Search

Identifying beneficial foods in the environment, while avoiding ingesting something toxic, is a crucial task humans face on a daily basis. Here we directly examined adults' implicit and explicit safety evaluations of the same foods presented with different degrees of processing, ranging from unprocessed (raw) to processed (cut or cooked). Moreover, we investigated whether individual characteristics (e.g., Body Mass Index, food neophobia and hunger) modulated their evaluations. We hypothesized that adults would associate the processed form of a food with safety more than its unprocessed form since processing techniques, which are ubiquitously applied in different cultures, often reduce the toxicity of foods, and signal previous human intervention and intended consumption. Adults (N = 109, 43 females) performed an implicit Go/No-Go association task (GNAT) online, assessing the association between safety attributes and food images differing on their degree of processing, both unfamiliar and familiar foods were used. Then each food was explicitly evaluated. Results revealed that individual self-reported characteristics affected both implicit and explicit evaluations. Individuals with excess weight and obesity had a strong and positive implicit association between processed foods and safety attributes, but explicitly rated cooked foods as the least safe overall, this latter result was found in highly neophobic individuals as well. Yet, at the explicit level, when looking at unfamiliar foods only, processed foods were rated safer than unprocessed foods by all participants. Our results are the first evidence that directly highlights the relevance of the degree of processing in food safety evaluation and suggest that thinking of the important tasks humans face regarding food selection enriches our understanding of food behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]