Summary Report on Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and The United Kingdom
Tilman Becker, Eckhard Benner and Kristina Glitsch
January 1998
Project „Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour“
FAIR-CT 95-0046
This study is part of the project
QUALITY POLICY AND CONSUMER
BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS FRESH MEAT
Project coordinator:
Tilman Becker
Institut für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaftliche Marktlehre,
University of Hohenheim
The study has been carried out with the financial support from the Commission of the
European Communities, Agriculture and Fisheries (FAIR) specific RTD programme,
CT 95-0046, „Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour“. It does not necessarily reflect
its views and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. This
manuscript presents only some of the results. Other studies can be downloaded from
http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/~apo420b/eu-research/euwelcome.htm
Contents
Page
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 9
2
Sociodemographics of the Samples....................................................................... 11
3
4
2.1
Sex ............................................................................................................. 11
2.2
Age............................................................................................................. 12
2.3
Household Size ........................................................................................... 13
2.4
Children ...................................................................................................... 14
2.5
Full-Time Education.................................................................................... 15
2.6
Income........................................................................................................ 17
2.7
Women in the Labour Force........................................................................ 18
2.8
Sociodemographics of the Samples – Summary ........................................... 19
Food Consumption in Europe............................................................................... 20
3.1
Food Consumption Patterns and Trends ...................................................... 20
3.2
Food Away From Home.............................................................................. 25
3.3
Food Expenditure........................................................................................ 26
3.4
Food Consumption in Europe – Summary ................................................... 27
Meat Consumption in Europe............................................................................... 28
4.1
Consumption of Meat and Meat Products.................................................... 28
4.2
The Development of Consumption of Pork, Beef and Veal,
Lamb and Poultry........................................................................................ 29
4.3
Meat Consumption - Results from the Sample ............................................. 33
4.3.1 Frequency of Consumption................................................................. 33
4.3.2 Changes since 1992 ............................................................................ 35
4.3.3 Place of Purchase ............................................................................... 36
5
4.4
Who are the Heavy Meat Consumers? ......................................................... 37
4.5
Meat Consumption in Europe – Summary ................................................... 40
Quality Perception................................................................................................ 42
5.1
'Quality in the Shop' .................................................................................... 44
5.2
'Eating Quality'............................................................................................ 50
5.3
Quality Perception - Summary..................................................................... 54
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
1
6
Safety Perception ................................................................................................. 55
6.1
Literature on Safety Perception ................................................................... 55
6.2
Safety Perception of the Sample .................................................................. 56
6.3
Safety Perception – Summary...................................................................... 61
7
Concerns About Meat .......................................................................................... 62
8
Information on Meat ............................................................................................ 66
9
8.1
Use of Labels .............................................................................................. 66
8.2
Consumer Trust in Information ................................................................... 67
8.3
Information on Meat - Summary ................................................................. 70
Visual Inspection of Meat Quality ........................................................................ 71
9.1
Visual Inspection by Age............................................................................. 73
9.2
Quality Perception by Visual Inspection ...................................................... 74
10 Attitudes Towards Food and Meat ....................................................................... 77
10.1 Cooking ...................................................................................................... 78
10.2 Status.......................................................................................................... 79
10.3 Animal Welfare ........................................................................................... 82
10.4 Origin ......................................................................................................... 83
10.5 Nutrition ..................................................................................................... 85
10.6 Information ................................................................................................. 86
10.7 Safety.......................................................................................................... 87
10.8 Price ........................................................................................................... 88
10.9 Clusters According to Attitudes .................................................................. 91
11 Summary and Implications for Quality Policy ....................................................... 96
11.1 Summary..................................................................................................... 96
11.2 Implications for Quality Policy ...................................................................100
12 References ..........................................................................................................102
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Statistics................................................................................................105
Appendix B: Tables .................................................................................................106
Appendix C: Questionnaire ......................................................................................117
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
2
Figures
Page
Figure 1:
Distribution of Respondents by Age-group (in %) ..................................... 12
Figure 2:
Age-groups in the Sample: Deviations from the
Total Population (in %)............................................................................ 13
Figure 3:
Distribution of Households by Size (in %)................................................. 14
Figure 4:
Distribution of Households by Number of Children
Under 16 years of age (in %).................................................................... 15
Figure 5:
Distribution of Age at which Respondents Completed a
Full-time Education (in %) ........................................................................ 16
Figure 6:
Distribution of Respondents by Income Deciles......................................... 17
Figure 7:
Working Population 1992 (in % of Total Population at the
Age of 15 and More) ................................................................................ 18
Figure 8:
Consumption of selected foods 1994/95 (Sweden 1992)............................ 23
Figure 9:
Gross Domestic Product per Capita 1995 (in ECU) and Share of
Household Income Spent on Food without Beverages (1994)1 .................. 27
Figure 10: Per Capita Consumption of Total Meat, 1987-1996
(Sweden from 1991) ................................................................................ 28
Figure 11: Per Capita Consumption of Different Meats in kg per Year
(1996, Poultry: 1995)................................................................................ 29
Figure 12: Per Capita Consumption of Pork in kg per Year, 1987-1996
(Sweden: 1989-96) ................................................................................... 30
Figure 13: Per Capita Consumption of Beef and Veal in kg per Year,
1987-1996 (Sweden: 1989-1996).............................................................. 31
Figure 14: Per Capita Consumption of Lamb, Mutton and Goat in kg per Year,
1987-1996 (Sweden: 1989-1996).............................................................. 32
Figure 15: Per Capita Consumption of Poultry in kg per Year, 1987-1995
(Sweden: 1989-1995) ............................................................................... 33
Figure 16: Frequency of Beef Consumption per Week by Country ............................. 34
Figure 17: Frequency of Pork Consumption per Week by Country ............................. 34
Figure 18: Frequency of Chicken Consumption per Week by Country ........................ 35
Figure 19: Quality Model........................................................................................... 43
Figure 20: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Beef ................. 46
Figure 21: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Pork ................. 47
Figure 22: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Chicken ............ 48
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
3
Figure 23: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Beef .......................... 51
Figure 24: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Pork .......................... 51
Figure 25: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Chicken ..................... 52
Figure 26: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Beef .............................................. 57
Figure 27: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Pork.............................................. 58
Figure 28: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Chicken......................................... 59
Figure 29: Average Ratings of Concerns - Beef.......................................................... 63
Figure 30: Average Ratings of Concerns - Pork ......................................................... 63
Figure 31: Average Ratings of Concerns - Chicken .................................................... 64
Figure 32: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assess
the quality of beef in the shop just by looking at it."................................... 72
Figure 33: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assess
the quality of pork in the shop just by looking at it.".................................. 72
Figure 34: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assess
the quality of chicken in the shop just by looking at it." ............................. 73
Figure 35: Level of Agreement with Statement "I like experimenting
with new recipes."..................................................................................... 78
Figure 36: Level of Agreement with Statement "I do not like cooking
very much but it is a job which has to be done." ........................................ 79
Figure 37: Level of Agreement with Statement "I would never
serve a meal without meat." ...................................................................... 80
Figure 38: Level of Agreement with Statement "Meat is an
essential part of a meal." .......................................................................... 81
Figure 39: Level of Agreement with Statement "I prefer to buy
meat from animals which I know have been treated well." ......................... 82
Figure 40: Level of Agreement with Statement "We should have
more respect for animals."......................................................................... 83
Figure 41: Level of Agreement with Statement "I prefer to buy
food which is produced locally."................................................................ 84
Figure 42: Level of Agreement with Statement "It is important that I
know the country where the meat I buy has been produced."..................... 84
Figure 43: Level of Agreement with Statement "There is no source
of protein like meat."................................................................................. 85
Figure 44: Level of Agreement with Statement "Meat is essential
for a balanced diet." ................................................................................. 86
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
4
Figure 45: Level of Agreement with Statement "I always check
the nutritional labelling on foods before buying them." .............................. 87
Figure 46: Level of Agreement with Statement "I am confident
that food in the shops is safe."................................................................... 88
Figure 47: Level of Agreement with Statement "You have to be
prepared to pay a higher price to get good quality meat." .......................... 89
Figure 48: Level of Agreement with Statement "Price is the main
thing I consider when buying meat.".......................................................... 89
Figure 49: Statement "Price is the main thing I consider when
buying meat." by Income (Standard Deviation).......................................... 90
Figure 50: Deviations from the Average Ratings for the
Attitudinal Statements by Cluster .............................................................. 93
Figure 51: Proportions of Countries in the Clusters.................................................... 95
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
5
Tables
Page
Table 1:
Proportion of Respondents by Sex (in %).................................................. 11
Table 2:
Average Number of Children Under 16 Years of Age................................ 14
Table 3:
Levels of Education .................................................................................. 16
Table 4:
Respondents in the Labour Force
(in % of all Women or in % of all Men)..................................................... 19
Table 5:
Per Capita of Several Food Categories in 1985 and 1995 (in kg) .............. 21
Table 6:
Expenditures on Food Away From Home as a Share of
Total Household Expenditure, 19941
(Italy: 1993, Sweden: 1992, Spain: 1990/91)............................................. 26
Table 7:
Livestock Numbers in Relation to Population
(animal per inhabitant, 1993)..................................................................... 30
Table 8:
Quantitative Changes in Meat Consumption since 1992
(in % of Respondents)............................................................................... 36
Table 9:
Place of Purchase for Beef, Pork and Chicken (in % of Respondents)........ 37
Table 10: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers (in %) .................................... 38
Table 11: Differences Between Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers .............. 39
Table 12: Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop'
Characteristics - Results of a t-Test........................................................... 49
Table 13: Significant Differences in the Importance of 'Eating Quality'
Characteristics - Results of a t-Test........................................................... 53
Table 14: Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Safety'
Characteristics - Results of a t-Test........................................................... 60
Table 15: Significant Differences in Matters of Concern About Meat Results of a t-Test..................................................................................... 65
Table 16: Number of Respondents Who Do Not Look for
Any Symbols or Labels When Buying Meat............................................... 66
Table 17: Most Trusted Sources of Information about Meat ..................................... 68
Table 18: Information Sources Most Trusted
(Frequencies in % of All Answers) ............................................................ 70
Table 19: Average Age by Agreement with Statement "You can assess
the quality of beef just by looking at it" ..................................................... 74
Table 19: Average Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by
Agreement with the Statement "You can assess the quality
of beef just by looking at it" ..................................................................... 75
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
6
Table 20: Rankings of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreement with the
Statement "You can assess the quality of beef just by looking at it." ......... 76
Table 21: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Meat Consumption
According to Cluster................................................................................. 94
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
7
Tables of the Appendix
Page
Table A1: Household Size in the Sample and Household Size
of the Official Statistics (in %) ................................................................106
Table A2: Age-groups in the Sample and Age-groups of the
Official Statistics 1996 (in %)...................................................................106
Table A3: Household Income Decile by Household Size (in %) ................................106
Table A4: Consumer Prices for Selected Food Products in
1988 in ECU (Sweden not available).......................................................107
Table A5: Sociodemographic Characteristics by Changes in
Beef Consumption and Country ...............................................................108
Table A6: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers by Employment (in %) ..........108
Table A7: Consumption Frequencies by Household Income for
Two Person Households - Total Sample...................................................109
Table A8: Chicken Consumption by Employment (in %) ..........................................110
Table A9: Sociodemographic Characteristics of Low, Medium and
Heavy Chicken Consumers.......................................................................110
Table A10: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the
'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics and for each Type of Meat
(in % of respondents of each country) ......................................................111
Table A12: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the Safety
Characteristics and for each Type of Meat (in %) .....................................112
Table A13: Consumption Changes by Degree of Concern About Hormones, Antibiotics,
Fat/Cholesterol, Salmonella and BSE - Beef............................................113
Table A14: Consumption Frequencies by Level of Agreement With the
Statement "Meat is an essential part of a meal." (in %) .............................113
Table A15: Average Age by Level of Agreement With the Statements
"Meat is an essential part of a meal." and "I would never
serve a meal without meat for visitors."....................................................114
Table A16: Level of Agreement With the Statement "I would never serve
a meal without meat for visitors" by Age-groups (in %) ...........................114
Table A17: Level of Agreement With the Statement "Meat is an essential
part of a meal" by Age-groups (in %) .......................................................115
Table A18: SAS-Output of Cluster Analysis..............................................................116
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
8
1 Introduction
Consumer behaviour towards meat differs distinctly across Europe. Official statistics
show differences concerning recent meat consumption patterns as well as changes in
meat demand over the last few years in the six EU countries analysed in this study.
Main reasons for this may be fundamental cultural differences in diet, as well as the
manner in which and the intensity to which consumers react to certain meat issues, such
as BSE, salmonella or the use of antibiotics and hormones. Reactions towards meat
scares and scandals largely depend on consumers' general attitudes towards meat and the
extent to which consumers trust in public as well as private institutions dealing in some
manner with food safety.
In order to gain more detailed and comparative information on consumer behaviour
towards meat, surveys were conducted in Spring 1997 in each of the participating
countries of the EU-funded project, "Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour". This
report highlights both the differences and similarities found between the participating
countries.
The results of the survey can be divided into a mainly descriptive part which contains
material from official statistics as well as sociodemographics and information on meat
consumption of the households interviewed. Following is a more analytical part dealing
with quality and safety perception, information on meat, trust and attitudes towards
meat. For those mainly interested in the empirical results of this study, it would be
recommendable to skip sections 2, 3, 4.1 and 4.2.
First, the samples of each country will be described using sociodemographic
characteristics, such as sex, age, household size, number of children, education, and
household income (Section 2). As far as possible, these results will be discussed within
the framework of previously existing official statistics and corresponding literature.
In Section 3, major trends in European food consumption such as the phenomenon of an
'internationalisation' of diet are summarised. Subsequently, it focuses specifically on meat
consumption in Europe. Section 4 not only contains information from official statistics,
but also the empirical results of the survey regarding the frequencies of meat
consumption, changes in meat consumption and places of purchase. Meats considered in
this analysis are beef, pork and chicken.
The next sections, Section 5 and Section 6, cover consumers' quality and safety
perception. This process is analysed on the basis of meat characteristics in a wider sense,
which were derived from focus group interviews conducted prior to the survey carried
out in each of the countries.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
9
Further topics covered in Section 7 and Section 8 are consumers' concerns about meat
and the role of consumer information on meat. In order to analyse this, the use of quality
labels and marks as well as consumers' trust in information sources were investigated.
Finally, Sections 9 and 10 deal with respondents attitudes towards the possibility of
quality assessment of meat through visual inspection as well as other various matters
concerning meat. A cluster analysis was performed on the basis of attitudes towards
meat in order to determine groups of similar types of consumers. The report concludes
with a summary and some implications for quality policy in Europe.
The information gained through the consumer survey will serve as the basis for Sub-task
3.1 of the project: "To combine the analysis results concerning consumer behaviour and
quality policy in the partner countries and to draw conclusions at the EU-level" (see
Technical Annex of the Contract).
Survey
The data was collected in the Spring of 1997 through telephone surveys of 500
households in each country. The interviews were conducted by MRC (Market Research
Centre), a commercial telephone survey organisation, using random-digit dialling
procedures. Individuals responsible for household food shopping were the subjects of
this sample. The questionnaire, which was translated into each of the respective
languages, is attached to the Appendix.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
10
2 Sociodemographics of the Samples
In the following section, several sociodemographic characteristics likely to influence
consumer behaviour of the six sub-samples are described. They will be used later in the
report to show possible explanations for specific consumer behaviour. In addition, some
characteristics within the national samples will be discussed using the official national
statistics as a basis.
The respondents were chosen using a random sampling method. Thus, more or less the
sample ought to reflect the total population in terms of sociodemographics. But since the
survey was confined to consumers who are both responsible for their household
shopping and also consume meat, and in addition, since a considerable percentage of
people refused to be interviewed, it is highly probable that various distortions in this
survey exist.
2.1
Sex
The proportion of male and female respondents, who usually purchase the food for their
households may show a different allocation of roles in the households. Table 1 shows
that Sweden and Germany have the highest proportion of men in their samples (25 %
and 23 %). The lowest share of men as main household food shoppers exists in Ireland
(13 %) and in Spain (11 %). Italy and the United Kingdom range between 15 % and
17 % of men as the major household food shoppers.
Apart from traditional male and female roles, such differences may also result from a
different proportion of single-households in which a male person was interviewed. In
such cases, men are then automatically the main household shopper.
Table 1:
Proportion of Respondents by Sex (in %)1
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Female
77
87
83
89
75
85
Male
23
13
17
11
25
15
Source: own calculations
1
The countries in all tables and figures are arranged in alphabetical order.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
11
2.2
Age
Figure 1 shows the average age of the respondents. It ranges from 42.9 years in
Germany to a maximum of 47.3 years in the United Kingdom. Further, Figure 1
illustrates the proportion of consumers within the different age-groups.
The Swedish and German sample are characterised by a high proportion (nearly 20 %) of
consumers who are under thirty. In contrast to this, only 8 % of the Irish respondents
belong to this age-group. The highest percentage (24 %) of consumers over the age of
sixty can be found in the British sample. It is much lower in the German and Italian
sample (about 15 %)
Figure 1:
Distribution of Respondents by Age-group (in %)
42.9
45.9
44.2
45.2
45.8
47.3
100%
Average
Age
90%
80%
70%
60 and more
60%
50-59
50%
40-49
30-39
40%
Under 30
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
In comparison with official statistics, consumers between the age of 15-29 are underrepresented in the samples of each country, especially in Ireland (see Table A1). While
more than 32 % of the Irish population belong to this age-group, only 7.5 % interviewed
in this sample are of this age. This age-group is also distinctly under-represented in the
United Kingdom and in Spain. This might show that shopping is more the task of the
older generation in these countries.
Figure 2 illustrates the deviations in the age structure of the samples from the figures
drawn from official statistics. In each country, the responsibility for shopping was
concentrated more on the respondents between 30 and 59 years of age. While in
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
12
Sweden, the United Kingdom and in Germany, it is more evenly distributed over the agegroups represented in the total population.
Figure 2:
Age-groups in the Sample: Deviations from the Total
Population (in %)
15
10
5
0
15-29
30-39
-5
%
40-49
-10
50-59
60 and over
-15
-20
-25
-30
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: EUROSTAT 1997 and own calculations
2.3
Household Size
The average household size differs significantly from country to country (see Figure 3).
We find large households in Ireland (3.9 individuals), Spain (3.7 individuals) and Italy
(3.4 individuals) while the smaller households prevail in Germany (2.9 individuals), the
United Kingdom (2.8 individuals) and Sweden (2.7 individuals).
For each sub-sample, the average household size clearly exceeds that of the national
statistics. Table A2 of the Appendix illustrates that the proportion of single households in
the population of each country is far higher than the percentage of single households in
the samples. On the other hand, large households are distinctly over-represented in the
samples of each country. One reason may be that single and small households were more
difficult to contact by telephone or that they more often refused to be interviewed.
Figure 3 also compares the distribution of households by size in each of the partner
countries. Ireland and Spain can be seen to have the highest percentage of large
households: More than 50 % of all households contained at least four people. In Sweden,
the United Kingdom and Germany about half of the respondents live in single or twoperson households.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
13
Figure 3:
Distribution of Households by Size (in %)
2.9
3.9
3.4
3.7
2.7
2.8
Average Size
100%
90%
80%
70%
6 people and more
5 people
4 people
3 people
2 people
1 person
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
2.4
Children
Apart from Ireland, all of the partner countries showed to have nearly the same average
number of children under the age of 16 living in the households sampled (see Table 2).
Irish households tended on average to have 1.18 children under the age of 16. Figure 4
illustrates the distribution of households according to the number of children.
Table 2:
Average Number of Children Under 16 Years of Age
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Average number
0.67
1.18
0.63
0.64
0.67
0.70
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
14
Figure 4:
Distribution of Households by Number of Children Under
16 years of age (in %)
100%
90%
80%
70%
4 children and more
3 children
2 children
1 child
No children
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
2.5
Full-Time Education
The length of full-time education is used as an indicator for the educational level in this
survey. But, according to different educational systems, the average age at which the
respondents completed a full-time education varies greatly between the partner countries
(see Figure 4). The average age is the highest in Germany (20.4 years). Figure 5 shows
that nearly half of the German respondents were 20 years of age and over at the time
they completed a full-time education. The average age is much lower in Spain (17.0
years), in the United Kingdom (17.1 years), in Ireland (17.7 years) and in Italy (17.8
years). The Swedish sample shows that on the average, respondents completed a fulltime education at the age of 18.8 years.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
15
Figure 5:
Distribution of Age at which Respondents Completed
a Full-time Education (in %)
20.4
17.7
17.8
17.0
18.8
17.1
Average Age
100%
90%
80%
70%
21 and over
20
19
18
17
Under 17
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Since great differences in the educational systems exist between the partner countries,
this indicator should only be used to describe respondents within the given country and
not to compare respondents transnationally. For the latter purpose, it would be advisable
to set up an educational index, as for example, a form of quantiles of the age at which the
respondents completed a full-time education. Although the survey data do not allow the
calculation of exact quantiles, the following three categories, which are as equal as
possible in terms of number of respondents, will be used in further comparative analyses.
Table 3:
Levels of Education
Germany
Educational Years
Level
Low
< 19
Middle
19-20
High
> 20
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
%
Years
%
Years
%
Years
%
Years
%
39.0
26.5
34.6
< 17
17-18
> 18
35.0
37.4
27.6
< 15
15-19
>19
28.5
42.5
29.0
< 15
15-18
> 18
40.4
29.5
30.2
< 17
17-19
> 19
36.1
32.7
31.2
United
Kingdom
Years
%
< 16
16-17
> 17
29.1
41.0
29.9
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
16
2.6
Income
Income deciles were used in order to compare the income level in different countries.
They are defined as ten (income) classes which are characterised by the fact that 10 % of
the population belong to each class. The problem is how to calculate both the lower and
upper limits of the classes, so that, in the end, 10 % of the population belong to the first
class, 10 % to the second, and so forth.
If a survey is representative and the income deciles used are correct, 10 % of the sample
ought to belong to each of the ten deciles. In this survey, as Figure 6 shows, this is not
the case for each partner country. While household income is nearly equally distributed in
the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy, this is not the case in the samples of Sweden,
Spain and, especially, of Germany. In the Swedish sample, the higher income groups
(decile 7+8) are over-represented, while the lower income groups are under-represented.
In the Spanish and German samples it is the opposite, with 60 % and more of the
respondents belonging to the first four income deciles. The highest deciles (9+10) are
practically non-existent in the German sample. The reason for this distortion in the
German sample is that the deciles are inflated deciles which come from a survey
conducted previous to the Reunification. As a result, it does not take the incomes of the
former GDR households into consideration.
Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents by Income Deciles
100%
90%
80%
70%
Decile 9+10
60%
Decile 7+8
50%
Decile 5+6
40%
Decile 3+4
Decile 1+2
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
However, one should bear in mind that two different households with the same income
level do not automatically have the same financial situation. A decisive factor for the
financial power of a household is the number of individuals living from the household
budget. In fact, for the households of this survey those having a higher income level
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
17
tended to consist of more individuals than households with a lower income level. As
Table A3 of the Appendix illustrates for the total sample, 47 % of the single households
belong to the lowest income level (decile 1 and decile 2), while only 12-14 % of
households consisting of four or more people belonged to this income level. On the other
hand, only 2 % of the single households fall into the highest income level (decile 9 and
decile 10), while more than 16 % of the households with four or more persons came
under this category. Thus, household income as an indicator for the financial power of a
household must be used very carefully.
2.7
Women in the Labour Force
Some consumption trends, such as the increasing demand for food which is easy to
prepare or for food away from home, are obviously affected by the share of women in
the labour force. Figure 7 shows male and female working populations as a percentage of
the total population in 1992.
Figure 7:
Working Population 1992
(in % of Total Population at the Age of 15 and More)
80%
70%
60%
50%
male
40%
female
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: EUROSTAT 1995
While the share of men in the labour force only slightly differs in the six countries, the
share of women in the labour force differs greatly. Only 30-40 per cent of all women
belong to the working population in Ireland, Spain and Italy and about 50 per cent in
Germany and the UK. We find the highest share in Sweden, where about 70 per cent of
all women are working. This may be an indication that Swedish women have less time
for preparing meals. The consequence for food consumption may be that the
consumption of easy to prepare food and/or food away from home is greater than in the
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
18
other countries. "Time-pressured consumers do not want to buy ingredients for
preparing meals; they want to buy meals." (SENAUER, ASP and KINSEY 1991).
Table 4 shows the percentage of female and male respondents of the samples who are
employed or self-employed. A high percentage of respondents who participate in the
labour force may lead to different consumption patterns. Individuals who work and do
not wish to or cannot spend much time preparing meals may have a lower household
meat consumption.
Table 4:
Respondents in the Labour Force (% of all Women or % of all Men)
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Women
48.3
33.2
37.4
18.5
59.9
46.0
Men
70.2
68.2
55.8
41.5
58.1
49.3
Source: own calculations
The percentages of women in the labour force corresponds to a great extent to those
given by the official statistics, with the exception of the Spanish and the Swedish sample
where working women were under-represented. Working men were under-represented in
each of the countries except in Germany and Ireland.
2.8
Sociodemographics of the Samples – Summary
In this section, several sociodemographic characteristics of the six sub-samples were
described. In the following, some of the most striking results are summarised.
The highest proportion of male respondents can be found in the Swedish and German
sample, where men made up about a fourth of the sample. Germany and Sweden had the
highest proportion of respondents under thirty years of age, while the British sample is
characterised more by having highest percentage of individuals at the age of sixty and
above.
In Ireland and to some extent in Spain, we find the highest proportion of large
households. In both countries, more than half of the respondents live in households with
four people or more. While in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany, about half of
the respondents live in single or two-person households. Irish households have
significantly more children under the age of sixteen than all of the other countries. The
Swedish sample had by far the highest percentage of women in the labour force.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
19
3 Food Consumption in Europe
Apart from the fact that the proportion of income that is spent on food in Europe has
declined in the past and continues to decline, while the per capita income in most
countries has increased (Engel's law), there have also been qualitative changes in the
food demand. An universally observed long-term trend in Europe is the increasing per
capita consumption of food from animal sources. However, by the end of the eighties,
this reversed for some animal products and in some countries.
Another major trend is that more and more European consumers prefer processed and
value-added food products as well as meals away from home (FURITSCH 1994, p. 70).
This tendency corresponds to the general growing demand for "time saving" products.
Food processors respond to consumer demands by providing many kinds of convenience
and prepared foods.
At the same time, there is a consumer segment which is characterised by strong
preferences for either traditional or natural, unprocessed food. The growing demand for
traditional food may reflect the need to maintain typical national or regional food
cultures, which perhaps is part of a national or regional identity. In many cases, this trend
is pushed by tourism. Tourists wish to try local specialities in the different parts of
Europe. Further, growing health concerns and an increased orientation to quality leads to
increased demand for natural and unprocessed food products.
First, this section will present food consumption patterns and trends in the six countries
analysed. Then, it will give a summary of different consumer segments and food cultures
in Europe. Finally, the importance of consuming food away from home and food
expenditures will be discussed.
3.1
Food Consumption Patterns and Trends
During the last decade, food consumption patterns have changed in the countries
analysed (except Sweden, since data for Sweden was not available from this source) as
Table 5 indicates. While a clear trend towards more or less consumption of cereals and
potatoes cannot be observed, the intake of sugar has decreased in all countries which are
considered in Table 5, except Spain. In Germany and to a lesser degree in Italy, the
consumption of fruit and vegetables was clearly higher in 1995 than ten years before. In
Germany, meat consumption has decreased the most, but it has drastically increased in
Spain. In all of the countries, egg consumption has decreased, while cheese consumption
has increased.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
20
Table 5:
Per Capita of Several Food Categories in 1985 and 1995 (in kg)
Cereals
Potatoes
Sugar
Vegetables
Fruit (without citrus)
Meat
Eggs
Cheese
Year
Germany
1985
1995
1985
1995
1985
1995
1985
1995
1985
1995
1985
1995
1985
1995
1985
1995
74.3
72.3
77.7
72.8
36.7
33.0
75.1
81.3
48.6
63.7
101.1
91.7
17.0
13.7
14.5
18.3
Ireland
Italy
100.7
79.4
140.2
170.3
39.3
39.2
85.1
83.3
31.7
22.7
90.5
90.6
12.4
9.2
4.2
5.9
118.1
122.2
38.6
39.4
29.0
27.3
176.9
177.3
68.4
77.2
84.5
89.41)
11.4
10.51)
15.4
18.0
Spain
74.7
72.2
110.9
86.9
23.1
29.7
151.1
157.0
66.2
67.0
87.1
111.0
17.1
14.91)
4.62)
7.61)
United
Kingdom
74.2
81.7
105.9
104.7
42.5
36.2
80.1
86.71)
46.0
37.51)
74.8
73.6
13.5
10.1
6.3
7.7
1)
1994
1990
Source:
2)
Statistisches Bundesamt (1997)
The question of whether factors such as increasing tourism, rising international trade and
the thus increasing availability of food products have led to an 'internationalisation' of
diet has been investigated by several researchers. Countries of northern and central
Europe currently tend to adapt their food consumption to the Mediterranean diet evident
by the greater consumption of vegetables, milk and milk products, and fish and by the
decreased consumption of animal fats, meat and meat products and eggs. At the same
time, the opposite trend can be seen in Mediterranean countries (FURITSCH 1994).
WHEELOCK and FRANK (1989) have also come to the conclusion that dietary patterns
converge in the advanced industrial countries. By comparing nine European countries,
the authors show a growing similarity among these countries, both in total calories
derived from animal sources as well as in their total share in the diet. CONNOR (1994)
goes a step further by analysing the sources responsible for this convergence in food
habits. He argues that one of the major forces to a great extent are the parallel trends in
the global determinants of food demand such as household income, relative prices,
demographic changes and consumer attitudes. Further, CONNOR maintains that food
consumption in Europe is influenced by the consumption patterns of North America,
such that the historical per capita food expenditure trends in Northern America can be
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
21
used to predict current and/or future trends in Western Europe, particularly at more
aggregate levels. Multinational food companies and international trade are emerging as
major instruments impelling the convergence of food-expenditure patterns.
Thus current trends in food consumption in North America may indicate the future of
consumption trends in Europe. BORRUD, ENNS and MICKLE (1996) summarise changes
in food choices of North Americans using food consumption surveys conducted since the
1930's by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The authors identified the
following major changes since the 1977-78 USDA survey:
• Americans are eating more grain products (e.g. pizza, lasagne, ready-to-eat cereals,
popcorn).
• Consumption of mixtures that are mainly meat, poultry, or fish (e.g. hamburgers,
frozen dinners, chilli con carne) has increased by 38 %.
• Consumption of separate cuts of beef and pork has decreased by about 50 %.
• Chicken eaten separately has slightly increased.
• Consumption of fish and shellfish eaten separately has decreased.
• Consumption of vegetables of all sources has increased slightly, while consumption of
fruits has clearly increased.
• Americans consume less whole milk but more lower fat milk and milk desserts.
• Consumption of eggs has clearly decreased.
Some of these trends can already be observed in European food consumption as shown
in Table 5. Preceding on the assumption that American food trends are adopted by
European Consumers, a further decrease in food products from animal sources can be
expected.
HERRMANN and RÖDER (1995) tested food consumption based on food nutrients
(calories, fat, protein) in OECD countries in 1978 and 1988 to determine convergence or
divergence by use of a loglinear model. They found that by aggregating across all food
products, strong evidence can be shown that the relative differences in per capita calorie,
protein and fat demand has declined as well as absolute differences in per capita calorie
demand. However, such evidence is less obvious, when disaggregating into individual
food products.
Trends in food consumption patterns in Western Europe over the last two decades have
been analysed by GIL, GRACIA and PÉREZ y PÉREZ (1995). In their study, they argue that
a shift in diet within Mediterranean countries toward a continental diet structure is
expected to continue together with increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and
vegetable oil in Northern countries.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
22
In spite of these trends, the composition of the food basket is nonetheless different
between the six countries analysed. Figure 8 illustrates the per capita consumption of
seven food categories in 1994/95.
Figure 8: Consumption of selected foods 1994/95 (Sweden 1992)
700
600
kg per head and year
500
fish
meat & meat prod.
cheese
milk
fruit&citrus
vegetable
potatoes
400
300
200
100
0
Germany
Source:
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
European Commission (1997), Statistics Sweden (1994) and ZMP 1997
We can find a relatively high consumption of potatoes in Ireland (172 kg per person),
which seems to be a result of tradition rather than low prices, since the consumer price of
potatoes is relatively high in Ireland in comparison to the other countries as well as in
comparison to prices of other food products in Ireland (see Table A4 of the Appendix).
The consumption of potatoes is very low in Italy (41 kg per person), although the price
of potatoes is comparatively low. Italian consumers traditionally prefer cereals to
potatoes.
Fruit and vegetable consumption is highest in the southern European countries of Spain
and Italy. In contrast, it is very low in Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Cheese
had a comparatively low per capita consumption in Spain, Ireland and the United
Kingdom (8.7 kg, 6.4 kg and 8.6 kg per person). Meat consumption is the highest per
capita in Spain. Table A4 shows that the Spanish meat prices are by far the lowest when
compared to the other countries.
An analysis of national and cross-national consumer segments by BRUNSO, GRUNERT
and BREDAHL (1996) shows different food cultures in Europe. The authors conducted a
consumer survey in Great Britain, Germany, Denmark and France.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
23
The results suggest that most consumers in Great Britain take no particular interest in
food and food products. Either they are completely uninvolved or only interested in new
snack products or in cheap traditional products. In contrast, the segments with an
interested, rational relationship to food constitute about one third of the British, French
and Danish population while only 26 % of the German population belong to this
segment. These consumers are defined as consumers who take a great interest in
healthiness, freshness, ecology/naturalness of food and actively seek information about
food products. Great Britain has most conservative consumers, as the study shows.
These consumers are interested in predictability and tend to avoid change. The segment
of the so-called adventurous consumers, who use food and cooking for self-fulfilment,
expressing creativity and social purposes, constitute 12 % in Great Britain, 24 % in
Germany, and 25 % in Denmark.
The authors outline some implications for food marketers as related to the major
segments they identified: Consumers, who are not very interested in food products, are
characterised by a low degree of stability, low brand loyality and only a few perceive
differences between various food products. Thus, for this segment, price differences are
the only obvious possibility for product differentiation. In contrast, rational food
consumers are relatively easy to inform about product improvements. Conservative
consumers highly value tradition and show strong preferences for both food products
and shops of purchase, which will be difficult to alter by marketing activities. Finally,
adventurous food consumers need to be stimulated by creativity. For this segment, food
products must incorporate ideas of self-fulfilment, creativity, and social togetherness.
A study on European food cultures by ASKEGAARD and MADSEN (1995) shows that
food cultures in Europe correspond to a great extent to national boundaries. A clustering
of 79 European regions based on 138 food-related questions resulted in a 12-cluster
solution. These clusters which represent different European food cultures include seven
nation-states, and also five transnational regions. Among these clusters, the countries of
this EU-report are represented: Sweden, Spain, Italy, the British Isles (Great Britain and
Ireland) and the 'Germanic area' of Germany, Austria and the German speaking part of
Switzerland. These food cultures were characterised by ASKEGAARD and MADSEN as
follows:
• The Germanic cluster was identified as being very health conscious whereas 'fast-food
meals' are not very popular. Health consciousness was shown by actual, as well as by
intended behaviour. Further, the Germanic cluster expressed a willingness to adapt to
a greater 'food-consciousness' in the future.
• In Spain, a healthy diet was shown to be already existing within the food culture,
rather than being part of a new food consciousness.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
24
• Italy was shown as a region with a food culture attaching great importance to sensory
enjoyment. A tendency to more convenience-oriented consumption patterns was also
shown to be relatively weak.
• The British Isles were indicated as having a great fondness of sweets and pastries as
well as for instant products. There were no variables indicating a distinct food culture.
• As for Sweden, there was shown to be a tendency to preferring heavier meals. Here
the sensory enjoyment of eating was stressed, while showing little preference for
natural products.
3.2
Food Away From Home
As one might expect, the share of income spent on food purchased for household
preparation has steadily declined, whereas the share spent on food away from home has
increased. Reasons for the growing importance of food prepared outside the home have
been summarised for consumers in the United States in several recent studies. Often,
identified factors are rising incomes, increased participation of women in labour force,
changes in household demographics, and changes in „lifestyle“. JENSEN and YEN (1995)
analysed the consumption of food away from home using a double-hurdle model (an
econometric model that accommodates zero observation in the sample). They found that
the employment of women had a positive effect on the level of lunch consumption away
from home, however this was not the case for other types of meals. The effects of
changing incomes are shown to be both significant and positive.
Income shares spent on food away from home cannot be compared exclusively for the
six countries in our analysis due to the different methods of calculation used in the
reporting of national statistics. For example, household expenditures in Germany usually
are computed for three different types of households so that it is not possible to derive
average data for the total of all German households. Interpretations and comparisons of
national statistical data therefore have to be handled carefully.
The data shown in Table 6 is partly contradictory to the suppositions made in Section
2.7. For example, Sweden has the highest share of women in the labour force. A fact
which could lead to the assumption that the consumption of food away from home is
comparatively high. Data on food expenditure, however, does not support this
hypothesis, as households on the average spend only about 3 % of their disposable
income on meals away from home. This share is shown to be much higher in Spain and
Italy. One reason may be that in the southern European countries as Spain and Italy, the
share of food expenditure is already high. Another may be a result of the cultural
differences in taking meals outside the home among each of the six countries. The link
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
25
between household size and women in the labour force on one side, and income spent on
processed foods and food away from home on the other, is probably stronger within a
single country than within a cross-country comparison.
Table 6:
Expenditures on Food Away From Home as a Share of Total Household
Expenditure, 19941 (Italy: 1993, Sweden: 1992, Spain: 1990/91)
Germany
(4-person households of wage earners and
salaried employees with medium income)
Italy
Ireland
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Expenditures on Food Away From
Home (% of Total Expenditure)
3.40
4.45
2.70
4.35 (restaurants), 5.67 (bars,
coffee houses, pubs etc.), 0.6
(Others)
3.04
2.49
1) The Swedish expenditures on food are not based on total household expenditures but on disposable
household income!
Source:
3.3
STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1995), Germany,
NATIONAL FOOD SURVEY, United Kingdom,
HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEY and NATIONAL ACCOUNTS, CSO, Ireland,
STATISTICS SWEDEN (1994),
INSTITUTO NACIONAL ESTADISTICA (1992), Spain,
ISTAT, Italy
Food Expenditure
Engel's law may be analysed either with time-series or cross-sectional data. Figure 9
compares the data of the six countries. The left axis represents the gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita measured in ECU as an approximate value for household
income. The right axis shows the proportion of income spent on food.
Accordingly, we can see that Spain, as the country with the lowest GDP per capita, has
the highest food expenditure share, while Germany, the country with the highest GDP
per capita, has the lowest proportion food expenditure (together with the United
Kingdom). The situation of the other countries is not quite as clear. For the most part,
the pattern of food expenditures in the United Kingdom does not fit Engel's law, in so far
as, in spite of a rather low GDP per capita the share of income spent on food is lower
than in the countries with a higher GDP.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
26
Figure 9:
Gross Domestic Product per Capita 1995 (in ECU) and Share of
Household Income Spent on Food without Beverages (1994)1
25000
30
GDP per capita (in ECU)
20
15000
15
10000
10
5000
food expenditure (in %)
25
20000
5
0
0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
GDP per head
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
food expenditure
1) Spain: 1993
Source:
Statistisches Bundesamt (1997), European Commission (1997)
Such may indicate that the share of income spent on food is not only dependent on the
household income (using the gross domestic product per capita as an approximation),
but also on the level of food prices, consumer preferences, cultural differences, etc.
When we take a closer look at food expenditure in these six countries, we find quite
different patterns. Spain is characterised by a very high share of income spent on food
(28 %). In the United Kingdom and in Germany, the expenditure on food is lower, about
only 11 % of total household expenditure. Swedish, Italian and Irish consumers spend
about 14-17 % of their household income on food.
3.4
Food Consumption in Europe – a Summary
According to the findings of previous studies, the following trends in food consumption
are likely to continue over the next years:
• decreasing per capita consumption of food products from animal sources,
• convergence of continental and Mediterranean diet,
• influences on European food consumption patterns by North-American food
consumption, and
• increasing consumption of food away from home and ready to serve meals.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
27
4 Meat Consumption in Europe
4.1
Consumption of Meat and Meat Products
The consumption of total meat and meat products has developed in different directions
among the six analysed EU-countries between 1987 and 1996 (see Figure 10). The most
striking aspect is that in the United Kingdom, meat consumption has declined over the
last few years, although it was already at a very low level. An even lower level of meat
consumption can be observed in Sweden, although it has clearly increased from 1991 to
1995. The levels of all other countries range more or less at the EU-average. For the
most part, a constantly rising meat consumption can be only found in Spain, while
consumers in Germany and in recent years in Ireland have decreased their total meat
consumption (carcass weight basis).
Figure 10: Per Capita Consumption of Total Meat, 1987-1996 (Sweden from 1991)
120
110
kg per head
100
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU-12
90
80
70
60
50
1987
Source:
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
ZMP, various yearbooks
Figure 11 illustrates the relative importance of different kinds of meat in each of the six
countries. The average per capita consumption of beef and veal is not noticeably different
between the six countries. However, we can find large differences concerning pork
consumption. While Spain and Germany have the highest consumption of 55 kg per year,
only half of this amount (ca. 25 kg) is consumed in the United Kingdom. Poultry
consumption also differs greatly between the countries. On the one hand, Spain, Ireland,
the United Kingdom and Italy are characterised by having a poultry consumption of more
than 20 kg per year. On the other hand, poultry consumption is only 8 kg in Sweden and
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
28
ca. 13 kg in Germany. Mutton, lamb and goat is nearly insignificant in terms of overall
consumption in Sweden, Italy and Germany.
Figure 11: Per Capita Consumption of Different Meats in kg per Year
(1996, Poultry: 1995)
100
90
80
70
kg
60
mutton, lamb, goat
poultry
pork
beef & veal
50
40
30
20
10
0
Germany
Source:
4.2
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
ZMP 1997, Statistisches Bundesamt (1997)
The Development of Consumption of Pork, Beef and Veal, Lamb
and Poultry
The trend in the consumption of total meat is actually the result of an increasing or
decreasing consumption of the various types of meat. When we look at the pork consumption in Figure 12 we can see that the quantities for Germany and Spain converge. In
1987, Germany was characterised by having a very high level of pork consumption but
since the beginning of the nineties it has decreased to 55 kg as a consequence of growing
health concerns. While it is true that fish and poultry have been substituted for pork, yet
at a slower rate so that pork consumption remains at a high level.
During the same period, pork consumption in Spain has increased from only 39 kg to
55 kg, which entails a very high consumption of total meat (see Figure 10). In Sweden,
Ireland and Italy we can find a similar situation in that the consumption of meat in all
three countries is slightly increasing. In contrast, the United Kingdom has the lowest per
capita consumption of pork, which until 1995 only slightly declined.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
29
Figure 12: Per Capita Consumption of Pork in kg per Year, 1987-1996
(Sweden: 1989-96)
70
65
60
kg per head
55
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
1987
Source:
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
ZMP, various yearbooks
When we compare the different levels of pork consumption, we can draw a parallel to
pork production. In countries with traditionally high pork production relative to the
population, like Spain, Ireland or Germany for example (see Table 7), we find a high
level of pork consumption, while in the United Kingdom, where pork production has
been relatively low, we can see a very low pork consumption.
Table 7:
Livestock Numbers in Relation to Population (animal per inhabitant,
1993)
Germany
United Kingdom
Ireland
Sweden
Spain
Italy
Source:
Hog and Pig
(head/inhabitant)
0.27
0.14
0.42
0.26
0.47
0.15
Cattle
(head/inhabitant)
0.16
0.20
1.77
0.21
0.13
0.13
Sheep and Goat
(head/inhabitant)
0.02
0.51
1.68
0.05
0.61
0.18
ZMP 1995 and own calculations
Figure 13 shows the consumption of beef and veal over the last ten years. The only
country with an increase in per capita beef consumption in this period is Sweden. In all
other countries, beef consumption has decreased: in Italy from 27 kg to about 23 kg, in
Germany from 24 kg to 15 kg, in the United Kingdom from 23 kg to 15 kg and in
Ireland from 21 kg to about 15 kg. Reasons for high Italian beef consumption are a low
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
30
demand for pork, lamb, mutton and goat on the other hand. The current low
consumption of beef and veal in Ireland and Spain can be seen to have been compensated
by an increased consumption of poultry (see Figure 15) and by a high demand for
mutton, lamb and goat (see Figure 14).
In the case of beef and veal, we can not see the above mentioned parallel between consumption and production. For example, Italy as the country with the highest beef
consumption has a very low beef production relative to the population (see Table 7). All
in all, compared to pork consumption, the development of beef consumption seems to be
characterised by having a greater instability.
Figure 13: Per Capita Consumption of Beef and Veal in kg per Year, 1987-1996
(Sweden: 1989-1996)
30
28
26
kg per head
24
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
1987
Source:
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
ZMP, various yearbooks
This apparent instability could be a result of temporary disturbances on the market, for
example, those caused by the impact of BSE. However, opinions on the causes for the
recent drop in beef consumption are nonetheless disputed. On the one hand, some argue
that this decline has to do with an overall negative image of beef, which for the most part
might have been induced by the media. They claim that the media has exaggerated such
topics as BSE, hormonal additives or the use of antibiotics. Other claim that the declining
beef consumption is partly the result of a general reduction in total meat consumption
and part of a long-term trend towards a healthier diet. It is not yet clear whether a
negative image entails declining consumption or if declining consumption has caused a
bad image.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
31
In order to show the above mentioned hypothesis that the consumption of beef during
the period of 1987 to 1995 was more instable than the consumption of pork, by applying
the Cuddy/Della Valle-Measure of instability, stability rates have been quantified (see
BECKER, BENNER and GLITSCH, 1996).
Results show that the consumption of beef during the period of 1987 to 1995 was more
stable than the consumption of pork. Consequently, opinions that beef consumption is
largely determined by temporary disturbances in the market are shown to be inaccurate.
More likely is that the general declining beef consumption is part of a long-term trend.
Concerning the per capita consumption of lamb, mutton and goat, the analysed countries
can be categorised into two separate groups (see Figure 14). The first group consists of
the United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain, where quantities consumed over the entire
period of 1987-1996 are shown to be comparatively high. At the same time, these
countries, especially Ireland, are characterised by having a relatively high population of
sheep and goats. Since the beginning of the nineties, consumption has declined in the
United Kingdom and Ireland, while it has nearly been constant in Spain. The average per
capita consumption of the second group (Italy, Germany and Sweden) does not exceed
more than 2 kg and remains rather stable over this time period.
Figure 14: Per Capita Consumption of Lamb, Mutton and Goat in kg per Year,
1987-1996 (Sweden: 1989-1996)
10
9
8
kg per head
7
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1987
Source:
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
ZMP, various yearbooks
In all of the six countries, with the exception of Italy, there has been a shift in meat
consumption from red meat to poultry. Figure 15 illustrates the per capita consumption
of poultry over the period of 1987-1995. The greatest increase, from 20 kg per head in
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
32
1987 to ca. 29 kg in 1995, can be found in Ireland. Germany, and most of all Sweden,
are both characterised as having a very low poultry consumption, with about 13 kg in
Germany and only 8 kg in Sweden.
Figure 15: Per Capita Consumption of Poultry in kg per Year, 1987-1995
(Sweden: 1989-1995)
30
25
kg per head
20
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
15
10
5
0
1987
Source:
4.3
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
ZMP, various yearbooks
Meat Consumption - Results from the Sample
4.3.1 Frequency of Consumption
The following figures illustrate the frequency of consumption of beef, pork and chicken.
Originally, there were two answer choices included in the questionnaire ('Less often than
once a month' and 'Less than once a week but more than once a month') which now are
summarised to 'Less often than once a week' for reasons of clearness.
According to the samples taken in Ireland, Spain and Italy, respondents on the whole
were shown to be major consumers of beef. A majority of them eats beef at least twice a
week (see Figure 16). Italy is at the forefront for the frequency of beef consumption.
This corresponds to official statistics, which show the highest per capita beef
consumption for Italy in comparison to the partner countries (see Figure 13). Swedish,
British and, especially, German consumers are moderate beef consumers. And even
about 30 % of all German and British respondents replied that they never eat beef. The
percentage of non-beef eaters is the lowest in Sweden (7.6 %).
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
33
Figure 16: Frequency of Beef Consumption per Week by Country
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Never
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Less often than once a week
Once
Sweden
Twice
United
Kingdom
Three and more
Source: own calculations
Pork is most often consumed in the Swedish, German and Spanish households (see
Figure 17) sampled. Of these, about 40 % consume pork at least twice a week. British,
Irish and Italian households are moderate pork consumers. Further, it is striking that 2030 % of the British, Irish, Italian and Spanish respondents do not consume pork at all.
Figure 17: Frequency of Pork Consumption per Week by Country
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Never
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Less often than once a week
Once
Sweden
Twice
United
Kingdom
Three and more
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
34
Chicken is usually consumed more than pork in all of the partner countries, with the
exception of Sweden and Germany (see Figure 18). Fifty-percent and more of these
households consume chicken at least twice a week. When we compare these results to
the official statistics, we find the same: the per-capita consumption of poultry is clearly
higher in Ireland, Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy than in Sweden and Germany.
Figure 18: Frequency of Chicken Consumption per Week by Country
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Never
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Less often than once a week
Once
Sweden
Twice
United
Kingdom
Three and more
Source: own calculations
4.3.2 Changes since 1992
When asked whether they eat more or less beef than they did five years ago,
approximately half of the German, Irish and British respondents replied that their beef
consumption has decreased (see Table 8). This percentage is lower in Spain and Sweden
even though a considerable number of consumers have increased their beef consumption
(15.6 % and 11.1 %). Italy fell in the middle.
Pork consumption has undergone less change. The majority of the households in each
partner country have had a constant consumption rate of pork over the last five years.
Most of the respondents, who have altered their consumption of pork, have reduced it.
Of the partner countries, Germany and Spain have the highest proportion of respondents
who have reduced their pork consumption (35 % and 29 %).
Of all meats, chicken consumption has increased most significantly, especially in Ireland,
Italy and the United Kingdom. Nearly 40 % of the Irish, 36 % of the Italian and 34 % of
the British respondents replied that they eat more chicken than they did five years ago.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
35
Presumably the strong decrease in beef consumption in these countries has been at least
been partially compensated by chicken consumption.
Table 8:
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Quantitative Changes in Meat Consumption since 1992 (in % of
Respondents)
Less
BEEF
More
51.2
49.2
39.3
24.5
22.0
46.5
3.0
5.6
10.0
15.6
11.1
3.8
No
Change
45.8
45.2
50.7
59.9
66.9
49.7
Less
PORK
More
35.1
22.3
25.8
28.9
19.6
16.8
8.8
11.2
10.1
11.8
9.9
9.5
No
Change
Less
56.1
66.5
64.1
59.3
70.5
73.6
11.5
11.4
11.8
15.1
13.6
6.7
CHICKEN
More
No
Change
28.6
39.2
36.1
18.8
19.6
33.5
59.9
49.4
52.1
66.1
66.8
59.9
Source: own calculations
The question arises, how do consumers who have reduced meat consumption differ from
those who have not. Table A5 of the Appendix shows sociodemographic differences in
the example of beef consumption. The average income level of respondents who
reported that they have reduced beef consumption within the last five years is higher than
that of consumers who have increased beef consumption in Germany, Italy and the
United Kingdom. While it is the opposite in Ireland, Spain and Sweden.
In each of the countries, the average age of consumers who have reduced beef
consumption is distinctly higher than of consumers who have not. Further, households
who have increased beef consumption have on the average more children under the age
of sixteen and thus larger households in each of the countries, with the exception of
Sweden and the United Kingdom. Additionally, the percentage of consumers who have
reduced beef consumption was higher for women than for men, with the exception of
Ireland.
4.3.3 Place of Purchase
The place of purchase is used to indicate both the quality/safety perception and the quality/safety assessment. Therefore, the respondents were asked where they normally
purchase beef, pork and chicken. Traditional butchers play a very important role in
several of the countries where consumers expressed a trust in 'their' butcher. However, in
Sweden, butcher shops tended no longer to have much importance. Table 9 shows that
over 60 % of the Irish, German and Italian respondents usually purchase beef at the
butcher's, but (as expected) only 3.4 % of the Swedish! In contrast, megamarkets,
hypermarkets and supermarkets are the main places of purchase for beef in Sweden and
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
36
in the United Kingdom. This also applies for pork, although in this case, the butcher shop
is even of less importance.
Chicken is mainly purchased at the megamarkets, hypermarkets or supermarkets in
Sweden, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. In Spain and Italy, the butcher shop
remains the most important place of purchase, even for chicken.
In the case of chicken, more than 30 % of the German respondents fell into the category
'Others'. Included within this category were, for the most part, the purchase of chicken at
weekly markets and more often the self-production which are special features in
Germany.
Table 9:
Place of Purchase for Beef, Pork and Chicken (in % of Respondents)
BEEF
Butcher
Mega-,
Hyper-,
Supermarke
t
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
United
Kingdom
Sweden
Other
Butc
her
PORK
Mega-,
Hyper-,
Supermarket
Other
CHICKEN
Butcher
Mega-,
Hyper-,
Supermarket
Other
60.2
62.1
61.3
53.3
37.6
21.3
27.9
30.5
24.8
57.7
18.5
10.0
8.2
21.9
4.7
60.1
55.1
54.1
49.6
32.4
26.4
40.0
33.5
29.2
62.3
13.5
4.9
12.4
21.2
5.3
18.5
32.5
43.9
44.1
18.1
50.1
59.9
35.2
31.2
75.7
31.4
7.6
20.9
24.7
6.2
3.4
82.4
14.2
3.4
81.9
14.7
1.6
80.4
18.0
Source: own calculations
4.4
Who are the Heavy Meat Consumers?
Thus far we have only looked at different kinds of meat and not at the aggregate of meat.
To analyse which types of households are low, medium or heavy meat consumers, a meat
consumption index has been set up as follows: In accordance with the answers to
question Q.1 of the questionnaire, 'Never' is replaced by 1, 'Less often than once a month'
by 2 and so on. When adding up the numbers for all three types of meat, the smallest
possible value is 4 (it cannot be 3 since this would indicate that the consumer does not
eat any of the meats) while the maximum value is 18. All replies of 'don't know' for one
of the three types of meat have been excluded from this analysis.
A low meat consumer is now defined by having a meat consumption index of up to 8, a
medium meat consumer has an index from 9 to 14 and a heavy meat consumer has an
index of 14 or more. According to this definition, the survey sample of each country can
be subdivided into low, medium and heavy meat consumers as Table 10 illustrates.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
37
Table 10:
Low
Medium
Heavy
Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers (in %)
Germany
23.6
67.0
9.4
Ireland
14.1
62.5
23.4
Italy
15.5
59.0
25.6
Spain
9.8
49.0
41.2
Sweden
11.4
75.3
13.4
UK
19.8
63.5
16.7
Source: own calculations
In the German and British sample, there is a high proportion of respondents who belong
to the group of low meat consumers. Most heavy consumers can be found in the Spanish
sample, while only few German respondents belong to this category.
The supposition that respondents who belong to the working force could have a lower
household meat consumption, because of little time for preparing meals (see Section
2.7), cannot be confirmed generally. Table A6 of the Appendix shows the proportion of
employed and non-employed respondents within the three meat consumer categories.
While the Irish sample seems to meet the assumption that respondents in the labour force
consume less meat than unemployed respondents, there are no clear differences in the
Spanish and Italian samples. Even the opposite seems to apply to the German, British
and Swedish samples.
When we take a closer look at the households of low meat consumers (see Table 11), we
find that for each country they can be characterised as having a below average number of
children, and as such, as having a smaller household size. Heavy meat consumers tend to
be comparatively large households with an above average number of children under the
age of 16. This does not support the hypothesis that parents are concerned about
negative effects of meat consumption in regard to their children's health and therefore
have reduced it.
For most of the countries, except for Germany and Ireland, low meat consumers are, on
the average, older than heavy meat consumers. This may indicate that the frequency of
meat consumption in these countries decreases with age. In each country, the household
income (given as the average income decile) of heavy meat consumers is distinctly higher
than the income of medium consumers, which again is higher than the income of low
meat consumers.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
38
Table 11:
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Differences Between Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers
Meat
Consumption
Age
Low
Medium
Heavy
Low
Medium
Heavy
Low
Medium
Heavy
Low
Medium
Heavy
Low
Medium
Heavy
Low
Medium
Heavy
43.7
42.3
44.0
46.5
45.4
46.3
48.2
44.2
42.2
54.6
46.0
41.9
49.9
46.7
37.1
50.1
47.3
44.2
Average
Household Number of Years of
size
children education
2.4
2.9
3.6
3.4
3.8
4.1
3.0
3.3
3.8
2.5
3.6
4.0
2.1
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.8
3.2
0.59
0.66
0.98
1.01
1.17
1.34
0.52
0.60
0.76
0.10
0.62
0.81
0.39
0.67
0.95
0.66
0.68
0.82
21.2
20.1
20.9
17.7
17.7
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.4
16.1
17.2
17.0
17.1
19.0
19.0
17.5
16.9
16.9
Household
income
(deciles)
3.7
4.0
4.9
5.6
5.7
6.2
4.1
4.7
4.7
3.1
4.4
4.6
5.4
6.1
6.7
5.2
5.6
6.0
Source: own calculations
In order to investigate the relation between income and consumption frequencies, it
appears reasonable to eliminate the effect of different household sizes by considering
only the households of equal size. By taking only households consisting of two persons
and examining consumption frequencies for each income level, a clear relationship
between frequency and income can scarcely be identified (see Table A7 of the
Appendix).
Beef consumption seems to be a little higher for high income households of two persons.
The percentage of non-beef eaters is nearly 30 % for low income households while it is
only 12 % for households at upper income level.
Pork consumption seems to increase with income up to decile 5 and decile 6. Then, for
higher income levels, it again decreases. In the case of chicken, a correlation between
income and frequency of consumption cannot be observed
Convenience and an increased demand for convenience goods have been examined by
many consumer researchers and economists. For economists, it is common to conceive
of the cost of time as an opportunity cost measured by the opportunity cost of foregone
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
39
income or participation in other activities. Household variables such as income level,
number of children and years of education can be used as proxy measures for the
opportunity cost of time. It seems reasonable that a dual-income household with
children, having less available time and a higher value of time, would have a greater need
for convenience products for meals, as well as for other activities.
An overview of consumer research in this field is given in ANDERSON and SHUGAN
(1991). They suggest that health awareness cannot be accepted as the sole explanation
for the increasing consumption of poultry. Rather their analytical findings support the
hypothesis that increased demand for convenience has contributed to poultry's success on
the market.
The data of our survey yields equivocal results regarding this topic. As Table A8 of the
Appendix shows, the consumers who work do not necessarily consume more chicken in
their household in comparison to those consumers who do not work, although to a small
extent, this seems to apply to the German and the British consumers.
But there are differences regarding sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.
Consumers, who eat chicken very often, tend to be younger, have more children (and
thus less time for preparing meals), and a higher income (and thus higher opportunity
costs of time (see Table A9)).
4.5
Meat Consumption in Europe – Summary
To sum up the results of this section, the following conclusions can be made in terms of
the frequency of meat consumption:
• Irish and Italian households prefer beef and chicken to pork, while Swedish and
German respondents consume significantly more pork than beef or chicken.
• British households are characterised as having a moderate consumption of beef and
pork and a high demand for chicken.
• High frequencies of consumption for all meats are found in Sweden.
Further, in addition the results of the survey clearly show, that within the last five years,
German, Irish and British consumers have reduced their beef consumption the greatest.
Also, the German sample had the highest percentage of consumers who have decreased
their pork consumption. Markedly; an intensity in the frequency of chicken consumption
can be observed in all of the countries, particularly in Ireland, the United Kingdom and
Italy.
Consumers who have reduced their beef consumption were on the average older and
have less children than those who have not. In general, women have reduced their beef
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
40
consumption more than men. However, it still remains open as to what reasons have
caused such changes in meat consumption.
According to the answers given by the respondents, butchers are by far the most
important place of purchase for beef and pork, with the exception of the United
Kingdom and Sweden.
Dividing the samples into low, medium and heavy meat consumers, it can be observed
that heavy meat consumers tend to come from comparatively large households with an
above average number of children and with higher household income.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
41
5 Quality Perception
The evaluation of meat quality plays a major role for consumers in determining meat
purchases. Several studies show that aside from intrinsic characteristics referring to those
of the physical product, extrinsic meat characteristics, such as the origin or
environmental aspects, tend to become increasingly important to consumers in Europe.
In order to meet consumers' demands and to calm consumers' uncertainties, it is
necessary for meat producers to consider relevant quality characteristics and to
communicate such relevant information to the consumers.
The focus of this section is quality perception. It will refer more to the consumers'
approach than to a professional approach on meat quality. Quality perception as an
expression also reflects the idea that consumers' evaluation of quality is often incomplete
and inconsistent (see LASSEN 1993, p. 3).
The degree of satisfaction enjoyed while consuming a food product is often only loosely
related to the cues available in the purchasing situation (GRUNERT 1996). Therefore, in
this study, the quality evaluation process is supposed to take place in two stages. The
first stage takes place previous to the actual purchase, in which the consumer inspects
the meats as well as requests additional information. The second stage of quality
evaluation takes place while eating the meat.
Since the meat quality sought by consumers can only have characteristics of a
hypothetical construction, consumers depend on indicators for the quality they actually
desire. Such indicators accessible to consumers, include both characteristics of the
product itself as well as other attributes, e.g. price. This means that for both stages of the
quality evaluation process, there must be certain indicators which play a decisive role in
determining meat quality.
The following model (see Figure 19) was chosen as the premise for the empirical
analysis. The quality cues were derived from focus group discussions which were
conducted in each of the six countries.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
42
Figure 19: Quality Model
'Quality in the shop'
Extrinsic Indicators:
− Quality labels
− Place of purchase
− Price
− Country of origin
Intrinsic Indicators:
− Colour
− Marbling (except
chicken)
− Leanness
'Eating quality'
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
Flavour
Tenderness
Colour
Smell
Leanness
Juiciness
Free of gristle
Texture
In the survey, the consumers chosen by a random sampling were asked to rate these
characteristics according to the importance they attach to them while buying or eating
meat. This kind of investigation about opinions or attitudes is connected, among other
things, with two major problems:
1.
For many reasons, the answers do not necessarily correspond to real behaviour. The
importance of the different meat characteristics was measured independently of the
purchasing or eating situation so that the questions required a considerable capacity
for abstraction.
2.
There are intercultural differences in the understanding of words and in the manner
of answering.
An example for the second problem is the fact that simply the word 'meat' conveys
different meanings to consumers of different countries. The focus group interviews,
which were conducted during the course of this study previous to the consumer survey,
supply evidence for such differences. Upon being asked what comes in your mind when
thinking of meat, members of the focus groups replied:
− The first thing that comes to (my) mind is beef. But pork and chicken too.
(Sweden)
− I think of pork chops first of all. Less of chicken and more of pork and beef.
(Sweden)
− Cow and pig and sheep, but not chicken. (Sweden)
− Meat is meat and fish is fish. (Italy)
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
43
− If I say "meat" I refer to red meat. Otherwise I say "to buy a chicken ". If I say
"to buy meat" I mean veal, beef, and so on. (Italy)
− Meat is red meat. (Italy)
− To me meat is beef, pork and lamb. Anything else is something else.
(United Kingdom)
− I would include poultry in meat, chicken and turkey. (United Kingdom)
− Well, intellectually I associate first of all sausages and minced meat with it ...
(Germany)
− When I think of meat then, well, then I do also think of assorted cold meats and
such things, but primarily also of special meals. (Germany)
− When I talk about meat at home, I mean beef, veal and pig meat. (Spain)
− Meat is beef and veal. (Spain)
− Sliced meat, Ham everything, Corned beef, all meat products, Salami,
Sausages all that. (Ireland)
From these answers follows, that, in general, red meats belong foremost to the category
'meat'. Whether poultry belongs to 'meat' is less clear. Fish is not associated with 'meat'.
Further, it becomes clear that the use of the word 'meat' depends on the consumption
patterns in the respective country: While the Swedish focus group members mentioned
pork and beef more or less equivalently, for the Italian consumers meat is in the first
place beef.
It is striking that the Irish and the German interviewees first think of processed meats.
Meat products in general have not suffered from a decreasing demand as much as fresh
meat has. So, relative to fresh meat, meat products have gained in importance.
5.1
'Quality in the Shop'
According to the above mentioned quality concept, consumers were asked to rate the
'quality in the shop'-characteristics in respect to their helpfulness in assessing meat quality
while shopping for beef, pork and chicken. A five point scale was used between the poles
'not at all helpful' and 'very helpful'. In addition, the answer 'don't know' was included in
the questionnaire. To simplify matters, answers of 'don't know' were not taken into
consideration in the following analyses, but nonetheless will be briefly discussed.
Considering the percentage of consumers who answered 'don't know', 'marbling' seems
to be the most problematic of the characteristics for assessing meat quality in the shop
(see Table A10 of the Appendix). The percentage of those respondents who didn't know
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
44
how helpful they consider 'marbling' to be for assessing beef quality, ranged from 7.2 %
in Sweden to 49.3 % in Spain. The figures are similar in the case of pork.
Further, a considerable number of the Spanish respondents did not know how to rate
'leanness', 'brand or quality assurance label' and 'country of origin' for beef, pork and
chicken. Twenty-five percent of the Italian consumers answered 'don't know' to 'country
of origin' in the case of chicken. Leanness as a quality indicator for chicken was
problematic particularly for the German, Spanish and Swedish respondents. All in all,
consumers seemed to have fewer problems with extrinsic indicators such as 'place of
purchase', 'price' and 'country of origin' than with intrinsic factors.
Reverting back to the rating of the seven 'quality in the shop'-characteristics, Figure 20
shows the ratings of the respondents of each country for beef. In order to present more
aggregated data, an average 'usefulness' of each characteristic was calculated by building
the arithmetic mean over all respondents who gave answers from 1 (very helpful) to 5
(not at all helpful) to each of the characteristics.2 Since the answer 'very helpful' is
represented by 1 and 'not at all helpful' by 5, the higher the average rating of a meat
characteristic, the less helpful it is considered to be.
The evaluations of the characteristics are very heterogeneous for beef, as illustrated in
Figure 20. The results show for each country, that 'price' was regarded as being the least
helpful for assessing meat quality in the shop. Particularly German respondents did not
perceive 'price' to be a helpful quality indicator for beef. However, this was shown to be
the only distinct similarity common for all of the countries.
Irish consumers attached high importance to all of the following characteristics: 'colour',
'place of purchase', 'leanness', and 'country of origin'. 'Marbling' and 'brand/label' followed
at a distant interval. Italy and Spain showed similar ratings. 'Colour' and 'place of
purchase' were regarded as being most helpful. 'Country of origin' came in third place.
Brands or labels seem to be more important for the Italian than for the Spanish
consumers.
Sweden and the United Kingdom were the only countries where the 'place of purchase'
did not belong among the most helpful characteristics. This is due to the fact that in these
countries, meat for the most part is purchased at supermarkets or megamarkets. 'Colour'
came in first place, followed by 'country of origin' in Sweden and 'leanness' in the United
Kingdom. German consumers clearly preferred the extrinsic characteristics 'country of
origin' and 'place of purchase' as quality cues. 'Leanness', 'colour' and 'marbling' followed
further afterward.
2
Some remarks about the use of parametric statistics for ordinal data can be found in Appendix A.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
45
Figure 20: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Beef
3.2
3.0
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
2.8
2.6
Colour
2.4
Marbling
Leanness
2.2
Brand/Label
Place of purchase
2.0
Price
1.8
Contry of origin
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
In the case of pork (see Figure 21), the 'place of purchase' is among one of the most
helpful characteristics in all countries, except in Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Further, 'colour' was also among the most helpful factors in all countries with the
exception of Germany.
'Price' again was clearly regarded as being the least helpful quality indicator in all
countries except in the United Kingdom, where 'origin' was rated even lower than 'price'.
Except in Sweden, however, other than the case of beef, the 'country of origin' was less
important than other indicators. All in all, the ratings were very similar to those for beef.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
46
Figure 21: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Pork
3.2
3.0
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
2.8
2.6
Colour
2.4
Marbling
Leanness
2.2
Brand/Label
2.0
Place of purchase
Price
1.8
Contry of origin
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
The quality assessment for chicken is more varied among the partner countries. While
'colour' was named as the main helpful indicator by the British, Irish, Spanish and Italian
respondents, 'country of origin' was considered as most helpful in Sweden and 'place of
purchase' in Germany. The 'price' of chicken was of least importance as an indicator for
quality, except in the United Kingdom where the 'country of origin' was considered least
helpful. It is striking that the German respondents rated all of the given characteristics as
being of little relative helpfulness. For them, quality assessment seemed to be less
important for chicken than for beef or pork.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
47
Figure 22: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Chicken
3.2
3.0
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
2.8
2.6
Colour
2.4
Leanness
Brand/Label
2.2
Place of purchase
2.0
Price
1.8
Contry of origin
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Since differences between some of the characteristics were so minimal, we can not be
sure as to their significance for the total population. Before being able to transfer the
results from the sample to the total population, a test for significance has to be
performed.
The results of a t-Test for related samples show the following consistent ordering of
importance of these characteristics, illustrated in Table 12 with those being the most
helpful coming first. In cases where more than one characteristic is attributed to a certain
rank, there is no significant difference between them (at a confidence interval of 5 %).
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
48
Table 12:
BEEF
1st rank
Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop'
Characteristics - Results of a t-Test
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
origin,
place
colour,
place,
leanness,
origin
marbling,
label
colour,
place
place,
colour
colour,
origin,
label
colour,
leanness
origin
marbling
place,
marbling,
label
price
marbling,
label,
leanness
price
leanness,
origin,
marbling,
label
price
leanness
price,
origin
2nd rank
leanness,
colour
3rd rank
marbling,
label
4th rank
price
PORK
1st rank
place,
colour,
leanness,
place
origin
place,
price
colour,
place
colour,
place
colour,
origin
colour,
leanness
origin,
marbling,
label,
leanness
price
leanness,
marbling,
label,
origin
price
label
place
marbling
marbling,
label,
price
origin
2nd rank
origin,
colour,
leanness
3rd rank
label,
marbling
label,
marbling
4th rank
5th rank
6th rank
price
price
place,
origin,
leanness,
colour,
label
price
colour
colour
colour,
place
origin
colour
leanness,
place
origin,
label
price
place,
origin
leanness,
label
price
leanness
label
leanness
label,
origin
price
colour
place,
label
price
CHICKEN
1st rank
2nd rank
3rd rank
4th rank
leanness
place
price
5th rank
price,
leanness,
place
origin
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
49
5.2
'Eating Quality'
In order to analyse the second stage of quality evaluation, which takes place while eating
meat, consumers were asked to rate several characteristics regarding the quality of beef,
pork and chicken according to their importance.
First of all, it is to be noticed that many Spanish and partly also Italian consumers
answered 'don't know' concerning the eating quality characteristics 'leanness', 'texture'
and particularly 'free of gristle' for beef, pork and chicken. This may indicate that these
consumers feel unsafe in using these characteristics for assessing the eating quality of
meat. The percentage of 'don't knows' was below 5 % for all other characteristics in each
of the countries.
Figure 23, Figure 24 and Figure 25 illustrate the average ratings of the eight
characteristics for beef, pork and chicken. At first sight, there seem only to be slight
differences between the meats. Noticeably, British and particularly Irish respondents
rated all of the given characteristics very highly, such that the average ratings of all of the
characteristics are located within a narrow range.
But also, one can generally observe that the means are very close to each other. On the
whole, respondents had a strong tendency to rate the characteristics very high. Thus, this
type of questioning seems only to be somewhat appropriate as a means of obtaining a
more or less wide-range of responses, as generally advised by literature on marketing
research.
'Tenderness' and 'flavour' were among the most important quality characteristics for beef
in each country while the attributes of 'leanness' and/or 'free of gristle' were considered to
be of least importance with the exception of Ireland.
Results are similar for pork. 'Flavour' and 'tenderness' were regarded as most important
for determining the quality of pork. The smell of pork was the most important
characteristic for Spanish consumers. Further, the importance of 'leanness' was rated
above-average by the Irish consumers, and the importance of 'free of gristle' was rated
above-average by the British consumers
In the case of chicken, 'flavour', 'tenderness' and 'smell' are most important. Respondents
distinctly regarded 'smell' as being more important for chicken than for beef and pork.
For all countries except the United Kingdom, 'leanness' and 'free of gristle' seem to be the
least important characteristics for the eating quality of chicken.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
50
Figure 23: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Beef
3.0
2.8
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
2.6
Flavour
2.4
Tenderness
2.2
Colour
Smell
2.0
Leanness
Juiciness
1.8
Gristle
Texture
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Figure 24: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Pork
3.0
2.8
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
2.6
2.4
Flavour
Tenderness
2.2
Colour
Smell
2.0
Leanness
Juiciness
1.8
Gristle
1.6
Texture
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
51
Figure 25: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Chicken
3.0
2.8
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
2.6
2.4
Flavour
Tenderness
2.2
Colour
Smell
2.0
Leanness
Juiciness
1.8
Gristle
Texture
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
The results of a t-Test, illustrated in Table 13, show that differences between the average
ratings are in many cases not statistically significant at a 5 % level. British and Irish
consumers especially rated all characteristics very similarly.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
52
Table 13:
Significant Differences in the Importance of 'Eating Quality '
Characteristics - Results of a t-Test
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
tenderness,
juiciness,
flavour,
smell
tenderness,
flavour
flavour
flavour,
tenderness,
juiciness
flavour
flavour,
tenderness,
gristle,
texture,
colour,
juiciness,
smell,
leanness
2nd rank
colour,
gristle,
texture
colour,
leanness,
juiciness,
texture,
gristle,
smell
tenderness,
juiciness,
smell,
colour,
texture
colour,
smell
tenderness
3rd rank
leanness
leanness,
gristle
texture
juiciness,
smell,
texture,
gristle
colour
leanness
BEEF
1st rank
4th rank
5th rank
PORK
1st rank
2nd rank
leanness
gristle
flavour,
tenderness,
juiciness,
smell
flavour,
tenderness
flavour
smell,
flavour,
tenderness,
juiciness,
colour
flavour
colour,
texture,
gristle,
leanness
leanness,
texture,
colour,
smell,
gristle,
juiciness
tenderness,
texture,
smell,
juiciness,
colour
texture
tenderness,
juiciness,
smell,
texture
leanness,
gristle
leanness
colour,
gristle
leanness
3rd rank
4th rank
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
gristle
flavour,
tenderness,
gristle,
smell,
texture,
colour,
leanness,
juiciness
53
Table 13 continue
CHICKEN
1st rank
flavour,
smell,
tenderness,
juiciness
2nd rank
colour,
leanness
3rd rank
texture,
gristle
flavour,
tenderness,
smell,
colour,
texture,
leanness,
gristle,
juiciness
4th rank
5th rank
flavour
flavour,
smell,
juiciness,
colour,
tenderness
flavour
flavour
smell,
texture,
colour,
tenderness,
juiciness
leanness
texture
smell,
tenderness,
juiciness,
texture
tenderness
leanness
colour
smell,
gristle,
texture,
colour,
leanness,
juiciness
gristle
gristle
gristle
leanness
Source: own calculations
5.3
Quality Perception - Summary
Among meat characteristics which can be used for assessing meat quality in the shop,
'price' was distinctly considered to be the least helpful quality indicator in all countries,
except in the United Kingdom.
For beef and pork, the 'place of purchase' was one of the most important quality cues in
all countries except in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Among the intrinsic factors,
'colour' was the most important for all types of meat. 'Marbling' seems to be the most
problematic quality indicator, since many respondents, particularly in the Spanish sample,
were unsure and did not know how helpful they considered 'marbling' for assessing beef
and pork quality.
Fewer differences between the countries were obvious in the case of eating quality
characteristics. In general, 'flavour' is one of the most important factors, while 'leanness',
'texture' and 'free of gristle' belong in many cases to the least important eating quality
characteristics. Altogether, most of the factors, except 'leanness' and 'free of gristle' were
rated very highly in each of the countries.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
54
6 Safety Perception
6.1
Literature on Safety Perception
Many studies on safety perception have attempted to measure consumer willingness to
pay for increased food safety. In contrast, BAKER and CROSBIE (1994) used a cluster
analysis in order to identify consumer groups based on, among other things, their
attitudes toward the safety of 'Red Delicious' apples. The aim of this analysis was to
develop market segments for consumers of fresh produce and strategies for effectively
meeting the needs of consumers in these segments. This study was conducted on
consumers in California (USA).
The results of this cluster analysis indicated that consumers used in the study fell into one
of three distinct market segments. Consumers in the first segment were shown to be most
orientated to price and quality. Price accounted for 43 % of their purchasing decisions.
The authors suggest that this group includes those consumers who are most likely to be
satisfied with the current situation, because price and quality are currently emphasised by
producers.
Consumers in the second segment comprised the majority of the respondents. They
valued product quality most, but also showed preferences for certification programmes.
Additionally, consumers in this segment placed relatively low importance on price.
Consumers in the third segment were shown to be most concerned with the level of
pesticide usage, which was extremely important in their purchasing decisions. BAKER and
CROSBIE suppose that consumers in this group are willing to pay a substantial amount
more for produce with reduced pesticides, and that they are willing to sacrifice quality in
return for safer produce. An analysis of the socio-economic differences among the
market segments revealed few differences.
These results suggest that in order to successfully meet consumers' needs, the targeting
of the needs of specific consumer segments is required, rather than of the needs of the
"average" or "typical" consumer. BAKER and CROSBIE further indicate, that while the
needs of the first segment are currently being met, safety assurance and the limiting of
the use of pesticides are topics which are still neglected.
Consumer reactions towards food safety scares were analysed by HERRMANN,
WARLAND and STERNGOLD (1997) in the example of the Alar crisis in the United States.
Alar is the trade name for the growth regulator compound, daminozide, first registered
for use on apples in 1968. It was used to keep ripening fruit on the tree and to keep
stored apples firm and red. In the early 1980s, it was used on about 40 % of the apples
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
55
sold in the U.S. fresh market. As increasing evidence showed that Alar and a breakdown
product were carcinogenic and television news reported on the dangers to children who
consume apples treated with Alar, a full-scale crisis erupted.
The goal of the study of HERRMAN, WARLAND and STERNGOLD was to identify the
factors affecting the awareness of the Alar safety scare and those of which affected the
decision to reduce the use of Alar on apples and apple products.
Results indicate that an awareness of the Alar controversy was most common among
older respondents with a higher level of education. The sex of the respondents and
whether or not they had children did not show as having a significant influence on this
awareness as such. In contrast, a reported reduction in the purchasing of apples and
apple products was shown to be more frequent for women and younger respondents.
Education and the presence of children were not found to have a significant relation to
reduced usage. Awareness of the Alar crisis was a necessary, but in itself not sufficient
enough to cause a reduction in consumption.
The authors suggest, that the greater frequency of reduction in apple consumption by
women over men was the most anticipated consequence, since it has been found in past
studies that women tend to express greater concerns about food safety hazards.
A similar outcome is shown in this study. The percentage of consumers who have
reduced their beef consumption within the last five years was higher for women than for
men, with the exception of the Irish sample.
6.2
Safety Perception of the Sample
Just as there are indicators used to assess the quality of meat, consumers use certain
meat characteristics or aspects of the meat production process in order to assess the
safety of meat. Again, respondents were asked to rate several meat safety aspects, which
had been derived from the focus group interviews, according to their helpfulness in
assessing the safety of beef, pork and chicken. Figure 26, Figure 27 and Figure 28 show
the averages on the helpfulness (1='very helpful' to 5='not at all helpful') as determined by
the respondents.
Considering the percentage of consumers who answered 'don't know' (see Table A11),
a considerable proportion of the Spanish respondents seem to feel unsafe how to use all
characteristics except 'price' and 'freshness' as indicators for meat safety. For Italian
consumers, 'organically produced' seems to be the most problematic of the characteristics
for assessing meat quality in the shop. Swedish consumers were most unsafe with 'feed'
and 'name of producer'.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
56
According to the average ratings, the 'freshness' of beef was regarded as being most
helpful in all countries, with the exception of both Germany and Italy (see Figure 26).
Not surprisingly, German consumers relied most on the 'country of origin' of beef, while
Italian consumers put the highest value on what food stuffs the animal had been fed.
Such was astonishing, since information on feed is not available for consumers in Italy,
i.e. there are no labels on beef explaining what the cows were fed (MIELE and PARISI
1997).
When using 'freshness' as an indicator of safety, respondents manifested that they were
actually referring to concerns about salmonella and/or other bacteria most likely to occur
when the meat is not fresh. In contrast, Italian and German consumers referred foremost
to BSE when considering beef safety. Figure 29 of Section 7 illustrates that Italian and
German consumers really are more concerned about BSE than Salmonella and other
bacteria. In all other countries, the respondents in general were more concerned with
salmonella and other bacteria than with BSE.
The price of beef was considered to be the least helpful safety indicator by the Irish,
Italian, Spanish and particularly by the German respondents, while in Sweden and in the
United Kingdom, the consumers rely least on the name of the producer (see Figure 26).
Figure 26: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Beef
3.4
3.2
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
3.0
2.8
Feed
2.6
Brand/Label
2.4
Name of producer
2.2
Organically produced
Country of origin
2.0
Price
Freshness
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
57
As predicted, the 'country of origin' is distinctly of less importance for pork than for beef
(see Figure 27). 'Freshness' again was regarded as being the most helpful safety indicator.
Apart from this, the figures for the rating of consumers' responses are very similar to
those for beef.
Figure 27: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Pork
3.4
3.2
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
3.0
2.8
Feed
2.6
Brand/Label
2.4
Name of producer
2.2
Organically produced
Country of origin
2.0
Price
1.8
Freshness
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
In the case of chicken, 'freshness' again was the most important safety cue. 'What the
animal was fed on', was valued higher than for the other meats. 'Free range' was regarded
as being most important by respondents in Sweden and Ireland. 'Price' again was
considered to be the least helpful safety indicator by respondents of all countries, except
those in Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
58
Figure 28: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Chicken
3.4
3.2
Average Rating
(1=very helpful, 5=not at all helpful)
3.0
2.8
Feed
2.6
Brand/Label
2.4
Name of producer
2.2
Free range
Country of origin
2.0
Price
Freshness
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Statistically significant differences between these characteristics are illustrated in Table
14. The ranking shows that 'freshness' belongs to the first level for all of the three meats
and in each country, while 'price' and/or 'name of 'producer' are ranked last. All in all,
consumers gave more varied responses than in the case of 'eating quality' perception.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
59
Table 14:
Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Safety' Characteristics Results of a t-Test
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
origin,
freshness
feed
freshness
feed
freshness
freshness
freshness
origin
freshness
origin
label,
feed
3rd rank
organic,
producer,
label
feed,
organic,
label
label
origin,
organic
4th rank
price
producer
origin,
label
organic
producer
price
feed,
organic,
origin
label
producer,
price
feed
price
organic
price,
producer
producer
BEEF
1st rank
2nd rank
5th rank
6th rank
PORK
1st rank
2nd rank
3rd rank
price
freshness
freshness
feed,
origin,
organic,
label,
producer
price
4th rank
freshness
freshness
freshness
origin,
label,
feed,
organic
feed,
freshness
organic,
label,
origin,
producer
feed,
organic
origin
label,
organic,
feed
producer
price
origin,
label
producer,
price
label
price,
origin
producer
price
5th rank
6th rank
feed
organic
price,
producer
CHICKEN
1st rank
freshness
freshness
2nd rank
free range
free range,
origin
3rd rank
feed
4th rank
origin
label,
producer,
feed
price
5th rank
6th rank
7th rank
label
producer
price
feed,
freshness
free range
label,
origin,
producer
price
freshness
freshness
freshness
free range,
feed
origin
label,
origin
label
free range,
label,
feed
price,
origin
producer,
price
feed
producer
free range
producer
price
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
60
6.3
Safety Perception – Summary
It is still widely disputed whether or not food safety is regarded as belonging to the
category of food quality in the consumers perception process.
If we take the 'country of origin' as both a quality and a safety factor, we find that the
ratings of the respondents in this survey are highly correlated. The Spearmann
correlation coefficient is +0.62 for beef, +0.68 for pork and +0.60 for chicken, which
may point to a strong interdependence between the quality and safety of meat. The same
applies to 'price' as a quality cue, on the one hand, and as a safety factor on the other.
Thus, it is not yet clear, if quality perception and safety perception are two different
processes.
Concerning consumers' evaluation of the given safety indicators, it becomes obvious that
'freshness' plays a major role in assessing the safety of beef, pork and chicken. Therefore,
it would be advisable for producers and retailers to communicate 'freshness' to the
consumers. Since this survey did not analyse how consumers assess the freshness of
meat, further research in this area is necessary.
A special feature of Italian consumers is that they perceive 'feed' to be a very helpful
safety indicator for all of the three meats. 'Free range' is a characteristic of chicken which
was perceived as being relatively important by consumers of all countries, with the
exception of Sweden.
Generally, the 'country of origin' is most important for beef, in particular for German
consumers, and least important for chicken. For all of the meats, 'price' is considered to
be the least important factor for assessing the safety of meat.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
61
7 Concerns About Meat
Consumers were asked how concerned they are about hormones, antibiotics,
fat/cholesterol, Salmonella and other bacteria and BSE (only beef) when buying meat. In
order to aggregate the information, an arithmetic mean of concern was calculated for
each country, according to the type of meat and the matter of concern. Since the answers
run from 1='very concerned' to 5='not at all concerned', the lower the value, the more the
respondents are concerned. The proportions of respondents who did not know how to
rate the issues of concern in each of the countries was insignificant. Figure 29, Figure 30
and Figure 31 show the results for beef, pork and chicken.
'Fat or cholesterol' in beef were regarded as being least worrisome in each of the
countries, particularly in Germany and Sweden. As expected, German consumers were
most concerned about BSE, while the most important matter of concern for Irish, Italian
and Spanish consumers was 'hormones' in beef. The greatest concern of the British
consumers was 'salmonella or other bacteria', while for Swedish consumers, all matters of
concern, except for 'fat or cholesterol', were of nearly equal importance.
According to the absolute level of concern, Irish and Spanish consumers were generally
shown to be most concerned about beef. This is surprising, since German consumers
often are considered as being the most sceptical consumers in the EU (BECKER, BENNER
and GLITSCH 1997).
In the case of pork, 'salmonella or other bacteria' were among the most threatening
concerns in all of the countries, except in Germany. Again, 'fat or cholesterol' were
considered to be least worrisome in each of the countries; however for most of the
countries, it seemed to be a little more important than in the case of beef.
Salmonella was a major topic of concern in the case of chicken in all countries, except in
Italy, where consumers were most worried about 'hormones'. In each of the countries,
'fat or cholesterol' had a minor importance for chicken.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
62
Figure 29: Average Ratings of Concerns - Beef
3.2
Average Rating
(1=very concerned, 5=not at all concerned)
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
Hormones
Antibiotics
2.2
Fat/Cholesterol
2.0
Salmonella
BSE
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Figure 30: Average Ratings of Concerns - Pork
3.2
Average Rating
(1=very concerned, 5=not at all concerned)
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
Hormones
2.2
Antibiotics
2.0
Fat/Cholesterol
Salmonella
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
63
Figure 31: Average Ratings of Concerns - Chicken
3.4
Average Rating
(1=very concerned, 5=not at all concerned)
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
Hormones
2.4
Antibiotics
2.2
Fat/Cholesterol
2.0
Salmonella
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
The results appear partly not to be solely of a rational nature. The use of hormones for
example, is prohibited by EU-regulations, so that these answers might possibly express
consumer concerns on the illegal use of hormones in the EU or perhaps in imported meat
(ANDERSSON and HOFFMAN 1997). Further, these results can be interpreted as consumer
distrust in public quality policy.
Table 15 illustrates concerns and groups of concerns which are significantly different
from each other regarding respondents' level of concern. In the case of beef, nearly all
given matters of concern, except 'fat or cholesterol', are ranked first. They seem to be
nearly equally important to the consumers. Spanish consumers were an exception, since
they only ranked hormones in beef first. BSE only came in the third place.
Likewise, fat and cholesterol is the least important matter of concern for pork and
chicken in each of the countries. As expected, salmonella is perceived to be more
threatening in the case of chicken than for beef and pork.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
64
Table 15:
Significant Differences in Concerns About Meat - Results of a t-Test
Germany
BEEF
1st rank
BSE,
hormones,
antibiotics
2nd rank
salmonella
3rd rank
4th rank
fat/cholesterol
PORK
1st rank
Ireland
hormones,
hormones,
antibiotics,
BSE,
salmonella,
antibiotics,
BSE
salmonella
fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol
antibiotics,
hormones
salmonella,
antibiotics,
hormones
2nd rank
salmonella
fat/cholesterol
3rd rank
fat/cholesterol
CHICKEN
1st rank
2nd rank
3rd rank
4th rank
Italy
salmonella
salmonella
hormones,
antibiotics
fat/cholesterol
antibiotics
hormones
fat/cholesterol
hormones,
salmonella,
antibiotics,
fat/cholesterol
Spain
hormones
antibiotics,
salmonella
BSE
fat/cholesterol
hormones,
salmonella,
antibiotics
Sweden
antibiotics,
salmonella,
BSE,
antibiotics,
salmonella,
BSE,
hormones
hormones
fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol
salmonella,
antibiotics,
hormones
fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol
hormones,
salmonella,
antibiotics
fat/cholesterol
United
Kingdom
salmonella
antibiotics,
hormones,
fat/cholesterol
hormones,
salmonella
salmonella
salmonella
antibiotics
antibiotics
fat/cholesterol
hormones
fat/cholesterol
antibiotics,
hormones
fat/cholesterol
Source: own calculations
It seems very likely that those consumers who showed more concerns about meat
quality, tend to consume less meat or have reduced meat consumption within the last five
years to a greater extent than the others. However, the first supposition cannot be
confirmed by the survey data, i.e. there is no evidence that consumers who are very
concerned about the analysed matters of concern actually consume less meat than
consumers who are not concerned.
In contrast, the data shows that consumers, who are very concerned, tended to reduce
meat consumption to a greater extent than consumers who are not concerned. Table A12
of the Appendix shows the relative frequency of consumption changes of the total sample
according to each degree of concern. For example, 36 % of the consumers who were
very concerned about antibiotics had reduced their beef consumption, while only 23 % of
those who were not at all concerned had decreased beef consumption. This is even more
distinct in the case of BSE. While nearly 40 % of the respondents who were very
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
65
concerned about BSE decreased their beef consumption, only 18 % of those who were
not at all concerned had reduced it.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
66
8 Information on Meat
8.1
Use of Labels
In an open-ended question, consumers were asked which quality symbols or labels they
normally look for when buying meat. There was a wide-range of answers, and many had
nothing to do with symbols or labels in the true sense of the word (for example,
'freshness').
A considerable number of respondents in each country replied that they normally do not
look for symbols or labels of any sort when buying meat (see Table 16). The Swedish
consumers seem to make most use of symbols or labels, especially for pork. 'Only' about
40 % do not use any symbols or labels. In Germany, the proportion of non-users is about
50 %, similar to the United Kingdom, although British consumers use labels even less
often in the case of pork. Irish consumers use labels more often for chicken than for beef
or pork. Spanish and particularly Italian consumers show a relatively low usage of
product information.
These results become more understandable when we take into consideration that
labelling is an information source in which consumers have little trust, as shown in the
following section.
Table 16:
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Number of Respondents Who Do Not Look for Any Symbols or Labels
When Buying Meat
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
271
283
256
281
334
202
415
413
326
357
371
333
212
191
206
United
Kingdom
256
311
266
In Germany, the vast majority of answers related to the origin of meat. It was the most
important factor for beef. More than half of the respondents only mentioned 'origin',
while others explicitly named Germany or a certain German state or region. Brand names
only played a role for chicken; more than 10 % of all answers referred to a certain brand.
The most common quality labels, the CMA and DLG label, were only mentioned by a
few respondents (BECKER, BENNER and GLITSCH 1997).
The Irish consumers mentioned Irish produced meat as the predominant symbol for pork
and particularly for beef. The 'Q' mark was following. For chicken, most Irish consumers
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
67
were shown to look for brands and whether or not the product is free range (COWAN and
MANNION 1997).
The extremely high frequency of missing answers in the Italian sample can be explained
by the fact that meat in Italy is still a highly undifferentiated product (MIELE and PARISI
1997). With the exception of the label AIA for chicken, only a few respondents
mentioned quality marks and labels of origin.
As well in Spain, only a very small proportion of fresh meat is sold with a label or brand
(MAHLAU and GUTIÉRREZ 1997). Thus, the use of labels and symbols was shown to be
of minor importance for the Spanish sample, although labels of origin and a
slaughterhouse stamp are in fact used more widely for chicken. For Sweden, 'origin'
appeared as one of the key factors, particularly for beef and pork. The vast majority of
answers by Swedish respondents when referring to origin was 'Swedish', while 'locally
produced' was of rather minor importance. The second most sought labels are
commercial brands, which are most important in the case of chicken (ANDERSSON and
HOFFMANN 1997).
In the United Kingdom, the most frequently mentioned mark or label in the case of beef,
pork and chicken was the 'country of origin', in particular that of 'British' or 'Scottish'.
The most important labels for chicken, apart from 'origin', were 'free range/outdoor
reared', 'grade' and 'retailer name' (HENSON and NORTHEN 1997).
8.2
Consumer Trust in Information
In a more or less open-ended question, the consumers were asked who or what they
most trust when looking for information on the safety of meat. A total of up to three
answers were recorded. In Table 17, the six sources of information most trusted are
listed. These results have to be treated very carefully, since the question only recorded
spontaneous answers.
For each country, independent retailers or butchers and butchers in the supermarket are
placed first or second. Consumers in Ireland and the United Kingdom relied third most
on their own opinion, while in Italy and Spain the Department of Health was placed
third. Likewise, German consumers showed in third place a trust in consumer groups and
Swedish consumers in newspapers.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
68
Table 17:
Most Trusted Sources of Information about Meat
Germany
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Independent re- Butchers in the Independent re- Independent re- Independent re- Butchers in the
tailers/butchers supermarket
tailers/butchers tailers/butchers tailers/butchers supermarket
Butchers in the Independent re- Butchers in the Butchers in the Butchers in the Independent resupermarket
tailers/butchers supermarket
supermarket
supermarket
tailers/butchers
Consumer
Own opinion
Department of Department of Newspapers
Own opinion
Groups
Health
Health
Magazines
Reports
Friends
Consumer
Own opinion
Newspapers
Groups
Reports
Farmer
Consumer
Own opinion
Friends
Government
representatives Groups
Friends
Newspapers
Reports
Government
Food safety
Labelling
board
Source: own calculations
Table 18 illustrates the relative frequencies of each answer according to each country. A
few negligible answers were added to the category 'Other'. In each country, 100 % of the
respondents mentioned at least one source of information. About 80-90 % of the
consumers gave at least two answers and 42-55 % mentioned three sources they most
trust, except for the Italian respondents, of which even 72 % listed three information
sources.
To begin with, butchers in general were regarded as being the most trustful source of
information by German respondents, although butchers in the supermarket do not play
an important role in Germany compared with independent retailers or butchers. Yet, this
result supports the special importance of butchers to German consumers.
A special feature of the German sample is that consumer groups were rated as the third
highest. Following thereafter were magazines, reports and friends. Official governmental
institutions such as Department of Agriculture or Department of Health seem to have no
importance at all, likewise meat industry and meat companies.
Thirty-seven percent of all sources mentioned by the Irish respondents refereed to
butchers in the supermarket. Only 10 % related to independent retailers and butchers. All
in all, this indicates that Irish consumers have a lot of trust in butchers concerning
information on the safety of meat. Further, the consumer's own opinion played a
significant role next to reports, farmer representatives and newspapers.
Also for the Irish consumers, public organisations apparently are of very little importance
as a reliable source of information on meat safety.
The proportion of answers which related to butchers was the highest in Italy. More than
56 % of all given answers refereed to butchers, or rather 70 % of the respondents who
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
69
answered the question mentioned either independent retailers/butchers or butchers in the
supermarket. Following thereafter were the Department of Health, friends, consumer
groups and reports. Compared to the results of the other countries, Italian consumers
show most trust in public or governmental organisations (here: Department of Health).
The proportion of respondents who replied 'none/don't know' is by far the lowest in Italy.
This could indicate that Italian consumers are not as sceptical concerning food safety as
consumers of other countries.
Likewise, butchers are the most important source of information in the Spanish sample.
The Department of Health was the third most mentioned source of information on meat
safety. Further, consumer groups and the own opinion of the respondents were shown to
be important.
According to the answers given by Swedish respondents, more than 20 % refereed to
butchers. This is quite astonishing since butchers are of little importance in terms of meat
purchases. As Table 9 in Section 4.3.3 shows, only 3.4 % of the Swedish respondents
purchase beef and pork at the butchers. Thus, trust in information sources is not
connected with purchasing behaviour in Sweden.
'Newspapers' were mentioned in approximately 8 % of all cases. All in all, the answers
are very widely distributed. Although the Swedish population is in general supposed to
have strong confidence in the government, the results of this survey shows, that the
Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture and the Government does not play
an important role.
In the United Kingdom, we find the highest proportion of the answer 'none/don't know'
(36 %). A further 6 % of the answers refers to the own opinion. Apart from this, the by
far most important source are butchers in the supermarkets (23 %) and independent
retailers/butchers (9 %). Other more frequently mentioned but still insignificant sources
were newspapers and the Government.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
70
Table 18:
Information Sources Most Trusted (Frequencies in % of All Answers)
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Indep. Retailers/Butchers
37.5
9.8
28.3
25.6
10.7
9.3
None/Don't know
26.1
26.6
14.7
28.5
31.1
35.8
Butcher in the Supermarket
6.8
36.7
28.2
15.1
10.2
23.1
Consumer Groups
6.6
1.7
3.7
4.7
3.5
1.9
Magazines
3.8
0.3
2.5
1.5
2.1
0.7
Reports
3.7
2.8
3.6
1.8
2.2
1.5
Friends
3.5
1.9
3.8
1.7
4.0
1.7
Mother/Other Family
Member
1.7
1.1
1.5
2.1
1.4
0.9
Other
1.5
1.0
0.2
0.2
3.5
1.8
Farmer Representatives
1.4
2.4
0.5
0.1
0.7
2.0
The Food Safety Board
1.4
1.0
0.2
1.3
3.5
1.4
Own Opinion
1.4
4.6
0.3
4.0
4.6
6.0
Food Writers
1.0
0.3
0.7
0.3
1.2
1.0
Radio Reports
0.9
1.6
0.0
0.9
2.5
0.9
Dep. of Health
0.8
1.2
6.0
5.6
0.4
0.9
Newspapers
0.6
2.3
2.7
0.8
7.6
2.9
Labelling
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.4
2.6
2.0
Television
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
2.4
1.2
Dep. of Agriculture
0.2
1.3
0.2
1.7
1.5
0.7
Meat Industry Organisations
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.4
Government
0.1
1.1
0.2
2.8
0.2
2.4
Meat companies
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.3
2.7
1.0
Local doctor/other medical
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Source: own calculations
8.3
Information on Meat - Summary
The 'country of origin' is the most widely used product information on meat in all
countries analysed. Consumers in each of the countries only consider public institutions
to be reliable sources of information to a very small extent. This particularly applies to
the Department of Agriculture and to the Government in general. The Department of
Health is somewhat of importance to the Italian and Spanish consumers.
Butchers emerged very significantly as the source consumers trusted most, even in
Sweden and the United Kingdom where butchers do not play such an important role as in
the other countries.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
71
9 Visual Inspection of Meat Quality
The manner in which consumers use quality cues for assessing meat quality prior to its
purchase (as discussed in Section 5.1) is very likely to depend on the consumers' ability
through a visual inspection to assess meat quality at the point of purchase. Consumers
who regarded themselves as being able to assess meat quality just by looking at it, may
differ from others in two different respects. First, they may rely more on intrinsic quality
cues, such as colour or leanness. Individuals who are not able to assess quality through a
visual inspection are expected to make more use of extrinsic cues, such as country of
origin or place of purchase (HENSON and NORTHEN 1997). Second, it seems likely that
consumers who are able to assess meat quality by just looking at it are on the average
older, since individuals normally acquire such skills by experience.
In the interviews of this survey, the respondents were confronted with three statements
concerning visual inspection which they had to rate separately according to their choice
(1="agree strongly" to 5="disagree strongly"). They were asked whether they could
assess the quality of beef, pork and chicken in a shop just by looking at it. Figure 32,
Figure 33 and Figure 34 illustrate the absolute frequencies of the categories 'agree',
'disagree' and 'neither'. Respondents were divided into two groups: those who answered
'agree strongly' or 'agree slightly', and those who replied 'disagree slightly' or 'disagree
strongly'.
In all of the countries, except Sweden, consumers similarly rated their choices to this
statement for all types of meat. In the case of chicken, the majority of Swedish
consumers disagreed with this statement. They obviously found it more difficult to assess
the quality of chicken just by looking at it. In general, Spanish consumers rated highest in
claiming the ability to assess meat quality just by looking at it, and German respondents
rated lowest. A large majority of the German respondents did not believe in an ability for
the visual inspection of meat quality. The other partner countries fell in the range
between.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
72
Figure 32: Level of Agreement with the Statement, "You can assess the quality of
beef in the shop just by looking at it."
400
Number of respondents
350
300
250
Agree
Disagree
200
Neither
150
100
50
0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Figure 33: Level of Agreement with the Statement, "You can assess the quality of
pork in the shop just by looking at it."
400
Number of respondents
350
300
250
Agree
Disagree
200
Neither
150
100
50
0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
73
Figure 34: Level of Agreement with the Statement, "You can assess the quality of
chicken in the shop just by looking at it."
400
Number of respondents
350
300
250
Agree
Disagree
200
Neither
150
100
50
0
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
9.1
Visual Inspection by Age
In the following, it will be analysed if respondents who regarded themselves as being able
to assess meat quality through a visual inspection ('agree') are on the average older than
those who are not able ('disagree'). Since there are only slight differences between the
meats, this analysis is confined to beef.
Table 19 shows, that for each of the countries, with the exception of Sweden, individuals
who believe in the quality assessment of beef through visual inspection were on the
average older than those who did not. The age difference between both subgroups is the
greatest in Germany. A t-Test, testing the hypothesis that the means of the two groups of
observations are equal, showed that the age differences are highly significant for each of
the countries, except for Sweden (figures give in bold).
This result can be interpreted in two different respects. One explanation could be that
quality assessment of meat through visual inspection is a skill which is nowadays being
less acquired due to changing diet patterns. With increased consumption of processed
foods or ready to serve meals, the more unnecessary (or impossible) is it to learn how to
assess meat quality through visual inspection. The second explanation could be that this
kind of skill is acquired through experience, which automatically means that older
individuals possess this skill.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
74
Table 19:
Agree
Disagree
Significance
(Prob.>|H|)
Average Age by Agreement with Statement, "You can assess the
quality of beef just by looking at it"
Total
Sample
47.0
42.6
0.001
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
47.7
40.5
0.001
47.8
42.8
0.001
45.9
41.7
0.005
45.6
40.2
0.001
46.0
46.1
0.9471
United
Kingdom
50.0
44.1
0.001
Source: own calculations
9.2
Quality Perception by Visual Inspection
As discussed above, it is to be analysed whether individuals who think they can judge the
quality of meat through visual inspection have a different quality perception than those
who think they cannot. Table 20 shows the average helpfulness of the 'quality in the
shop' characteristics of beef for the respondents who either agreed or disagreed to the
statement, 'You can assess the quality of beef just by looking at it.'
The figures which are printed bold stand for the statistical significance of the differences
between the two groups as indicated by a t-Test.
Given the total sample, it can be observed that 'colour', 'marbling', 'leanness' and 'price'
are considered more helpful for assessing the quality of beef by those individuals who
believe that they can judge the quality of beef just by looking at it. No significant
differences can be observed for 'brand/label', 'place of purchase' and 'country of origin'.
Looking at the countries individually, there are only a few significant differences
identifiable. This can be, at least partly, attributed to the relative small sample sizes of the
subgroups which range from 42 to 313 observations for this question. The German
consumers, who believed in quality inspection, attached a significantly higher importance
to 'colour' and 'leanness' as quality indicators than did other respondents. Irish
consumers, who regarded themselves as being unable to assess meat quality through
visual inspection relied more heavily on brands or labels. Other group differences are not
statistically significant. Italian consumers, who agreed to the statement, judged 'colour',
'leanness', 'brand/labels' and 'price' to be the more useful factors. While, the Spanish
respondents, who are able to assess meat quality just by looking at it, valued 'colour'
greater than those who were not able. The same applies for British consumers. 'Colour'
and 'marbling' were more important to the Swedish respondents who agreed to the
statement, than they were for those who disagreed.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
75
Table 20:
Average Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreement
with the Statement, "You can assess the quality of beef just by looking
at it"
Colour
Agree
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
Agree
Germany
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
Agree
Ireland
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
Agree
Italy
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
Agree
Spain
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
Agree
Sweden
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
United Kingdom Agree
Disagree
Significance
Prob.>|T|
Total Sample
1.42
1.73
0.0001
1.69
2.15
0.0002
1.21
1.35
0.0945
1.36
1.59
0.0074
1.56
1.91
0.0294
1.44
1.73
0.0051
1.34
1.54
0.0419
Marbling Leanness
1.91
2.13
0.0001
1.97
2.23
0.0547
1.83
1.71
0.3850
2.07
2.28
0.1355
2.03
2.40
0.1466
1.83
2.18
0.0062
1.78
2.00
0.1021
1.89
2.04
0.0049
1.69
2.00
0.0111
1.34
1.31
0.6484
2.28
2.61
0.0137
2.01
2.25
0.1580
2.26
2.46
0.1567
1.52
1.47
0.6149
Brand/
Label
2.12
2.01
0.0735
2.25
2.19
0.7016
2.10
1.78
0.0329
2.31
2.04
0.0430
2.51
2.26
0.1851
1.67
1.80
0.2402
1.86
2.04
0.2333
Place of
Purchase
1.73
1.76
0.4953
1.68
1.62
0.6600
1.33
1.21
0.0987
1.51
1.47
0.6156
1.53
1.67
0.2934
2.52
2.67
0.3441
1.77
1.89
0.3598
Price
Origin
2.48
2.77
0.0001
2.96
3.27
0.0508
2.19
2.45
0.0832
2.44
2.80
0.0093
2.56
2.91
0.0688
2.73
2.81
0.5738
2.20
2.16
0.7593
1.74
1.72
0.7322
1.48
1.57
0.4367
1.38
1.43
0.6535
1.81
1.79
0.8587
1.98
1.90
0.6229
1.60
1.54
0.6389
2.07
2.26
0.2270
Source: own calculations
Apart from the fact that there are significant differences in the importance of each single
quality cue for both subgroups, it is yet to be examined if the ranking of the quality
factors for both groups of consumers is different. Applying a t-Test, the following
rankings as illustrated in Table 21 were identified.
In each of the countries, 'colour' was among the most important factors for those
consumers who think they can judge meat quality just by looking at it. It was less
important for Swedish and German consumers, who belonged to the second group.
For those consumers who do not believe in quality assessment by visual inspection,
'marbling' was of the least important factors for nearly all countries.
In general, consumers of the first group relied a bit more on intrinsic meat factors than
did consumers who did not think that they could assess meat quality by visual inspection.
However, these differences are not very substantial.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
76
Table 21:
Rankings of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreement
with the Statement, "You can assess the quality of beef just
by looking at it."
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Those who agree
1st rank
Origin, Place, Colour, Place, Colour, Place
Colour,
Leanness,
Leanness
Origin
nd
2 rank
Marbling,
Marbling,
Origin,
Brand/Label Brand/Label,
Marbling
Price
3rd rank
Price
Leanness
4th rank
3rd rank
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Colour, Place
Colour
Colour
Origin,
Leanness,
Marbling,
Brand/Label
Price
Origin,
Brand/Label,
Marbling
Leanness
Leanness
Place,
Marbling,
Brand/Label
Origin, Price
Brand/Label,
Price
Those who disagree
1st rank
Origin, Place
2nd rank
Spain
Colour,
Leanness,
Brand/Label,
Marbling
Price
Place,
Leanness,
Colour,
Origin
Brand/Label
Marbling,
Price
4th rank
Place, Price
Place, Colour Place, Colour,
Origin,
Brand/Label,
Leanness
Origin
Price
Brand/Label
Marbling
Origin
Leanness,
Colour
Colour,
Brand/Label
Place,
Brand/Label,
Price, Origin,
Marbling
Marbling,
Leanness,
Place, Price
Leanness,
Price,
Marbling
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
77
10 Attitudes Towards Food and Meat
The topic of attitudes has been one of the most important subjects of study in the field of
consumer behaviour. Attitudes are usually considered to be hypothetical, in as much as
they cannot be observed or measured directly, but usually have to be revealed by verbal
statements or behaviour.
Many scientists have dealt with the question if and to what extent attitudes can be
predictors of behaviour. An overview of the results of some studies focusing on various
relationships between attitude and behaviour or intention and behaviour is provided in
AJZEN (1988, S. 114). In the different case studies, the attitude-behaviour relation or the
intention-behaviour relation were quantified respectively. AJZEN shows that the
correlation coefficients range from +0.53 to +0.96 and were generally higher for the
relationship intention-behaviour than for the correlation attitude-behaviour.
In our study, the question arises of whether we can identify a correlation between
consumer attitudes towards the origin of meat, animal welfare, the status of meat and so
forth, on the one hand, and the intensity of meat consumption on the other.
In the interviews, respondents were confronted with a series of general statements
concerning food and meat which they had to rate separately according to their choice of
(1="agree strongly" to 5="disagree strongly").
Such questions were covered the following areas:
1. Cooking
2. Status
3. Animal welfare
4. Origin
5. Nutrition
6. Safety/Information
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
78
10.1
Cooking
Consumers were asked to rate two statements on cooking. The responses to the first
statement, "I like experimenting with new recipes", are illustrated in Figure 35. Swedish
and Italian consumers are shown to be most keen in experimenting with food, while the
proportion of consumers who disagreed, and thus prefer more traditional cooking, was
the highest in Spain and in the United Kingdom.
Figure 35: Level of Agreement with Statement ,"I like experimenting with new
recipes."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
The second statement, "I do not like cooking very much, but it is a job which has to be
done", expresses a negative attitude towards cooking. From Figure 36, it follows that the
majority of the Swedish, the British and particularly the German respondents disagreed
to this statement. Hence, a positive attitude towards cooking prevails in these countries,
while about 50 % of the Irish, Italian and Spanish respondents agreed, thus exhibiting a
negative attitude towards cooking.
Both statements were shown to be only loose connected to each other. Eighty-nine
percent of the respondents of the total sample who like cooking, also like experimenting
with new recipes, while 71 % of the respondents who do not like cooking still like to
experiment with food. Regardless whether or not consumers like cooking everyday,
experimenting with food, nonetheless, seems to be very appealing.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
79
Figure 36: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I do not like cooking very much
but it is a job which has to be done."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
50%
Neither
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
10.2
Status
The next two statements reflect the status of meat held by the respondents of this survey.
The first statement, "I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors", was distinctly
negated by the majority of respondents from all partner countries with the exception of
Irish consumers (see Figure 37). In Ireland, and also to some extent in Italy, meat seems
to have a very high status in comparison with the other countries. Swedish respondents
tended to strongly disagree with this statement, a result which corresponds to the
comparably low meat consumption in Sweden, as illustrated in Section 4.1.
However, since only meat consumers were interviewed (and thus, all consumers, who do
not eat meat, and therefore would attach little importance to meat, are excluded from
this survey), these results indicate a declining importance of meat as a component of the
household menu.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
80
Figure 37: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I would never serve a meal
without meat."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
At the same time, most of the Swedish, Spanish and Irish respondents were of the
opinion that meat is an essential part of a meal, as shown in Figure 38. This is partially
contradictory to the above mentioned outcome, but it shows, that although most
consumers can imagine serving a meal without meat, for the most part, they generally
feel that meat is essential.
The only country in which this attitude did not prevail was Germany. Presumably, this is
a result of a particularly critical attitude of German consumers towards meat together
with the increasing importance of vegetarianism and vegetarian recipes in Germany.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
81
Figure 38: Level of Agreement with Statement, "Meat is an essential part
of a meal."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
50%
Neither
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
As expected, consumers who believe that meat is essential showed a distinctly higher
meat consumption than those respondents who disagreed with the statement. This
applies particularly to beef consumption. The level of chicken consumption does not
differ greatly between the two groups. Table A13 of the Appendix shows the
consumption frequencies for beef, pork and chicken according to respondents' agreement
or disagreement with this statement.
Further it is to be analysed, if the status of meat is higher among older consumers. As
Table A14 shows, there are significant differences between those who agreed and those
who disagreed, particularly to the first statement, "I would never serve a meal without
meat". The average age of respondents who agreed was significantly higher in Germany,
Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Statistical significant differences cannot be
observed for the Irish consumers. Astonishingly, Swedish consumers who agreed, were
on average 42 years of age, while those who disagreed were on average five years older.
Clearly, Sweden is the only country in which younger consumers tended to attach a
greater importance to meat than older consumers.
The same applies to the second statement, apart from the fact that the statistical
significance of differences concerning the average age can be only found in the Irish and
Swedish sample.
Taking a closer look at the different age-groups within the response rates for the
statement, "I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors", the percentage of
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
82
respondents who agreed turned out to be clearly higher in the upper age-groups in
Germany, Italy and Spain (see Table A15). This applies only partly to the Irish, Swedish
and British sample.
Regarding the statement, "Meat is an essential part of a meal", (see Table A16), we can
see that in Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom, most consumers who agreed were
over 60 years of age. In contrast, in Italy and Spain, consumers who attached the highest
importance to the presence of meat in the household menu, can be divided into a group
of 30 years and under, and those over 60 years of age. In Sweden, meat is of most
importance for consumers under 40 years of age.
10.3
Animal Welfare
In the questionnaire, two statements related to animal welfare. Figure 39 illustrates that
in each country, about 90 % of the respondents agreed with the statement, "I prefer to
buy meat from animals which I know have been treated well".
Since in each of the countries, information on animal welfare is seldom available for a
specific meat products, the respondents seemed to refer more to a general vague interest
in animal welfare rather than to their actual purchasing behaviour.
Similar results can be found for the second statement, "We should have more respect for
animals", as shown in Figure 40.
Figure 39: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I prefer to buy meat from
animals which I know have been treated well."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
83
Figure 40: Level of Agreement with Statement, "We should have more respect
for animals."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
10.4
Origin
In Figure 41, some distinct differences concerning the attitudes toward the origin of food
can be observed. The Irish, German, Spanish and Italian respondents showed a high
preference for local foods; about 90 % of them agreed strongly or agreed slightly to the
statement, "I prefer to buy food which is produced locally." In Sweden and in the UK
this percentage is lower, but nevertheless, the majority of the consumers agreed.
In contrast, the statement, "It is important that I know the country where the meat I buy
has been produced", was usually agreed to by Swedish consumers (see Figure 42). In
light of the low population density in Sweden, local production is probably not relevant
to the consumers. British consumers tended to agree least with this statement.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
84
Figure 41: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I prefer to buy food which is
produced locally."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Figure 42: Level of Agreement with Statement, "It is important that I know the
country where the meat I buy has been produced."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
85
10.5
Nutrition
Two of the statements given in the questionnaire related to the nutritional importance of
meat. The responses to the first, "There is no source of protein like meat", show that the
opinions are divided (see Figure 43). In most of the countries, the majority of the
respondents disagreed with this statement, with the exception of Sweden, where most
consumers did agreed with it. In the Mediterranean countries, Italy and Spain,
respondents attached the least importance to meat as a source of protein.
Figure 43: Level of Agreement with Statement, "There is no source of protein
like meat."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
50%
Neither
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Although the second statement on nutrition, "Meat is essential for a balanced diet",
expresses something similar, responses were clearly different (see Figure 44). Particularly
in Germany and in the United Kingdom, many respondents were able to imagine a
balanced diet in which meat is not an essential. This may be due to the fact, that in these
countries, vegetarianism plays an important role. The majority of Swedish and Spanish
consumers are convinced that meat is essential for a balanced diet.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
86
Figure 44: Level of Agreement with Statement, "Meat is essential for a
balanced diet."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
10.6
Information
Responses to the statement, "I always check the nutritional labelling on foods before
buying them", are more evenly distributed. More than 50 % of the respondents in each of
the countries agreed with it. The highest rating was given by the Swedish and Italian
consumers, which perhaps may be an indicator for a higher usage of nutritional labels in
the purchasing process. Except for Italy, the proportion of respondents who agreed to
this statement was higher for women than for men.
However, this outcome is partially inconsistent with the results concerning the use of
labels or symbols when purchasing meat as discussed in Section 8.1. Here we found that
the Swedish consumers tended to use symbols or labels the most while Italian consumers
showed a relatively low usage of information on meat.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
87
Figure 45: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I always check the nutritional
labelling on foods before buying them."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
10.7
Safety
Figure 46 illustrates that Swedish and Spanish consumers are the most confident that
food in the shops is safe. However, the majority of all other respondents also agreed with
this statement.
Although Italian respondents showed a great deal of trust in meat safety information
sources, or in other words, the percentage of respondents who claimed they do not trust
any information source, was the lowest in Italy (see Section 8.2). 'Only' 60 % agreed
with the statement, "I am confident that food in the shops is safe". Hence, the
supposition that Italian consumers are not as sceptical concerning food safety as
consumers of other countries, cannot be verified in the case of meat.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
88
Figure 46: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I am confident that food in the
shops is safe."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
10.8
Price
The respondents were asked to rate two statements having to do with the role of price
when purchasing meat. In each country, the vast majority of the respondents believed
that a higher price is a condition for good quality meat (see Figure 47). However,
Spanish respondents agreed least with this statement.
The second statement, "Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat", was
disagreed to by most of the consumers in all of the countries, particularly in Germany
and Ireland as Figure 48 illustrates. These results confirm the minor importance price
plays as an indicator for meat quality and meat safety as was previously shown in Section
5.1.
By combining the findings for both statements on the role price plays in meat quality and
safety, this survey indicates that a higher price is regarded necessary, but for most of the
respondents it is in itself not sufficient for guaranteeing high quality meat.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
89
Figure 47: Level of Agreement with Statement, "You have to be prepared to pay
a higher price to get good quality meat."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
Neither
50%
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Figure 48: Level of Agreement with Statement, "Price is the main thing
I consider when buying meat."
100%
90%
80%
70%
Disagree strongly
60%
Disagree slightly
50%
Neither
Agree slightly
40%
Agree strongly
30%
20%
10%
0%
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
90
It would be expected that price of meat in meat purchasing decisions is more important
to households with a lower income than to those with higher income. In order to analyse
the relation between household income and the significance of price, the average ratings
of the statement, "Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat", was computed
separately for each income decile.
Figure 49 shows that price tends to be less decisive for consumers with higher income.
While the average ratings of respondents, whose household income belongs to the first
and second income decile, is below three, it then increases up to more than four for the
upper income levels. This means that for the majority of respondents with a higher
household income, price is not the main thing they consider when purchasing meat.
Figure 49: Statement, "Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat",
According to Income (Standard Deviation)
Average Rating
(1=agree strongly, 5=disagree strongly)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Income Decile
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
91
10.9 Clusters According to Attitudes
The purpose of cluster analysis is to place objects into groups or clusters as suggested by
the data in such a manner so as objects in a given cluster tend to be similar to each other
in some sense, and objects in different clusters tend to be dissimilar.
Accordingly, a cluster analysis was performed in the course of this study in order to
cluster the 3000 observations (i.e. respondents) according to their attitudes towards
meat.
The procedure which was used for this analysis, PROC FASTCLUS offered by SAS,
performs a disjoint cluster analysis on the basis of Euclidean distances computed from
one or more quantitative variables (see SAS/STAT User's Guide (1990) Volume 1).
Observations were divided into clusters such that each observation belongs at the most
to one cluster. The FASTCLUS procedure is intended to be used on large data sets, from
approximately 100 to 100 000 observations.
The cluster analysis of this study was performed on the basis of attitudinal statements. To
avoid that variables (i.e. statements) are used which are highly correlated, Spearman
Correlation Coefficients were computed for each pair of statements. In the end, those
statements which were not seriously correlated with each other were included in the
cluster analysis. A standardisation of the variables was not necessary since all were
measured using the same units.
Thus, the following topics are covered by using the following non-correlated or lowcorrelated statements (variable names are given in brackets):
Status of meat
I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors. (RESTAT3)
Role of Price
Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat.
(RESTAT5)
Animal Welfare
I prefer to buy meat from animals which I know have been
treated well. (RESTAT7)
Origin of meat
It is important that I know the country where the meat I buy has
been produced. (RESTAT10)
Trust in Safety
I am confident that food in the shops is safe. (RESTAT11)
Nutritional Value
Meat is essential for a balanced diet. (RESTAT12)
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
92
This analysis yielded three consumer clusters. The SAS output, including the results of
the analysis, is shown in Table A17. Since the aim of this cluster analysis is to aggregate
individuals who tend to have similar attitudes, all of the three groups have been
characterised by striking attitudinal features (illustrated in Figure 50). The clusters can be
outlined as follows.
CLUSTER 1: "Conventional Meat Consumers"
This group of consumers attaches a very high status to meat. It is characterised by an
above average trust in the safety of food as well as by a strong belief in the nutritional
value of meat. Finally, consumers of this group are a little more concerned about animal
welfare than the average. The importance of the price and origin of the meat when
purchasing it falls within the average.
CLUSTER 2: "Price Oriented Meat Consumers"
The importance of price in purchasing meat was the highest in this group, while the
importance of animal welfare was below average. Although the individuals of this cluster
esteem the nutritional value of meat relatively highly, they do not attach a high status to
meat. They are also shown to trust most in food safety. Nearly 30 % of the consumers in
this cluster are Swedish.
CLUSTER 3: "Sceptical Meat Consumers"
Individuals in this cluster are shown not to be convinced of the nutritional value of meat.
Compared with the other clusters, they attached the lowest status to meat and also
showed the least trust in food safety. Price plays the least importance in their meat
purchasing decisions. They show an above average preference of buying meat from
animals which have been well-treated. Consumers of this cluster were on the average
interested in the origin of meat. Most of them are German and British consumers.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
93
Figure 50: Deviations from the Average Ratings for the Attitudinal
Statements by Cluster
Below average agreement
Above average agreement
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
Cluster 1
0,0
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
-0,5
-1,0
-1,5
Status
Role of
Price
Animal
welfare
Origin
Trust in
Safety
Nutritional
value
Source: own calculations
Further, these clusters also show sociodemographic differences as well as differences
regarding meat consumption as illustrated in Table 22.
Consumers of Cluster 1 have a below average number of children, a lower income, and a
lower level of education. They are on average the oldest consumers. However, they
show the highest beef, pork and chicken consumption, in comparison to the other
clusters.
Respondents assigned to Cluster 3 are characterised as having a higher number of
children living in their households, a higher household income and on average more years
of full-time education. As well they are younger than consumers of the other clusters.
The characteristic which stands out the most is their very low consumption of beef.
Nearly 25 % of them do not eat beef at all.
Consumers' characteristics of Cluster 2 fall between Cluster 1 and Cluster 3, however,
with a few exceptions in that they have least number of children in their households and
consume least amount of chicken.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
94
Table 22:
Sociodemographic Characteristics and Meat Consumption According
to Cluster
Average household size
Average number of children under 16
Average age
Average income level
Average years of full-time education
Beef consumption
Never
Less than once a week
Once
Twice
Three or more times
Pork consumption
Never
Less than once a week
Once
Twice
Three or more times
Chicken consumption
Never
Less than once a week
Once
Twice
Three or more times
Cluster 1
3.3
0.71
46.5
4.8
17.5
Cluster 2
3.1
0.67
45.7
5.0
17.7
Cluster 3
3.2
0.88
43.3
5.6
19.1
15.7 %
12.4 %
25.7 %
24.2 %
21.9 %
15.0 %
20.0 %
26.3 %
22.5 %
16.2 %
24.1 %
19.7 %
26.4 %
16.7 %
13.2 %
19.7 %
18.2 %
31.5 %
18.0 %
12.6 %
20.7 %
21.5 %
30.5 %
16.0 %
11.5 %
22.7 %
22.2 %
29.6 %
16.1 %
9.4 %
5.5 %
17.3 %
32.2 %
25.3 %
19.8 %
6.3 %
28.2 %
27.8 %
20.4 %
17.4 %
5.3 %
24.5 %
30.9 %
21.4 %
18.0 %
Source: own calculations
Each cluster is composed of different proportions of consumers from each country.
Figure 51 illustrates that in the first cluster, nearly a fourth of all the consumers are from
Ireland. Swedish and German respondents are under-represented in this cluster. In the
second cluster, Swedish consumers predominate. German and particularly Irish
consumers are under-represented. The relative majority of consumers in the third cluster
are from Germany.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
95
Figure 51: Proportions of Countries in the Clusters
CLUSTER1
(n=1168)
United Kingdom
15%
Germany
13%
Sweden
12%
United Kingdom
16%
Germany
10%
United Kingdom
19%
Germany
26%
Spain
21%
Spain
17%
Sweden
13%
Sweden
29%
Italy
19%
CLUSTER
3
CLUSTER2
(n=783)
Ireland
24%
Ireland
7%
Italy
17%
Spain
13%
Italy
14%
Ireland
15%
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
96
11 Summary and Implications for Quality Policy
This report presents a comparison of the results of a consumer survey which was
conducted in six EU-countries in the course of the EU-project, "Quality Policy and
Consumer Behaviour" (FAIR-CT95-0046).
This survey as part of the project, should help to fulfil the following overall objectives as
outlined in the original proposal of the project:
• the identification of consumer expectations of quality, in particular meat quality, and
ways of ensuring that products fulfil those expectations,
• the identification of factors determining the success or failure of national and regional
institutional and organisational efforts to manage quality, in particular in the meat
production chain, and
• thus, the identification of mechanisms which might be put in place to reverse the
decline in meat consumption.
The success of quality policy efforts depend decisively on its acceptance by consumers.
Thus, knowledge on consumer perceptions and expectations regarding meat quality and
safety and their attitudes towards meat are indispensable in the efforts to rationally and
successfully design private and public quality policy. The lack of consumer orientation in
present quality policy measures may be the reason it has not had the desired success.
11.1
Summary
In each country, the survey was conducted on 500 consumers who are mainly
responsible for purchasing food for their households. The main findings are summarised
below:
Sociodemographics
Sociodemographics of the sample show, that household structure differs between the
countries. The factor which varied most among the countries was the household size.
Irish, Spanish and Italian respondents are characterised as having large households.
Single households in these countries play a minor role. In contrast, Sweden, the United
Kingdom and Germany clearly have smaller households and a high proportion of single
households.
Further, Irish households have on the average nearly twice as many children as the
households of the other countries. The percentage of women in the labour force is
distinctly higher in the Swedish sample than in the Irish, Italian and Spanish sample.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
97
Meat Consumption
As data from official statistics show, the total meat consumption in the countries
analysed has been stagnating over the last years, except for Spain, where the total
consumption of meat is still increasing.
Beef consumption has clearly decreased in all countries except in Sweden. Meanwhile
pork consumption has remained more or less unchanged, except in Germany, where it
has decreased, and Spain, where pork consumption has increased. In the meantime,
chicken consumption has distinctly increased in all countries and at least partially
compensated the decline of consumption of red meats.
The results from the consumer survey illustrate the various meat consumption patterns.
German and Swedish respondents consume pork most often, while Irish and Spanish
consumers prefer beef and chicken. Italian consumers eat beef most often, British
respondents prefer chicken.
Many German, Irish and British consumers were reducing beef consumption. And also a
considerable number of respondents in each country have decreased their consumption of
pork. Chicken consumption has increased in all countries, particularly in Ireland, Italy
and the United Kingdom.
For German, Irish, Italian and Spanish respondents, butchers are the most important
place of purchase for beef and pork. However, in the case of chicken, only the majority
of consumers in Italy and Spain purchase at the butcher's. Most British and Swedish
respondents purchase all three meats at the supermarket.
In contrast to heavy meat consumers, low meat consumers can be characterised as being
older, having a below-average number of children and as such, as having a smaller
household size. A positive relation between income and meat consumption cannot be
generally observed.
Quality Perception
Quality perception in this study was divided into two stages: first, quality assessment in
the shop and second, assessment of meat quality while eating it.
Among the meat characteristics which could be used for assessing meat quality in the
shop, 'price' was distinctly considered to be the least helpful quality indicator in all
countries, except in the United Kingdom.
For beef and pork, the 'place of purchase' was one of the most important quality cues in
all countries except in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Among the intrinsic factors,
'colour' was the most important for all types of meat. 'Marbling' seems to be the most
problematic quality indicator, since many respondents, particularly in the Spanish sample,
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
98
were unsure and did not know how helpful they consider 'marbling' to be for assessing
beef and pork quality.
In the case of the eating quality characteristics, differences between the countries were
distinctly less. In general, 'flavour' proved to be one of the most important factors, while
'leanness', 'texture' and 'free of gristle' belonged in many cases to the least important
eating quality characteristics. However, the majority of the factors, except 'leanness' and
'free of gristle', were rated very highly in each of the countries.
Safety Perception
Concerning consumers' evaluation of the given safety indicators, 'freshness' plays a major
role in assessing the safety of beef, pork and chicken. Therefore, it would be advisable
for producers and retailers to communicate the freshness of meat to consumers. Since
this survey did not analyse how consumers assess the freshness of meat, further research
in this area is necessary.
A special feature of Italian consumers is that they perceive the feed given to the animals
to be a very helpful safety indicator for all of the three meats. 'Free-range' is an important
characteristic of chicken for consumers of all countries, with the exception of Swedish
respondents, who perceived it as having only relative importance.
Generally, the country of origin is the most important aspect for purchasing beef,
particularly for German consumers, and is the least important for chicken. For all of the
meats, 'price' is considered to be the least important factor for assessing the safety of
meat.
Although such data may not be considered as precise information about consumers'
actual perceptions of quality and safety, it does provide a useful approximation for the
evaluation of meat characteristics. Much more interesting than the absolute levels of
importance consumers attach to specific quality and safety indicators is the relative
importance of the characteristics when compared to each other.
Concerns About Meat
Consumers of each country are least concerned about fat or cholesterol in beef, pork and
chicken. Apart from thus, respondents gave relatively undifferentiated answers for all the
meats; the ratings for all matters of concern, except for fat or cholesterol, range from 1.4
to 2.2. This means that consumers on the average feel considerably concerned about
these matters. In most countries, hormones, antibiotics and salmonella were rated nearly
equally for beef and pork. In all countries, salmonella was the most worrisome matter for
chicken.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
99
Information on Meat
The country of origin, in all countries analysed, is the most widely used product
information on meat. Consumers in each of the countries only consider public institutions
to be reliable sources of information to a small degree. This particularly applies to the
Department of Agriculture and to the Government in general. The Department of Health
is somewhat of importance to Italian and Spanish consumers.
Butchers emerged very significantly as a source consumers trusted most, even in Sweden
and the United Kingdom where butchers do not play such an important role as they do in
the other countries.
Visual Inspection of Meat Quality
The percentage of consumers who believe they can assess meat quality 'just by looking at
it' was highest in Italy, Ireland, the United Kingdom and particularly in Spain. The
majority of German and Swedish respondents disagreed. In all countries, except Ireland,
the colour of meat was significantly more important for those who felt meat quality can
be assessed through visual inspection than those who did not.
For each of the countries, with the exception of Sweden, individuals who trust in the
quality assessment of beef through visual inspection were on the average older than those
who did not.
Attitudes Towards Food and Meat
The vast majority of Spanish and Swedish respondents regard meat as being an essential
part of a meal. This result together with the fact that meat consumption in Spain and
Sweden has predominantly increased during the last ten years, indicates that meat seems
to still hold a high status in these countries.
Animal welfare is a topic which nearly all of the respondents considered to be very
important. It seems doubtful whether this attitude can somehow be related with actual
consumption behaviour.
'Local' origin is least important to Swedish and British consumers, while the 'country of
origin' is very important to Swedish, but least important to British respondents.
Corresponding with the high status Swedish consumers attach to meat, they also rated its
nutritional value the highest. However, the majority of the respondents of all other
countries maintained that there are other sources of protein similar to meat. But
nevertheless, most consumers regarded meat as being essential to a balanced diet,
particularly in Sweden, Spain and Italy. This indicates that meat must have more
attributes to consumers than just protein.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
100
Swedish consumers were shown to have the most confidence in the safety of food. In
contrast, the British, Irish and German samples had the highest proportion of
respondents who do not consider food in the shops to be safe.
Many Italian consumers consider price to be the main criterion for buying meat. In
comparison, the price plays a minor role for most German consumers in their purchasing
decisions.
11.2
Implications for Quality Policy
The following are some preliminary implications for quality policy:
1. The demand for beef and pork is decreasing, however, not only as a result of scares
and scandals. Experts have found that the decline of the beef demand in Germany is
caused 'only' about 50 % through scandals in agriculture and in response to the lack of
risk management of the BSE crisis by the European Commission (HOFF and CLAEES,
1997). There is every indication that there are other, long-term reasons for the
declining importance of meat in the diet in some of the EU-countries, such as the
decreasing status of meat as well as its declining nutritional significance, as underlined
by the survey data. In the first place, quality policy may play a role in reducing
consumers' concerns, and thereby to counteract the resulting decline in meat
consumption.
2. As survey data show, there is not only an observable reduction in beef consumption,
but also a distinctly declining pork consumption. Considering that most of the quality
assurance schemes in the six countries refer to beef, it seems advisable not to lose
sight of quality policy efforts for pork.
3. 'Origin', 'place of purchase' and 'colour' were shown to be the most important factors
for assessing meat quality in the shop. The leanness of beef and pork also was among
the most important factors for Irish and British consumers. Generally, 'labels' were not
considered to be very helpful. A reason may be that consumers are not happy with
currently existing labels.
4. Since the ability to assess meat quality 'just by looking at it' was rated very low by
German and Swedish respondents, quality policy in these countries should focus more
strongly on extrinsic quality cues, such as origin or label. This investigation on eating
quality perception shows that quality policy, in the first place, should put an
emphasise on tenderness, juiciness and flavour for all of the three meats.
5. Further, the survey reveals a strong need for more and better information on meat.
Aside from origin, a considerable number of the consumers, particularly those in Italy,
were interested what the animals were fed. This is obviously connected with a notable
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
101
concern over hormones and antibiotics in beef, pork and chicken. These are issues
which possibly have been neglected as a result of the focus on the BSE-discussion
over the last years.
6. The branding and labelling of fresh meat could be a solution for overcoming certain
problems in the meat market. But, as the survey shows, at the moment, brands and
labels are only used to very small extent, particularly in Italy and Spain, despite the
fact that a multitude of them exist in most of the countries. It seems to be difficult to
communicate the special features of branding or label programmes. The origin of meat
is apparently the information which is most widely used. This may be due to the fact
that this kind of information is both important to the consumers and easy to
communicate.
7. The investigation of consumers' attitudes showed that in all countries, except in
Sweden and the United Kingdom, the regional origin of food is regarded as being very
important by most of the respondents. Nonetheless, quality policy in Spain, Italy and
Germany focuses largely on regional aspects, while British, Irish and Swedish quality
policy places more emphasis on the national origin of meat. In order to meet the needs
of Irish consumers, it would be advisable for the national quality policy to give greater
stress on the regional origin of meat.
8. Although consumers desire more information, at the same time they place little trust
in most of the information sources, with the exception of butchers. Butchers are
regarded as being the most trustworthy source of information on meat safety, even in
countries where butchers only participate in a small share of the fresh meat market,
that being Sweden and the United Kingdom. Accordingly, butchers could be used
more intensively to communicate such information to consumers. All public bodies
responsible for quality policy do not play a significant role for the consumers, possibly
because of a lack of information on the efforts of such institutions to ensure meat
safety. Public quality assurance schemes should find new ways of providing important
information without overloading the consumers.
Besides specific problems in the meat sector, general trends in consumer behaviour
should be included in the conceptualisation of a quality policy. As shown by the
description on sociodemographics in the six EU-countries, changing consumption and
nutritional patterns can be expected in the future, which will reflect the ever decreasing
household-size and the shrinking time-budget of the majority of the consumers. An
increasing demand for convenience foods can already be observed and will continue to
have consequences for meat consumption in the future.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
102
12 References
AJZEN, Icek (1988), Attitudes, personality and behavior (Mapping Social Psychology
Series). Milton Keynes.
ANDERSON, Eugene W. and Steven M. SHUGAN (1991), Repositioning for Changing
Preferences: The Case of Beef versus Poultry. In: Journal of Consumer Research
18 (1991), pp. 219-232.
ANDERSSON, Hans and Ruben HOFFMANN (1997), National Report on Consumer
Behaviour – The Case of Sweden. Working Paper, Uppsala.
ASKEGAARD, Søren and Tage Koed MADSEN (1995), European Food Cultures: An
Exploratory Analysis of Food Related Preferences and Behaviour in European
Regions. MAPP Working paper no. 26, Århus.
BAKER , Gregory A. and Peter J. CROSBIE (1994), Consumer Preferences for Food
Safety Attributes: A Market Segment Approach, in: Agribusiness, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp. 319-324.
BECKER, Tilman, Eckhard BENNER and Kristina GLITSCH (1997), Consumer Behaviour
Towards Meat in Germany - Results of a Consumer Survey. Working Paper,
Göttingen.
BECKER, Tilman, Eckhard BENNER and Kristina GLITSCH (1996), Consumer Characteristics and Behaviour Towards Meat and Meat Products in Germany, the United
Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Spain and Italy - A Preliminary Synthesis of the
National Reports. Working Paper, Göttingen.
BORRUD, Lori, Cecilia Wilkinson ENNS and Sharon MICKLE (1996), What We Eat in
America: USDA Surveys Food Consumption Changes. In: Food Review,
September-December 1996, pp. 14-19.
BRUNSØ, Karen, Klaus G. GRUNERT and Lone BREDAHL (1996), An Analysis of
National and Crossnational Consumer Segments Using the Food-related Lifestyle
Instrument in Denmark, France, Germany and Great Britain. MAPP Working
paper no. 35, Århus.
CONNOR, John M. (1994), North America as a precursor of changes in Western European food-purchasing patterns. In: European Review of Agricultural Economics
21 (1994), pp. 157-173.
COWAN, Cathal and Michael MANNION (1997), Ireland – Consumer Perceptions of Meat
Quality. Working Paper, Dublin.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1995), Die Lage der Landwirtschaft in der Europäischen
Union, Bericht 1994. Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen
Gemeinschaften, Luxemburg.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
103
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1997), Die Lage der Landwirtschaft in der Europäischen
Union, Bericht 1996. Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen
Gemeinschaften, Luxemburg.
EUROSTAT (1997), Bevölkerungsstatistik 1997, Luxemburg.
EUROSTAT (1995), Frauen und Männer in der Europäischen Union - Ein statistisches
Portrait. Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften,
Luxemburg.
EUROSTAT (1990), Consumer Prices in the EEC 1988, Luxemburg.
FURITSCH, Heinrich Peter (1994), Wohlstandsentwicklung und Nahrungsmittelnachfrage:
Grundlagen und empirische Untersuchung am Beispiel der Nachfrage nach
Nahrungsmitteln und Fleisch in Spanien (Social welfare development and food
demand: Foundation and empirical analysis in the case of the demand for food
and meat in Spain). In: Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 5, Volks- und
Betriebswirtschaft; Bd. 1540, Frankfurt am Main.
GAITO, John (1970), Non-parametric Methods in Psychological Research. In:
HEERMANN, Emil F. and Larry A. BRASKAMP (eds.) (1970) Readings in Statistics
for the Behavioral Sciences, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
GIL, José M., A. GRACIA and L. PÉREZ Y PÉREZ (1995), Food consumption and
economic development in the European Union. In: European Review of
Agricultural Economics 22 (1995), pp. 385-399.
GRUNERT, Klaus G. (1996), What's in a Steak? A Cross-Cultural Study on the Quality
Perception of Beef. MAPP Working Paper no. 39, Århus.
HEERMANN, Emil F. and Larry A. BRASKAMP (eds.) (1970) Readings in Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
HERRMANN, Robert O., Rex H. WARLAND and Arthur STERNGOLD (1997), Who Reacts
to Food Safety Scares?: Examining the Alar Crisis. In: Agribusiness 13, No. 5
(1997), pp. 511-520.
HERRMANN, Roland and Claudia RÖDER (1995), Does food consumption converge
internationally? Measurement, empirical tests and determinants. In: European
Review of Agricultural Economics 22 (1995), pp. 400-414.
HENSON, Spencer and James NORTHEN (1997), National Report on Consumers of Meat
in the UK: Volume2. Working Paper, Reading.
HOFF, K. and R. CLAES (1997) Der Einfluß von Skandalen und Gemeinschaftswerbung
auf die Nachfrage nach Rindfleisch - Eine ökonometrische Analyse. In:
Agrarwirtschaft 10/1997, pp. 332-344.
HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEY and NATIONAL ACCOUNTS, CSO, Ireland.
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADISTICA (1992), Anuario Estadístico, Madrid, Spain.
ISTAT, Italy.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
104
JENSEN, Helen H. and Steven T. YEN (1995), Wife’s Employment and Food Expenditures Away From Home. In: Karen F. FOLK (ed.) (1995), Consumer Interests
Annual 1995, Columbia, Missouri, pp. 90-97.
LASSEN, Jesper (1993), Food Quality and the Consumer. MAPP Working paper no. 8,
Århus.
MAHLAU, Mario and Enrique GUTIÉRREZ (1997), Report on Consumer Perception of
Meat Quality in Spain. Working Paper, Madrid.
MIELE, Mara and Vittoria PARISI (1997), National Report on Consumer Behavior - Italy.
Working Paper, Pisa.
NATIONAL FOOD SURVEY, United Kingdom.
SAS/STAT User's Guide (1990), Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 1, Cary, NC, USA.
SENAUER, Ben, Elaine ASP and Jean KINSEY (1991), Food Trends and the Changing
Consumer, St. Paul, Minnesota.
STATISTICS SWEDEN (SCB) (1994), The Family Food Expenditure Survey 1992 − Final
Report. Orebro, Sweden.
STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1994), Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland 1994.
Wiesbaden, Germany.
STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1995), Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland 1995.
Wiesbaden, Germany.
STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1996), Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland 1996.
Wiesbaden, Germany.
STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1997), Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland 1997,
Wiesbaden, Germany.
STATISTICS SWEDEN (1994), Statistical Yearbook of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden.
WHEELOCK, J. Verner and Judith D. FRANK (1989), Food Consumption Patterns in
Developed Countries. In: TRAILL, Bruce (ed.) (1989), Prospects for the
European Food System. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels,
Belgium.
ZMP (Zentrale Markt- und Preisberichtstelle GmbH), Agrarmärkte in Zahlen,
Europäische Union. Various yearbooks, Berlin.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
105
APPENDIX A: Statistics
In the last decades there has been an intensive discussion on parametric vs.
nonparametric statistical tests. HEERMANN and BRASKAMP (1970, p. 37) argue "In
summary, the main arguments advanced for the use of non-parametric methods in place
of parametric methods are not very compelling. Most investigators seem to agree that
scale type is irrelevant to the choice of a statistical tool, and even though the use of
parametric methods requires more assumptions than non-parametric methods, failure to
meet these assumptions does not appear to have serious consequences in most
instances."
GAITO (1970) examines the consequences of violating the assumptions of parametric
statistics and concludes that parametric statistics are relatively insensitive with regard to
violating the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. He suggests that the
two main uses for nonparametric statistics are (a) as "screeners" to determine if it is
worthwhile to conduct a more thorough parametric test and (b) in situations where
deviations from parametric assumptions are extreme.
In view of a considerable sample size of 500 respondents per country, it is highly
improbable that the distribution of the observations which are used as the appropriate
error term must be normal is violated.
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
106
APPENDIX B: Tables
Table A1:
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Age-groups in the Sample and Age-groups of the Official Statistics,
1996 (in %)
Sample
Official Statistics
Sample
Official Statistics
Sample
Official Statistics
Sample
Official Statistics
Sample
Official Statistics
Sample
Official Statistics
15-29
30-39
Age-groups
40-49
50-59
60 and
over
18.8
23.1
7.5
32.4
15.9
25.7
13.7
29.4
17.8
23.8
12.3
25.3
26.5
20.0
27.4
18.4
24.0
17.7
24.7
18.1
20.4
17.0
22.4
19.1
25.1
15.8
29.3
16.9
23.4
15.9
25.4
15.0
21.6
17.3
20.0
16.7
14.9
16.0
18.5
12.3
21.2
14.2
18.5
12.5
19.6
14.8
21.2
13.5
14.7
25.1
17.3
20.1
15.5
26.5
17.7
25.0
20.4
27.1
24.1
25.4
Source: EUROSTAT (1997), own calculations
Table A2:
Household Size in the Sample and Household Size of the Official
Statistics (in %)
1
Germany Sample
Official Statistics 1995
Sample
Ireland
Official Statistics 1995
Sample
Italy
Official Statistics 1995
Sample
Spain
Official Statistics 1995
Sample
Sweden
Official Statistics 1990
Sample
UK
Official Statistics 1995
14.9
34.9
8.84
22.8
6.0
22.7
4.6
12.7
21.8
39.6
14.8
28.3
Household Size (in %)
2
3
4
29.5
32.1
19.1
21.1
19.2
25.3
18.8
24.5
33.3
31.1
34.0
33.9
22.9
15.8
17.1
15.6
28.4
23.1
22.4
21.8
16.8
12.3
20.8
16.0
23.1
12.4
20.3
17.1
29.4
21.3
28.8
24.0
15.4
11.8
19.4
14.7
5 or more
9.6
4.7
34.8
21.4
17.0
7.6
25.4
17.0
12.6
5.2
11.0
7.1
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (1997), own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
107
Table A3:
Household Income Decile by Household Size (in %)
Income Deciles
Household Size (number of persons)
3
4
5
1
2
6 and more
1+2
3+4
5+6
7+8
9+10
46.5
26.7
18.8
5.6
2.4
24.5
23.9
17.8
20.2
13.6
19.6
23.2
19.4
21.7
16.0
13.5
21.2
21.0
27.2
17.2
14.3
22.2
19.4
27.8
16.3
12.2
23.1
23.1
20.4
21.1
Sum
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: own calculations
Table A4:
Consumer Prices for Selected Food Products in 1988 in ECU
(Sweden not available)
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Trout, fresh, 1 kg
7.02
7.38
4.80
3.55
United
Kingdom
5.24
Beef, fillet, 1 kg
21.05
15.04
13.86
6.09
19.65
Beef fresh (goulash), 1 kg
6.98
5.34
5.14
4.22
5.62
Pork, loin chop, 1 kg
5.49
6.11
5.79
4.07
5.10
Pork, fillet 1 kg
13.48
6.90
9.24
6.74
7.09
Roasting chicken, fresh, 1 kg
3.57
2.88
3.20
2.76
Bacon, streaky bacon, 1 kg
5.68
4.04
6.65
not
available
4.69
Cheese Emmental, 1 kg
11.40
11.18
8.02
8.01
9.12
Cheese Gorgonzola, 1 kg
11.13
12.27
5.06
10.26
10.26
Cheese Brie, 1 kg
5.38
10.18
3.90
8.02
6.78
Milk (sterilised UHT), 1 l
0.53
0.85
0.85
0.65
0.73
Apples (golden delicious), 1 kg
1.48
1.62
0.89
0.89
1.15
Oranges, 1 kg
1.16
1.15
1.05
0.75
0.99
Carrots, 1 kg
0.86
1.28
0.74
0.55
0.82
Tomatoes, 1 kg
1.44
3.03
1.55
1.34
2.53
Cauliflower, 1 kg
0.88
1.25
2.58
1.86
1.53
not
available
0.42
0.25
0.16
0.45
Potatoes (most common
variety), 1 kg
3.45
Source: EUROSTAT (1990) and own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
108
Table A5:
Sociodemographic Characteristics by Changes in Beef Consumption
and Country
Changes
Germany Ireland
Average income
level
More
Less
No change
Average age
More
Less
No change
Average number of More
years of full-time
Less
education
No change
Average number of More
children under 16 Less
No change
Average household More
size
Less
No change
3.6
4.1
4.0
38.8
44.2
41.6
20.0
20.1
20.2
1.0
0.7
0.7
3.3
2.8
2.9
6.5
6.1
5.4
44.3
46.1
45.4
18.0
17.6
17.8
1.7
1.3
1.2
4.5
3.7
4.0
Italy
Spain
Sweden
4.0
4.7
4.9
40.8
46.1
43.6
17.3
17.6
18.0
0.9
0.5
0.7
3.9
3.3
3.4
4.8
4.3
4.2
41.2
48.3
44.5
16.5
17.5
17.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
3.9
3.5
3.7
6.0
5.9
6.3
43.4
51.4
44.4
19.4
19.0
18.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.4
2.5
2.8
United
Kingdom
4.9
5.8
5.4
42.2
47.2
47.8
17.4
17.3
16.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
3.6
2.9
2.7
Source: own calculations
Table A6:
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers by Employment (in %)
Respondents
Low
Medium
Heavy
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
24.6
22.3
15.3
13.2
16.8
14.5
6.8
10.5
10.2
12.9
16.7
22.3
67.0
67.0
63.0
62.3
57.7
59.9
54.5
47.8
75.3
75.2
64.8
62.5
8.3
10.7
21.7
24.5
25.5
25.6
38.6
41.8
14.5
11.9
18.5
15.2
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
109
Table A7:
Consumption Frequencies by Household Income for Two Person
Households - Total Sample
a) Beef
100%
90%
80%
Respondents
70%
Three or more times
Twice
Once
Less than once a week
Never
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Decile1+2
Decile3+4
Decile5+6
Decile7+8 Decile9+10
Income class
b) Pork
100%
90%
80%
Respondents
70%
Three or more times
Twice
Once
Less than once a week
Never
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Decile1+2
Decile3+4
Decile5+6
Decile7+8 Decile9+10
Income class
c) Chicken
100%
90%
80%
Respondents
70%
Three or more times
Twice
Once
Less than once a week
Never
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Decile1+2
Decile3+4
Decile5+6
Decile7+8 Decile9+10
Income class
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
110
Table A8:
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Chicken Consumption by Employment (in %)
Respondents
Never
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
employed
not empl.
6.4
11.0
4.2
4.8
6.0
6.1
2.3
2.7
7.0
12.7
1.3
3.3
Less often Less than
than once
once a
a month
week ...
11.7
11.4
4.2
4.2
14.5
10.5
2.3
2.2
6.0
7.1
2.2
3.7
27.9
29.4
4.2
4.2
5.5
2.7
1.1
4.2
53.3
43.4
4.8
8.9
Once
Twice
34.7
30.7
32.3
30.6
25.5
31.2
29.5
25.9
27.7
29.7
36.2
34.6
13.6
11.4
26.5
29.0
32.0
28.8
31.8
32.5
5.3
5.7
27.5
26.8
Three times
and more
5.7
6.1
28.6
27.1
16.5
20.7
33.0
32.5
0.7
1.4
27.9
22.7
Source: own calculations
Table A9:
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Low, Medium and Heavy
Chicken Consumers
Averages
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Frequency of Chicken
Consumption
Less than once a month
Once a month to once a week
Twice a week and more
Less than once a month
Once a month to once a week
Twice a week and more
Less than once a month
Once a month to once a week
Twice a week and more
Less than once a month
Once a month to once a week
Twice a week and more
Less than once a month
Once a month to once a week
Twice a week and more
Less than once a month
Once a month to once a week
Twice a week and more
Age
43.6
43.2
40.9
46.1
45.5
46.1
46.6
45.2
42.7
43.9
46.0
44.9
47.3
46.1
38.4
53.3
48.9
45.4
Number of
Children
0.60
0.65
0.86
0.89
1.26
1.18
0.51
0.60
0.70
0.37
0.53
0.71
0.57
0.67
0.97
0.45
0.59
0.83
Years of
Education
20.7
20.2
20.4
18.1
17.5
17.8
17.5
18.0
17.7
17.2
17.8
16.7
18.4
18.8
19.1
17.3
16.9
17.1
Income
3.7
4.0
4.5
4.9
5.6
6.1
4.6
5.0
4.4
4.7
5.2
3.9
5.7
6.3
5.6
4.8
5.2
6.0
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
111
Table A10: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the 'Quality in
the Shop'-Characteristics and for each Type of Meat (in % of
respondents of each country)
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
UK
Colour
Marbling
Leanness
0.9
0.9
3.1
1.5
2.3
0.4
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.7
3.4
2.1
2.2
2.4
12.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
8.2
9.6
–
16.1
17.8
–
17.1
19.3
–
49.3
46.8
–
7.2
7.6
–
10.2
9.0
–
5.4
3.4
6.3
1.7
2.3
1.7
3.5
1.7
4.5
5.6
6.3
6.8
3.0
1.5
8.2
1.1
1.3
3.3
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Brand/
Label
2.8
2.5
2.0
4.7
3.7
0.8
4.4
3.1
3.2
7.3
9.2
7.6
3.3
3.7
4.0
2.8
3.7
2.7
Place of
Purchase
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.5
2.3
0.6
0.4
0.8
2.1
1.2
2.9
1.9
2.2
2.8
2.2
0.8
1.3
1.8
Price
0.9
0.5
1.1
2.2
2.8
0.2
1.1
0.8
1.7
2.2
2.9
1.9
1.7
2.4
3.8
1.1
1.1
1.8
Country
of Origin
1.4
1.6
2.8
3.2
3.1
0.8
3.1
4.5
24.9
5.1
10.0
10.9
1.3
1.3
2.9
1.4
2.1
3.5
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
112
Table A11: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the Safety
Characteristics and for each Type of Meat (in %)
Feed
Beef
Germany Pork
Chicken
Beef
Ireland
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Italy
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Spain
Pork
Chicken
Beef
Sweden Pork
Chicken
Beef
UK
Pork
Chicken
2.5
2.9
1.3
2.0
3.4
2.5
1.3
0.6
1.3
9.5
7.9
9.0
7.8
9.2
7.5
1.9
2.1
0.8
Brand/
Label
2.0
1.8
1.3
3.0
2.3
1.3
3.5
2.2
3.2
8.0
8.9
8.6
2.4
1.7
1.3
1.7
1.9
1.0
Name of
producer
2.3
2.2
1.7
1.7
3.4
0.6
5.3
2.2
3.0
12.6
14.2
11.5
6.1
5.0
3.8
2.8
1.3
1.8
Organic/
Free range
2.3
3.1
1.3
4.0
4.5
0.8
21.4
24.1
5.3
8.5
10.0
2.5
3.7
3.5
5.5
3.0
3.7
0.6
Country
of Origin
0.8
0.4
1.1
1.2
1.7
1.0
3.3
3.4
4.9
4.9
10.8
8.6
0.7
0.4
0.9
1.4
0.8
2.7
Price Freshness
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.0
2.5
1.4
0.2
0.2
2.2
1.5
1.4
0.3
2.6
0.9
2.7
1.2
3.9
1.1
3.5
0.8
1.5
1.5
2.2
0.7
3.1
2.4
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.2
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
113
Table A12: Consumption Changes by Degree of Concern About Hormones,
Antibiotics, Fat/Cholesterol, Salmonella and BSE - Beef (in %)
Consumption changes
Hormones
Antibiotics
Fat/cholesterol
Salmonella or
other bacteria
BSE
Very concerned
Quite concerned
Neither
Not very concerned
Not at all concerned
Less
36.4
32.3
23.8
26.7
24.9
More
9.3
9.9
7.5
9.7
11.7
No change
53.2
56.8
65.0
62.1
63.5
Don't know
1.1
1.1
3.8
1.5
0.0
Very concerned
Quite concerned
Neither
Not very concerned
Not at all concerned
Very concerned
Quite concerned
Neither
Not very concerned
Not at all concerned
Very concerned
Quite concerned
Neither
35.7
35.4
26.4
27.0
22.7
34.8
37.5
33.9
30.7
26.0
34.7
34.2
36.2
9.6
8.2
10.3
8.5
12.1
9.8
8.1
8.3
10.0
11.5
9.8
6.9
5.8
53.6
55.0
60.9
63.5
65.2
53.6
53.4
57.8
58.8
62.2
54.3
58.0
58.0
1.1
1.4
2.3
1.0
0.0
1.9
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.3
1.2
0.9
0.0
Not very concerned
Not at all concerned
Very concerned
Quite concerned
Neither
Not very concerned
Not at all concerned
31.9
25.6
39.7
29.8
19.8
20.0
17.5
8.1
15.7
8.8
9.3
12.8
9.5
14.0
59.0
57.4
50.2
60.3
67.4
69.5
67.7
1.1
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.0
1.1
0.9
Source: own calculations
Table A13: Consumption Frequencies by Level of Agreement With the Statement
"Meat is an essential part of a meal." (in %)
Never
Less than once a week
Once
Twice
Three or more times
BEEF
Agree
Disagree
14.2
24.5
14.0
20.3
27.2
24.7
26.6
17.9
21.1
12.7
PORK
Agree
Disagree
18.8
25.0
18.3
23.6
30.3
20.2
18.8
14.5
13.8
6.7
CHICKEN
Agree
Disagree
5.6
5.5
22.1
22.8
30.3
31.7
22.4
22.6
19.6
17.5
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
114
Table A14: Average Age by Level of Agreement With the Statements "Meat is an
essential part of a meal." and "I would never serve a meal without
meat for visitors."
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
45.7
43.7
0.1865
44.7
49.2
0.0050
48.5
46.6
0.1760
"I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors." - Average Age
48.5
45.9
47.6
49.8
41.7
Agree
41.4
45.1
41.4
43.0
47.1
Disagree
0.0001
0.4658
0.0001
0.0001
0.0018
Prob.>|T|
50.0
46.2
0.0116
"Meat is an essential part of a meal." - Average Age
44.3
47.0
44.7
Agree
42.6
44.3
43.8
Disagree
0.2079
0.0223
0.4756
Prob.>|T|
Source: own calculations
Table A15: Level of Agreement With the Statement "I would never serve a meal
without meat for visitors" by Age-groups (in %)
Germany Agree
Disagree
Agree
Ireland
Disagree
Agree
Italy
Disagree
Agree
Spain
Disagree
Agree
Sweden
Disagree
Agree
United
Kingdom Disagree
Under 30
9.4
90.6
55.6
44.4
32.1
67.9
20.0
80.0
32.1
67.9
34.6
65.4
30-39
19.8
80.2
56.1
43.9
37.3
62.7
21.7
78.3
19.8
80.2
19.0
81.0
Age-groups
40-49
50-59
27.7
38.9
72.3
61.1
59.7
52.9
40.3
47.1
37.1
53.9
62.9
46.1
31.1
36.1
68.9
63.9
26.9
40.6
75.7
83.3
26.9
40.6
73.1
59.4
60 and over
38.6
61.4
63.3
36.7
68.0
32.0
52.4
47.6
37.6
85.6
37.6
62.4
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
115
Table A16: Level of Agreement With the Statement "Meat is an essential part of a
meal" by Age-groups (in %)
Germany Agree
Disagree
Agree
Ireland
Disagree
Agree
Italy
Disagree
Agree
Spain
Disagree
Agree
Sweden
Disagree
Agree
United
Kingdom Disagree
Under 30
38.8
61.3
58.3
41.7
61.8
38.2
83.1
16.9
82.4
17.6
55.7
47.3
30-39
33.6
66.4
56.1
43.9
46.2
53.8
71.7
28.3
78.4
21.6
43.3
56.7
Age-groups
40-49
50-59
41.3
40.9
58.7
59.1
54.4
64.4
45.6
35.6
44.8
42.3
55.2
57.7
79.2
77.5
20.8
22.5
67.6
73.7
32.4
26.3
52.1
57.0
47.9
43.0
60 and over
47.9
52.1
69.1
30.9
69.3
30.7
86.2
13.8
68.7
31.3
57.4
42.6
Source: own calculations
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
116
Table A17: SAS-Output of Cluster Analysis
FASTCLUS Procedure:
Replace=FULL
Radius=0
Maxclusters=3
Maxiter=1
Initial Seeds
Cluster
RESTAT3
RESTAT5
RESTAT7
RESTAT10
RESTAT11
RESTAT12
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
1.00000
5.00000
1.00000
5.00000
1.00000
1.00000
2
5.00000
1.00000
5.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
3
5.00000
5.00000
1.00000
1.00000
5.00000
5.00000
Criterion Based on Final Seeds = 1.1873
Cluster Summary
Maximum Distance
RMS Std
from Seed
Nearest
Distance Between
Cluster
Frequency
Deviation
to Observation
Cluster
Cluster Centroids
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
1168
1.1809
5.6206
2
2.6907
2
783
1.1856
6.0225
1
2.6907
3
1048
1.1579
5.8176
2
3.0167
Statistics for Variables
Variable
Total STD
Within STD
R-Squared
RSQ/(1-RSQ)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RESTAT3
1.590360
1.049780
0.564573
1.296595
RESTAT5
1.530781
1.311365
0.266618
0.363546
RESTAT7
0.959682
0.947070
0.026771
0.027508
RESTAT10
1.274234
1.271914
0.004305
0.004324
RESTAT11
1.466334
1.253742
0.269434
0.368803
RESTAT12
1.391821
1.167594
0.296725
0.421919
OVER-ALL
1.385619
1.174537
0.281950
0.392662
Pseudo F Statistic =
588.21
Approximate Expected Over-All R-Squared = 0.28330
Cubic Clustering Criterion =
-0.467
WARNING: The two above values are invalid for correlated variables.
Cluster Means
Cluster
RESTAT3
RESTAT5
RESTAT7
RESTAT10
RESTAT11
RESTAT12
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
1.89203
3.36137
1.33391
1.87177
1.98014
1.42894
2
4.30946
2.28480
1.71708
1.67137
1.89642
1.63625
3
4.36581
4.32565
1.39981
1.73518
3.54075
3.09345
FASTCLUS Procedure:
Replace=FULL
Radius=0
Maxclusters=3
Maxiter=1
Cluster Standard Deviations
Cluster
RESTAT3
RESTAT5
RESTAT7
RESTAT10
RESTAT11
RESTAT12
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
1.22313
1.49939
0.78328
1.35127
1.22723
0.82336
2
0.91026
1.40673
1.24515
1.23357
1.18387
1.07388
3
0.93114
0.96606
0.85242
1.20749
1.33138
1.51238
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
117
APPENDIX C: Questionnaire
Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat
118