
Convenience
Having become accustomed to a fast-paced society, Millennials have grown up with convenience
at their fingertips. As a result, they place a high value on convenience and instant gratification, in
particular when it comes to food, making them more likely to consume ready-made meals (Alix
Partners, 2012). In general, they are more willing to make food that is fast and easy to prepare
(BCG, 2012). Millennials are also twice as likely as non-Millennials to shop for groceries at a
convenience store (BCG, 2012). Millennials, by their own admission, have limited tolerance for
delays and expect services instantly when they seek them (Sweeney, 2006).
Dining Out
Restaurant meals rank highly in terms of what Millennials spend their money on, even above
electronics, cosmetics and apparel (BCG, 2012). Millennials eat out more often than non-
millennials (3.4 times per week versus 2.8 times per week), regardless of income and household
size (BCG, 2012). Millennials also spend more time on average dining out than any other generation
and are also more willingly to take food to go (BCG, 2012).
Novel Food Products
Millennials have higher food innovation consumption levels, and rank higher when it comes to
adopting novel products (Barrenar et al., 2015). In addition, they have a greater taste for exotic
and unique foods, as well as creative menu ideas. Millennials have moved away from traditional
grocery store chains in favor of specialty and convenience food stores (BCG, 2012).
Choice
Millennials have grown up with more choices and products options than any other generation
(Sweeney, 2006).As a result, they have come to expect more consumer choices and service
selectivity (Sweeney, 2006).
3D Food Printing
31 | P a g e
Customization
Millennials prefer products to have personalized and customizable features to meet their unique
needs and tastes (Sweeney, 2006).
Healthy Food
Millennials are more likely to pay a premium for healthy attributes of food (Nielsen, 2015). They
want healthy choices and nutritional information available for food products (BCG, 2012).
Millennials are also concerned about chemical exposure in food products and close to two-thirds
have changed their purchases to reduce chemical exposure (GPI, 2014).
Environmentally Friendly
Millennials show great concern for the environment, more so than any other generation (GPI,
2014). Millennials are particularly concerned about climate change, saving resources and
minimizing landfill waste (GPI, 2014). They are more likely than other age groups to purchase
products that are environmentally friendly and sustainable and believe they can make a difference
through lifestyle changes (GPI, 2014).
Low Cost
With the globalization of industry in the last few decades, Millennials have become accustomed to
cheap products. As a result, Millennials have come to expect low prices and are also likely to
compare prices of products to find the best value (Business Insider, 2015).
Based on this information, we have selected Millennials as a likely target market for 3D food
printers and the sample population for our study. We believe that Millennials unique set of
interests and preferences make them ideal candidates for adoption of 3D food printing technology
as it hopes to deliver on many of the specific values that Millennials desire. Therefore, through
this study, we aim to assess the current level of knowledge Millennials have regarding 3D food
printers and identify the key attributes of the technology that Millennials desire. In addition, we
will also identify potential areas of concern and determine buying intent.
3D Food Printing
32 | P a g e
Table 1. Budget
Project Expenses Excluding
Taxes ($)
Including Taxes
($)
Date Required
Wages 14000 15,820 30/10/15
Bonus 435 500 01/10/15
Website 870 1000 10/10/15
Printing 1305 1500 20/11/15
Stationary 1044 1200 05/12/15
Office Rent 7203.6 8280 03/11/15
Phone Bill 435 500 30/12/15
Internet 609 700 01/01/16
Transportation Cost 3045 3500 12/12/15
Research Resources 4350 5000 15/11/15
Entertainment 1740 2000 12/02/16
Marketing 1740 2000 15/11/15
Equipment Purchases 4350 5000 05/10/15
Grand Total 41126.6 47,000
Budget
3D Food Printing
33 | P a g e
Table 2. Project Resources
Project Resources
Status Amount ($)
Date Required
Grants Not secured 0 ….
Loans Secured 2000 30/09/15
Awards Not secured 0 ….
In-kind donations
Not secured 0 …
Sponsor Not secured 0 …
Investment Secured 47000 10/10/15
Grand total 49000
Table 3. Budget Reconciliation
Budget Reconciliation Date Amount
($)
Project expenses 15/08/15 $47,000
Project resources 30/08/15 40,000
Total secured 01/11/15 30,000
Total still needed 15/02/16 $17,000
Table 4. Final Budget Reconciliation
Final Budget
Reconciliation
Amount
($)
Project resources $47,000
Project expenses $47,000
Total $0
Date 30/04/16
Approved by: Jason Szymanski (Project Lead)
34
I Page
Timeline Given the tight timeframe and fixed deadline of the 3D food printing major research project, the following project schedule will be strictly adhered to:
Table 5. Timeline of the project
PROJECT PHASE OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY
Phase 1: Initiating Formulate Research Topic
Phase 2: Prepare Research Design
Phase 3: Planning & Revising Research Design
Phase 4: Executing - Data Collection Phase
Phase 5: Monitoring - Coding & Analysis
Phase 6: Closing Project Out
3D Food Printing
35 | P a g e
Survey Report Executive Summary
3D food printing has shown incredible potential to change the way we interact with food. This
study attempted to shed light on some of the quantifiable aspects of consumer opinion and
attitudes towards this revolutionary new technology. The results of the survey provide
actionable insights, which developers, marketers, and researchers should consider when
designing their development and/or marketing strategies. The results are not entirely
surprising, and do not necessarily contradict the information provided in the literature review.
Our study found that 3D food printing technology is not a relatively well known concept. For
example, 88% of survey respondents indicated they were aware of 3D printing, but only 32%
of them knew that food was a type of 3D printed product. This indicates that although 3D
printing in general has managed to infiltrate into the mind of average Millennials in the GTA,
3D food printing is still a new concept.
Based on the results of this study, it appears that Millennials in the GTA are particularly
interested or concerned about a number of aspects regarding this technology. The ability to
add vitamins and minerals as desired and the ability to track calories accurately were among
the most important of features Millennials desired in 3D food printers. We can suggest that
3D food printers should continue to develop upon this idea to provide capabilities such as
precision diet feature (Hatic, 2016).
The results from this study indicate that there are two important aspects of 3D food printers
that developers and marketers should consider in their strategies and campaigns. The ability
for 3D food printers to minimize food waste and to minimize food preparation time was of
particular importance to Millennials in the GTA. It is believed that the younger generations
are more environmentally friendly (Timm, 2014). Millennials are also more pressed for time
and value convenience. These two benefits of 3D food printers are likely going to be very
important features to take advantage of, and will likely increase the success of 3D food printers
in terms of their adoption into society.
The results also indicate that there may be some concerns regarding this technology that
may need to be addressed in order to reduce resistance against widespread adoption. Food
safety, as well as food taste were important to Millennials in the GTA. Evidence of this fact
came overwhelmingly from the survey, as well as the focus groups.
3D Food Printing
36 | P a g e
It appears that Millennials in the GTA are concerned about many aspects of this technology from a
health perspective. Some areas of inquiry include how the food is to be preserved in the cartridges,
how the device will remain sanitized and cleaned, how healthy the food will actually be and if it is
safe for consumption. Many of these concerns are shared and common to other types of foods
containing preservatives (Brookover, 2016).
After all things considered, developers and marketers want to know if people will actually buy this
technology. According to our study, 49% of respondents say they would be interested in purchasing
a 3D food printer, while 51% said they would not be interested in purchasing a 3D food printer. It
appears that there is resistance to adopting this technology.
Upon further analysis, it appears that males and females differ in their attitude towards purchasing
a 3D food printer. Around 63% of males say they would be interested in purchasing a 3D food
printer, while only 40% of females said they would be interested in purchasing a 3D food printer.
This result is consistent with previous studies that have shown that men are more likely to accept
a new technology than women (Accenture, 2015).
So it seems that the interest of Millennials in the GTA towards this technology is divided. The next
aspect to consider is how much should one of these devices actually cost. Our survey results
indicate that 56% of respondents would be willing to spend between $101 and $500. A smaller
proportion (23%) would be willing to spend between $501 and $1000.
The survey research design was created in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber’s
Research Ethics Board. The program coordinator reviewed and approved the research study.
Participants were provided with an online information letter and consent form prior to
commencing the survey. Participants were also offered the chance to enter their email address
upon completing the survey to be entered into a draw for a $50 gift card.
The survey was created in-house by the research team using the Q-fi online software. Before it was
uploaded to the Q-fi software, it was pre-tested using classmates and friends. The survey was
edited several times, in order to allow for a better analyses of the data, as well as to reduce bias.
The survey was administered using two methods. The live link was sent across various social media
groups, including Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. In addition to online dissemination, the survey
was administered in-person using iPads, at various locations, but predominately at the Humber
College Lakeshore campus. We did not use a random sample, and so our analysis was limited to
non-parametric testing.
Although we intended to obtain 500 completed surveys, our final sample size was 330. The survey
data was analyzed using, SPSS version 23. For the majority of questions, frequency graphs and cross
tabs were explored. Tests of significance were completed using Chi-Square Independence
procedures, and effect size was computed using Cramer's V.
3D Food Printing
37 | P a g e
Background Information
The survey instrument was developed in-house by the research team. Some of the features and
benefits used in the survey have also been used in other surveys, however these features and
benefits are common in many 3D food printers and so if there is any overlap between surveys this
would not be surprising.
The research team conducted a literature review and used what was found out about the
technology to develop a list of features and benefits. The considerations table was used in order to
get an idea as to what some of the most critical aspects of 3D food printers are for people, and the
options listed in the table are standard for most similar products.
The survey was edited and refined for many weeks by the research team. Each of the research
team members brought new ideas and options to the table. After pretesting, we finalized the
survey and uploaded it to Q-fi. After uploading to Q-fi, some necessary changes were made in order
for the survey and the software to work correctly. Once everything was tested and functioning
correctly, the project manager launched the survey. The timeline for the survey and data collection
can be found in the Timeline section of the report.
Overview of Survey Design
Survey Objective
The purpose of the survey was to obtain quantitative data that will help to answer our research
questions. As already described, the survey contained closed ended questions that would be easy
to analyze with data analysis software such as SPSS version 23.
The survey objective was to understand the most important features of 3D food printers to
Millennials and the most critical aspects of this technology. In addition, some of the questions were
related to possible concerns, so we uncovered the relative degree to which people were concerned
about various topics. We also wanted to see if demographic variables are related to attitudes and
knowledge.
Statement of Research Questions
The goals and objective are numerous, but in summation, we intend to provide researchers,
developers, and investors with insights to improve adoption rates of 3D food printing technology
and thus maximize profits.
In particular, we want to determine:
i. What proportion of GTA Millennials are interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
ii. What features of 3D Food Printers are most important to GTA Millennials?
iii. What uses of 3D Food Printers are most important to GTA Millennials?
iv. What benefits of 3D Food printers are most important to GTA Millennials?
v. What demographic traits are related to the preceding questions?
3D Food Printing
38 | P a g e
vi. What factors are related to the preceding questions?
vii. What are the potential concerns GTA Millennials may have towards 3D Food Printers?
viii. What potential barriers may exist that could limit adoption rates of 3D Food Printers?
ix. How much are GTA Millennials willing to pay for a 3D Food Printer?
Standard of Ethics
The survey was approved by Mary Takacs, the program coordinator. The survey was developed in
order to specifically adhere to the rules and protocols of Humber Research Ethics Board.
Summary of Contents
The survey contents included an information letter, consent form and questionnaire. The consent
form was combined with the information letter, because the survey was administered online.
Please see Appendix for documents relating to the survey.
Research Methodology
A mixed methodology approach integrating qualitative and quantitative methods was adopted for
this research study. Quantitative data was obtained from via an online survey and results of this
report will focus on the survey portion of our analysis.
Participants and Recruitment
The goal of this project was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of Millennials between 18-35
years of age, residing in the GTA. The study aimed to obtain a sample size of 500 participants for
the survey. The final sample size used for analysis was 330, of which 132 were male and 198 were
female.
The survey was administered through two modes, online using the Q-fi platform and in person via
intercept surveying. The online survey was administered through intercept using iPads. A non-
probability convenience sample and snowball sample strategy was used to select participants.
The online survey was disseminated across social media to various social and organization groups.
The live link to the survey was shared online to several places including various social media
platforms, personal emails, and university groups and programs. Social media platforms included
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Kijiji, and Craigslist. Intercept survey participants mostly came from
the Humber College Lakeshore campus, as well as other locations throughout the GTA.
The Survey
Detailed Statement of Work
The research area and topic was formulated by all the researchers. After a lot of brainstorming and
a review of the literature, the research question was formulated by all the researchers. A mixed
methodology approach was adopted which incorporated the online survey, intercept survey and
focus groups. To draft a survey, initially each researcher contributed 5 questions and tested them
3D Food Printing
39 | P a g e
with the participants. After the first draft was created, the questionnaire was tested on the sample
population.
Each researcher tested the questions on atleast 2 sample representatives. Once the revised draft
was approved, we decided to change the matrix as all the researchers felt it may bias the results.
The matrix in the survey was changed by all the researchers and a final survey was ready.
The survey was administered using the Q-fi platform. The survey was translated by Ankita onto Q-
fi, and then appropriate skip logics were added by Juhi. The survey link was pre-tested by all the
researchers on laptops, tablets and iPads. The survey link went live on February 5, 2016. Each
researcher was actively involved in the data collection. Social Media messaging was created by
Anjali to keep the message same when reaching out to friends, family and groups on social media
platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
Intercept surveys were conducted mostly on Humber College Lakeshore Campus by all the
researchers at their convenience. The data collection phase was completed on March 18, 2016.
Once the data collection phase was complete, Jason and Juhi took the lead for quantitative analysis.
Coding was done by Juhi and further data analysis was led by Juhi and Jason. The remaining three
researchers – Ankita, Anjali and Tracey followed the instructions. Frequency tests for each question
in the survey were run by Anjali, Ankita and Tracey, whereas the Chi-Square tests were performed
by Juhi and Jason. The research project was disseminated by all the researchers at Humber RAPP
Forum and presented as a report to Mary Takacs, program coordinator.
Ethics
The first and the most prominent ethical consideration for the researchers is to protect the identity
and information of the participants at all times. Researchers in the team made sure that
participants’ privacy and confidentiality was protected during the research project. To ensure this,
the online survey was kept anonymous and a separate survey was linked which stored their name
and email address for the purpose of the draw. The researchers also made sure to get informed
consent from the participants and incorporated the information letter and consent form in the
online survey. An agree button was added to the survey to provide electronic consent in order to
ensure the participants agree to the research and that their participation is voluntary. Researchers
also tried to minimize the cognitive burden of participants by simplifying the matrix in the survey
and keeping the survey length to a maximum of 10 minutes.
The survey was administered online via Q-fi and the target population was Millennials in the GTA.
Online surveys are susceptible to false data collection and participants may falsify their data. In this
case, participant may be able to say that they reside in the GTA. As Q-fi can capture IP address, this
helped researchers to keep track of IP addresses on Q-fi and participants were only allowed to
enter their information one time. Also, the geographic limitation was set to Canada, particularly
Greater Toronto Area.
3D Food Printing
40 | P a g e
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire is the primary tool for collecting necessary information from the respondents of
a survey. The survey for 3D food printing research project consisted of 14 questions in total. We
had all closed ended questions so that easily quantifiable data can be collected. Moreover, the
survey team members decided to have closed-ended questions so that it was easy for respondents
to fill out the survey in a short span of time. Closed ended questions are time-efficient, responses
are easy to code and interpret, and thus ideal for quantitative research.
The first two questions on the questionnaire were screener questions asking the respondents their
year of birth and whether they are a resident of the GTA.
The main questionnaire had 9 closed-ended questions, with two grid types. The last three
questions asked about demographic information.
Survey Question Types
Dichotomous or two point questions: Four questions were two point questions asking the
respondents to select yes/ no, or male/ female.
Multiple choice questions: Seven questions had multiple options. These questions asked
the respondents to select any one option. Only one question had the option to select all
that applies.
Scaled or Ranking questions: There were two grid questions which asked the respondents
to rate proposed features and abilities of 3D food printers, and considerations for 3D food
printers. The scale consisted of 5-point ranging from not important to very important.
Questionnaire details
All respondents were instructed to go through the information letter and give their consent to
participate in the survey. They were told that it will take approximately 5 minutes to complete the
survey and at the end of the survey they can enter their information to enter a draw to win a $50
gift card. Before asking them specific questions concerning 3D food printing, a brief description of
3D food printing was provided on the survey. The description was included so that they would have
some idea how this technology works and we could get more valid responses.
Highlights of the Survey Data
The most important features of 3D food printers were taste of food, food safety, and cost. The
other most important benefits of 3D food printers were the ability to add vitamins and minerals as
desired, minimizing food waste, and minimizing food preparation time. Successful 3D food printer
developers and marketers should consider all 6 of these important aspects in order to boost sales
and adoption rates.
Anomalies and Limits to Data
One of the major limits to data is that we were not able to capture responses of the Millennials
who did not use internet. Also, for the online survey, no trained interviewer was available to clarify
and probe questions, which could lead to less reliable data. Another major limitation to our survey
3D Food Printing
41 | P a g e
is the potential for survey fraud. As an incentive, a $50 gift card draw was associated with the online
survey and people could falsify their data. For example, regarding the screener question – Do you
currently reside in the GTA? People might have said yes even though they did not reside in the
GTA. To minimize this, the researchers kept the track of IP addresses and only considered the
responses that were completed within the GTA.
Comparison of Survey Findings with Literature Review
This research project is an exploratory study and was conducted due to a lack of information in the
literature regarding the knowledge and attitudes of Millennials in the GTA towards 3D Food
Printing. Since this is a new technology, with limited previous consumer research, we were free to
explore a number of variables and relationships. In our analysis of the survey report in a later
section, we discuss some of the particular statistical similarities and differences between our
survey results and the survey results from other studies.
3D Food Printing
42 | P a g e
Individual Question Details
Question 1
1. What year were you born?
Details Summary
All the participants who agreed to take part in the survey were asked to fill in their year of birth.
This was a screener question. Participants who had year of birth between 1980 – 1998, were able
to proceed further. All the other participants exited the survey.
Response Summary
All 330 respondents were born between 1980 – 1998. For analysis, the year of birth was divided
into three categories: 1980 – 1985, 1986 – 1991, and 1992 – 1998. Most of the respondents
(39.7%) were born between 1992 – 1998, as seen in Table 6.
Table 6. Year of birth
Categories Frequency Percentage
1980 – 1985 76 23.0
1986 - 1991 123 37.3
1992 - 1998 131 39.7
3D Food Printing
43 | P a g e
Question 2
2. Do you currently reside in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)? If needed, click here for a map.
Details Summary
All the participants who agreed to take part in the survey were asked to answer whether they
currently reside in the GTA or not. An option to view the GTA map was also provided. Participants
who did not reside in the GTA exited the survey.
Response Summary
All 330 respondents were current residents of GTA.
3D Food Printing
44 | P a g e
Question 3 3. Have you ever heard of 3D Printing?
Details Summary
All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this question.
This was a dichotomous closed ended question with a yes or no option.
Response Summary
Of the 330 respondents, approximately 88.2% of them have heard of 3D printing technology,
as seen in Figure 2. This indicates that most of the Millennials in the GTA are aware of this
technology.
Figure 2. Millennials awareness of 3D printing
88%
12%
Yes
No
3D Food Printing
45 | P a g e
Question 4
4. What are some of the 3D printing products that you have heard of? (Choose all that apply)
Details Summary
All the respondents who answered yes to the previous question were asked this question. A
total of 291 respondents were asked this question. Respondents had the choice to select as
many options they wanted.
Response Summary
Of the 291 respondents, the majority were aware of prosthetics/ organs (72.5%), followed by
artwork/ sculptures (71.1%), and toys (69.4%). Only 32% of the respondents were aware that
food can also be printed by a 3D printer (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Awareness of 3D printed products
11.3%
20.3%
21.0%
22.0%
23.4%
31.6%
32.0%
46.7%
69.4%
71.1%
72.5%
OTHERS
SHOES
CLOTHING
MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
HOUSES
CARS
FOOD
GUNS
TOYS
ARTWORK OR SCULPTURES
PROSTHETIC LIMBS/ORGANS
3D Food Printing
46 | P a g e
Question 5
5. Would you be interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Details Summary
All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this question.
This was a dichotomous closed ended question with a yes or no option.
Response Summary
Of the 330 respondents, approximately 49.1% of them indicated they would be interested in
purchasing a 3D Printer, while 50.9% of respondents indicated they were not interested, as
seen in Figure 4. This indicates that the Millennial GTA population is likely evenly split in terms
of their interest in adopting this new technology.
Figure 4. Millennials interest in purchasing a 3D food printer
49.150.9yes
no
3D Food Printing
47 | P a g e
Question 6
6. What is the maximum you would be willing to spend on a 3D Food Printer?
Details Summary
All the respondents who answered yes to the previous question were asked this question. A
total of 162 respondents were asked this question.
Response Summary
Of the 162 respondents, most of them (55.6%) indicated they would be willing to spend
between $101 and $500 for a 3D Food Printer, as seen in Figure 5. A smaller proportion (22.8%)
indicated that they would be willing to spend as much as $1000 for a 3D food printer.
Figure 5. Millennials willingness to spend on a 3D food printer (in dollars)
12.3
55.6
22.8
9.3
< $100
$101 - $500
$501 - $1000
> $1000
3D Food Printing
48 | P a g e
Question 7
7. Please rate the following proposed features and abilities of 3D Food Printers in terms of
their importance to you:
Details Summary
All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this
question. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a proposed feature or benefit
of a 3D food printer, on a 5-point scale. The 5-point scale ranged from not important to
very important
Response Summary
In general, the three most important features and benefits to Millennials in the GTA
regarding 3D food printers are: (1) minimizing food waste, (2) adding vitamins and minerals
as desired, and (3) minimizing food preparation time. As the overall most important benefit
of 3D food printers, 46.4% of respondents selected very important when asked to rate the
importance of ‘minimizing food waste’. Approximately 35.5% of respondents selected very
important when asked to rate the importance of ‘adding vitamins and minerals’. A slightly
less percentage (33.6%) of respondents selected very important when asked to rate the
importance of ‘minimizing food preparation time’. Sharing food designs on social media is
not an important feature and benefit of 3D food printers. Only 6.1% of respondents
selected very important when asked to rate the importance of ‘sharing food designs on
social media’, while 40.9% of respondents selected ‘not important’ (Table 7).
Table 7. Proposed features and benefits of 3D food printers
Statement Not Important
Slightly Important
Moderately Important
Important Very Important
Minimizing food waste 4.5 4.8 14.8 29.4 46.4
Adding vitamins and minerals as desired
3.9 8.2 18.5 33.9 35.5
Minimizing food preparation time
3.9 7.9 18.2 36.4 33.6
Tracking calories accurately 8.5 15.5 24.2 26.1 25.8
Using sustainable protein sources such as algae and insects
22.7 12.4 21.2 24.8 18.8
Printing the exact form of traditional food
15.2 12.7 26.7 29.7 15.8
Printing food in new shapes and textures
31.8 20.3 20.9 17.6 9.4
Sharing food designs on social media
40.9 16.1 22.7 14.2 6.1
3D Food Printing
49 | P a g e
Question 8
8. Please rate the following considerations for 3D Food Printers in terms of importance to you:
Details Summary All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this
question. Respondents were asked to rate the considerations for 3D food printers, on a 5-
point scale. The 5-point scale ranged from not important to very important
Response Summary In general, the three most important factors to Millennials in the GTA regarding 3D Food
Printers are: (1) taste of food, (2) food safety, and (3) cost. As the overall most important
aspect of 3D food printers, 68.2% of respondents selected very important when asked to
rate the importance of ‘taste of food’. An almost similar percentage (67.9%) of respondents
selected very important when asked to rate the importance of ‘food safety’. More than half
(54.5%) of respondents selected very important when asked to rate the importance of
‘cost’. Only 10.6% of respondents selected very important when asked to rate the
importance of ‘style and design’, while 18.8% of respondents indicated not important
(Table 8).
Table 8. Considerations for 3D food printers
Statement Not Important
Slightly Important
Moderately Important
Important Very Important
Taste of Food 2.7 1.2 5.8 22.1 68.2
Food Safety 2.1 0.9 7.9 21.2 67.9
Cost 2.4 1.8 10.3 30.9 54.5
Maintenance 2.7 1.8 11.8 41.8 41.8
User Friendly 3.0 2.1 10.6 43.9 40.3
Variety of Food 3.0 3.6 19.4 35.8 38.2
Size of Unit 4.2 4.8 21.2 36.7 33.0
Energy Efficiency 4.8 8.2 21.2 33.0 32.7
Style & Design 18.8 19.1 30.9 20.6 10.6
Question 9
3D Food Printing
50 | P a g e
9. In total each day, how long do you typically spend preparing your meals?
Details Summary All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this
question. Respondents were asked to select one option from 6 choices.
Response Summary
Most of the respondents (42.1%) spent half an hour to one hour preparing their meals, as
seen in Figure 6. A very small percentage of respondents either spent less than 15 minutes
(6.1%) or more than 2 hours (2.1%) preparing their meals. Only 7% of the respondents did
not prepare meals.
Figure 6. Time spent in preparing meals
6%
24%
42%
19%
2%7%
<15
15-29
30-59
60-120
>120
Don't prepare meals
3D Food Printing
51 | P a g e
Question 10
10. For how many people do you prepare meals including yourself?
Details Summary:
All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this question.
Respondents were asked to select one option from a drop down menu.
Response Summary:
Most of the respondents (41.7%) prepared meals only for themselves, as seen in Figure 7.
Almost 33% of the respondents prepared meals for 2 people.
Figure 7. Number of people for whom meal is prepared
1%
42%
33%
12%
10%
2%
1
2
3
4
5
6
3D Food Printing
52 | P a g e
Question 11
11. How many meals do you prepare each day?
Details Summary All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this
question. Respondents were asked to select one option from a drop down menu.
Response Summary Most of the respondents (44.6%) prepared two meals a day, as seen in Table 9. Almost
one-fifth (25.1%) of the respondents prepared 3 meals, followed by 23.5% who prepared
one meal a day.
Table 9. Number of meals prepared each day
Numbers of meals Frequency Percent
1 72 23.5
2 137 44.6
3 77 25.1
4 13 4.2
5 3 1.0
6 2 0.7
7 1 0.3
9 1 0.3
>11 1 0.3
3D Food Printing
53 | P a g e
Question 12
12. What is your highest level of education?
Details Summary All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this
question. Respondents were asked to select one option from the given choices.
Response Summary Most of the respondents (46.1%) had University Bachelor’s degree, as seen in Table 10.
Table 10. Highest level of education
Education Frequency Percent
No certificate, diploma or degree 2 0.6
High school diploma 63 19.1
Postsecondary certificate or diploma below bachelor level
55 16.7
University Bachelor’s degree 152 46.1
University Master’s degree 38 11.5
Professional degree (MD, DDS, LLB, etc.) 17 5.2
Earned Doctorate 3 0.9
3D Food Printing
54 | P a g e
Question 13
13. What is your personal income?
Details Summary All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this
question. Respondents were asked to select one option from the given choices.
Response Summary Slightly more than half (51.8%) of the respondents had a personal income of less than
$30,000. A very small proportion (6.1%) had an income between $70,001 – $90,000 and
6.4% had an income of more than $90,000 (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Personal income (in dollars)
52%
23%
13%
6%6%
<30000
30000 - 50000
50001 - 70000
70001 – 90000
>90000
3D Food Printing
55 | P a g e
Question 14
14. What is your sex?
Details Summary All the 330 participants who were eligible to participate in the survey were asked this question.
This was a dichotomous closed ended question with a yes or no option.
Response Summary Of the 330 respondents, the majority (60%) were females, as seen in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Sex of the respondents
40%
60%
Males
Females
3D Food Printing
56 | P a g e
Analysis
The survey was primarily intended to serve as an exploratory tool. In addition to descriptive
statistics, a number of relationships were explored. The goal was to see if any of the demographic
variables, as well as other factors, are related to attitudes and interest towards 3D food printing.
Statistical Analysis
The data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 23. Simple descriptive analysis of the data was
carried out. To find the relationship between variables Chi-square (χ2) was performed. A p value
<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Further, phi (Ø) or Cramer’s V or Goodman and
Kruskal’s gamma was run to determine the strength of the relationship between the variables.
Variable transformation
Some of the variables were transformed into different scales upon analysis, while other variables
had factors that were subsequently merged. The changes occurred in order to allow for the
conduction of a chi-square significance test and the calculation of a Type 1 error. Where no test of
significance was conducted, the variables were retained in their original state. The transformations
that were conducted are highlighted next. For an overview of the original categories see the survey
instrument in appendix A.
Age was transformed from an open ended interval scale into a 3 category ordinal scale.
Respondents originally indicated their birth year on the survey, representing an interval scale. This
interval scale was transformed into an ordinal scale, which groups a respondent’s age into one of
3 categories: (1) 1980-1985, (2) 1986-1991, and (3) 1992-1998.
Income was transformed from a 5 category ordinal scale into a 3 category ordinal scale.
The pre-transformation 5 category ordinal scale: (1) less than $30,000, (2) $30,000 to $50,000, (3)
$50,001 to $70,000, (4) $70,001 to $90,000, (5) $90,001 and above.
The post-transformation 3 category ordinal scale: (1) less than $30,000, (2) $30,000 to $50,000, (3)
$50,001 and above.
Time spent preparing meals was transformed from a 6 category scale into a 5 category scale.
The pre-transformation 6 category ordinal scale: (1) <15min, (2) 15min to 29min, (3) 30min to
59min, (4) 1 hour to 2 hours, (5) >2 hours, (6) I don’t prepare my meals.
The post-transformation 5 category ordinal scale: (1) < 15min, (2) 15min to 29min, (3) 30min to
59min, (4) > 60min, (5) I don’t prepare my meals.
The scales used to measure Q7 and Q8 were transformed from a 5 category ordinal scale into a 3
category ordinal scale. The former scale consisted of 5 categories, ranging from not important to
very important, as seen in the survey instrument (Appendix A). Those 5 categories were
transformed into 3 categories, with the categories being renamed to: (1) not important to slightly
important, (2) moderately important, and (3) important to very important.
3D Food Printing
57 | P a g e
Relationships between different variables
In this section, we highlight some of the interesting significant relationships obtained from the
survey analysis. It is divided into 5 sections and describes the relationship of demographic
characteristics like age, sex and income, as well as awareness of 3D printing; millennials interest in
purchasing a 3D food printer; and time spent in preparing meals with various other variables.
Age
Age was only found to be related to awareness of 3D printing. We found a significant relationship
between age and awareness of 3D printing, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 7.076, p = .029, V = .146. A small
relationship was found between these two variables. Respondents between the ages 1986 and
1991 were most aware of 3D Printing (94.3%), as seen in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10. Age vs awareness of 3D printing
Sex
Sex was found to affect Millennials interest in purchasing a 3D food printer. Males and females
rated several features and abilities of 3D food printers; such as adding vitamins and minerals as
desired, and minimizing food preparation time differently. There were also differences found
regarding considerations for 3D food printers; such as cost, maintenance, user friendly, and size of
unit.
We found a significant relationship between sex and interest in purchasing a 3D printer, χ2 (1, n =
330) = 16.735, p < .001, Ø = .225. This indicates a small relationship between the two variables.
Males were significantly more likely (62.9%) to be interested in purchasing a printer than were
females (39.9%), as seen in Figure 11.
84.2
94.3
84.7
15.8 5.7 15.3
1980-1985 1986-1991 1992-1998
Yes No
3D Food Printing
58 | P a g e
Figure 11. Sex vs interest in purchasing a 3D food printer
We found a significant relationship between sex and interest towards the ability to add vitamins
and minerals as desired, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 9.614, p = .008, V = .171, as seen in Figure 12. This indicates
a small relationship between the two variables. Females were more likely to rate the ability to add
vitamins and minerals as desired as important to very important (75.8%) than were men (59.8%).
Figure 12. Sex vs adding vitamins and minerals as desired
We found a significant relationship between sex and interest towards the ability to minimize food
preparation time, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 8.075, p = .018, V = .156 as seen in Figure 13 below. This indicates
a small relationship between the two variables. Males were slightly more likely (73.5%) to rate the
62.9
39.937.1
60.1
MALE FEMALE
Yes No
16.7
8.1
23.5
15.2
59.8
75.8
MALE FEMALE
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
59 | P a g e
benefit of minimizing food preparation time as being important to very important than were
females (67.7%).
Figure 13.Sex vs minimizing food preparation time
We found a significant relationship between sex and importance of cost, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 9.879, p
= .007, V = .173, as seen in Figure 14 below. This indicates a small relationship between the two
variables. Females were more likely (90.4%) to rate cost as being important to very important than
were males (78%).
Figure 14.Sex vs importance of cost
15.2
9.611.4
22.7
73.5
67.7
MALE FEMALE
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
6.8 2.515.2 7.1
78
90.4
MALE FEMALE
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
60 | P a g e
We found a significant relationship between sex and importance of maintenance, χ2 (2, n = 330) =
8.894, p = .012, V = .164, as seen in Figure 15. This indicates a small relationship between the two
variables. Females were more likely to rate maintenance as being important to very important
(88.4%) than were males (76.5%).
Figure 15.Sex vs importance of maintenance
We found a significant relationship between sex and importance of user friendliness, χ2 (2, n = 330)
= 14.173, p = .001, V = .207, as seen in Figure 16. This indicates a small relationship between the
two variables. Females were more likely (90.4%) to rate user friendliness as important to very
important, than were men (75%).
Figure 16.Sex vs importance of user friendly
7.6 2.515.9
9.1
76.5
88.4
MALE FEMALE
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
8.3 316.7
6.6
75
90.4
MALE FEMALE
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
61 | P a g e
We found a significant relationship between sex and importance of size of unit, χ2 (2, n = 330) =
7.003, p = .030, V = .146, as seen in Figure 17. This indicates a small relationship between the two
variables. Females are more likely (74.2%) to rate the size of unit as being important to very
important than were men (62.9%).
Figure 17.Sex vs importance of size of unit
Personal Income
Personal income seems to affect the rating of several features and abilities of 3D food printers;
such as printing foods in new shapes and textures, minimizing food preparation time, using
sustainable protein sources, and printing the exact form of traditional food. There were also
differences found regarding considerations for 3D food printers, such as size of unit and energy
efficiency.
We found a significant relationship between personal income and interest in the ability to print
food in new shapes and textures, χ2 (4, n = 330) = 11.463, p = .022, as seen in Figure 18. Printing
food in new shapes and textures is inversely related to income. There was a very weak, negative
association between the two variables, which was statistically significant (G = -.176, p = .023). Those
who make more than $50,000 per year are unlikely (13.4%) to rate this feature as important to
very important, while those who make less than $30,000 a year are more likely to rate this feature
(32.7%) as important to very important.
13.66.1
23.519.7
62.9
74.2
MALE FEMALE
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
62 | P a g e
Figure 18.Personal income vs printing food in new shapes and textures
We found a significant relationship between personal income and interest towards the ability to
minimize food preparation time, χ2 (4, n = 330) = 9.491, p = .050, as seen in Figure 19. There was a
non-significant association between the two variables (G = .041, p = .674). There is no clear trend,
other than that those in the middle income category ($30,000 to $50,000) are the most likely to
rate the ability to minimize food preparation time as important to very important (79.2%).
Figure 19.Personal income vs minimizing food preparation time
49.7 48.1
61
17.5
23.425.6
32.728.6
13.4
< 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 > 50,000
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Personal income ($)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
9.9 10.4
17.1
23.4
10.414.6
66.7
79.2
68.3
< 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 > 50,000
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Personal income ($)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
63 | P a g e
We found a significant inverse relationship between personal income and interest towards the
ability use sustainable protein sources, χ2 (4, n = 330) = 9.698, p = .046, as seen in Figure 20. There
was a very weak, negative association between the two variables, which was statistically significant
(G = -.165, p = .029). Those who earned below $30,000 per year were more likely to rate this feature
as important to very important (48%) than were those who earned more than $50,000 per year
(36.6%).
Figure 20.Personal income vs using sustainable protein sources
We found a significant relationship between personal income and interest towards the ability to
print the exact form of traditional food, χ2 (4, n = 330) = 11.238, p = .024, as seen in Figure 21. There
was a non-significant association between the two variables (G = -.113, p = .145). There is no clear
trend, however respondents in the middle income category are most likely to rate printing the
exact form of traditional food as important to very important (57.1%).
Figure 21.Personal income vs printing the exact form of traditional food
28.7
45.5
39
23.4
13
24.4
48
41.636.6
< 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 > 50,000
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Personal income ($)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important
Important to very important
24.6 26
36.6
29.8
16.9
29.3
45.6
57.1
34.1
< 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 > 50,000
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Personal income ($)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important
Important to very important
3D Food Printing
64 | P a g e
We found a significant relationship between personal income and importance of size of unit, χ2 (4,
n = 330) = 10.325, p = .035, as seen in Figure 22. There was a non-significant association between
the two variables (G = -.075, p = .453). However, there is no clear trend in the data.
Figure 22.Personal income vs importance of size of unit
We found a significant relationship between personal income and importance of energy efficiency,
χ2 (4, n = 330) = 14.018, p = .007, as seen in Figure 23. There was a weak, negative association found
between the two variables, which was significant (G = -.246, p = .007). Not surprisingly, those who
earn less than $30,000 per year were more likely (71.3%) to rate energy efficiency as important to
very important, than were those who earn more than $50,000 per year (56.1%).
Figure 23.Personal income vs importance of energy efficiency
9.4 1.315.9
20.523.4
20.7
70.275.3
63.4
< 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 > 50,000
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Personal income ($)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important
Important to very important
8.8 10.4
24.419.9
26
19.5
71.3
63.6
56.1
< 30,000 30,000 - 50,000 > 50,000
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Personal income ($)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
65 | P a g e
Awareness of 3D Printing
Respondents rating for several features and abilities of 3D food printers, such as sharing food
designs on social media, tracking calories accurately and printing food in new shapes and textures
varied according to their awareness of 3D printing. There were no differences found regarding
considerations for 3D food printers.
We found a significant relationship between awareness of 3D printing and interest towards sharing
food designs on social media, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 14.939, p = .001, V = .213. This indicates a small
relationship between the two variables. As shown in Figure 24, 60.8% of respondents who were
aware of 3D printing thought sharing food designs were particularly not important to slightly
important than 28.2% of respondents who were not aware of 3D printing.
Figure 24.Awareness of 3D printing vs sharing food designs on social media
We found a significant relationship between awareness of 3D printing and interest towards the
ability to track calories accurately, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 6.794, p = .033, V = .143, as seen in Figure 25.
This indicates a small relationship between the two variables. Respondents who indicated they
were not aware of 3D printing thought that the ability to track calories accurately was more
important (66.7%) than those who were aware of 3D printing (49.8%).
60.8
28.2
20.6
38.5
18.6
33.3
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Aware of 3D Printing
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
66 | P a g e
Figure 25.Awareness of 3D printing vs tracking calories accurately
We found a significant relationship between awareness of 3D printing and interest towards the
ability to print food in new shapes and textures, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 8.872, p = .012, V = .164, as seen
in Figure 26. This indicates a small relationship between the two variables. A large proportion
(43.6%) of respondents, all of whom were not aware of 3D printing, indicated that the ability to
print food in new shapes and textures was important to very important, than only 24.7% of
respondents who were aware of 3D printing.
Figure 26.Awareness of 3D printing vs printing food in new shapes and textures
26.1
7.7
24.1 25.6
49.8
66.7
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Aware of 3D Printing
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
55
30.8
20.3
25.624.7
43.6
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Awareness of 3D printing?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
67 | P a g e
Interest in Purchasing 3D Food Printer
Respondents rating for several features and abilities of 3D food printers, such as sharing food
designs on social media, tracking calories accurately, printing food in new shapes and textures, and
minimizing food preparation time varied according to their interest in purchasing a 3D food printer.
There were also differences found regarding considerations for 3D food printers, such as style &
design, and variety of food.
We found a significant relationship between interest in purchasing a 3D food printer and the ability
to share food designs on social media, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 16.553, p < .001, V= .224, as seen in Figure
27. This indicates a medium relationship between the two variables. Respondents who were
interested in purchasing a 3D food printer were more likely to rate the ability of sharing food
designs on social media as being important to very important (27.8%) than those who are not
interested in purchasing a 3d food printer (13.1%).
Figure 27.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs sharing food designs on social media
We found a significant relationship between interest in purchasing a 3D food printer and interest
towards the ability to track calories accurately, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 7.787, p = .020, V = .154, as seen in
Figure 28. This indicates a small relationship between the two variables. Respondents who
indicated they were interested in purchasing a 3D food printer were more likely to rate the ability
to track calories accurately as important (58.6%) than were those who were not interested in
purchasing a 3D food printer (45.2%).
46.3
67.3
25.9
19.6
27.8
13.1
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
68 | P a g e
Figure 28.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs tracking calories accurately
We found a significant relationship between interest in purchasing a 3D food printer and interest
towards the ability to print food in new shapes and textures, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 28.26, p < .001, V =
.293, as seen in Figure 29. This indicates a medium relationship between the two variables. Those
who are interested in purchasing a 3D food printer are more likely (39.5%) to rate the ability to
print food in new shapes and textures as important to very important, than are those who indicated
they were not interested in purchasing a 3D food printer (14.9%).
Figure 29.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs printing food in new shapes and textures
17.9
29.8
23.5 25
58.6
45.2
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
39.5
64.3
21 20.8
39.5
14.9
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
69 | P a g e
We found a significant relationship between interest in purchasing a 3D food printer and interest
towards the ability to minimize food preparation time, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 10.881, p = .004, V = .182,
as seen in Figure 30. This indicates a small relationship between the two variables. Respondents
who were interested in purchasing a 3D food printer were more likely to rate the benefit of
minimizing food preparation time as important to very important (77.8%) than were those who
indicated they were not interested in purchasing a 3D food printer (62.5%).
Figure 30.Interest in purchasing a 3D food printer vs minimizing food preparation time
We found a significant relationship between interest in purchasing a 3D food printer and
importance of style and design, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 10.187, p = .006, V = .176, as seen in Figure 31.
This indicates a small relationship between the two variables. Those who are interested in
purchasing a 3D food printer are more likely to rate style and design as important to very important
(38.9%) than are those who are not interested in purchasing a 3D food printer (23.8%).
Figure 31.Interest in purchasing 3D food printer vs style & design
6.8 16.715.420.8
77.8
62.5
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
30.9
44.6
30.2 31.5
38.9
23.8
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
70 | P a g e
We found a significant relationship between interest in purchasing a 3D food printer and
importance of variety of food, χ2 (2, n = 330) = 6.732, p = .035, V = .143, as seen in Figure 32. This
indicates a small relationship between the two variables. Those interested in purchasing a 3D food
printer indicated variety of food as being important to very important, while only 67.9% of those
not interested in purchasing a 3D food printer indicated variety of food as being important to very
important.
Figure 32.Interest in purchasing 3D food printer vs importance of variety of food
Time Spent Preparing Meals
Respondents rating for several features and abilities of 3D food printers did not differ according to
time spent in preparing meals. However, there were differences found regarding considerations
for 3D food printers such as style & design.
We found a significant relationship between time spent preparing meals and importance of style
and design, χ2 (8, n = 330) = 19.497, p = .012, as seen in Figure 33. There was a non-significant
association between the two variables (G = .130, p = .073). However, there is no clear trend in the
data.
5.6 7.714.2
24.4
80.2
67.9
YES NO
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
71 | P a g e
Figure 33.Time spent preparing meals vs style & design
Reliability and Validity There can be some biases involved in the survey as it is a self-reporting data collection instrument.
Response bias: This refers to the tendency of an individual to respond a certain way. For
example, some persons may be biased towards responding yes.
Rating scales: People use and interpret scales differently, because they interpret the
meanings of the scale point differently.
Understanding bias: Participants may also vary regarding their understanding or
interpretation of particular questions.
We tried to minimize these biases by pretesting the survey instrument before using it for data
collection. Furthermore, we tried to keep the language simple and explain the variables properly
so that the above mentioned biases could be reduced.
Validity: We used convenience and snowball sampling, and not the random sampling. As a result,
we cannot generalize results of the study to the general population. But we tried to make our
results more valid by having a large sample size.
35
53.2
30.231.9
52.2
25 26.6
38.1
29
13
40
20.3
31.7
39.1
34.8
< 15 15 - 29 30 - 59 >= 60 DON'T PREPARE MEALS
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
en
ts
Time spent preparing meals (min)
Not important to slightly important Moderately important Important to very important
3D Food Printing
72 | P a g e
Qualitative Report
Abstract
This study explores the knowledge and attitudes of Millennials living in the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) towards 3D food printing. The findings aim to provide researchers and investors with
actionable insight to refine product development, enhance target marketing, and boost
adoption rates of 3D food printers intended for home use. Exploratory focus groups were
conducted to obtain further insight into Millennials food preparation habits and their attitudes
towards 3D food printing. Specifically, we investigated Millennials knowledge of 3D food
printing, as well their perceived benefits and concerns for this burgeoning new technology.
These insights may help 3D food printing developers and marketers develop and market 3D food
printers that are more relevant to their respective target population.
Introduction
This is an exploratory study examining the knowledge and attitudes of Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) Millennials towards 3D food printing. 3D food printing is an emerging technology that
uses extruded ingredients to generate three-dimensional meals by placing layers of
compounded food on top of each other. 3D food printers are expected to change the food
industry and have the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with food. While some
types of 3D food printers are currently available in the marketplace, the technology is still being
developed and remains reasonably expensive and complex. As the technology of 3D food
printers continues to improve, it is anticipated to become widely available for home use to
consumers in a decade (IFT, 2015).
3D food printing is important for a number of different reasons as it has the ability to improve
how certain groups are fed, to ensure we are receiving adequate and customized nutritional
intake and it may have an enormous impact on the food industry in terms of the types of foods
that can be created, and the time with which it takes to prepare them (Charlebois, 2015).
However, in order for the potential benefits of this technology to be realized, 3D food printing
must to be accepted by consumers, as well as the wider society. In order to help marketers,
developers, and researchers create a 3D food printer for home-based use, there needs to be
considerable consumer insight into the development of these appliances.
3D Food Printing
73 | P a g e
There are many technological hurdles that researchers and developers will need to overcome in
order to produce a marketable product to the general population (Charlebois, 2015). As the largest
generation in the Canadian workforce (37%), Millennials are entering their prime spending years
and are poised to reshape the economy with their unique set of habits and preferences (Statistics
Canada , 2014). With 8.9 million Millennials in Canada, and 1.7 million in the Greater Toronto Area
alone, Millennials possess incredible buying power (Statistics Canada, 2011). We have selected
Millennials as our target population for a variety of different reasons, as we believe that Millennials
unique set of interests and preferences make them ideal candidates for adoption of 3D food
printing technology. For instance, it is known that Millennials have higher food innovation
consumption levels and rank higher when it comes to adopting novel products (Barrernar et al.,
2015). They are more likely to value convenience and purchase ready-made meals (Alix Partners,
2012). Millennials are also a generation that is more likely to be concerned about environmental
sustainability (BCG, 2012). Finally, Millennials are more willing to pay a premium for healthy
attributes of food (Nielsen, 2015) and desire personalized and customizable products (Sweeney,
2006). All of which, 3D food printers hope to deliver.
Therefore, we aim to assess the current level of knowledge Millennials have regarding 3D food
printers and identify the key attributes of the technology that Millennials desire. In addition, we
will also identify potential areas of concern, and determine buying intent.
Methodology
Focus group data collection was chosen as a line of action in our triangulated research approach
as well as an exploratory tool to generate insight into the 3D food printing emerging market (Berg
& Lune, 2012). The data collected is intended to be used in an applied nature in order to highlight
key areas for potential marketers to address when developing strategies for the 3D food printing
market. As this is a new technology, the group dynamic of a focus group will ignite brainstorming
and idea generation amongst the group (Gill, 2008). Millennials as influential consumers appreciate
being able to share ideas and engage in assisting in development of new ideas (Fromm, 2013).
Subjects
The researcher team recruited Millennial adults between the ages of 18-35, living in the Greater
Toronto Area (GTA). All participants had previously participated in the online survey phase of the
major research project. After participants completed the online survey on knowledge and attitudes
toward 3D food printing, they were queried if they would like to take part in a focus group on the
same topic. If the participant accepted this request, then they voluntarily submitted their personal
contact details which were passed on to the research team. A member of the research team then
contacted the participants by email to provide focus group details. Additional participants were
sampled through convenience and snowball sampling (Blair et al., 2014), as well as through online
advertisements on Kijiji and Craigslist. Participants were not known by the moderator of that
particular focus group to minimize response bias and protect the integrity and validity of the
research.
3D Food Printing
74 | P a g e
Data
All interviews were audio recorded, with the permission of the participants. Information letters and
consent forms were provided to the participants before the focus group session began in keeping
with the standards and protocols of Humber’s Research Ethics Board (REB). All recorded sessions
were transcribed onto computer files. The collected data was anonymized and then prepared for
coding by the three researchers separately to improve intercoder reliability. Once the final research
report was written, the audio recordings were erased and destroyed.
Setting
Participants were requested to participate in a focus group discussion through snowball and
convenience sampling (Blair et al., 2014). Researchers contacted potential participants via online
recruitment through various techniques such as: a) an automated invite request sent out to
interested parties after our online quantitative phase, b) online advertisement invitation such as
Kijiji, and c) e-mailed convenience sampling. The focus groups were conducted in a conveniently
located house owned by one of the research team member’s. Participants were provided snacks
and drinks while sitting around a dining room table. All participants were given an information
letter and consent form to sign, as well as a copy to keep prior to commencing focus group. They
were also informed that they would be audio recorded and asked to respect the other group
members during and after the qualitative session. An interview discussion guide was followed by
the moderator to engage participants in a lively discussion regarding their knowledge and attitudes
towards 3D food printing. The focus group was conducted while maintaining an open, ‘no pressure’
environment for the participants to share their thoughts and points of view. Participants were also
requested to collectively collaborate a brain storming session regarding benefits and concerns of
3D food printers.
Analysis Techniques
Qualitative data was obtained through two different focus groups. An average of 6 or 7 participants
were led in a group discussion on the topic of 3D food printing in each group. Focus group
interaction was paramount in the data collection process to aid in triggering ideas and thoughts
regarding this new food technology. The focus group was led by a student moderator and followed
a guided discussion using a moderator’s guide.
The focus group data was collectively gathered as 2 data sets, one per group, and then transcribed
by one of the researchers. Three researchers then took the transcribed groups anonymized the
data and added the text into an excel spreadsheet, as well as HyperReseach software. Two
researchers each developed their own codes using the transcribed data and shared it amongst
three researchers to see if any codes overlapped or could be edited out once the ideas were
shared. The researchers then coded the data together for intercoder reliability.
The text was filtered based on the codes and a word cloud was generated, as seen in Figure 34.
The thematic groupings were then formed based on a grounded theory approach. After refining
the themes and codes, researchers then began to document the findings and revised the themes
collaboratively. The discussion and conclusions were a collective approach by the research team
based on triangulation methods.
3D Food Printing
75 | P a g e
Figure 34. Focus group thematic word cloud
3D Food Printing
76 | P a g e
Findings/Results
Concerns
Numerous concerns were voiced during the focus group sessions mostly pertaining to issues
regarding food safety and quality. Participants were suspicious of the technology’s ability to print
food of the same quality and standards of traditional foods. As a result, there was a great deal of
concern surrounding the processed nature of the food being printed, as well as the quality of the
food and whether it is fit for human consumption. Other concerns were also raised such as possible
environmental implications.
Food Safety
The major concern that arose during the focus group discussions was food safety. Many of the
participants were apprehensive about how safe 3D printed food is to consume. Participants
wanted to know how the food was processed, if it was exposed to any radiation or if any chemicals
were involved in the printing process. Also of importance to some was how the food is stored and
if the storage process was safe. In addition, while participants were interested in using 3D food
printers to add nutritional value to food, there was also some concern about the potential dangers
of fortifying food with vitamins and minerals.
Food Quality
Participants were also concerned about the quality of 3D printed food products. The concept of
printing food felt unnatural to some who placed value on traditional cooking methods and natural
whole foods. Many were unsure about the nutritional value of printed food and if it would retain
the same nutrients as found in traditional foods.
Taste
Food taste was also an important concern for participants. It was important for participants to eat
great tasting food and therefore all agreed that they would only be interested in this technology
should 3D food have the same taste as traditional foods and have the capability of preparing
delicious meals.
“I am worried about health issues. Does the printed food contain any chemicals
or not?”
“You could maybe get sick from this, what if you added too much vitamin C or
salt? Sounds dangerous.”
“I prefer hand cooking and quality versus machine prepared. Is the food
nutritionally of the same quality?”
3D Food Printing
77 | P a g e
Environment
Environmental implications were also raised during the focus group discussion. Some participants
were worried about the amount of energy required to print 3D foods, as well as food waste from
using food cartridges. Participants raised concern over the capsules adding more waste to the
environment and this was not something that they wanted to encourage with new technologies in
development.
Size of Machine
Most participants were not interested in adding a large cumbersome appliance to their kitchen. All
participants desired a compact design that could easily fit into their kitchen. They were concerned
about the size of the printer and wanted to ensure that it was not too large.
Benefits
Participants expressed a variety of benefits during both focus group sessions which centered on
time efficiency, improving cooking methods, possible cost savings and customization.
Time Efficiency
The majority of busy Millennials were excited by the possibility of being able to multitask during
the cooking process. Cooking although an enjoyed task by some was generally considered a
functional time consuming activity during the busy work week. As most participants tried to eat
nutritiously, many could see potential use for a 3D food printer that could cook something fast and
nutritious. They also could envision, as the technology improves, being able to pre-program the
item beforehand which would also save them time. It was suggested that the 3D food printer could
also be used as a backup when cooking in case whatever you were attempting to prepare did not
work out, you could always print something quickly.
“Taste is a concern, what is the point of investing money or spending time
creating food from a 3D printer, if you could spend the same time and cook or
order a meal that tastes better?”
“I am concerned about the amount of energy being used for running the printer.”
“How big is the machine? I wonder how much space it would take up in my home. If it is a
big machine that overtakes my kitchen, I don’t think I would be interested.”
3D Food Printing
78 | P a g e
Cost Effective
Many participants thought that price savings would also be another benefit from 3D food printers.
This ranged from minimizing food waste as you would only print what you required, as well as the
ability to print better food at home which would be of a higher quality then one could prepare
reducing the need to eat out. Over time, participants stated that they could see how food wastage
may be minimized as you could just print what you required which would minimize cost. Leftover
food would possibly be reduced due to the use of cartridges and you could also keep a better
handle on portion control.
Nutritious/Healthy Meal
Participants also pitched the idea of a nutritious and healthy meal that a 3D food printer could
possibly print. It was suggested that you could add nutrients to fortify a meal, particularly if a special
diet was required. They also mentioned that portion control could also be accurately measured.
This could be a huge benefit for bodybuilders and other health enthusiasts. This capability could
also be a benefit for kids as vegetables could be hidden in the food creating a more nutritious meal.
Better Taste
Although taste was also mentioned as a possible concern, some thought that 3D food printers
could actually enhance the flavour of food. Participants suggested the possibility of this technology
coming up with new food textures and tastes. Some suggested taste could be improved by adding
new textures and flavours that do not currently exist.
“Do you just load it up and leave it? I feel it is very efficient. So I could go out and do
some errands, set it and forget it? That would be great!”
“Do industries want this technology because it is cost effective?” “Could reduce restaurant visits if machine can make restaurant quality food, such as Jamie Oliver designed meals you can buy and print at home.”
“I am thinking about this bodybuilder wise. They get into a ’shredding’ period where
they have to eat healthy and most of them don’t like it.”
3D Food Printing
79 | P a g e
Customize Participants liked that 3D food printers provided them with options to customize their food
preferences to suit their individual needs. Food can be customized by adding the nutritional
content of the food and eliminating fat or other parts that are not required. One of the participants
mentioned that customization could lead to people becoming more nutritious and healthy.
Kids Involvement
Those with kids offered possible scenarios of involving kids in the cooking process. For example,
kids could choose what they wanted to cook and then then the parents could enhance the food
nutritionally by possibly hiding the vegetables or fortifying the nutritional value by adding vitamins
and minerals. It was widely agreed that this would allow kids to prepare their own meals if
necessary, increasing their independence.
Seniors/Disabled
3D food printers could provide benefits for those not readily able to go out and shop or prepare food
easily, such as seniors and disabled. Participants mentioned that these individuals could prepare
something that was nutritionally viable without the cumbersome or difficult preparation involved.
This technology could create more independence for the individual whom currently relies on
additional support for day to day food preparations and delivery. One participant even suggesting
adding or hiding medicine into the printed food.
“I think that texture is a pretty big issue. I mean some people won’t eat something
based on the texture. And if they could manipulate that. It would be perfect for
people that were picky eaters.”
“Could you cut out the fat? Or, take out the part that you don’t want from a food
item. Customize it and take the meat without the fat.”
“This is attractive for children. You can hide vegetables in the food and prepare that
food according to children’s choice.”
“I could see the elderly or physically disabled use this. They could get nutritional
food even if it was difficult for them to get out to purchase or cook items.”
3D Food Printing
80 | P a g e
Environment
Some participants also brought up the possibility that 3D food printing could positively impact the
environment by reducing our carbon footprint. Additional respondents mentioned the impact this
technology would have on the logistics of the food industry which may aid in feeding people farther
in geographical location for cheaper such as NGOs.
Cost
Although Millennials were quite price conscious at the beginning of the focus group discussions,
many felt that as technology improved and costs of the technology decreased that the 3D food
printer would become accessible in the future. Most discussed the likelihood of the 3D food printer
following a similar product lifecycle to that of the microwave though more rapid in acceptance as
the rest of technology has taken on quicker adoption rates as well. The rest of the discussion
flowed quite freely and though high cost was still a factor, it did not constrain the remainder of the
group.
Price of machine
When first asked about 3D food printers, although there was excitement, the idea of price came
up quite quickly within the discussion amongst the group. Many participants felt that 3D food
printers were expensive and that it would be a major hurdle to their adoption. The idea of a 3D
food printer was described as a ‘luxury’ and not something that the average person could utilize.
Some suggested that a 3D food printer would be an item that was exclusive to nutrition specialists
or those that could implement something like this within their job or business.
Reduce Food Expenditure
Millennials are conscious of how they spend their money so having access to this type of food
technology would was also looked upon as a cost saving attribute. The cost of rising food and the
employment uncertainty were discussed as reasons to further excite Millennials about the use of
3D food printers. They could use their time more wisely and put more effort towards other areas
of their life that they were required to concentrate on such as work. We should note that this
finding may be an attitude expressed solely by urban dwellers as opposed to more slower paced
environments.
“I don’t see this going into everyone’s home though. I see this being used by people
in business for fitness if it is there source of income. So someone like J. Cutler who
can afford it. It could give them a thousand different food options but I don’t see
being able to afford it.”
“I heard that it is good to reduce our carbon footprint.”
3D Food Printing
81 | P a g e
Additional Related Costs
As the process of how an actual 3D food printer works was explored further in the group discussion.
Many participants were interested in how the actual cartridges are filled and if pre-filled cartridges
would become available. Some questioned whether this would incur additional costs to the
consumer such as in the case of NespressoTM or KeurigTM , when you buy their machine you are
required to continually purchase coffee pods to use in their machines. If this is the case, then the
higher prices associated with this scenario were discussed as a potential inhibitor to purchasing
such a technology, as they did not want to be restricted to purchasing additional branded supplies.
Optimal Sticker Price
Participants discussed the full potential of a 3D food printer down the road when technology
becomes affordable and price point came up once again. This time it was not that it would be too
expensive for the average user but that the price would reflect the sophistication of what the 3D
food printer could actually produce and print. The majority were not interested in spending, for
example, $100 for something from Costco that could prepare something too simple. The
participants were all in agreement that the cost of the item should reflect the trust associated with
the 3D food. An optimal price point comparison came to the similar ticket price of an oven.
Participants discussed being comfortable spending this much for a food technology that could
provide versatility and was associated with trust and food safety.
Meal Preparation Many of our participants discussed using what was on hand to dictate how their meals were
prepared. They were in general not interested in preparing items that took a long time to cook,
but were driven by time efficiency and simplicity.
“As prices increase like in a city similar to Toronto. People have to be more
productive and make more money so they will realize their time is really
important. Cutting back on things like food preparation would be possible.
When things like this become more accessible, I think people will really adopt it
and prefer this over 2 hours preparing food.”
“We are now talking about an entirely new industry coming into existence. So if
everyone has this machine at home. So not the individual making the stuff that
goes into the tube but for someone else to make. I don’t know how it would
make it less expensive. I think it would be more expensive.”
“I wouldn’t trust it if it was under $1000. I mean you are eating from it.”
3D Food Printing
82 | P a g e
Convenience
When participants discussed current meal preparations, convenience was one of the main
contributors to decision making when it came time to decide what they were going to cook.
Although nutrition was also important, most were more interested in grabbing something quick or
preparing something simple which could possibly last as leftovers for another meal. This also
improved convenience for them so that they did not have to prepare something at each meal but
keep it until the next day or rest of the week.
Many used what they had on hand to dictate what they prepared to eat. If it was something that
was not going to stay fresh for long then this food was what was decided to use for food
preparation. Many Millennials also were price conscious and would make meals based on price. If
a food item was on sale then this would be the impetus for preparing their meal that day or week.
The 3D food printer garnered excitement during the focus group discussion as a technology able
to assist with food preparation creating convenience for the user. It was seen as an appliance that
they could turn on and then leave to prepare their meal for them. This was heralded as a great
method of food preparation and convenience that they would be interested in obtaining for their
own use.
Entertaining
It was brought up a few times that 3D food printing would be particularly beneficial if you were
entertaining or preparing food for a larger family. It was not considered very convenient for a
“When I trying to think back to the last thing that I made. It was coleslaw
because it was easy to make. You can pump it out in ten minutes and it keeps in
the fridge for a long time. You can put it in a container to go. But convenience
is definitely why I make what I make.”
“Time and cost. Most often purchasing vegetables and items that are on sale.
Therefore, meals will vary each week depending on sales etc. Also, trying to use
what you have on hand and trying to do meal preparation for the week on
Sundays.”
“I could see putting the ingredients in and then going away continue on with
what I am doing then come back to a prepared meal. I am someone that
doesn’t enjoy making food but don’t want to eat just bread. So if I could put the
ingredients in and come back to have it prepared, that would be golden.”
3D Food Printing
83 | P a g e
single person. For preparing more time consuming meals for larger groups of people this would
be considered helpful and minimize the time involved in preparing food for others. This type of
food preparation was met with a sense of in trepidation and assistance in this area of food
preparation would be very welcome.
Social Acceptance
With Time
Participants were generally excited by the potential of 3D food printing technology for their own
home use, but many felt that additional time would be required to accept the technology especially
since it designed for human consumption. Printed food is a large leap of faith, even for Millennials,
although they were able and excited to articulate many benefits and desire for the use this
technology. Stigma or social acceptance was something that participants felt the potential
purchasers would need to overcome before it was readily accepted by the public. The participants
that were mostly like to feel this way were from more traditional or ethnic backgrounds, which
placed more emphasis on preparing home cooked meals and eating together.
As Technology Improves
Participants are interested in 3D food printers as they now stand, but in order to substantiate the
cost associated with the printer, they want the product to warrant the cost by offering a
sophisticated product. They are not interested in something that just prints a pizza; they want
more. Participants discussed accepting potentially purchasing a 3d food printer when it was
capable of producing reliable results over time. They would be interested in researching the
specific 3D food printer and ensuring that it was trustworthy and dependable.
“It would be ideal if you have people over. Not so much for the single lifestyle.”
“Yes, I agree but I think they will have to get over the stigma of it. You said if
someone wants to push a button and have something squirted out of a tube. I
think people will automatically think, that is disgusting. I want a home cooked
meal. But I think in some years I may be interested in one but my initial thought
now is no. But who knows…”
“It would really have to prove itself. I would like to see that it works and how it
work and if it proved itself then I could buying one for my household if it was
producing something that I wanted to eat.”
3D Food Printing
84 | P a g e
Imagery
The images connected to 3D food printing did not look very appealing to our participants. This
seemed to curb their enthusiasm for the technology and made them less interested in eating the
3D food products.
User Friendly
Although most participants did not seem intimidated by the thought of the technology associated
with the 3D food printer. Some emphasized the need to have the printer be easy to use.
Make Complex Food
In order to find use for this technology, participants felt that 3D food printers should be able to
make food that would be otherwise difficult for them to make on their own.
Ideas/Features Generated
Pre-Program
Overwhelmingly, across both focus groups, participants came up with an idea to pre-program or
pre-set the 3D food printer from their mobile phone or computer. This way they could set it
conveniently away from home and have food ready and waiting for them when they arrived home.
“The picture on the screen is not appetizing at all. When I think about grabbing
my apple on the way to work compared to something being squished out of a
tube. I am like no. I am not buying that. Well so much about food is texture. It
is not just sustenance. Not just food.”
“It should be user friendly.”
“I would like it to cook foods which I can’t cook from scratch easily. It
takes a lot of time to cook from scratch.”
“Now people are lazy in the kitchen. Let’s imagine I know I will be home in
an hour. I click a button say on my phone and I would come home to a
fresh, home cooked meal.”
3D Food Printing
85 | P a g e
Pre-Filled Cartridges
Participants were interested in convenience and suggested 3D food printer manufacturers also
offer prefilled cartridges for sale which the user could just add to the printer. The food would then
be printed using materials already prepared in the prefilled cartridges.
Add Medicine
Participants also liked the idea of ‘hiding’ the bad taste of medicine inside printed food. The
participants did not see this just for themselves, but also as a benefit for elderly, children and pets.
Self-Cleaning
Participants discussed the importance of having a self-cleaning option on 3D food printers. They
were not interested in having another food appliance in the kitchen that was going to create
additional work for them. A self-cleaning option was discussed as a standard on many appliances
currently in the market, so it did not seem like a stretch to have this option on a 3D food printer.
Multi-Functional
Participants all would like the 3D food printer to be multi-functional and perhaps incorporate the
3D food printing functionality into other appliances. This would reduce the number of appliances
in their home.
Sleek Design
Participants were all concerned about the size of 3D food printers and wanted to ensure that it
would be a size that would be appropriate for a regular sized kitchen. When probed about a size
“You can take a turkey dinner cartridge and add it into the machine and then print it.”
“This could get rid of bad tasting medicine.”
“Maintenance and cleaning is a very big factor. There should be a self-
cleaning tool. May be something like Nespresso which has a very unique
self-cleaning feature.”
“It would be good if it can also function as microwave. 2-in-1 microwave +
3D printer.”
3D Food Printing
86 | P a g e
that was appropriate, Millennials preferred the 3D food printer to be the size of a microwave.
Design is also important and should fit seamlessly into the home.
Versatility
Participants would be most interested in using a 3D printer that could cook more than one item.
If it only cooked one type of food product they would want to wait to purchase a printer once the
technology advance to this capability.
Novelty vs. Need Participants who were immediately interested in using a 3D food printer generally had an
appreciation for new technology and wanted to try new and emerging technologies. Some
participants were downright uninterested in consuming or purchasing a 3D food printer for a
variety of different reasons. Either they liked to cook, did not have a need for this type of appliance,
did not find the food appealing or their concerns outweighed the benefits of using this technology.
3D Food printer was considered a novelty by some participants and was also one of the reasons
behind participants being reluctant to purchase a 3D food printer.
Likes Technology
Those that liked technology were interested in using a 3D food printer right away. They were not
inhibited by the association of technology integrated with food. Mostly males were the ones to
jump on board when the discussion commenced.
Likes to Cook
Some participants enjoy the act of cooking and would not be interested in replacing the experience
of food preparation with a 3D food printer. For these participants, cooking was not looked upon
as a chore but something they enjoyed doing. They looked to cooking as a hobby or associated it
with family and tradition.
“I would prefer to be able to make a variety of different foods if I was going
to invest money in this.”
“I would buy it. The whole technology thing is really cool to me.”
“Size and design will be my main consideration. I will see whether it is sleek or not. Like stainless steel microwave.”
“How big is the machine? I wonder how much space it would take up in
my home. If it is a big machine that overtakes my kitchen, I don’t think I
would be interested.”
3D Food Printing
87 | P a g e
Household Size
Participants living alone and in small apartments mentioned that they are not interested in
purchasing a 3D food printer as they do not cook often enough and do not spend time on meal
preparations.
Discussion
Will Millennials be interested in 3D food printing for home use?
Overall, Millennials were interested in 3D food printing for home use. They see it as a beneficial
timesaver, but do have some reservations about this technology. In general, they were
apprehensive to adopt 3D food printers at this point in time. However, with further development
and effective communication regarding potential areas of concern, they would be willing to
purchase a sophisticated 3D food printer that can meet their individual needs.
What barriers exist for this new technology?
The major concerns that arose during the discussions were centered on food safety, taste and
quality. Developers of 3D food printers would need to ensure transparency and communication
regarding potential concerns to improve product adoption. In addition, Millennials who enjoy
cooking appear reluctant to adopt this technology as it would eliminate the pleasure and
experience of cooking. Also, traditionally engrained food preparation methods may be difficult to
overcome for some. Cost was also a major concern, anything too expensive would again hinder
the acceptance of this technology. Size is also a determinant for Millennials considering a 3D food
printer for home use. Millennials are not interested in using a large appliance that takes up too
much space in their kitchen. A low maintenance 3D food printer will also be an asset to Millennials,
as they are interested in minimal maintenance requirements and self-cleaning features. Variety of
food products will also be a determining factor in Millennials willingness to purchase a 3D food
printer. Millennials desire a 3D food printer that has the capability to create a variety of food
products, unlike the prototypes that currently exist in the market. As this technology advances and
3D food printers increase in sophistication, it will be more likely to increase Millennials willingness
to purchase this product.
What potential opportunities exist for 3D food printers?
There are numerous opportunities that exist for 3D food printers as current and developing
capabilities of this technology may have far reaching benefits for society. As our research focuses
more towards home based 3D food printers for consumers, the developers of 3D food printers
should focus on food safety, taste and versatility, which will be vital for the widespread use of this
“I find cooking meditative and this machine is not man made.”
“As a single guy, I don’t need this. It takes me 30 minutes to cook and I
am ok with that.”
3D Food Printing
88 | P a g e
technology. Design will also be an important element, ensuring that 3D food printers are compact
and sleek. Minimal maintenance, will also be important feature for developers to consider.
Different models can also be launched in the market targeting different populations. For
elderly/disabled, this technology may have a significant impact on their lifestyle, allowing them
more independence and nutritious food. Fitness trainers, athletes and health enthusiast can also
use this technology to monitor their caloric intake and add vitamins and minerals as required. Busy
mothers who have less time to cook can benefit from this technology by cooking a healthy meal
for their kids and family. Multiple opportunities exist for 3D food printers and developers and
manufacturers can target different segments depending on their product.
What price point and features will be required for Millennials to purchase 3D food
printers for home use?
Millennials would be willing to purchase a 3D food printer for $700 to $1000. They expect that the
3D food printer would be small in size and have a sleek design. It should also be dependable and
low maintenance as they do not want to spend much time cleaning the machine, so a self-cleaning
tool would be ideal. 3D food printers should also be multi-functional and print variety of food,
different designs, shapes and textures and also be nutritious at the same time. A feature like pre-
programing capabilities through mobile phones, computers or apps can boost the adoption of 3D
food printers. By providing a pre-programing feature, Millennials could set up meals in advance or
access their 3D food printer remotely to have meals ready for them when they arrive home.
Expected Features:
Sleek design and small size
Sophisticated
Low Maintenance
Versatile
Pre-Programming
3D Food Printing
89 | P a g e
Final Analysis Our survey asked respondents to rate proposed features and benefits of 3D food printers, as
well as considerations for 3D food printers. After analysis of survey data, focus groups were
conducted to gain better insight into the 3D food printing emerging market. The data of focus
group corroborates well with the findings of our survey data. The combined data will be
useful in providing potential marketers with key areas to address when developing strategies
for the 3D food printing market.
Meal Preparation
Most (42.1%) of the Millennials spent 30 – 59 minutes preparing their meals. Convenience
emerged as one of the main contributors for deciding what they were going to cook. It was
found that many of them were more interested in preparing something easy and food that
does not take that much time prepare. The majority (74.6%) of Millennials prepared 1 -2
meals per day. They were interested in preparing something that was easy and could possibly
last as leftovers for another meal.
“When I trying to think back to the last thing that I made. It was coleslaw
because it was easy to make. You can pump it out in ten minutes and it keeps
in the fridge for a long time. You can put it in a container to go. But
convenience is definitely why I make what I make.”
Knowledge
In general, Millennials (88.2%) were found to be highly aware of 3D printing. There was high
awareness about prosthetics (72.5%), artwork (71.1%) and toys (69.4%). Only 3 out of 10
(32%) Millennials were aware that food can also be printed.
Benefits
The major benefits that emerged from our analysis centered around economical or
efficiency aspect, and health aspect.
3D Food Printing
90 | P a g e
Minimizing Food Waste
A large proportion of respondents (75.8%) rated this as important to very important feature of 3D
food printers. They thought that food wastage could be reduced by printing only the required
amount of food. Further, this technology could also have an impact on the logistics of the food
industry and assist in food security issues, which will be cheaper for NGOs.
Time Efficient
Seven out of 10 (70.0%) Millennials reported minimizing food preparation time is important to very
important to them. Males (74%) were found to be more interested in this feature compared to
females (68%). Respondents seem to be excited by the possibility of being able to multitask during
the cooking process. They thought that it could be beneficial if a 3D food printer could cook
something fast and nutritious as opposed to something processed and unhealthy.
Millennials also thought that saving time cooking food would in turn help them to focus on other
areas of their life, such as work. As such this could be a time saving attribute as time is also money.
Customization
Approximately 69.4% of respondents considered the ability to add vitamins and minerals as
important to very important to them and almost half (51.9%) of the respondents reported that the
ability to track calories is important to very important to them. They thought that it would be
amazing if they are able to customize their food preferences to suit their individual needs. The
texture and caloric customization of the food could help people to become more nutritious and
healthy.
“As prices increase like in a city similar to Toronto. People have to be more
productive and make more money so they will realize their time is really
important. Cutting back on things like food preparation would be possible.
When things like this become more accessible, I think people will really adopt it
and prefer this over 2 hours preparing food.”
“Could you cut out the fat? Or, take out the part that you don’t want from a
food item. Customize it and take the meat without the fat.”
“Do you just load it up and leave it? I feel it is very efficient. So I could go out and
do some errands, set it and forget it? That would be great!”
3D Food Printing
91 | P a g e
Millennials thought that this could be beneficial for tailoring food according to the needs of seniors
or disabled people who suffer from dysphagia or some other medical problem.
Moreover, kids’ food could also be enhanced nutritionally by possibly hiding vegetables or adding
nutritional value by fortifying food with vitamins or minerals.
Concerns
The major concerns for Millennials in GTA regarding 3D food printers are food safety and quality,
taste of food, cost of the unit, and maintenance. Some of the other minor concerns were size of
the machine, variety of food that can be printed, and environmental implications associated with
printing food.
Taste of food
The primary concern was taste of the printed food which was reported by 90.3% of Millennials.
They were apprehensive about whether or not printed food would taste as good as the traditional
food. They agreed that they would only be interested in this technology if they were sure that 3D
printed food would have the same taste as traditional foods and have the ability to prepare
delicious meals.
Food safety and quality
The second most important concern was food safety, which was reported by 89.1% of the
Millennials. They wanted to know how the food was processed. They were worried about whether
printed food was exposed to any radiation and if any chemicals were involved in the printing
process which would make the food unsafe to eat.
“I could see the elderly or physically disabled use this. They could get
nutritional food even if it was difficult for them to get out to purchase or cook
items.”
“This is attractive for children. You can hide vegetables in the food and
prepare that food according to children’s choice.”
“Taste is a concern, what is the point of investing money or spending time
creating food from a 3D printer, if you could spend the same time and cook
or order a meal that tastes better?”
“I am worried about health issues. Does the printed food contain any
chemicals or not?”
3D Food Printing
92 | P a g e
They were also concerned that fortifying the food with vitamins and minerals themselves could be
very dangerous due to lack of knowledge about proper nutritional requirements.
Participants were also concerned about the quality of 3D printed food products. They were unsure
about the nutritional value of printed food and if it would retain the same nutrients as found in
traditional foods.
Cost
Eight out of ten Millennials (85.4%) indicated cost as being important to very important. Females
(90.4%) were found to be more concerned about cost than males (78%). Respondents considered
3D food printers too expensive and unaffordable. They believed that having such an item is more
of a luxury than a necessity. As such, it was also suggested that a 3D food printer is not that
affordable for home use, but could be beneficial for nutritionists or those in the culinary business.
Apart from being concerned about 3D food printers, Millennials seem to be concerned about some
of the additional costs they may incur. NespressoTM and KeurigTM were cited as an example of this
– when you buy one of these appliances you are required to purchase their products to use with
them. They did not want to be restricted to purchasing any additional branded supplies to use with
a 3D printer which would probably increase costs not reduce them.
Maintenance
Almost 83.6% of the Millennials rated maintenance as important to very important. They were not
interested in buying a 3D food printer if it was going to add additional work for them. They want
that it should require minimal cleaning and to be dependable.
“You could maybe get sick from this, what if you added too much vitamin C
or salt? Sounds dangerous.”
“I prefer hand cooking and quality versus machine prepared. Is the food
nutritionally of the same quality?”
“I don’t see this going into everyone’s home though. I see this being used by
people in business for fitness if it is there source of income.”
“Maintenance and cleaning is a very big factor. There should be a self-
cleaning tool. Maybe something like Nespresso which has a very unique self-
cleaning feature.”
3D Food Printing
93 | P a g e
Purchase Intent
Even though Millennials showed concern over the cost of a 3D food printer, almost half (49.1%)
were interested in buying one. Males (63%) showed greater interest in purchasing a 3D food printer
than females (40%). Of the respondents who were interested in purchasing a 3D food printer, most
of them (55.6%) indicated they would be willing to spend between $100 and $500 on a 3D food
printer. A smaller proportion (22.8%) indicated they would be willing to spend as much as $1000
for a 3D food printer. Millennials considered that price would reflect the sophistication of what the
3D food printer could actually produce and print. This indicates that the majority of them would
not be willing to spend less than $100 because of the trust factor. They believed that a printer at
such a low price would be too simple and not as safe to eat. An optimal price point comparison
came to the similar ticket price of an oven. They were comfortable spending this much for a food
technology that could provide versatility and was associated with trust.
Millennials who were interested in purchasing a 3D food printer considered some features of 3D
food printers important compared to those who were not interested in purchasing one. They were
interested in buying a 3D food printer because of its ability to track calories (78% vs 63%), printing
food in new shapes and textures (40% vs 15%) and minimizing food preparation time (78% vs 63%).
Further, they placed more emphasis on the importance of style and design (39% vs 24%) and
variety of food (80% vs 68%) that can be printed.
3D Food Printing
94 | P a g e
Recommendations & Insights Marketing Communications
In order to boost sales and increase the adoption of this technology, there should likely be
greater education and advertising to the general population about what this technology is
and what it can do. A better understanding of consumers’ knowledge and attitudes about
3D food printing will be vital in encouraging successful adoption rates of this technology.
In order to overcome the potential social stigma or acceptance barriers that may exist for
3D food printers, we recommend some possible ways to address these issues. As
knowledge levels are generally low amongst this generation and likely the rest of the
population, it is recommended that effective marketing communication regarding how this
technology work, its potential uses, as well as addressing areas of concern will be essential
for gaining interest and acceptance of this technology.
Rich imagery is also suggested to be used for marketing purposes. Studies have confirmed
that while the senses of taste, smell and vision are distinct, visual imagery has been
confirmed to change people’s perceptions of taste, smell and flavor (Delwiche, 2012). This
will aid in generating excitement and enthusiasm for the average Millennial consumer and
help overcome concerns regarding food taste and quality.
3D food printing marketers would do well to spur Millennials on to take on their own roles
as brand ambassadors for this new and engaging technology. Marketers could target
Millennials to share photos amongst their peer groups as this target market does not shy
away from sharing their opinions online (Fromm, 2013). Millennials look to the Internet
for information and by influenced by online reviews (Katherine, 2012). It would be prudent
for 3d food printing manufacturers to engage in truthful and trusted business practices to
keep the Millennial’s experience positive and one that would be shared by ‘word-of-
mouth’ to potential income earning peers.
Researchers and developers should offer potential users of 3D food printers a
sophisticated printer that is capable and can offer a range of printed products. While
technological hurdles do exist regarding such advanced capabilities (Council & Petch,
2015), it is anticipated that as this technology advances, so too will its ability to print a
wider range of food products and produce high quality printed food.
3D Food Printing
95 | P a g e
General Interest and Buying Preferences
Based on our findings, it may be beneficial for researchers and developers to develop a minimum
of two models at varying price points, in order to saturate the market and reach as many consumers
as possible. A potentially competitive product development strategy might have a model marketed
at the $100 to $500 price range and another more expensive model at a price range of $500 to
$1000.
Potential Marketing Angles It appears that there may be two particular population target typologies. Minimizing food waste,
minimizing food preparation time and adding vitamins and minerals as desired were the most
important features of 3D food printers for Millennial consumers. It may be suggested that a
successful product positioning strategy would be to present 3D food printers as economical and
efficient, thereby attracting those most interested in minimizing food waste and food preparation
time. This suggestion is supported by the notion that those who are interested in purchasing a 3D
food printer value this feature more so than those who are not interested in purchasing a 3D food
printer.
The other typology includes those who may be attracted to 3D food printers because of the
potential health benefits. Adding vitamins and minerals and tracking calories were very important
to respondents and the importance of this feature may reflect a broader attitude towards health
and nutrition of the Millennial population. A strong marketing campaign could present 3D food
printers as a health benefit to consumers. It could be positioned and marketed as something that
will be attractive to consumers who are concerned about their nutritional intake.
3D Food Printing and Social Media
A very small proportion of respondents indicated that the ability to share food designs and self-
created recipes on social media is very important to them, while a large proportion indicated that
this feature of 3D food printers is not important. Although this is an interesting feature, developers
may want to focus on other aspects of 3D food printers before they begin to develop the
relationship between 3D food printers and social media.
Potential Marketing Barriers and Concerns
There seems to be a general concern for the taste of food and food safety. Marketers should focus
on portraying this technology as being safe, and ensuring consumers that the food products are
safe to ingest. The taste of the food product is also very important to potential consumers and so
this should be a main focus in terms of technology and marketing. Potential consumers are more
likely to buy a 3D food printer if they believe the food tastes good. A food sampling campaign may
be suggested in order to persuade people to change their perceptions regarding the taste of 3D
printed food.
3D Food Printing
96 | P a g e
Potentially Ineffective Development Strategies
Another interesting finding suggests that consumers care little about the style and design of the
3D food printers and 3D food products. This was surprising and unexpected. Developers may want
to focus more on functionality rather than visual appeal of the units or of the food items. This
suggestion is supported by the fact that the ability to print food in new shapes and textures was
not very important to respondents (only 9.4% of respondents indicated this feature as very
important) nor was the style and design of the unit (only 10.6% of respondents indicated this
feature was very important). Although an interesting feature, there may be a small market segment
of consumers who care about this feature and so developers should focus on other areas of design.
If developers choose to focus on the ability to print food in new shapes and textures, they should
market the 3D food printer at a lower price point. This suggestion is supported by the fact that
importance of this feature is inversely related to income. Those who make less find this feature
interesting, and so if this feature is to be developed in a 3D food printer, it may be more successfully
marketed at a lower price point to the target population.
Concept Design Recommendations
In this section we highlight some suggestions for creating successful development and marketing
strategies for target consumer groups. There are two conceptual models, each targeting a different
economic group.
3D Food Printing Model #1 (The Economy Saver)
Target market: those earning less than $30,000
Market product between $100 and $500
Focus on economic marketing aspects
Energy efficiency
Minimizing food waste
Minimizing food preparation time
Focus on building a model that allows for printing food into new shapes and textures
Focus on building a model that promotes using sustainable (and unconventional) protein
sources
3D Food Printing Model #2 (The Health Booster)
Target market: those earning more than $50,000
Market product between $500 and $1000
Focus on nutritional marketing aspects
The ability to add vitamins and minerals
The ability to track calories accurately
Size of unit and energy efficiency not as important to this target market
The preceding recommendations and insights were suggested from a careful examination of the
survey and focus group data, as well as from the literature. The following section discusses the
theoretical framework as well as validity and reliability of the preceding sections.
3D Food Printing
97 | P a g e
Evaluation
Philosophical Theoretical Framework
The framework for the research design was centered on a realist perspective. We did this in
order to improve the generalizability of our findings, and thus to make the results more reliable
and valid from an actionable stance. Our goal was to maximize our ability to uncover general
trends that may be consistent with the patterns that exist in the population under investigation,
Millennials in the GTA.
In our study, we did not presume to know any results, as it was exploratory in nature. We did
not have a testable hypothesis and we did not obtain a random sample. We also did not apply
any weighting to the results because we did not want to overvalue individuals with demographic
characteristics that are already of low proportion in the population. Our sample is
representative of GTA Millennials, but it could be said that it is more so representative of GTA
Millennials who use social media (as the vast majority of respondents completed the survey
through a social media website).
By constructing our research design with a realist perspective we were able to obtain more
generalizable results, but with consideration of our resource constraints. We were limited by
time and money, and so our research design would have to be appropriate for a lack of funding
and for a short duration of time for data collection. In particular, we wanted to obtain results
that were as objective in nature as possible. However, it is true that subjective interpretations
of the survey questions may thus limit this intention, and so we ultimately cannot find a real
objective truth. Nevertheless, the research design was sound enough to at least provide us with
some understanding of what the objective truth may look like.
In particular, due to the variability of the subjective understanding of the population, an
objective approach may miss out on the nuances and qualitative differences. Different
interpretations of our questions may subsequently affect the objective truth of our findings.
Focus groups and surveys were thus conducted in order to obtain more valid and reliable
findings. The focus groups and surveys supplemented as well as reinforced each other. The
survey provided more of a quantitative understanding of our research question, while the focus
groups provided us with a better understanding of why people may hold the attitudes that the
survey results had shown.
3D Food Printing
98 | P a g e
How the Work is situated in the current literature? As 3D food printing is in its early stages of development, there is limited research on consumer
perceptions of this technology and the factors involved with possible acceptance or rejection on
behalf of the consumer. Therefore, more research is required to gain an understanding of the
attitudes, knowledge and perceptions of consumers regarding this technology to ensure threats
are fully examined. With this study, we are able to bridge the gap between consumer insight and
product development to help marketers, developers and researcher refine product development,
enhance their target market, and increase adoption rates of 3D food printers intended for home
use.
Did We Meet Our Research Aims?
We successfully met the research aims and objectives for this study. We wanted to gauge the level
of knowledge Millennials' possess about 3D food printing, areas of interest and concern and assess
buying intent. Our results indicated that GTA Millennials have a high level of knowledge regarding
3D printing. However, only 3 out of 10 Millennials were aware of 3D food printing. We also wanted
to examine the key areas of interest or concern that Millennials have regarding 3D food printing.
The top 3 concerns were minimizing food waste, minimizing food preparation time and adding
vitamins and minerals as desired. Next, we also wanted to investigate what features Millennials
desire in a 3D food printer. The 3 most common desired features were taste of food, food safety
and cost. We sought to get an idea of whether Millennials were interested in purchasing a 3D food
printer and at what price point. The results indicated that Millennials are evenly split in terms of
purchasing a 3D food printer. The majority of Millennials are willing to spend between $101 and
$500 to own a 3D food printer. All in all, we were able to achieve all the research objectives and
aims related to this study.
Is it Valid and Reliable?
The completed study followed a quantitative and qualitative research approach involving the use
of surveys and focus groups as the primary methods of data collection. The study involved a
preliminary descriptive examination of the attitudes and knowledge of Millennials towards 3D food
printing technology. It was limited to only 330 survey respondents recruited through social media
and intercept surveying and to 13 focus group participants producing a total of two data sets.
There is a degree (impossible to calculate) of bias in the data because of limited access to the true
random population of GTA Millennials. We cannot generalize to an entire population, and our
ability to extrapolate outside of the research study sample is limited due to a number of sources of
bias. The sources of bias for each data collection method are described below. The Total Survey
Error cannot be calculated, but we presume the following sources to be the most impactful.
Bias in the data would be introduced for each research method used. We attempted a triangulation
of research methodologies – Intercept Surveys, Online Surveys and Focus Groups.
Intercept Surveys
Intercept surveys were conducted using iPads on the online platform Q-fi. Intercept surveys may
have biased the results as many of the respondents have something in common i.e. they frequent
3D Food Printing
99 | P a g e
Humber College campus. It is appropriate to presume that Humber College campus passerby's
would be different than a general GTA Millennial population sample of equivalent size. We cannot
predict the direction of the bias among any variables, except that it may be plausible to assume
that the intercept participants would be more inclined to favor the idea of new technology (noting
the fact that this is market research and that Humber College is considered a research and
technology school).
We attempted to obtain a heterogeneous sample by sampling males and females equally, however
respondents were selected based on convenience. We did not count the overall response rate for
intercept surveying. As people were walking by, we would ask if they were able to spend a few
minutes of their time. Some people ignored our request, while others showed interest but then
declined upon further inquiry. A response rate would be meaningless to report considering the fact
that there is no real criteria to use in order to determine if that person was a true non-responder.
However, due to the fact that we do not have a non-response rate for intercept surveying, this is a
limitation to the validity and reliability of the results.
Online Surveys
Online surveys were conducted using the online platform Q-fi. The fact that the respondents are
on the internet and are social media users would have biased the results. The sample of
respondents who use social media and have the internet is presumably different from a sample
from the general GTA Millennial population of equal sample size. Due to limited time and
resources, participants were recruited through personal connections and snowball sampling which
will introduce an additional element of bias. We tried to disseminate the survey to as many people
as could, in order to obtain a more heterogeneous sample. We also targeted different social media
platforms in order to obtain a more heterogeneous sample.
Since we were not able to conduct a random sample, we did not perform any parametric testing
of our data. We conducted nonparametric testing, and although we cannot generalize our results
to the general GTA Millennial population, we did uncover trends that we believe will hold true and
be reliable when compared to another study using random sampling and parametric testing.
Although our survey participants were mostly social media users, it may be presumed that the
general GTA Millennial population uses social media to a great extent anyway (Bergh, 2013).
Focus Groups
Focus groups were conducted at the home of one of the researchers. The participants were mostly
survey respondents who showed interest towards this technology and inquired about participating.
Other participants were friends of friends, Humber RAPP classmates or responded to our
advertisement on Craigslist and Kijiji. These facts would bias the results to some extent.
First of all, those who inquired about participating in the focus group from the survey would have
a systematic difference from the general GTA Millennial population. However, it was not our
intention to extrapolate or generalize our focus group findings to such a population. The findings
from the focus groups were simply meant to corroborate, supplement, or offer some examples of
why people held the attitudes that the survey had uncovered. That being said, the focus group
participants were probably more interested in this technology than the general GTA Millennial
3D Food Printing
100 | P a g e
population, and so this would skew or bias our results from the focus groups in some unknown
direction.
Since some of the participants were friends of friends or Humber RAPP students, there is an
immeasurable amount of introduced bias in the focus group data. These participants could have
been included simply because they wanted to be a part of the event and so could have portrayed
a different attitude during the focus group in order to satisfy the moderators or note takers. This
type of bias can be collectively referred to as social desirability bias (Berg & Lune, 2012).
Validity of Analysis
Whether or not our research insights and recommendations are valid is a complex question. As
described above, there are a number of sources of bias and error inherent in this, and in any,
research design. We are confident that our analysis followed strict rules and statistical protocols,
and we made every attempt to ensure our tests were stringent and powerful. We made no attempt
to conduct inferential statistical tests, or any parametric tests, since we did not obtain a random
sample. Although it is possible, it is poor research ethics to conduct parametric testing for
nonparametric based samples (Gravetter & Wallanu, 2013).
Since we did not obtain a random sample, we cannot generalize our findings to the entire GTA
Millennial population. The reasons for this have been previously mentioned, however the degree
to which our recommendations and insights are valid or not is questionable. In any case, we believe
that we have uncovered some valid general trends. The accuracy to which they are true is
impossible to determine. A point of mention is that, our survey participants were largely from social
media, and so those individuals are likely more technologically oriented than a population of non-
social media users. It is likely that the people who purchase 3D food printers are going to be the
more technologically oriented anyway and so it is a good idea to get their attitudes and opinions
in the first place.
Reliability of Analysis
Whether or not our research insights and recommendations are reliable is also a complex question.
We cannot pretend to know the degree to which our data is reliable, however we feel that if
another research team follows our methods exactly, they would likely obtain similar results. The
statistics procedures used were simple and nonparametric. This increases the chances that our
results can be reproduced in another project. The potential source for unreliability is due to the
small sample size for both the survey and the focus groups.
We only conducted two focus groups, and so the generalizations made could be relatively
unreliable. We do not know to what degree they are reliable or not. There may be a considerable
degree of opinion and attitudinal variation in the population towards 3D food printing, and so there
may be a degree of sampling error that makes our results unreliable. The reliability of our survey
follows a similar logic. We only obtained 330 completed surveys. This number is so small in
comparison to our population that there too may be a considerable degree of sampling error,
which may also introduce a degree of unreliability.
3D Food Printing
101 | P a g e
Triangulation
In order to deepen our understanding of our exploratory research, we took a triangulation
approach when designing our methodology. Our aim was to minimize researcher bias and obtain
a deeper and more developed understanding of Millennial knowledge and attitudes towards 3D
food printing. As research is not value free, questioning at multiple levels throughout the research
process allows for minimized misinterpretation of the findings and more robust value added
research (Olsen, 2004). We followed a multiple theory, multiple researcher and multiple data
technology approach as Denzin (Berg & Lune, 2012) categorizes, please see below (Figure 1):
Figure 35.Multiple lines of action in triangulation
The flexible nature of exploratory research allowed us to help define potential problems or
opportunities that exist for the 3D food printing market. As the technology under study is still in
preliminary stages, an extensive literature review was conducted including scouring online
resources reporting new advancements. The mixed methods design entailed a quantitative
component to provide insight on what is important to Millennials and the qualitative portion would
allow for further explanation into the ‘why’ it was pertinent.
Our research team consisted of a multi-disciplinary background offering unique and insightful
viewpoints when undertaking literature reviews, as well as data analysis. As each research method
reveals slightly different facets of the same symbiotic reality (Olsen, 2004), working with each other
provided more validity to the research as we collectively analyzed the data.
Our mixed methods approach employed the use of quantitative online survey data collection as
well as in-person qualitative focus groups. The quantitative data was collected online through the
use of the Q-fi data collection platform. The quantitative data was then analyzed through SPSS and
the use of statistical analysis of frequencies and cross-tabulations. The qualitative focus groups
were observed by the researchers, as well as audio-recorded and notes were taken throughout.
All qualitative data was analyzed in a grounded theory approach and HyperResearch was used as a
software analysis tool.
3D Food Printing
102 | P a g e
Appendices Appendix A. Bibliography
3D Systems. (2015, January 7). Savor the now with 3D printed food. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from 3D systems:
http://www.3dsystems.com/blog/2015/01/savor-now-3d-printed-food
Accenture. (2015). The Internet of Things: The Future of Consumer Adoption.
Alec. (2014, August 29). The F3D 3D printer doesn't just print pizza, but also cooks it in less than 20 minutes. Retrieved
March 27, 2016, from 3D printers and 3D printing news: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20140829-f3d-3d-printer-
makes-pizza-in-less-than-20-minutes.html
Alix Partners. (2012). Alix Partners. Retrieved from
http://www.alixpartners.com/en/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SypkQl4tuiw%3d&tabid=635
Barkley. (2011). American Millennials: Deciphering the Enigma Generation. Retrieved from
http://www.bcg.com/documents/file121010.pdf
Barrenar, R. A., Garcia, T., & Camarena, D. M. (2015). An analysis of the decision structure for food innovation on the
basis of consumer age. Agribusiness Management Review, 18(3):149-170.
BCG. (2012). Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved from http://www.bcg.com/documents/file121010.pdf
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Focus group interviewing. In B. L. Berg, & H. Lune, Qualitative research methods for the
social sciences (08 ed., pp. 164-193). USA: Pearson.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. New Jersy: Pearson Education Inc.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. New Jersy: Pearson.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Use of triangulation in research methodolgy. In B. L. Berg, & H. Lune, Qualitative research
methods for the social sciences (08 ed., pp. 5-8). USA: Pearson.
Bergh, J. V. (2013, October 14). Millennials & social media: the what, where and why [infographic]. Retrieved March 21,
2016, from InSites Consulting: www.insites-consulting.com/infographic-millennials-social-media/
Blair, J., Czaja, R. F., & Blair, E. A. (2014). Data collection 1. In J. Blair, R. F. Czaja, & E. A. Blair, Designing surveys: A guide to
decisions and procedures (3 ed., pp. 48-82). California: Sage Publications.
Blair, J., Czaja, R., & Blair, E. (2014). Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures. Los Angeles: Sage.
Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods
- Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23-61.
Brooke, R. (2014, January 7). World's first kitchen-ready Chefjet 3D printer launched by 3D systems. Retrieved March 27,
2016, from TCT Magazine: http://www.tctmagazine.com/tct-events/worlds-first-kitchen-ready-chefjet-3d-
printer-launched-by-3/
Brookover, A. (2016). Dangers of food additives and preservatives. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from Health guidance:
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/9987/1/Dangers-of-Food-Additives-and-Preservatives.html
Business Insider. (2015). 5 ways millennials' dining habits are different from their parents'. Retrieved from Business
Insider: www.businessinsider.com/millennials-dining-habits-are-different-2015-3
3D Food Printing
103 | P a g e
Cardello, A. (2003). Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product
liking. Appetite, 40(3): 217–233.
Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging
technologies: A conjoint analysis study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 8: 73-83.
Charlebois, S. (2015, June 17). Is 3-D printing the future of global food? . Retrieved from The Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/is-3-d-printing-the-future-of-global-
food/article24981139/
Choc Edge. (2016). About Us: Choc Edge. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Choc Edge: http://chocedge.com/about.html
Chow, D. (2013, May 21). NASA funds 3D pizza printer. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from Space Website:
http://www.space.com/21250-nasa-3d-food-printer-pizza.html
Council, A., & Petch, M. (2015). Future Food: How Cutting Edge Technology & 3D Printing Will Change the Way You Eat.
Tumwater, WA: GYGES3DCOM.
Delwiche, J. F. (2012). You eat with your eyes first. Physiology and Behavior, Vol. 107, Issue 4, 502-504.
Fell, D., Wilkins, C., Kivinen, E., Austin, A., & Fernandez, M. (2009). An evidence review of public attitudes to emerging food
technologies. A Brook Lyndhurst Report. UK: Food Standards Agency.
FIRM. (2013). Irish Consumer and Industry Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies: Research Highlights, Implications and
Recommendations.
Foodjet. (2016). Foodjet technology. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Foodjet:
http://www.foodjet.com/technology/foodjet-technology
Fromm, J. G. (2013). Marketing to millennials: Reach the largest and most influential generation of consumers ever. New
York: AMACOM.
Gill, P. S. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal,
204(6), 291-295.
Gourville. (2006). Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption. Harvard
Business Review, 84: 98–106.
Gourville, J. (2006). Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of. Harvard Business Review, 84: 98-
106.
GPI. (2014). The Millennials: A Generation Invested in Health and the Environment. Retrieved from Glass Packaging
Institute : www.gpi.org/sites/default/files/GPI-TheMillennials-11%206%2014-FINAL.pdf
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallanu, L. B. (2013). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (9th ed.). (J. D. Hague, Ed.) Wadsworth.
Greenberg, E. &. (2008). Generation We: How Millennial youth are taking over America and changing our world forever.
Emeryville, CA: Pachatusan.
Greenonyx. (n.d.). Home: Greenonyx. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from Greenonyx: http://www.greenonyx.biz/#ancher-
home
Haight, M., Quan-Hasse, A., & Corbett, B. A. (2014). Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: the impact of demographic
factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage. Information,
Communication and Society, 17(4), 503-519.
Hatic, D. (2016, February 2). The Army Wants to Use 3D Printers to Customize Soldiers’ Diets. Retrieved January 27, 2016,
from Eater: http://www.eater.com/2016/2/2/10894458/us-army-3d-printers-food-nutrition
3D Food Printing
104 | P a g e
Higgins, K. T. (2011). What's printing for dinner. Food Engineering, 83-84.
IFT. (2014). Food and Healthy Survey. Retrieved from International Food Council:
www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/2015-Food-and-Health-Survey-Full-Report.pdf
International Food Council (IFT). (n.d.). 2014 Food and Healthy Survey. Retrieved from
www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/2015-Food-and-Health-Survey-Full-Report.pdf
Jaworski, P. (2015, February 6). New paste extruder for Ceramics in testing phase. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from
Zmorph: http://blog.zmorph3d.com/new-paste-extruder/
Jie Sun, Z. P. (2015). A Review on 3D Printing for Customized Food Fabrication. Procedia Manufacturing, 308-319.
Johnny Blair, R. R. (2014). Designing Surveys. London : Sage Publications.
Kalnikaite, V. (2016). nufood 3D food printer. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Dovetailed: http://www.dovetailed.co/#!n-
food-3d-food-printer/c1hrh
Katherine, T. S. (2012). Longitudinal study of digital marketing strategies targeting millennials. The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 29(2), 86-92.
Kira. (2015a, November 26). It’s Alive: 3D Bioprinting market to reach $1.82 billion by 2020. Retrieved from 3D printer and
3D printing news: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20151126-its-alive-3d-bioprinting-market-to-reach-182-billion-
by-2022.html
Kira. (2015b, October 20). 3D printed lab-grown meat could be in stores in the next five years. Retrieved from 3D printer
and 3D printing news: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20151020-3d-printed-lab-grown-meat-could-be-in-stores-
in-the-next-five-years.html
Kira. (2015c, October 26). EU develops performance 3d printed food for elderly and patients with dysphagia. Retrieved
from 3D printer and 3D printing news: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20151026-eu-develops-performance-3d-
printed-food-for-elderly-and-patients-with-dysphagia.html
Kira. (2015d, May 2). 3Ders monday warm-up: The top 3d food printers that will feed the future. Retrieved March 27,
2016, from 3ders: 3D printer and 3D printing news: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20151102-3ders-monday-
warm-up-the-top-3d-food-printers-that-will-feed-the-future.html
Krassenstein, B. (2014, May 29). New details emerge on Biozoon’s 3D printed smoothfood. Retrieved March 27, 2016,
from 3D print: The voice of 3D printing technologies: http://3dprint.com/4689/3d-food-print-smoothfood/
Linden, D. (2015, March). 3D food printing creating shapes and textures. Retrieved from TNO innovation for life:
https://www.tno.nl/media/5517/3d_food_printing_march_2015.pdf
Loechner, J. (2014, April 22). Tech savvy Millennials take over spending from Boomers. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from
Media Post: www.mediapost.com/publications/article/224005/tech-savvy-millennials-take-over-spending-from-
boo.html
Mims, C. (2013, May 20). The audacious plan to end hunger with 3-D printed food. Retrieved from Quartz:
http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
Molitch-Hou, M. (2014, 11 9). 11 food 3D printers to feed the future. Retrieved from 3D Printing Industry:
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/11/09/11-food-3d-printers/
Natural Machines. (2016). Introducing Foodini. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from Natural Machines:
https://www.naturalmachines.com/
3D Food Printing
105 | P a g e
Nielsen. (2015). We are what we eat: Healthy eating trend around the world . Retrieved from
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/nielseninsights/pdfs/Nielsen%20Global%20Health%20an
d%20Wellness%20Report%20-%20January%202015.pdf
Olsen, W. K. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In M.
Holborn, & Haralambos, Developments in Sociology. Harlow Essex: Causeway Press.
Sher, D. (2015, August 24). New study confirms 3D printing market to grow to $17 billion by 2020. Retrieved from 3D
Printing Industry: http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/08/24/new-study-confirms-3d-printing-market-grow-17-
billion-2020/
Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 19, 603-608.
Simon. (2014, December 23). Husband and wife create superfood '3D printer' to get their kids to eat their vegetables.
Retrieved March 24, 2016, from 3ders: 3D printer and 3D printing news:
http://www.3ders.org/articles/20141223-husband-and-wife-create-superfood-3d-printer-to-get-their-kids-to-
eat-their-vegetables.html
Smolin, L., Grosvenor, M., & Gurfinkel, D. (2012). Nutrition: Science and Applications. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons
Canada, Ltd.
Soutar, C. (2016, March 15). 3D printed food: for NASA, the US army and you. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from The Skinny:
http://www.theskinny.co.uk/tech/features/3d-printed-food-for-nasa-the-us-army-and-you
Statistics Canada. (2014). Table 282-0002 - Labour force survey estimates (LFS), by sex and detailed age group annual
(persons x 1,000).
Statistics Canada. (2011). age group for July, based on the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2011, annualTable
052-062 - Estimates of population by census division, sex and.
Structur3d Printing. (2016). Home: Discov3ry. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Structur3d Printing:
http://www.structur3d.io/#discov3ry
Sun, M.-H. (2014, November 9). 11 food 3D printers to feed the future. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from 3D printing
industry: http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/11/09/11-food-3d-printers/
Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial Behaviors & Demographics. Retrieved from
https://certi.mst.edu/media/administrative/certi/documents/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.pdf
Tashakkori, A. (2003). Data collection strategies. In A. Tashakkori, Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 297-299). California: Sage publ.
Tennant, D. (2013, January 8). Women are obliterating the "Technology-is-for-men' stereotype. Retrieved March 24, 2016,
from ITBusinessEdge: www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/from-under-the-rug/women-are-obliterating-the-
technology-is-for-men-stereotype.html
Timm, J. C. (2014, March 22). Millennials: We care more about the environment. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/millennials-environment-climate-change
TNO. (2015). 3D printing makes food unique. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from TNO innovation for life:
https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-area/healthy-living/food-nutrition/food-innovations/3d-printing-makes-food-
unique/
3D Food Printing
106 | P a g e
TNO. (2015, May 13). World first for barilla and TNO 3d pasta printer at expo2015. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from TNO
innovation for life: https://www.tno.nl/en/about-tno/news/2015/5/world-first-for-barilla-and-tno-3d-pasta-
printer-at-expo2015/
Wiggers, K. (2015, April 26). Why 3D food printing is more than just a novelty — it’s the future of food. Retrieved from
Digital Trends: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/3d-food-printers-how-they-could-change-what-you-
eat/#/4
Witter, S. (2014, May 11). 3-D food printer could solve your eating issues. Retrieved March 27, 2016, from Realitypod:
http://realitypod.com/2014/05/3-d-food-printer-could-solve-your-eating-issues/
Wong, V. (2014, January 28). A guide to all the food that's fit to 3D print (so far). Retrieved December 2, 2015, from
Bloomberg Business: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-28/all-the-food-thats-fit-to-3d-print-
from-chocolates-to-pizza
Yepes, M. (2015). Mobile tablet menus: Attractiveness and impact of nutrition labelling formats on millennials' food
choices. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56(1), 58-67.
Appendix B. Original Documents
INFORMATION LETTER— FOCUS GROUP—“3-D FOOD PRINTING”
Research Project:
An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
Researchers:
Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh and Jason Szymanski
Purpose:
The research will explore the current knowledge of millennials with regards to 3D food printing, evaluate key areas of
interest and concern, as well as assess purchase intent. This information may provide valuable insights about 3D food
printing which may aid in product development and possibly improve adoption rates of this technology.
Description:
The project involves the collection of data through online web-surveys, in-person intercept surveys as well as focus
groups with millennials in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in order to gauge knowledge levels and attitudes towards
3D food printing. Questions about cooking behaviours and opinions on the benefits and concerns of 3D food printing
technology will be asked in order to understand the attitudes of millennials.
This segment of the project involves participation within a focus group of 5-7 participants and discussions will be
videotaped. The data will be held on file within the Humber College research department for a period of one year
after project completion, after which time the information will be destroyed. Participation in the focus group may
cause some inconvenience to you, including the use of your time. The focus group will take approximately 60 minutes
of your time. The groups will be conducted on 18 January, 2016.
Incentives:
3D Food Printing
107 | P a g e
As a way to compensate you for any inconvenience related to participation, we will provide each participant with a
$10.00 gift card.
Potential Risks:
There are no known potential risks to participating in this project.
Potential Benefits:
Potential benefits to participating in this study include learning about new possible food concepts and 3D printing technology. Participants may also benefit from being able to impart their insight to the greater body of knowledge, and may have a voice in the development of a potentially profound new technology.
Confidentiality & Anonymity:
Focus group participants are required to sign a consent form which will be kept separate from the data collection. If a
participant wants to be anonymous, they can sign an X on the consent form instead of their name. Focus group
participants have the right to choose a pseudonym. All names will be removed from the data and if necessary, any
identifying stories or circumstances will be slightly altered to protect your confidentiality. Efforts will be made to
remove all identifying features from focus group transcripts before they undergo group analysis so that your answers
will not be identifiable. As a focus group involves a group discussion, it is impossible to provide complete confidentiality
or anonymity, but guidelines will be presented to the group to ensure that the focus group space is a safe space for
open discussion.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected by ensuring that all data is stored in a safe,
secure location. Only the researchers will have access to the raw data. Hard copy data will be stored in a locked
briefcase in a secure location and electronic data will be stored on a secure encrypted external hard drive. All files
will be kept for up to one year after the completion of the research project in the Humber College research
department after which time data will be destroyed.
Withdrawal Procedure:
I understand I may refuse to answer any questions and I may decline or withdraw from participation at any time whilst
the focus group is being carried out without any negative consequences. I understand that focus group data is group
data and I will not be able to withdraw my data after participation.
Sponsorship:
This study is undertaken solely for the purposes of learning social and market research techniques and is funded by
the researchers of the project in order to fulfill course requirements for the 2015/16 Research Analyst Post-Graduate
Program (RAPP) at Humber College.
3D Food Printing
108 | P a g e
Conflicts of Interest:
Due to the nature of our sample, some participants may have personal connections to the researchers such as peers,
friends and acquaintances. If such members are selected for the focus group, a moderator with no affiliation with the
participant will guide the discussion.
Follow up:
There is no plan to contact participants after the completion of the study.
The results of the research are to be used as a learning tool for the RAPP program at Humber College with the
possibility of public dissemination. The research will be presented to the RAPP 2015/2016 cohort and teachers for
grading purposes. The study may also be presented at the RAPP Research Forum at Humber College on March 30,
2016 and there is potential for the report to be disseminated to interested industry members.
Research Ethics Board (REB) Approval:
This project has been approved by the Program Coordinator Dr. Mary Takacs of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber Research Ethics Board. If you have any questions
about your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622
Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Additionally, you can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
I have read this Information Letter and all my questions have been answered.
My signature below verifies that I have received a copy of the Information Letter.
Participant’s Name: __________________________________________________________
Please Print
Signature: ___________________________________________
Date: _______________________, 2016
3D Food Printing
109 | P a g e
CONSENT LETTER— FOCUS GROUP—“3-D FOOD PRINTING”
Consent Form
I have read the information presented in the information letter about the study being conducted by Juhi Agarwal,
Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh and Jason Szymanski, students of the Research Analyst Postgraduate
Program (RAPP) at Humber College. I have had the opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, to receive
satisfactory answers to my questions, and any additional details required. I have also been informed that I will be
videotaped during the focus group session. I am aware that participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw from
the focus group without penalty at any time. However, if I do voluntarily decide to leave the focus group, my data will
remain as part of the larger group data set and may not be extracted. I have been told that by signing this consent
agreement I am not giving up any of my legal rights.
This project has been approved by Dr. Mary Takacs, Program Coordinator of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of the Humber Research Ethics Board. I was informed that if I
have any comments or concerns resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP
Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Also, I can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
With full knowledge of all the above, I agree and understand, of my own free will, to participate in this study.
_______________________________
Print Name
________________________________________
Signature of Participant
______________________________
Date
3D Food Printing
110 | P a g e
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE
3D Food Printing: Knowledge and Attitudes
Researcher(s):
Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh, Jason Szymanski
NOTE: TEXT WRITTEN IN ITALICIZED BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS CONSTITUTES ADDITIONAL
REMINDERS MEANT TO GUIDE THE FOCUS GROUP FACILITATOR ONLY.
[THE COMPLETION OF THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION OF THE FOCUS GROUP SHOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY 10-15
MINUTES]
I) INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS:
Hello, my name is _______. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group meeting. Just to remind
everyone, I’m looking at opinions about 3D food printing.
[POINT OUT REFRESHMENTS if available, NAME TAGS if used – people should use their first name or pseudonym only].
In a minute, we will all introduce ourselves – first names only. But first, I would like to walk you through the consent
form that is in front of you.
[FOR FACILITATOR: REVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. COLLECT SIGNED
CONSENT FORMS AND ENSURE THAT PARTICIPANTS HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER OF INFORMATION TO TAKE WITH
THEM]
Confidentiality: [READ ALOUD] Before we begin our discussion of 3D food printing, I want to spend a few moments
talking about confidentiality and to go over some basic ground rules for our focus group discussion today:
§ Everyone’s views are welcomed and important.
§ The information which we will collect today will be attributable (connected or associated) to you as a group.
§ We will not identify quotes or ideas any one person of this group. Because of the nature of small communities or
groups, it is possible that people could link participants in this room to quotes in the report. This is why we need to
talk about confidentiality.
§ We are assuming that when we learn about one another's views, they remain confidential. In a small community
(group) like this, people are identifiable to some degree by their views and opinions.
§ Having said this, and having made these requests, you know that we cannot guarantee that the request will be
honoured by everyone in the room.
§ So we are asking you to make only those comments that you would be comfortable making in a public setting; and
to hold back making comments that you would not say publicly.
3D Food Printing
111 | P a g e
§ Anything heard in the room should stay in the room.
§ All voices are to be heard, so I will step in if too many people are speaking at once or to make sure that everyone
has a chance to speak.
§ I may also step in if I feel the conversation is straying off topic.
§ After the discussion, I will invite you to fill in an anonymous details to us help generally describe the kind of people
who were part of the group today.
§ You can expect this discussion group to last about 45 minutes.
Use of Video Recorder
● As you will recall, this focus group will be recorded to increase accuracy and to reduce the chance of
misinterpreting what anyone says.
● All tapes and transcripts will be kept under lock and key by the researcher.
● Names will be removed from transcripts. Participants will have coded numbers attached to their name which
only I will know.
● Only I and my other researchers will have access to transcripts (with personal names removed) of this focus
group.
● For transcription purposes, I might remind you to say your first name for the first few times you speak so that
when I’m transcribing the tape I can get used to recognizing your voice. That will ensure we assign the correct
code to each person’s answers. I will give you a gentle reminder.
● I’ll also ask that when using abbreviations or acronyms, you say the full name at least once to aid transcription.
● We may also use a “flip chart” to write down key points during the focus group and take notes.
[AT THIS POINT, GROUP MEMBERS CAN QUICKLY INTRODUCE THEMSELVES –remind them that it is ‘first names only’.]
3D Food Printing
112 | P a g e
II. INTERVIEW
Open up discussion for general responses of participants to each question.
Interview questions:
Potential Moderator Guide Questions:
(Introductory Warm-Up?): What is your name and what is your favorite food?
Have you ever heard of 3D printing? What do you know about 3D printing?
Have you ever heard of 3D food printing? What do you know about 3D food printing?
Provide a definition so that everyone has a similar reference point to discuss:
[INSERT HERE: TBD]
What do you think of 3D food printing?
Probe: Do you see any potential benefits or potential concerns/issues with the use of 3D food printing?
Probe: Which industries do you think might be affected by this new technology? [Positively and negatively]
If this was available to you would you consider using it? How could you see yourself using it?
Is there anything we forgot or something important that we should know about 3D Food Printing?
[INSERT PREDICTIVE EXERCISE: TBD]
Wrap-up:
● Remind participants that “what is said in the room should stay in the room”.
Thank the participants and give them incentives.
3D Food Printing
113 | P a g e
FOCUS GROUP RECRUITMENT PAMPHLET
PARTICIPANTS NEEDED FOR
A RAPP RESEARCH PROJECT
We are looking for volunteers to take part in a study of
3D Food Printing Technology
You would be asked to participant in a focus group on January 18th @ TBD
Your participation would involve one 45-60 minute session.
In appreciation for your time, you will receive
a $10.00 gift card.
For more information about this study, or to volunteer for this study,
please contact:
Jason Szymanski: [email protected]
This study has been reviewed by Dr. Mary Tacaks, in keeping with the standards and protocols of the
Humber Research Ethics Board.
3D Food Printing
114 | P a g e
DRAFT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: 3D FOOD PRINTING
Step-by-step instructions for the interviewers:
Will the respondent be informed in advance of post-survey assessment?
The respondent will be informed in advance of the post-survey assessment as outlined in the information letter.
How are the vocabulary or terminology questions to be answered?
The interviewer may answer questions about vocabulary or terminology from respondents to further clarify the
question intent. However, answers are to be kept to a minimum and not sway the respondent to respond in any
particular way, only to clarify any specific vocabulary.
How are the background knowledge questions to be answered?
The interviewer will keep to the script. If more detail still requested from the respondent, please reply to the
respondent, “We are interested in your answers as you feel best represent your answer to the question. I am sorry
but I cannot provide any more detail for you. There are no right or wrong answers, we are only interested in your own
thoughts and opinions.”
Is probing allowed?
The interviewer will not be required to probe as the survey will be administered via an electronic device such as an
iPad.
How is item silence/non-response handled?
N/A
For multiple interviewers:
a. Describe training of interviewers to ensure uniformity of delivery and documenting responses.
Since the interviewers will be administering the survey via an electronic device, the participant will be instructed to
read the instructions as they appear on the screen. The interviewer will not pose additional interviewer bias.
However, if a respondent asks for clarification, the interviewer will inform the respondent, “I am sorry but I cannot
provide any more detail for you. There are no right or wrong answers, we are only interested in your own thoughts
and opinions.”
No additional information will be supplied to the respondent. The survey data will be captured automatically and
reviewed by the supervisor.
Describe procedure for monitoring interviewers to ensure uniformity of delivery and documenting responses.
Interviewers will be monitored during their interviewing procedures every 20 interviews. The data will be reviewed
by the supervisor to ensure that no additional information is being supplied to the respondents.
Ensure completion of the questionnaire in its entirety. If answers to questions are missing, the researcher will ask
the respondent to review the question and provide an answer. If the respondent refuses to provide an answer, for
whatever reason, then the researcher will accept this and not press the issue. The survey will be considered
completed and will be used for research purposes as long as at least 50% of the survey questions are answered.
3D Food Printing
115 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
116 | P a g e
INFORMATION LETTER—INTERCEPT SURVEY—“3-D FOOD PRINTING”
Research Project:
An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
Researchers:
Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh and Jason Szymanski
Purpose:
The research will explore the current knowledge of millennials with regards to 3D food printing, evaluate key areas of
interest and concern, as well as assess purchase intent. This information may provide valuable insights about 3D food
printing which may aid in product development and possibly improve adoption rates of this technology.
Description:
The project involves the collection of data through online web-surveys, in-person intercept surveys as well as focus
groups with millennials in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in order to gauge knowledge levels and attitudes towards
3D food printing. Questions about cooking behaviours and opinions on the benefits and concerns of 3D food printing
technology will be asked in order to understand the attitudes of millennials.
This segment of the project involves administering in-person surveys. The data will be held on file within the Humber
College research department for a period of one year after project completion, after which time the information will
be destroyed. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The administering of surveys will be
conducted during the months of January-February of 2016.
Potential Risks:
There are no known potential risks to participating in this project.
Potential Benefits:
Potential benefits to participating in this study include learning about new potential food concepts and 3D printing
technology. Participants may also benefit from being able to impart their insight to the greater body of knowledge,
and may have a voice in the development of a potentially profound new technology.
3D Food Printing
117 | P a g e
Confidentiality & Anonymity:
Intercept survey participants are required to sign a consent form which will be kept separate from the data collection.
If a participant wants to be anonymous, they can sign an X on the consent form instead of their name.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected by ensuring that all data is stored in a safe,
secure location. Only the researchers will have access to the raw data. Hard copy data will be stored in a locked
briefcase in a secure location and electronic data will be stored on a secure encrypted external hard drive. All files will
be kept for up to one year after the completion of the research project in the Humber College research department
after which time raw data will be destroyed.
Withdrawal Procedure:
I understand I may refuse to answer any questions and I may decline or withdraw from participation at any time whilst
the survey is being carried out without any negative consequences. I understand that if I wish to withdraw at any point
after the survey, my data cannot be removed as the information is anonymous.
Sponsorship:
This study is undertaken solely for the purposes of learning social and market research techniques and is funded by
the researchers of the project in order to fulfill course requirements for the 2015/16 Research Analyst Post-Graduate
Program (RAPP) at Humber College.
Conflicts of Interest:
There are no conflicts of interest, unless you are known by one of the researchers. If you are known by one of the
researchers, please identify yourself and it is required that you withdraw from participation in the survey.
Follow up:
There is no plan to contact participants after the completion of the study.
The results of the research are to be used as a learning tool for the RAPP program at Humber College with the
possibility of public dissemination. The research will be presented to the RAPP 2015/2016 cohort and teachers for
grading purposes. The study may also be presented at the RAPP Research Forum at Humber College on March 30,
2016 and there is potential for the report to be disseminated to interested industry members.
Research Ethics Board (REB) Approval:
This project has been approved by the Program Coordinator Dr. Mary Takacs of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber Research Ethics Board.. If you have any questions
about your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622
Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Additionally, you can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
I have read this Information Letter and all my questions have been answered.
My signature below verifies that I have received a copy of the Information Letter.
Participant’s Name: __________________________________________________________
3D Food Printing
118 | P a g e
Please Print
Signature: ___________________________________________
Date: _________________, 2016
3D Food Printing
119 | P a g e
CONSENT LETTER— INTERCEPT SURVEY—”3-D FOOD PRINTING”
Consent Form
I have read the information presented in the information letter about the study being conducted by Juhi Agarwal,
Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh and Jason Szymanski, students of the Research Analyst Postgraduate
Program (RAPP) at Humber College. I have had the opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, to receive
satisfactory answers to my questions, and any additional details required. I am aware that participation is voluntary
and that I may withdraw from the survey without penalty at any time. I understand that if I withdraw halfway through
the survey, there is no way of removing the anonymous data that I have already provided. I have been told that by
signing this consent agreement I am not giving up any of my legal rights.
This project has been approved by Dr. Mary Takacs, Program Coordinator of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16 program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of the Humber Research Ethics Board. I was informed that if I have any comments or concerns resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Also, I can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at [email protected].
With full knowledge of all the above, I agree and understand, of my own free will, to participate in this study.
____________________________
Print Name
________________________________________
Signature of Participant
____________________________
Date
DRAFT: 3D Food Printing Concept Survey
Section I: Screener Questions
1. Age in years:
____ <18 Survey ends
3D Food Printing
120 | P a g e
____ 18 – 21
____ 22 – 25
____ 26 – 29
____ 30 – 35
____ >35 Survey ends
2. Do you reside in Greater Toronto Area (GTA)?
___ Yes
___ No Survey ends
3. Do you work in the food industry?
___ Yes Survey ends
___ No
Section II: Main Questions
1. Have you heard of 3D printing before?
___ Yes
___ No
2. Did you know you could print food in 3D form?
___ Yes
___ No
Please read the following definition of 3D food printing before answering the next set of questions.
“3D Food Printing is developing as a result of the rapid developments in the 3D printing world. The process uses ingredients to generate three-dimensional meals by placing layers of compounded food on top of each other. The food industry has used this technology to produce products like candy, chocolate, pizza, noodles and even crackers. Despite its relative novelty, many companies are recognizing 3D food printing’s potential to revolutionize global food systems.”
3. Please rate the following statements regarding your personal level of interest:
Statement Not at all
interesting
Slightly
interesting
Moderately
interesting
Very
interesting
Extremely
interesting
The ability to customize
nutritional properties of food
precisely for your own
individual dietary
3D Food Printing
121 | P a g e
The ability to print food in
different shapes and textures
previously not possible.
The ability to reduce food
preparation time.
The ability to convert
unappetizing foods to
appetizing foods such as
alternative (or sustainable)
protein sources such as
insects or algae.
The ability to share images
and recipes on social media.
Reduction of food waste.
Solution to global food crisis.
3D Food Printing
122 | P a g e
4. Please rate your concerns for the following statements:
Statement Not at all
concerned
Slightly
concerned
Moderately
concerned
Very
concerned
Extremely
concerned
May disturb food
manufacturing chain
May replace farms
May reduce employment
May disrupt food culture
5. Do you think you could benefit from 3D Food Printing? (If Yes, proceed to Question 7)
___ Yes
___ No
6. If No, what is the reason for your response?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Home-based 3D Food Printers are currently available around $1000 - $1500, would you be interested in purchasing at this price? (If Yes or Maybe, proceed to Section III)
___ Yes
___ No
___ Maybe
8. If No, how much would you be willing to spend on 3D Food Printer?
____ less than $100
____ $100 - $500
____ $501 - $1000
____ not purchase
3D Food Printing
123 | P a g e
Section III: Demographic Information
1. What is your highest level of education?
____ less than secondary/high school
____ secondary/high school diploma
____ Some college
____University Undergraduate degree
____ Masters or Doctoral degree
2. Sex:
____ Male
____ Female
Thank You.
3D Food Printing
124 | P a g e
RECRUITMENT NOTICE—ONLINE SURVEY— “3-D FOOD PRINTING”
E-mail Subject line: 3D Food Printing: Millennial 3D Food Printing Knowledge and Attitudes
I am inviting you to participate in a brief online survey that will take no longer than 10 minutes to complete. I am
carrying out a study to learn what millennials think about 3D food printing technology as part of a post-graduate
certificate program in social and market research at RAPP Humber College. I’m interested in learning about your
thoughts and opinions on this topic.
We are only interested in your opinions of 3D printing food technology and acknowledge no risks for your participation
within this survey.
You can withdraw at any time during the survey. I have attached a copy of a letter of information about the study that
gives you full details. This project has been approved by Dr. Mary Takacs, Program Coordinator of the Humber College
RAPP 2015/16 program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of the Humber Research Ethics Board.
If you any have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant or about the way the study is being conducted
you can contact:
Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Also, you can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
We would like to thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
The following link will lead you to the online survey. http://3dprintingonline
Researcher
Post-Graduate Certificate Candidate in the RAPP Program
Liberal Arts
Tel: 416-###-####
3D Food Printing
125 | P a g e
INFORMATION LETTER—ONLINE SURVEY—”3-D FOOD PRINTING”
Research Project:
An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
Researchers:
Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh and Jason Szymanski
Purpose:
The research will explore the current knowledge of millennials with regards to 3D food printing, evaluate key areas of
interest and concern, as well as assess purchase intent. This information may provide valuable insights about 3D food
printing which will may aid in product development and possibly improve adoption rates of this technology.
Description:
The project involves the collection of data through online web-surveys, in-person intercept surveys as well as focus
groups with millennials in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in order to gauge knowledge levels and attitudes towards
3D food printing. Questions about cooking behaviours and opinions on the benefits and concerns of 3D food printing
technology will be asked in order to understand the perspectives of millennials.
This segment of the project involves the administering of online surveys. The data will be held on file within the
Humber College research department for a period of one year after project completion, after which time the
information will be destroyed. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes of your time. The administering of
surveys will be conducted during the months of January-February of 2016.
Potential Risks:
There are no known potential risks to participating in this project.
Potential Benefits:
Potential benefits to participating in this study include learning about new possible food concepts and 3D printing
technology. Participants may also benefit from being able to impart their insight to the greater body of knowledge,
and may have a voice in the development of a potentially profound new technology.
Confidentiality & Anonymity:
The online survey will not collect any identifiable information and as such will remain anonymized. The online survey
will require participants to accept that they have read and fully understand the information.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected by ensuring that all data is stored in a safe,
secure location. Only the researchers will have access to the raw data. Hard copy data will be stored in a locked
briefcase in a secure location and electronic data will be stored on a secure encrypted external hard drive. All files will
be kept for up to one year after the completion of the research project in the Humber College research department
after which time data will be destroyed.
Withdrawal Procedure:
3D Food Printing
126 | P a g e
I understand I may refuse to answer any questions and I may decline or withdraw from participation at any time whilst
the interview is being carried out without any negative consequences. I understand that if I withdraw at any point
during the survey, my data cannot be removed as the information is anonymous.
Sponsorship:
This study is undertaken solely for the purposes of learning social and market research techniques and is funded by
the researchers of the project in order to fulfill course requirements for the 2015/16 Research Analyst Post-Graduate
Program (RAPP) at Humber College.
Conflicts of Interest:
Due to the nature of our sample, some participants may have personal connections to the researchers such as peers,
friends and acquaintances.
Follow up:
There is no plan to contact participants after the completion of the study.
The results of the research are to be used as a learning tool for the RAPP program at Humber College with the
possibility of public dissemination. The research will be presented to the RAPP 2015/2016 cohort and teachers for
grading purposes. The study may also be presented at the RAPP Research Forum at Humber College on March 30,
2016 and there is potential for the report to be disseminated to interested industry members.
Research Ethics Board (REB) Approval:
This project has been approved by the Program Coordinator, Dr. Mary Takacs of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber Research Ethics Board.. If you have any questions
about your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622
Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Additionally, you can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
3D Food Printing
127 | P a g e
CONSENT LETTER— ONLINE SURVEY— “3-D FOOD PRINTING”
Consent Form
I have read the information presented in the information letter shown on the previous page [hyperlink previous page] about a study being conducted by Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh and Jason Szymanski, students of the Research Analyst Postgraduate Program (RAPP) at Humber College. ❏ I have had the opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, to receive satisfactory answers to my
questions, and any additional details required.
❏ I am aware that participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw from the study without penalty at any time
before completion of the survey. I understand that if I withdraw halfway through the online survey, there is
no way of removing the anonymous data that I have already provided.
❏ By signing this consent agreement I am not giving up any of my legal rights.
❏ I understand that if I have any comments or concerns resulting from my participation in this study, I may
contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Also, I can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at [email protected].
This project has been approved by Dr. Mary Takacs, Program Coordinator of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of the Humber Research Ethics Board.
With full knowledge of all the above, I agree and understand, of my own free will, to participate in this study.
By clicking the “I Agree” button below, I verify that I have read a copy of the Information Letter, and that I agree to
participate in the research project as it has been described in the Information Letter. If you do not wish to proceed,
please select the “I Decline” button below.
“I Agree”
“I Decline”
Signature: ___________________________________________
Date: _______________________, 2016
3D Food Printing
128 | P a g e
INFORMATION LETTER – INTERCEPT SURVEY & ONLINE SURVEY
The purpose of this research study is to explore the knowledge and attitudes of millennials towards 3D food printing.
The research is being conducted by students of the Humber College Research Analyst Postgraduate Program (RAPP)
as a course requirement. You are invited to participate in this online survey because we are interested in speaking
with millennials living in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) regarding their opinions on this new food technology.
Project Title: An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
Your participation in this research study is voluntary. By agreeing to participate, you will be asked to complete an
online survey that will take approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete. There are no foreseeable risks involved in
participating in this study. If you decide to participate in this research survey, you may withdraw at any time and you
will not be penalized. If you wish to withdraw at any point after the survey, your data cannot be removed as the
information is anonymous.
The goal of this research is to provide important insights about 3D food printing which may help product development
and acceptance. The survey questions will be about cooking behaviours and opinions on 3D food printing technology.
You will benefit from participation in this research from being able to impart your insight to the greater body of
knowledge and may have a voice in the development of a new technology. As a thank you for your time, you are
invited to enter into a draw for a chance to win a $50 prepaid VISA card. You will also have the option of joining a focus
group on 3D food printing, which will take place in March 2016 at Humber Lakeshore Campus. Once you complete the
survey, you will be provided with the option of entering your contact information if you would like to be included in
the draw and/or be contacted to participate in the focus group.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected by ensuring that all data is stored in a safe,
secure location for up to one year, after which all data will be destroyed. Your answers will be confidential and your
contact information, provided for the purposes of the prize draw will be held separately from your survey responses.
The results of the research will be presented at the Humber RAPP forum on March 30, 2016, with the possibility of
public dissemination. Due to the nature of our sample, some participants may have personal connections to the
researchers such as peers, friends and acquaintances.
This research project has been reviewed and approved in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber
Research Ethics Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Mary
Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected]. Additionally, you can contact
the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
[email protected] you for considering participation in this study.
ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please select your choice below. You may print a copy of this consent form for your records.
Clicking on the “Agree” button indicates that:
● You have read and understood the above information
● You voluntarily agree to participate
● You are 18 years of age or older
◻ Agree
◻ Disagree
3D Food Printing
129 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
130 | P a g e
Appendix C. The Survey Instrument
3D Food Printing Survey
Welcome to the 3D food printing survey!
Instructions: Please complete the following questions to reflect your opinions as accurately as possible and to answer
factual questions to the best of your knowledge.
Your information will be kept strictly confidential.
Section I: Screener Questions
1. What year were you born? _________ (1980 – 1998)
2. Do you currently reside in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)? If needed, click here for a map. ____ Yes
____ No Survey ends
Section II: 3D Food Printing Questions
3. Have you ever heard of 3D printing? ___ Yes
___ No > if No, skip to question 5
4. What are some of the 3D printing products that you have heard of? (Choose all that apply)
___Guns ___Toys ___Cars ___Food ___Musical instruments ___Shoes ___Prosthetic limbs, Organs ___Art work, Sculptures ___Clothing ___Houses
____ Other
Please read the following description of 3D food printing before answering the next set of questions.
3D Food Printing is developing as a result of the rapid advancements in the 3D printing world. The process uses
ingredients to generate three-dimensional meals by placing layers of compounded food on top of each other. The
food industry has used this technology to produce products like candy, chocolate, pizza, noodles and even crackers.
Despite its relative novelty, many companies are recognizing 3D food printing’s potential to impact global food
systems.
5. Would you be interested in purchasing a 3D food printer? ____ Yes
3D Food Printing
131 | P a g e
____ No > if No, skip to question 7
6. What is the maximum you would be willing to spend on a 3D food printer? ____ less than $100
____ $100 - $500
____ $501 - $1000
____greater than $1000
7. Please rate the following proposed features and abilities of 3D food printers in terms of their importance to you:
Statement
Not Important
Slightly Important
Moderately Important
Important
Very Important
i. Sharing food designs on social media
ii. Tracking calories accurately
iii. Printing food in new shapes and textures
iv. Adding vitamins and minerals as desired
v. Minimizing food preparation time
vi. Minimizing food waste
vii. Using sustainable protein sources such as algae and insects
viii. Printing the exact form of traditional food
8. Please rate the following considerations for 3D food printers in terms of importance to you:
Statement
Not Important
Slightly Important
Moderately Important
Important Very Important
i. Style & Design
ii. Cost
iii. Maintenance
iv. User Friendly
v. Size of Unit
vi. Energy Efficiency
vii. Food Safety
viii. Taste of Food
ix. Variety of Food
9. In total each day, how long do you typically spend preparing your meals?
3D Food Printing
132 | P a g e
____ <15min
____ 15 min to 29 min
____ 30 min to 59 min
____ 1 hour to 2 hours
____ >2 hrs
____ I don’t prepare my meals
10. For how many people do you prepare meals including yourself?
____
11. How many meals do you prepare each day? ____
Section III: Demographic Information
12. What is your highest level of education? ____ No certificate, diploma or degree
____ High school diploma
____ PostSecondary Certificate or Diploma below Bachelor level
____ University Bachelor’s degree
____ University Master’s degree
____Professional Degree (MD, DDS, LLB, etc.)
____Earned Doctorate
13. What is your personal income?
____ less than $30,000
____$30,000 to $50,000
____$50,001 to $70,000
____$70,001 to $90,000
____$90,001 and above
14. What is your sex? ____ Male
____ Female
Thank You
Appendix D. REB Forms
Form 1 (REVISION)
3D Food Printing
133 | P a g e
Application for Research Involving Human Subjects
For Use by Internal and External Applicants
Date of Submission: December 3rd 2015
Date of Revision(s) (if applicable):
Section A – GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Title of Research Project:
An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
2. Group Members:
Jason Szymanski (Project Manager)
Tracey Haefele
Juhi Agarwal
Anjali Sharma
Ankita Singh
3. If co-investigators are involved, list contact details of the co-investigators. Expand as needed:
a) Name:
Institutional or Organizational Affiliation:
Position: Program/Dept.:
Mailing address:
Phone: Fax: Email:
b) Name:
Institutional or Organizational Affiliation:
Position: Program/Dept.:
Mailing address:
Phone: Fax: Email:
3D Food Printing
134 | P a g e
5. Project Period:
Proposed Start Date: January 11th 2016 Anticipated Completion Date: March 15th 2016
6. Project Funding:
Unfunded ☒
Received Funding ☐
Internal ☐ External ☐ Source: Approval Date:
Funds Administration: Humber ☐ Other ☐ Specify:
Start Date: Completion Date:
Applied for Funding ☐
Internal ☐ External ☐ Source: Submission Date:
Will research proceed is funding is not obtained?
Section B – DETAILS OF PROPOSED RESEARCH PROJECT
7. Summarize project rationale and objectives: 250 words
This an exploratory study examining the knowledge and attitudes of Greater Toronto Area (GTA) millennials towards
3D food printing. 3D food printing is an emerging technology that uses ingredients to generate three-dimensional
meals by placing layers of compounded food on top of each other. 3D food printers are expected to change a number
of industries and have the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with food. While some types of 3D food
printers are currently available on the market, the technology is still being developed and remains expensive and
complex. As the technology continues to improve, it is anticipated to become widely available to consumers in a
decade (IFT, 2015).
Failure to understand consumers, as well as consumer neophobia (the aversion to anything new, novel, or unfamiliar)
can contribute to product failure rates (Gourville, 2006). Therefore, we intend to explore the knowledge and attitudes
of GTA millennials (ages 18-35) towards 3D food printing technology, as millennials have higher food innovation
consumption levels and rank higher when it comes to adopting novel products (Barrernar et al., 2015). Millennials
now also represent the largest generation in the Canadian workforce and will soon comprise the largest consumer
segment (StatsCan, 2014).
By understanding millennials attitudes and knowledge of 3D food printing, we can help provide valuable insight to
the developers of 3D food printers, which may help to improve product adoption rates. We hope to assess the current
level of knowledge millennials have regarding 3D food printers and identify the key attributes of the technology that
millennials desire, identify potential areas of concern, and determine buying intent. We would also like to compare
how differences in demographics influence knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printers.
Our goals and objectives will be satisfied through three data collection methods (focus groups, intercept surveys, and
online surveys), to obtain qualitative and quantitative data and to ensure validity and reliability. We aim to develop a
3D Food Printing
135 | P a g e
comprehensive report regarding the knowledge and attitudes of millennials residing in the GTA regarding 3D food
printing technology.
8. List the anticipated results of the research. 250 words
Our aim is to gain insight into the knowledge and attitudes of millennials in regards to 3D food printing. The
research will explore the current knowledge millennials possess, examine key areas of interest and concern to the
participants, as well as assess participants buying intent. The study will also consider how differences in
demographics may influence knowledge and attitudes about this technology.
We anticipate the research will divulge areas that manufacturers will benefit from within the technology’s design
phase, as well as for the marketing and advertising of the product, which may aid in the successful adoption of 3D
food printers.
9. Outline the critical path for this project:
Include methods, locations, projected dates (where possible), and description of how human subjects will be
used. All tests, questionnaires, interview protocols, or other items used in the research must be included with this
application. 500 words
Our exploratory research data collection method consists of a triangulation approach including two focus groups,
an intercept survey and an online survey.
Proposed Timeline:
Conduct Data Collection: 1/11/2016 - 2/12/2016
Recruit for focus groups: 1/11/2016 -1/15/2016
Focus group dates: 1/18/2016 -1/18/2016
Questionnaire revisions: 1/19/2016 -1/23/2016
Intercept survey dates: 1/25/2016 - 2/5/2016
Online survey dates: 1/25/2015 - 2/12/2016
Analyze the Data: 2/12/2016 - 3/11/2016
Data Check: 2/12/2016 - 2/17/2016
Data analysis: 2/26/2016 - 3/11/2016
Translate findings: 3/12/2016 - 3/31/2016
Write survey report: 3/12/2016 - 3/28/2016
Disseminate findings: 3/29/2016 - 3/30/2016
Focus Groups: n=2 (5-7 participants in each group)
Date: January 18, 2016 (morning and afternoon)
Consent: All participants will be given an information letter and consent form to sign as well as a copy to
3D Food Printing
136 | P a g e
keep prior to commencing the focus group (please refer to attached). They will also be informed
that they will be videotaped and asked to respect the other group members during and after the
qualitative session.
Participants: Millennials recruited from the Humber College Lakeshore campus via flyers and convenience
sampling.
Location: Humber College RAPP B109 Classroom (convenient location for participants)
Duration: 45-60 minutes in length
Incentive: A $10.00 Tim Hortons card contribution to greater body of knowledge
Discussion: An itinerary discussion guide will be followed by the moderator to engage participants in a lively
discussion regarding their knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing. The group will be
conducted while maintaining an open, ‘no pressure’ environment for the participants to share their
thoughts and points of view. In addition, the discussion guide (attached sample) will employ the
participants to review 3-4 concept designs of 3D food printers already in the beta-stage as a
predictive game-based activity. This information gathered will be used to assist in the final
development of the questionnaire design as well as data collection for the final report.
Intercept Surveys: n=250
Date: January 25, 2016-February 5, 2016
Consent: All participants will be given an information letter and consent form to sign as well as a copy to
keep prior to commencing the intercept survey.
Participants: Millennials recruited through convenience sampling at select GTA malls.
Duration: Approximately 15 minutes in length
Location: Select Malls in the GTA
Incentive: To contribute to the greater body of knowledge
Questionnaire: 8 closed questions and 1 open-ended question regarding 3D food printing knowledge and attitudes.
Administered by ipad.
Online Survey: n=250
Date: January 25, 2016-February 12, 2016
Consent: All participants will be asked to read the information letter and consent form via an ‘opt in’
acceptance prior to commencing the intercept survey.
Participants: Millennials recruited through convenience and snowball sampling through various online social
media such as Facebook groups, Twitter and LinkedIn identified as used by millennial members
via electronic link using Q-FI.
Duration: Approximately 15 minutes in length
Location: Online via an electronic link
Incentive: To contribute to the greater body of knowledge
Questionnaire: 8 closed questions and 1 open-ended question regarding 3D food printing knowledge and attitudes
Section C – STUDY POPULATION AND RECRUITMENT DETAILS
10. Number of participants:
3D Food Printing
137 | P a g e
How many potential subjects are there (the population)? 1,707,349 (Statistics Canada. Table 051-
0062 - Estimates of population by census
division, sex and age group for July 1,
based on the Standard Geographical
Classification (SGC) 2011, annual)
How many subjects will be used? 500 Survey, 10-14 Focus Group
How many in the control group (if applicable)? n/a
Minimum number of subjects required for the study? 300 Survey, 4 participants per group
Our sample size is based on our available resources and time constraints.
11. How will subjects be recruited?
If the initial contact is by letter or if a recruitment notice is to be posted, attach a copy.150 words
A non-probability convenience sample and snowball sample will be used to select participants for the focus groups
and online surveys. A convenience sample will be used to select participants for the intercept survey.
Flyers will be posted around Humber College Lakeshore campus to recruit focus group participants. Word of mouth
will also be employed amongst researchers peer groups.
Intercept surveys will be administered at select malls in different areas of the GTA to allow for a more heterogonous
sample.
The participants for the online surveys will be recruited through the personal contacts of group members and on
social media outlets using an electronic survey link via Q-Fi. Group members will share the online survey link
amongst personal connections and ask participants to pass the link on to others who may be interested. Social media
sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn will be used to encourage participation in the online survey by
targeting groups used by millennials and provides greater coverage and heterogeneity.
All necessary steps will be taken to ensure permissible access to sample locations such as seeking approval from
mall gatekeepers and social media administrators.
If a control group is involved, and their selection and/or recruitment differs from the above (Number
15), provide details:
12. Describe any incentives offered to human subjects for participating in the research. 150 words
Focus group participants will each be offered a $10.00 gift card which they will receive upon completion of the
focus group discussion. The incentive is offered as compensation for their time commitment and the gift card value
is considered within the range of undue influence.
Online surveys and intercept survey participants will not receive a monetary incentive. Both focus groups and
survey participants may have the incentive of knowing that the information they provide will help contribute to the
body of knowledge about 3D food printers.
13. What are the participant early withdrawal procedures? 150 words
Outline all procedures available to human subjects who wish to withdraw from the research project at any time.
3D Food Printing
138 | P a g e
Participants who wish to withdraw from the research study will be able to do so at any time before, or during the
focus groups/intercept surveys/online surveys, as ongoing consent will be sought from all participants.
For the intercept survey and online survey, participants will not be able to withdraw their data after submission, as
the data is anonymous and contains no personal identifiable information. However, they may withdraw participation
at any time during the survey.
For the focus groups, participants will be free to leave the focus group anytime during the session, however the
participants will not have the option of withdrawing their data as this information is group data and removing it
would be difficult to undertake. This will be outlined in the consent form and information letter.
Section D – INFORMED CONSENT
14. Will the group of subjects have any problems giving informed consent on their own behalf?
Consider physical or mental condition, age (especially if subjects are children or seniors), language and
other barriers.
Yes ☐ No ☒
If yes, please explain.
15. If the subjects are not legally competent to give fully informed consent, who will give consent on
their behalf?
An authorized third party will provide consent for participants who are not legally competent to do so themselves
as individuals who lack the capacity to decide whether or not to participate in research shall not be inappropriately
excluded from the research study.
16. Outline of the method of gaining consent of the human subjects. 250 words
If an Information Letter and Free and Informed Consent Form will be used in the project, copies must be included
with this application.
Ongoing consent will be sought from all research participants. For the focus groups and intercept surveys, adequate
information will be provided to participants orally and in the form of an information letter. Participants will be
required to read the study’s information letter in full, as well as sign a consent form. A copy of the information
letter will be provided for their records. The information letter will outline the purpose and nature of the study,
researcher information, participant involvement and requirements, a description of the benefits and risks, a
confidentiality statement, assurance of ethical protocols, details of the potential for publication and dissemination,
a description of data storage and assurance of voluntary participation.
This information will also be explained orally to ensure that the information is properly relayed to the participants.
In order to ensure informed consent, it is essential that the participant fully understands the information provided,
as well as the extent of their involvement. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions and seek additional
information regarding the study. Participants will be given ample time to consider their decision to participate. The
voluntary nature of the study will be explained to the participants in the information letter and orally, to ensure that
participants understand their right to withdraw participation at any time.
3D Food Printing
139 | P a g e
For the online survey, the details of the information letter will be provided online, including the right to withdraw
at any time and voluntary participation. Before proceeding to the survey questions, the participant must agree that
they have read and understood the information provided to them.
Section E – RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH
17. Outline the risks to human subjects associated with participation. 150 words
There are no known risks to human subjects associated with participation.
18. Outline the benefits to human subjects associated with participation. 150 words
The benefits to participants associated with participation is educational in nature as they will have an opportunity
to learn about 3D food printing. Participants also benefit from having a chance to voice their thoughts, opinions,
and ideas regarding a new technology—which may influence its implementation in the wider community and
contribute to the general body of knowledge.
19. What is the value of research to society? To the researcher’s discipline/field of study? 250 words
3D food printing is an emerging technology and as such the current body of knowledge regarding this technology
is limited. There are no known studies to date concerning knowledge and attitudes of this technology, which can
address the potential consumer market. As there are a number of stakeholders involved with this technology, the
investors and researchers of this technology will benefit from this research because they will have a better
understanding of what their potential consumers think about 3D food printers, what attributes appeal to them and
what benefit they hope it will provide. In addition, understanding any concerns people may have about this
technology will be crucial to its successful adoption.
Millennials will benefit from this research in that they will be given the opportunity to voice their opinions and
concerns, which may influence the technology’s development.
Society will be greatly affected by this technology in a number of ways, and an exploratory study into this
technology before it becomes widespread can help to avoid potential obstacles to its implementation.
Section F – CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY
20. Outline the method for ensuring privacy of the human subjects: 250 words
Privacy of the participants is imperative to a successful research design and it will be ensured by giving participants
autonomy in both the content and amount of information they provide. Participants will have the opportunity to
exercise control over personal information by consenting to, or withholding consent for, the collection, use and/or
disclosure of information. Participants will be informed that their participation is voluntary and they can withdraw
from the study anytime.
Survey respondents will be ensured that their data will be anonymized and no personal identifiable information will
be collected from participants.
Focus group participants will sign an honor based confidentiality form to protect their privacy and the privacy of
the other participants. Confidentiality will be emphasized to the group and participants will be asked that they
respect the privacy of the other participants. However, complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed as there is
possibility that a group member may breach this trust, so this will be noted to the participants in the information
3D Food Printing
140 | P a g e
letter and prior to commencement of the focus group.
21. What is the plan for dissemination of results? 250 words
The research is being conducted for partial fulfillment of the Research Analyst Postgraduate program. The results
from the study will be presented in report format and will be provided to the RAPP program coordinator, Dr. Mary
Takacs as part of the course evaluation. Other faculty members will also have access to the report and it may be
shared amongst other interested parties.
The results will also be disseminated through the Humber RAPP forum which will include guests from various
industries. The Humber RAPP forum will provide an external internet link for interested individuals to view the
presentation online.
In addition, there is potential for dissemination amongst the stakeholders of 3D food printing technology, who may
benefit from the research findings.
There will not be any identifying information about participants in the report or during the presentation, to ensure
privacy and confidentiality of the respondents.
22. Are there any plans for feedback to the subject? If yes, describe how you contemplate doing this.
Please be aware that any feedback must respect subjects’ privacy. 150 words
Participants will not be contacted after completion of focus groups or survey. Feedback will not be provided to
research participants unless a request is made to view the final research report.
23. Where will data be stored? 150 words
Electronic data will be stored on a secure encrypted external hard drive. Physical data, will be stored in a locked
briefcase which will be kept in a safe, secure location away from public access. Data access is limited only to the
study’s research team.
After completion of the research project, electronic and physical data will be stored in a locked filing cabinet under
the supervision of the RAPP coordinator Dr. Mary Takacs for the period of one year, after which time the data will
be destroyed.
24. How and when will data be destroyed? 150 words
The data will be destroyed one year after the project’s completion. All electronic data files will be deleted and wiped
from all storage devices. All physical data will be shredded and destroyed. Destruction of data will be undertaken
by the RAPP coordinator, Dr. Mary Takacs.
Section G – CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
25. Describe the researcher’s professional and/or personal relationships to subject group(s). 150 words
Since convenience sampling is being used to select participants, Humber college students participating in the focus
groups will be peers of the researchers. There will be a professional relationship, as is usual between moderator and
3D Food Printing
141 | P a g e
focus group participants. There is potential for the existence of personal relationships as well, such that, participants
may know the researcher on a personal level. If friends of research members are selected for the focus group, a
moderator with no affiliation with the participant will guide the discussion.
For online and intercept surveys, the professional and personal relationships between researcher and participant will
vary. For online surveys, the participants will be contacted through a number of mediums, for example, from
personal contacts and other social media groups. Therefore, some participants may be personal friends of the
researchers. Other participants may be personally related to the researchers through mutual friendship ties.
We anticipate any potential bias due to the conflict of interest for focus groups and online surveys will be minimal.
For intercepts surveys, questionnaires will be administered at select GTA malls and it is unlikely that a personal
connection will exist between the participant and the researcher.
3D Food Printing
142 | P a g e
Appendix E. Consent Forms
Focus Group Consent Form
I have read the information presented in the information letter about the study being conducted by Juhi Agarwal,
Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh, and Jason Szymanski, students of the Research Analyst Postgraduate
Program (RAPP) at Humber College. I have had the opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, to receive
satisfactory answers to my questions, and any additional details required. I have also been informed that I will be
audio recorded during the focus group session. I am aware that my participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw
from the focus group without penalty at any time. However, if I do voluntarily decide to leave the focus group, my
data will remain as part of the larger group data set and may not be extracted. I have been told that by signing this
consent agreement I am not giving up any of my legal rights.
This project has been approved by Dr. Mary Takacs, Program Coordinator of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of the Humber Research Ethics Board. I was informed that if I
have any comments or concerns resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP
Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Also, I can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
With full knowledge of all the above, I agree and understand, of my own free will, to participate in this study.
________________________________________
Print Name
__________________________________________
Signature of Participant
________________________________________
Date
Appendix F. Information Letter
Information Letter – Focus Group
The purpose of this research study is to explore the knowledge and attitudes of millennials (born between 1980-1998)
towards 3D food printing. The research is being conducted by students of the Humber College Research Analyst
Postgraduate Program (RAPP) as a course requirement. You are invited to participate in this focus group because we
3D Food Printing
143 | P a g e
are interested in speaking with millennials living in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) regarding their opinions on this
new food technology.
PROJECT TITLE
An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
ABOUT THE RESEARCH TEAM AND PROJECT
The research will explore millennials knowledge of 3D food printing, identify possible areas of interest and concern,
as well as purchasing intent. We anticipate the collected information will provide important insights into product
development and acceptance of 3D food printing.
This is a research project being conducted by the following RAPP (Research Analyst Postgraduate Program) Humber
College students in order to fulfill the program requirements: Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita
Singh, and Jason Szymanski.
PROCEDURES
By agreeing to participate in this focus group you will be involved in a group discussion with 5-7 participants. The focus
group will take approximately 45-60 minutes of your time and discussions will be audio recorded. We will provide each
participant with a $10.00 gift card to compensate for lost time and/or inconvenience for taking part.
WITHDRAWAL
Your participation in this focus group is voluntary. You may refuse to take part in the focus group or exit the focus
group at any time without penalty. Focus group data is considered group data and note that you will not be able to
withdraw your data after participation.
BENEFITS
Potential benefits to participating in this study include learning about new potential food concepts and 3D printing
technology. You may also benefit from being able to impart your insight to the greater body of knowledge and to have
a voice in the development of a new technology.
RISKS & DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this study. Participation in the focus group may cause some
inconvenience to you, including the use of your time.
CONFIDENTIALITY & ANONYMITY
Focus group participants are required to sign a consent form which will be kept separate from the data collection. If
would like to be anonymous, you can sign an X on the consent form instead of your name. You have the right to
choose a pseudonym. All names will be removed from the data and if necessary, any identifying stories or
circumstances will be slightly altered to protect your confidentiality. Efforts will be made to remove all identifying
features from focus group transcripts before they undergo group analysis so that your answers will not be identifiable.
As a focus group involves a group discussion, it is impossible to provide complete confidentiality or anonymity, but
3D Food Printing
144 | P a g e
guidelines will be presented to the group to ensure that the focus group space is a safe space for open discussion. You
will not be contacted after the completion of the study.
Your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the data will be protected by ensuring that all data is stored in a safe
and secure location. Only the researchers will have access to the raw data. Hard copy data will be stored in a locked
briefcase in a secure location and electronic data will be stored on a secure encrypted external hard drive. All files
will be kept for up to one year after the completion of the research project in the Humber College research
department after which time data will be destroyed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Due to the nature of our sample, some participants may have personal connections to the researchers such as peers,
friends and acquaintances. If such members are selected for the focus group, a moderator with no affiliation with the
participant will guide the discussion.
ETHICS
This project has been approved by the Program Coordinator Dr. Mary Takacs of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber Research Ethics Board.
CONTACT
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program
Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Additionally, you can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
[email protected]. Thank you for considering participation in this study.
3D Food Printing
145 | P a g e
Appendix G. Survey Protocols
Interview Protocol: 3D Food Printing
Delivery Script:
"Hello, I was wondering if you would be interested in taking part in our survey regarding 3D food printing. It will take
approximately 5-10 minutes of your time. It is for academic purposes as a part of our college program."
Step-by-step instructions for the interviewers:
Will the respondent be informed in advance of post-survey assessment?
The respondent will be informed in advance of the post-survey assessment as outlined in the information letter.
How are the vocabulary or terminology questions to be answered?
The interviewer may answer questions about vocabulary or terminology from respondents to further clarify the
question intent. However, answers are to be kept to a minimum and not sway the respondent to respond in any
particular way, only to clarify any specific vocabulary.
How are the background knowledge questions to be answered?
The interviewer will keep to the script. If more detail still requested from the respondent, please reply to the
respondent, “We are interested in your answers as you feel best represent your answer to the question. I am sorry
but I cannot provide any more detail for you. There are no right or wrong answers, we are only interested in your own
thoughts and opinions.”
Is probing allowed?
The interviewer will not be required to probe as the survey will be administered via an electronic device such as an
iPad.
How is item silence/non-response handled?
N/A
For multiple interviewers:
a. Describe training of interviewers to ensure uniformity of delivery and documenting responses.
Since the interviewers will be administering the survey via an electronic device, the participant will be instructed to
read the instructions as they appear on the screen. The interviewer will not pose additional interviewer bias. However,
if a respondent asks for clarification, the interviewer will inform the respondent, “I am sorry but I cannot provide any
more detail for you. There are no right or wrong answers, we are only interested in your own thoughts and opinions.”
No additional information will be supplied to the respondent. The survey data will be captured automatically and
reviewed by the supervisor.
b. Describe procedure for monitoring interviewers to ensure uniformity of delivery and documenting responses.
Interviewers will be monitored during their interviewing procedures every 20 interviews. The data will be reviewed
by the supervisor to ensure that no additional information is being supplied to the respondents.
3D Food Printing
146 | P a g e
Ensure completion of the questionnaire in its entirety. If answers to questions are missing, the researcher will ask the
respondent to review the question and provide an answer. If the respondent refuses to provide an answer, for
whatever reason, then the researcher will accept this and not press the issue. The survey will be considered completed
and will be used for research purposes as long as at least 50% of the survey questions are answered.
3D Food Printing
147 | P a g e
Appendix H. Original Survey
3D Food Printing Survey
Welcome to the 3D food printing survey!
Instructions: Please complete the following questions to reflect your opinions as accurately as possible and to answer
factual questions to the best of your knowledge.
Your information will be kept strictly confidential.
Section I: Screener Questions
1. What year were you born?
____ < 1980 Survey ends
____
____ > 1998 Survey ends
2. Do you currently reside in the Greater Toronto Area (includes the central City of Toronto as well as Durham, Halton, Peel, and York regions)? ____ Yes
____ No Survey ends
Section II: Main Questions
3. In total each day, how long do you typically spend preparing your meals? ____ <15min
____ 15min to 29min
____ 30min to 59min
____ 1hr to 2 hrs
____ >2 hrs
4. Have you ever heard of 3D printing? ___ Yes
___ No > if No, skip to question 6
5. What are some of the 3D printing products that you have heard of? (Choose all that apply)
___Guns ___Toys ___Cars ___Food
3D Food Printing
148 | P a g e
___Musical instruments ___Shoes ___Prosthetic limbs, Organs ___Art work, Sculptures ___Clothing ___Houses
Please read the following description of 3D food printing before answering the next set of questions.
“3D Food Printing is developing as a result of the rapid advancements in the 3D printing world. The process uses
ingredients to generate three-dimensional meals by placing layers of compounded food on top of each other. The food
industry has used this technology to produce products like candy, chocolate, pizza, noodles and even crackers. Despite
its relative novelty, many companies are recognizing 3D food printing’s potential to impact global food systems.”
6. Current 3D food printers propose a number of possible benefits. Please rate how important these benefits
are to you:
Statement Not
Important Slightly
Important Moderately Important
Important Very
Important
The ability to share personally created food designs over social media
The ability to track calories accurately
The ability to customize nutritional properties of food precisely for your own dietary needs
The ability to print food in different shapes and textures previously not possible
The ability to add vitamins and minerals as desired
The ability to reduce food preparation time
The ability to use more sustainable protein sources such as algae and insects
The ability to reduce food waste
7. Current 3D food printers propose a number of possible concerns. Please rate how important these concerns are to you:
3D Food Printing
149 | P a g e
Statement Not
Important Slightly
Important Moderately Important
Important Very
Important
3D Food printers...
May replace traditional ingredient preparation and cooking methods
May not be able to print the exact form of traditional food
May reduce employment in the food industry as a result of mass customization of food
May reduce labelling transparency if 3D foods replace natural foods
May be difficult to use
3D Food products....
May taste different from conventional forms of food
May be unsafe to eat due to highly processed nature and risk of unknown chemicals
May not contain the same health benefits of nutrients in natural food
8. Would you be interested in owning a 3D food printer? ____ Yes
____ No > if No, skip to question 10
9. What is the maximum you would be willing to spend on a 3D Food Printer? ____ less than $100
____ $100 - $500
____ $501 - $1000
____greater than $1000
Section III: Demographic Information
10. What is your highest level of education? ____ No certificate, diploma or degree
3D Food Printing
150 | P a g e
____ High school diploma
____ Postsecondary certificate or diploma below bachelor level
____ University Bachelor’s degree
____ University Master’s degree
____Professional degree (MD, DDS, LLB, etc.)
____Earned Doctorate
11. What is your personal income?
____ Less than $30,000
____$30,000 to $49,999
____$50,000 to $69,999
____$70,000 to $89,999
____$90,000 to $109,999
____$110,000 or more
12. What is your sex? ____ Male
____ Female
Thank You.
3D Food Printing
151 | P a g e
Appendix I. Moderator’s Guide
3D Food Printing: Knowledge and Attitudes Interview Guide
Researcher(s): Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita Singh, Jason Szymanski
I) INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS:
Hello, my name is _______ and first of all I just wanted to thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group
meeting today. We really appreciate it. Just to remind everyone, we will be discussing 3D food printing today and
look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on the topic but before we begin, I just wanted to take a few
minutes to discuss confidentiality and go over some basic ground rules for our group discussion today.
[MODERATOR: READ ALOUD AND REVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. COLLECT SIGNED CONSENT FORMS AND ENSURE THAT PARTICIPANTS
HAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER OF INFORMATION TO TAKE WITH THEM] Thank you for your patience. Now for a few ground rules... Please feel comfortable to share your honest opinions.
There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions on 3D Food Printing.
Think of it as a discussion around a dining room table and as if you were free to jump in at any time. I am looking
forward to hearing from each of you. If we get off topic or if too many people are talking at once, I may step in to
ensure that we get a chance to hear from everyone. The discussion should last approximately 45 minutes. We will be
audio recording this session so that we can review for research purposes only. The data will be collected as a group
and any information that we use will not single anyone. Names will not be associated with the transcript data and the
data will only be viewed by myself and our team of researchers. All data and recordings will remain under lock and
key. Thank you! Now let’s get started.
II. INTERVIEW
Introductory Warm-Up:
1) I would now like to go around the table and if you could please state your name and tell me what your
favorite food is? Let's start here and move around in a clockwise fashion...
2) Do you prepare your own meals? What things do you consider before you decide what to prepare?
3D Food Printing:
3) Put your hands up if you have heard of 3D Printing? What have you heard about it?
4) I would like to share the following definition of 3D Food Printing with everyone: “3D Food Printing is a process that uses ingredients to generate three-dimensional meals by placing layers of compounded food on top of each other (Show process diagram)."
3D Food Printing
152 | P a g e
"The food industry has used this technology to produce products like candy, chocolate, crackers, noodles, and pizza. Here are some of the images of 3D printed Food (Show pictures of 3D Food)."
5) Now that we have heard a definition of 3D food printing, would you use it at home?
a. What type of food would you like to cook with it and why?
6) What do you think about 3D food printing?
a. Benefits i. How could you see yourself or others using it?
b. Concerns i. Why might people not be interested in using it?
7. Would you be interested in purchasing a 3D Food Printer?
a. Please explain your reasoning.
8. If you were shopping for 3D Food Printers, what factors would you base your decision on when choosing a
particular model?
9. If you were purchasing a 3D Food Printer, what features would be necessary to include?
10. Is there anything we forgot or something important that you would like to share about 3d Food Printing that
you would like to share? Thank the participants and give them incentives.
3D Food Printing
153 | P a g e
Appendix J. Pre-Test Guide
Information Letter – Pre-Test Survey The purpose of this research study is to explore the knowledge and attitudes of millennials (born between 1980-1998) towards 3D food printing. The research is being conducted by students of the Humber College Research Analyst Postgraduate Program (RAPP) as a course requirement. You are invited to participate in this pre-test survey because we are interested in receiving your feedback during the finalizing stages of our questionnaire.
PROJECT TITLE:
An exploratory study of millennials in the GTA: Knowledge and attitudes towards 3D food printing.
ABOUT THE RESEARCH TEAM AND PROJECT
The research will explore millennials knowledge of 3D food printing, identify possible areas of interest and concern,
as well as buying sentiment.
This is a research project being conducted by the following RAPP (Research Analyst Postgraduate Program) Humber
College students in order to fulfill the program requirements: Juhi Agarwal, Tracey Haefele, Anjali Sharma, Ankita
Singh and Jason Szymanski.
PROCEDURES
By agreeing to participate in this pre-test survey you will be asked to answer and provide feedback on our pre-final
questionnaire. The pre-test survey will take approximately 20-30 minutes of your time.
WITHDRAWAL
Your participation in this pre-test survey is voluntary. You may refuse to take part in the pre-test survey at any time
without penalty.
BENEFITS
Potential benefits to participating in this study include learning about new potential food concepts and 3D printing
technology. You may also benefit from being able to impart your insight to the greater body of knowledge.
RISKS & DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY & ANONYMITY
Your data will not be collected as part of our research study but will be used in order to finalize our questionnaire
design.
ETHICS
This project has been approved by the Program Coordinator Dr. Mary Takacs of the Humber College RAPP 2015/16
program, in keeping with the standards and protocols of Humber Research Ethics Board.
3D Food Printing
154 | P a g e
CONTACT
If you have any questions about your rights as a participant providing us feedback on our questionnaire, please contact
Dr. Mary Takacs, RAPP Program Coordinator, 416-675-6622 Ext. 73483, [email protected].
Additionally, you can contact the research project lead Jason Szymanski for any other general questions at
Thank you for considering participation in this study.
3D Food Printing
155 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
156 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
157 | P a g e
Appendix K. Other Interview or Survey Protocols: Online Survey
3D Food Printing
158 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
159 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
160 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
161 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
162 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
163 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
164 | P a g e
3D Food Printing
165 | P a g e
Appendix N. Bios of Researchers
Jason Szymanski
Jason Szymanski graduated from the University of Toronto with a major in Human
Biology and minors in Psychology and Sociology. He has always been interested in
human thought and behavior. He has a broad educational background, as well as a wide
range of work experience. From working in a cell and systems biology laboratory, to
being a personal trainer, Jason is always seeking to learn from others and to share his
knowledge. His keen interest in learning and understanding the world has led him to the
Humber College Research Analyst program, which has allowed him to further develop
his research skills.
Tracey Haefele
Tracey holds a degree in Applied Science with a Consumer Behaviour emphasis and is
currently a student at the Humber College Research Analyst Post-Graduate
Program. After exploring abroad and working mainly in the market research project
management area, Tracey is extremely interested in shifting her career focus to a hands-
on research experience that works with people that are true stakeholders. Her passion
in this direction has been fueled by her involvement in local community as well as
volunteering at Holland-Bloorview, Art Gallery of Ontario, World Literacy of Canada and
a recently completed work contract at World Vision Canada.
Juhi Agarwal
Juhi holds a Doctorate degree in Foods and Nutrition and has more than six years of
research experience in the academic sector. She now plans to change her career focus
towards social and market research which has led her to undertake the Research
Analyst Post-Graduate Program at Humber College. One of the main reason for this is
her urge to do something more practical. She wants to handle real problems and meet
challenges that are solvable. Seeing the results of her research and the impact of those
results on others has turned into what she believes will be a life-long commitment and
passion.
3D Food Printing
166 | P a g e
Ankita Singh
Ankita holds a degree in Biotechnology and a Post-Graduate Certificate in Marketing.
From conducting six primary research projects in Biotechnology and being a Market
Research Assistant, she now wants to shift her focus to market research. She believes
that her varied knowledge and experience will help her succeed in the research industry.
She has a keen interest in market research and consumer insights which has led her to
pursue the Research Analyst Program at Humber College.
Anjali Sharma
Anjali has a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and Environmental Science from
Western University and a Post-Graduate Certificate in Environmental Management from
the University of Toronto. With 5+ years of experience in the renewable energy industry
and working in consumer marketing, she has developed a strong interest in consumer
insights. Anjali has decided to pursue this interest further by joining the Research
Analyst Post-Graduate Program at Humber College.
3D Food Printing
167 | P a g e