1. 3D FOOD PRINTING
Knowledge and Attitudes of Millennials in the GTA
Edible Insights Team:
Jason Szymanski
Tracey Haefele
Juhi Agarwal
Ankita Singh
Anjali Sharma

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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).

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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-

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 19IPage
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
Commun
ications
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

27. 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.

28. 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)

29. 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

30. 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;

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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).

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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)

41. 34IPage
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

42. 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.