558 Novel food packaging meat or fish, smoked fish, meat products, foods for children or ready prepared foods. Over 80% regarded TTIs as necessary in these applications although they were told that TTIs would increase the price of the product by 8.5 cents. This study was carried out as a survey in which participants (n=460)were asked to in a questionnaire. While responding to the questionnaire consumers could observe models of TTls used in packages. Similarly, 59% of the respondents in the Uk expressed their willingness to pay more for chilled products that contained a TTI tag(Anon, 1991) The result that TTIs are more suitable for fresh meat(Korhonen et al., 1999) whereas oxygen absorbers were considered acceptable in fresh meat by only by a minority of respondents(Mikkola et al, 1997) elevates the importance of perceived consumer benefit and understanding the reasons for food choices. The apparently contradictory result may be easily explained by the different functional principles of these two packaging devices, which may have a different appeal to consumers. The oxygen absorber could prolong the shelf-life of fresh meat, whereas the time temperature indicator shows only how it has been operated through the chill chain. The idea of extending the shelf-life of fresh meat is not attractive, but it is important to know if the fresh product is still in prime condition. This highlights the fact that all these different applications have to be studied as separate concepts in consumer studies. Measuring an overall attitude towards active and intelligent packaging is not feasible, as the benefits and possible concerns are specific to each application Some worries about possible tampering with TTls in the shop were brought forward(Anon, 1991, Korhonen et al, 1999). One worry was that the shopkeeper could possibly change the indicator and thus mislead consumers. In the UK(Anon, 1991) the non-cautious respondents perceived the TTls to the unnecessary and some reported that they would deliberately sabotage them if they appeared on the market. The technical reliability of the indicators was also questioned; other markings should be clear so that consumers would not have to trust solely the indicator In general, people seemed to trust the TTI indicators. When respondents had to make assessments on the quality of a food product they seemed to place more trust on the tti tag than on the date mark(Anon, 1991; Sherlock and labuza 1992). A vast majority in a study carried out in the UK (Anon, 1991) said that they would not buy a product even though the product was not past the best before mark, if the indicator had changed. If the situation was the other way around and after the best before date but the indicator showed that the product was good, about half of the respondents thought it was safe to eat. Over half of the respondents would use their own judgement to decide whether the food was edible, a third would adjust the temperature in the fridge and one in five would throw the food away. In an American study(Sherlock and Labuza, 1992)80% would not purchase a product if the date stamp indicated freshness but the TTI ag had changed. If the situation was the other way around 49% said that they would not be likely to buy the product. Although respondents seemed to trust the indicators more, having both date marks and indicators were perceived to be themeat or fish, smoked fish, meat products, foods for children or ready prepared foods. Over 80% regarded TTIs as necessary in these applications although they were told that TTIs would increase the price of the product by 8.5 cents. This study was carried out as a survey in which participants (n ˆ 460) were asked to fill in a questionnaire. While responding to the questionnaire consumers could observe models of TTIs used in packages. Similarly, 59% of the respondents in the UK expressed their willingness to pay more for chilled products that contained a TTI tag (Anon., 1991). The result that TTIs are more suitable for fresh meat (Korhonen et al., 1999), whereas oxygen absorbers were considered acceptable in fresh meat by only by a minority of respondents (Mikkola et al., 1997) elevates the importance of perceived consumer benefit and understanding the reasons for food choices. The apparently contradictory result may be easily explained by the different functional principles of these two packaging devices, which may have a different appeal to consumers. The oxygen absorber could prolong the shelf-life of fresh meat, whereas the time temperature indicator shows only how it has been operated through the chill chain. The idea of extending the shelf-life of fresh meat is not attractive, but it is important to know if the fresh product is still in prime condition. This highlights the fact that all these different applications have to be studied as separate concepts in consumer studies. Measuring an overall attitude towards active and intelligent packaging is not feasible, as the benefits and possible concerns are specific to each application. Some worries about possible tampering with TTIs in the shop were brought forward (Anon., 1991; Korhonen et al., 1999). One worry was that the shopkeeper could possibly change the indicator and thus mislead consumers. In the UK (Anon., 1991) the non-cautious respondents perceived the TTIs to the unnecessary and some reported that they would deliberately sabotage them if they appeared on the market. The technical reliability of the indicators was also questioned; other markings should be clear so that consumers would not have to trust solely the indicator. In general, people seemed to trust the TTI indicators. When respondents had to make assessments on the quality of a food product they seemed to place more trust on the TTI tag than on the date mark (Anon., 1991; Sherlock and Labuza, 1992). A vast majority in a study carried out in the UK (Anon., 1991) said that they would not buy a product even though the product was not past the best before mark, if the indicator had changed. If the situation was the other way around and after the best before date but the indicator showed that the product was good, about half of the respondents thought it was safe to eat. Over half of the respondents would use their own judgement to decide whether the food was edible, a third would adjust the temperature in the fridge and one in five would throw the food away. In an American study (Sherlock and Labuza, 1992) 80% would not purchase a product if the date stamp indicated freshness but the TTI tag had changed. If the situation was the other way around 49% said that they would not be likely to buy the product. Although respondents seemed to trust the indicators more, having both date marks and indicators were perceived to be the 558 Novel food packaging techniques