The current study accepted empirical evidence of the importance of negative factors in the evaluation of novel foods and developed discrete positive and negative attitudinal constructs from qualitative surveys of consumer behavioral beliefs. This approach proved benefificial to understanding the acceptance of hemp food as the negative attitude items while loading onto a single factor and correlating positively with each other, had differential effects on the construct associated with the psychological benefifits of Cannabidiol oil. Originally developed as a component of positive attitudes, anomalies detected early in the analysis of the data led to the construct defined as relating to CBD being identified as a potential mediator between negative attitudes and intention to consume under the TPB framework.

While the negative association of the CBD constructs with three of the items was theoretically and statistically supported, the positive association with two of the items was counterintuitive and is discussed below. In the qualitative phase of the study, a perception of an association between hemp food and CBD oil provided an impetus for the development of the items relating to the psychological benefifits of CBD oil. Reduced anxiety and increased relaxation were perceived by survey participants as a positive aspect of hemp food through this association. While these benefits are not promoted as applicable to hemp food, it is the perception of the benefifits through association with CBD oil that contributes to a consumer’s intention to consume the food. What has been revealed through the application of SEM, however, is a differential influence of the perception of CBD on intention to consume hemp food, dependent upon which negative aspect of attitude is being addressed. On further examination, there appear to be three possible interpretations of the findings.

The first is that despite the association of hemp food with CBD oil being perceived as a positive aspect of the product, there remains a belief that; a: There remains an association with both THC and CBD and a subsequent belief that potential for testing positive to THC after consumption of hemp food exists, and b: That not enough is known about the effects of eating hemp food. This association would be potentially problematic for the hemp food industry as it may suggest that despite assurances from industry and government sources that THC in hemp food is below detectable levels , consumer acceptance of this assertion appears to be low. The overall mediating effect of the association of hemp food with CBD oil, however, has a positive effect on the intention to consume hemp foods and can therefore be viewed as benefitting hemp food acceptance. While this may indicate that an association withCDB oil has thus far influenced the acceptance of hemp food, the long-term outcome from such an association would not be beneficial. It has been demonstrated that knowledge of hemp food may be lacking within the marketplace but as consumer education increases and the distinction between CBD oil and hemp food becomes more apparent, any positive influence the misperception has had to that point may be reversed.

The second interpretation is that a perception of anxiolytic and relaxation benefits in hemp food is attributed to a direct association with THC and purported side effects of illicit and “medicinal” use of marijuana. However, while this would explain the relationship between each of the negative attitudes and the CBD construct, it would only account for the increase in intention to consume hemp food if consumers were hopeful of and actively seeking THC in hemp food. While this may potentially apply to a particular subset of the population it is less likely to be discerned in a sample that has been deemed representative of the Australian population. The third interpretation may simply be that for at least some consumers, there is confusion surrounding the differences between CBD oil, THC, and hemp oil and food which results in the anomalies in the way that the CBD related survey items were interpreted by the consumer, the perception of it as a positive or negative aspect dependent upon whether the two entities are viewed as having different or similar properties. The more likely explanation might be somewhat a combination of the first and third scenarios and suggests the challenge for the hemp food industry to separate hemp food from any association with either CBD oil or THC, whether this is through increased consumer education or the development of strains of Cannabis sativa which are guaranteed completely void of THC. Knowledge of the processes of varietal development is beyond the scope of this research and the authors acknowledge that the latter may not even be possible.That is, despite a belief in the physical and psychological benefits of hemp food, a positive attitude toward hemp food did not play a significant role in intention to consume it.