Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sensory perceptions of survivors of cancer and their caregivers upon blinded evaluation of produce from two different sources

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose

Evidence documents the role of modifiable lifestyle behaviors in optimizing physical and mental health outcomes for survivors of cancer. Fruit and vegetable consumption is one such behavior, and understanding survivor sensory perceptions of produce can inform interventions aimed at improving dietary patterns. The objective of this study was to assess the sensory perceptions of survivors of cancer and their caregivers when asked to evaluate garden-harvested and grocery-purchased produce.

Methods

Participants enrolled in a garden-based biobehavioral intervention and their caregivers (n=32) were invited to participate in a sensory evaluation of four produce types: tangerine cherry tomatoes, green cabbage, green beans, and green bell peppers. Samples were coded and distributed in a random fashion, and participants completed validated sensory surveys (preference, liking/acceptability, and discrimination) for each type of produce.

Results

Upon initial blinded evaluation, a significant preference for grocery-purchased produce was noted for green cabbage, green beans, and green bell peppers but not tomatoes (all p<0.05). After self-labeling, however, participants reported a preference for perceived garden-harvested produce (all p≤0.001) even when incorrectly labeled. Liking/acceptability scores were significantly higher among self-labeled garden-harvested versus self-labeled grocery-purchased for all types of produce (all p≤0.001). These data reveal survivors of cancer and their caregivers perceive garden-harvested produce as superior to grocery-purchased, though were unable to accurately identify the two sources based upon sensory factors such as taste, smell, and texture alone when blinded for three of the four types of produce.

Conclusion

Findings indicate future interventions should address perceptions of produce to facilitate improvements in consumption in these vulnerable individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2020) Cancer Facts & Figures 2020. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

  2. Schwedhelm C, Boeing H, Hoffmann G, Aleksandrova K, Schwingshackl L (2016) Effect of diet on mortality and cancer recurrence among cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Nutr Rev 74:737–748. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuw045

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2018) Diet, nutrition, physical activity and cancer: a global perspective. Continuous Update Project Expert Report 2018. World Cancer Research Fund International, London

  4. American Institute for Cancer Research (2019) AICR 2019 Cancer Risk Awareness Survey. https://www.aicr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2019-Survey.pdf

  5. Beeken RJ, Williams K, Wardle J, Croker H (2016) “What about diet?” A qualitative study of cancer survivors’ views on diet and cancer and their sources of information. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 25:774–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12529

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Corbett T, Cheetham T, Müller AM, Slodkowska-Barabasz J, Wilde L, Krusche A, Richardson A, Foster C, Watson E, Little P, Yardley L, Bradbury K (2018) Exploring cancer survivors’ views of health behaviour change: “Where do you start, where do you stop with everything?”. Psychooncology 27:1816–1824. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aslan H, Aktürk Ü (2019) Demographic characteristics, nutritional behaviors, and orthorexic tendencies of women with breast cancer: a case–control study. Eat Weight Disord 25:1365–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-019-00772-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thewes B, Lebel S, Seguin Leclair C, Butow P (2016) A qualitative exploration of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) amongst Australian and Canadian breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 24:2269–2276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Sebastiano KM, Murthy G, Campbell KL et al (2019) Nutrition and cancer prevention: why is the evidence lost in translation? Adv Nutr 10:410–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy089

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Winkels RM, van Lee L, Beijer S et al (2016) Adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research lifestyle recommendations in colorectal cancer survivors: results of the PROFILES registry. Cancer Med 5:2587–2595. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.791

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang FF, Liu S, John EM, Must A, Demark-Wahnefried W (2015) Diet quality of cancer survivors and noncancer individuals: results from a national survey. Cancer 121:4212–4221. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29488

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burges Watson DL, Lewis S, Bryant V, Patterson J, Kelly C, Edwards-Stuart R, Murtagh MJ, Deary V (2018) Altered eating: a definition and framework for assessment and intervention. BMC Nutr 4:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-018-0221-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen J, Wakefield CE, Laing DG (2016) Smell and taste disorders resulting from cancer and chemotherapy. Curr Pharm Des 22:2253–2263. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612822666160216150812

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. de Vries YC, Boesveldt S, Kelfkens CS, Posthuma EE, van den Berg MMGA, de Kruif JTCM, Haringhuizen A, Sommeijer DW, Buist N, Grosfeld S, de Graaf C, van Laarhoven HWM, Kampman E, Winkels RM (2018) Taste and smell perception and quality of life during and after systemic therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 170:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4720-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Coa KI, Epstein JB, Ettinger D, Jatoi A, McManus K, Platek ME, Price W, Stewart M, Teknos TN, Moskowitz B (2015) The impact of cancer treatment on the diets and food preferences of patients receiving outpatient treatment. Nutr Cancer 67:339–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2015.990577

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Drareni K, Dougkas A, Giboreau A, Laville M, Souquet PJ, Bensafi M (2019) Relationship between food behavior and taste and smell alterations in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: A structured review. Semin Oncol 46:160–172. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.05.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Enriquez-Fernández BE, Nejatinamini S, Campbell SM, Mazurak VC, Wismer WV (2019) Sensory preferences of supplemented food products among cancer patients: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 27:333–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4458-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fernqvist F, Ekelund L (2014) Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – a review. Food Qual Prefer 32:340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Massey M, O’Cass A, Otahal P (2018) A meta-analytic study of the factors driving the purchase of organic food. Appetite 125:418–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hwang J (2016) Organic food as self-presentation: the role of psychological motivation in older consumers’ purchase intention of organic food. J Retail Consum Serv 28:281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.01.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Costanigro M, Kroll S, Thilmany D, Bunning M (2014) Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Qual Prefer 31:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rodman SO, Palmer AM, Zachary DA, Hopkins LC, Surkan PJ (2014) “They just say organic food is healthier”: perceptions of healthy food among supermarket shoppers in Southwest Baltimore. Cult Agric Food Environ 36:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bernard JC, Liu Y (2017) Are beliefs stronger than taste? A field experiment on organic and local apples. Food Qual Prefer 61:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ellison B, Duff BRL, Wang Z, White TB (2016) Putting the organic label in context: examining the interactions between the organic label, product type, and retail outlet. Food Qual Prefer 49:140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hempel C, Hamm U (2016) How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite 96:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Feldmann C, Hamm U (2015) Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a review. Food Qual Prefer 40:152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Spees CK, Joseph A, Darragh A, Lyons F, Wolf KN (2015) Health behaviors and perceptions of cancer survivors harvesting at an urban garden. Am J Health Behav 39:257–266. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.39.2.12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Trendel O, Werle COC (2016) Distinguishing the affective and cognitive bases of implicit attitudes to improve prediction of food choices. Appetite 104:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Civille GV, Oftedal KN (2012) Sensory evaluation techniques - make “good for you” taste “good.”. Physiol Behav 107:598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Da Cunha DT, Antunes AEC, Da Rocha JG et al (2019) Differences between organic and conventional leafy green vegetables perceived by university students: vegetables attributes or attitudinal aspects? Br Food J 121:1579–1591. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2018-0503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Talavera-Bianchi M, Chambers E, Carey EE, Chambers DH (2010) Effect of organic production and fertilizer variables on the sensory properties of pac choi (Brassica rapa var. Mei Qing Choi) and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Bush Celebrity). J Sci Food Agric 90:981–988. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3907

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tobin R, Moane S, Larkin T (2013) Sensory evaluation of organic and conventional fruits and vegetables available to Irish consumers. Int J Food Sci Technol 48:157–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03172.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhao X, Chambers E, Matta Z, Loughin TM, Carey EE (2007) Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables. J Food Sci 72:S87–S91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00277.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Spees CK, Braun AC, Hill EB, Grainger EM, Portner J, Young GS, Kleinhenz MD, Chitchumroonchokchai C, Clinton SK (2019) Impact of a tailored nutrition and lifestyle intervention for overweight cancer survivors on dietary patterns, physical activity, quality of life, and cardiometabolic profiles. J Oncol 2019:1503195–1503113. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1503195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Mahony M (2013) The Tetrad Test: Looking Back, Looking Forward. J Sens Stud 28:259–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Curtis KR, Cowee MW, Velcherean M, Gatzke H (2010) Farmers market consumers: is local or organic important? J Food Distrib Res 41:20–24

    Google Scholar 

  37. Carroll KA, Bernard JC, Pesek JDJ (2013) Consumer preferences for tomatoes: the influence of local, organic, and state program promotions by purchasing venue. J Agric Resour Econ 38

  38. Jefferson-Moore KY, Robbins RD, Johnson D (2013) Consumer choices for organic and local food products in North Carolina. J Food Distrib Res 44:94–95

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bourn D, Prescott J (2002) A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 42:1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690290825439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Saltveit ME (1999) Effect of ethylene on quality of fresh fruits and vegetables. Postharvest Biol Technol 15:279–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(98)00091-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bell L, Oloyede OO, Lignou S, Wagstaff C, Methven L (2018) Taste and flavor perceptions of glucosinolates, isothiocyanates, and related compounds. Mol Nutr Food Res 62:1700990. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201700990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Drewnowski A, Gomez-Carneros C (2000) Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr 72:1424–1435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Groenbaek M, Jensen S, Neugart S, Schreiner M, Kidmose U, Kristensen HL (2016) Nitrogen split dose fertilization, plant age and frost effects on phytochemical content and sensory properties of curly kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. sabellica). Food Chem 197:530–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (2020) U.S. Grade Standards: Vegetables. In: Grades Stand. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/vegetables. Accessed 31 Jul 2020

  45. Haynes-Maslow L, Parsons SE, Wheeler SB, Leone LA (2013) A qualitative study of perceived barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income populations, North Carolina, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 10:. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.120206

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Dietetics & Health Sciences, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA

    Ashlea Braun, Jessica Kilbarger, Emily B. Hill & Colleen K. Spees

  2. Department of Food Science & Technology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Christopher Simons

  3. The Emily Program, Columbus, OH, USA

    Jessica Kilbarger

  4. The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

    Menglin Xu

  5. Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA

    Dennis Cleary

  6. Department of Disabilities Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Dennis Cleary

  7. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

    Colleen K. Spees

Authors
  1. Ashlea Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Simons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica Kilbarger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily B. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Menglin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dennis Cleary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Colleen K. Spees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, C.S., J.K., D.C., and C.K.S.; methodology, C.S., J.K., D.C., and C.K.S.; investigation, A.B., C.S., J.K., E.H., D.C., and C.K.S.; formal analysis, A.B., C.S., J.K., and M.X.; data curation, J.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., J.K., and E.H.; writing—review and editing, A.B., C.S., J.K., E.H., M.X., D.C., and C.K.S.; All authors have read and approved the final article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colleen K. Spees.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures were approved by and performed in accordance with the ethical standards of The Ohio State University’s institutional review board and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

N/A.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braun, A., Simons, C., Kilbarger, J. et al. Sensory perceptions of survivors of cancer and their caregivers upon blinded evaluation of produce from two different sources. Support Care Cancer 29, 5729–5739 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06090-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06090-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation