national consumer behaviour report: spain...report on national consumer perception of meat quality 4...

National Consumer Behaviour Report:Spain

Julián Briz Escribano, Mario Mahlau and Enrique Gutiérrez del Olmo

October 1997

Project „Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour“FAIR-CT 95-0046

This study is part of the project

QUALITY POLICY AND CONSUMERBEHAVIOUR TOWARDS FRESH MEAT

Project coordinator:

Tilman BeckerInstitut für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaftliche Marktlehre,

University of Hohenheim

The study has been carried out with the financial support from the Commission of theEuropean Communities, Agriculture and Fisheries (FAIR) specific RTD programme,CT 95-0046, „Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour“. It does not necessarily reflectits views and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. Thismanuscript presents only some of the results. Other studies can be downloaded fromhttp://www.uni-hohenheim.de/~apo420b/eu-research/euwelcome.htm

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality 3

Contents

1. Introduction page 1

2. Meat consumption page 2

2.1. Frequency of meat consumption page 6

2.2. Changes on meat consumption page 6

2.3. Place of purchase page 8

3. Quality perception page 9

3.1. Eating quality page 9

3.2. Quality in the shop page 12

4. Safety perception page 15

4.1. Concerns page 15

4.2. Safety indicators page 18

5. Attitudes page 21

5.1. Visual inspection page 25

5.2. Statements page 25

6. Symbols and labels page 30

7. Trust page 32

8. Further analysis – Crosstabulations page 33

9. Summary and first implications for quality poliy page 35

10. Bibliography page 37

Annex 1. Sociodemographics page 38


1. Introduction

The aim of this report is to analyse the consumer behaviour and the perception

of the Spanish consumers regarding beef, veal, pork and chicken.

The results of the consumer survey, made in 1997, are analysed and compared to

the available general information about these themes.

The structure of this report is similar to the structure of the similar reports of the

other E.U. countries participating in this project.

Chapter 2 deals with the consumer behaviour, and chapter 3 with the quality

perception. Chapter 4 presents the concerns of the Spanish consumers with regard to

meat, and chapter 5 the attitudes toward meat. Chapter 6 treat about the trust of

consumers on symbols and labels.

Chapter 7 deals with the reliability of different sources about meat safety.

Finally the results are summarise and there are presented first implications for quality

policy.

The sociodemographics of the sample and the whole population are analysed in

an annexe.


2. Meat consumption

In the period 1985-1994, the share of the consumers’ expenditures for meat and

meat products in total expenditures decreased from 8,3% to 6,1%.

At national level, the structure of the meat consumption, is shown in the following

table:

(1995) Total quantitiesbought (‘000.000 kg)

Total per capita % Bought byhouseholds

% Eating out

Meat and meat products 2,406.2 61.2 84.7 15.3

Beef and vealChickenRabbitSheep and goatPork

394.7637.096.8

136.1336.3

10.016.22.53.58.6

77.187.491.785.383.7

22.912.68.3

14.716.3

Eatable offalOther fresh meatFrozen meat

72.679.236.8

1.82.00.9

89.693.485.8

10.46.6

14.2

Meat products 616.6 15.7 84.1 15.9

Fig. 2.1. Meat consumption at national level (1995). Source: La Alimentación en España, 1995

Chicken is the most consumed fresh meat (in 1995) followed by beef and veal

and pork. In 1996 pork became the 2nd most consumed meat as a consequence of the

BSE and hormones crisis in beef and veal. It can be also seen that some types of meat

like sheep, goat, rabbits and edible offal have a more importance in Spain than in other

European countries due to habits of consumption. On the contrary, the consumption of

frozen meat is remarkably low.

The tendency since 1990 is shown in the following table:

Quantities bought (‘000.000 Kg)

1990 1992 1994 1995

Meat and meat products 2,605.9 2,733.6 2,532.1 2,406.2

Beef and vealChickenRabbitSheep and goatPork

376.2699.785.5

151.4370.5

402.4720.6100.8165.9367.7

416.1682.4105.9149.4344.8

394.7637.096.8

136.1336.3

Eatable offalOther fresh meatFrozen meat

124.259.076.0

120.369.371.7

84.781.936.6

72.679.336.8

Meat products 663.4 715.0 633.2 616.6

Fig. 2.2. Trends in meat consumption. Source: La Alimentación en España, 1995


The consumption of fresh meat as well as meat products has declined in the last

years. In 1996 the structure on meat consumption changed at the expense of beef and

veal.

The following table shows the structure of meat consumption depending on the

income level and the activity of the housewife:

Income level Activity of housewife

Product Low Medium HighWorking at

home +having a job

Working athome

Total meat

Beef and veal

Chicken

Pork

59.2

7.4

16.6

9.0

49.2

7.7

13.5

6.6

44.7

8.8

11.1

5.1

39.9

6.2

9.9

5.5

57.3

8.5

16.1

7.9Fig. 2.3. Meat consumption in Spain by income level and activity of housewife (1995). Source MAPA

It can be seen that total meat consumption is higher in households with low

incomes than in households with high incomes. In households where housewives are

working at home only, meat consumption is significantly higher than in households

where they have a job.

The following table shows the meat consumption depending of the size of

households, excluding people eating out:

Product Size of households (# people)

1 2 3 4 5 6 or more

Total meat

Beef and veal

Chicken

Pork

84.0

13.1

25.0

8.7

64.0

9.6

18.5

8.2

53.1

8.0

14.6

7.3

51.8

7.7

14.0

7.5

49.8

7.9

13.5

7.3

39.6

5.5

10.0

5.8Fig. 2.4. Meat consumption in Span by size of households (1995). Source: MAPA

Households with more than six members eat less than half meat per capita than

household with one member.


The meat consumption in Spanish households by the age of the housewife is

structured as follows:

Product Age of the housewife

< 29 30 – 44 45 - 59 > 60

Total meat

Beef and veal

Chicken

Pork

48.5

5.9

13.1

7.3

47.1

7.6

12.3

6.8

53.0

7.8

14.5

7.4

60.8

9.4

18.2

7.1Fig. 2.5. Meat consumption by the age of the housewife (1995). Source: MAPA

Usually meat consumption increases as the age of the housewives increases.

The type of food consumed in Spain, according to a survey made in 1993, is

shown in the following table:

Type of product

Meat Vegetables Fish Organic prod.

Total

Male

Female

Age

18 – 29

30 – 44

45 – 64

> 65

85

86

83

90

88

83

75

86

82

89

77

86

91

93

81

79

94

72

82

87

86

6

4

7

8

6

4

3Fig. 2.6. Type of food consumed in the households (1993). Source: De Miguel, A.

It can be seen that many Spaniards use to eat as well meat as vegetables, and

also fish. Organic products are not very usual.

The most expensive types of meat are veal (1.151 PTAs./ Kg, 1995) and mutton,

lamb and goat meat (1.047 PTAs.). The prices of beef (959 PTAs.) and meat products

(956 Ptas.) also are above average. The price of pig meat (686 PTAs.) is below average.

The lowest prices are paid for edible offals (407 PTAs.) and poultry (330 PTAs.).


The following graph shows the prices paid for meat in households with different

income levels:

Product Income level

Low Medium High Average

Total meat

Beef and veal

Chicken

Pork

694

1,112

316

667

741

1,133

328

696

821

1,179

377

722

734

1,135

330

687Fig. 2.7. Prices paid by households for meat (1995). Source: MAPA

Average meat prices paid by people with high income are higher than prices paid

for the same type of meat by people with low income. On the one hand they buy more

noble pieces of each type of meat, and on the other hand they also may buy in more

expensive retail shops.

Prices are higher than average in traditional shops and below average in

supermarkets and hypermarkets. The prices paid for meat and meat products are

correlated positively with the income level, as households with low income usually buy

cheaper pieces than households with high income. On an average, the price per Kg of

fish is some 5% lower than the price of meat (1995).


2.1. Frequency of Meat Consumption

The following graph shows the frequency of meat consumption among the

respondents:

Frequency of meat consumption

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Never

Lees once each month

1 per week< x < 1 per month,

Once

Twice

Three or more

percentage

ChickenPorkBeef

Fig. 2.1.1. Frequency of meat consumption (weekly)

About two thirds of the respondents eat chicken at least twice a week. On the

opposite, only one third of the respondents eat pork at least twice a week, while beef

and veal takes an intermediate position. It should be noted that many people do not

consume pork (24%) or beef and veal (17%), while almost all the people asked consume

chicken.

2.2. Changes of Meat Consumption

The following table and the corresponding graph show the recent evolution in

meat consumption according to the survey:

Beef Pork Chicken

More 17.8 11.8 18.8

Less 28.0 28.9 15.1

No change 54.2 59.3 66.1Fig. 2.2.1. Changes on meat consumption in the last five years


Quantitative changes in meat consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Beef Pork Chicken

perc

enta

ge More

Less

No change

Fig. 2.2.2. Quantitative changes in meat consumption

More than half of the respondents did not change the meat consumption in the

last five years. The chicken consumption was especially stable, while beef trends are

those which changed most. Almost 30% of the respondents decreased their consumption

of beef, veal and pork, while some 18% increased the consumption of beef and veal in

some 12% their consumption of pork.


2.3. Place of purchase

The following figure shows the importance of the different places of purchase in

the sample:

Place of purchase

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Butcher

Supermarket

Direct from the farmer

Other

Myper/mega market

Weekly or open market

Local shop

Self-production

percentage

ChickenPorkBeef

Fig. 2.3.1. Place of purchase

The main place of purchase for all types of meat, and especially for beef and

veal, is the butcher’s shop, followed by the supermarket and open markets. Many

consumers appreciate the high flexibility of the butchers when meeting the demand for

specific quantities and qualities of meat, his ability to give the patrons advice and the

proximity of these shops. However, as well supermarkets as hypermarkets are getting

more important in the meat share at the expense of the butchers as they usually sell the

meat at lower prices than the butchers. In the period 1990-1995, at national level the

share of the butchers and other traditional shops in the total sales of meat decreased

from 60% to 42%, while the share of supermarkets increased from 27% to 32% and the

share of hypermarkets from 4% to 11% (MAPA, 1996, p. 146).


3. Quality Perception

3.1. Eating quality

In the following graphs can be observed the evaluation of different quality

characteristics of each type of meat in the survey.

3.1.1. Beef

Importance of characteristics for eating quality of beef

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Smell

Tende

rnes

s

Flavou

r

Juice

ness

Free

of G

ristle

Colour

Lean

ness

Textur

e

Very important

Quite important

Neither

Not very important

Not at all important

Fig. 3.1.1. Importance of characteristics for eating quality of beef

In the graph it can be observed which are the characteristics to be considered

important. The Wilconox test1 shows the ranking within the characteristics:

FlavourTenderness > Colour > Texture > Leanness > Free of gristleJuiceness Smell

Thus, flavour, tenderness and juiciness are the most important characteristics of

the eating quality according to the results of the sample. These are mainly important

when the beef is eaten while the other characteristics are appreciated before eating.

1 The Wilconox test procedure is described in the German Report


3.1.2. Pork

Importance of characteristics for eating quality of pork

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Smell

Tende

rnes

s

Flavou

r

Juice

ness

Free

of G

ristle

Colour

Lean

ness

Textur

e

Very important

Quite important

Neither

Not very important

Not at al l important

Fig. 3.1.2. Importance of characteristics for eating quality of pork

The Wilconox test shows the following ranking in the importance of quality

characteristics:

SmellFlavourTenderness > Leanness > Free of gristleJuicinessColourTexture

It can be observed that leanness and especially free of gristle are the less

important characteristics. Smell is also important because pork can get bad faster than

beef and veal.


3.1.3. Chicken

Importance of characterist ics for eating qual i ty of chicken

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

Smell

Tende

rnes

s

Flavou

r

Juice

ness

Free

of Gris

tle

Colour

Lean

ness

Textur

e

Very important

Qui te important

Nei ther

Not very important

Not at a l l important

Fig. 3.1.3. Importance of characteristics for eating quality of chicken

The importance of quality characteristics can be ranked in the following way:

SmellFlavourColour > Texture > Leanness > Free of gristleJuicinessTenderness


3.2. Quality in the shop

When assessing the quality of meat at the shop, the characteristics considered to

be important may change with regard to the characteristics noticed while cooking and at

the moment of consumption, which were already described.

3.2.1. Beef

Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of beef in the shop

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Count

ry of

origi

n

Place o

f pur

chas

e

Colour

Brand

/labe

l

Lean

ness

Mar

bling

Price

Very important

Quite important

Neither

Not very important


Fig. 3.2.1. Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of beef in the shop

The ranking of characteristics is the following:

Country of originColour > Leanness > PricePlace of purchase Marbling

Brand / label

The place of purchase and the colour are considered to be the most important

characteristics.

The low importance of the price may be partly a result of the reluctance of many

people to admit in an interview that they usually assume that, as a rule, expensive meat

has a better quality than cheap meat.


3.2.2. Pork

Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of pork in the shop

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Countr

y of o

rigin

Place

of pu

rchas

e

Colour

Brand

/labe

l

Lean

ness

Mar

bling

Price

Very important

Quite important

Neither

Not very important


Fig. 3.2.2. Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of pork in the shop

The ranking of the characteristics is very similar as in the case of beef and veal:

LeannessPlace of purchase > Brand / label > PriceColour Marbling

Country of origin


3.2.3. Chicken

Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of chicken in the shop

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Country oforigin

Place ofpurchase

Colour Brand/label Leanness Price

Very important

Quite important

Neither

Not very important


Fig. 3.2.2. Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of chicken in the shop

The ranking of chicken characteristics is the following:

Colour > Leanness > Country of origin > PricePlace of purchase Brand / Label

The principal characteristics for assessing the quality of chicken in the shop are

the colour and the place of purchase. It may be noted that brands/ labels in no case are

considered to be the most important factors for assessing the quality of meat in the shop.

These results are somewhat astonishing, when considering the huge efforts of the

administration and private enterprises to introduce brands/ labels in the meat market. To

some extent, they may be explained by the fact that meat traditionally has been sold

without using any label or brand.


4. Safety perceptions

This chapter analyses how concerned consumers are about different items with

regard to the meat consumption.

4.1. Concerns

4.1.1. Beef

Safety concerns - Beef

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Not at

all co

ncer

ned

Not ve

ry co

ncer

ned

Neithe

r

Quite

conc

erne

d

Very c

once

rned

BSE

Salmonella or other bacteria

Fat or cholesterol

Antibiotics

Hormones

Fig. 4.1.1. Safety concerns – Beef

The main factor that concerns people is the hormone content, while BSE is not

as important as might be expected. This can be explained on the one hand with the fact

that there has been registered no BSE case in Spain, and on the other hand that there has

been some intoxication with hormones or similar products in the last years.

Fat and cholesterol contents are very low important

The rank of importance is the following:

Hormones > Antibiotics > BSE > Fat / cholesterolSalmonella

It may be noted that the use of hormones is prohibited in Spain. Nevertheless

there is a clandestine market for similar substances which stimulate growth.

Hormones can be noticed when cooking the meal as the beef shorten and looses

water. Other noxious factors, even more important, are not detected when cooking.


4.1.2. Pork

Safety concerns - Pork

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Not a

t all c

once

rned

Not ve

ry co

ncer

ned

Neithe

r

Quite

conc

erne

d

Very c

once

rned

Sa lmonella or other bacteria

Fat or cholesterol

Antibiotics

Hormones

Fig. 4.1.2. Safety concerns – Pork

The most important concern with regard to pork consumption is salmonella.

Hormones are the second factor although there has been few informations about the

presence of hormones in pork.

The rank of characteristics shows that only few persons are concerned about fat /

cholesterol in pork:

SalmonellaHormones > Fat / cholesterolAntibiotics

Consumer knows about the risk of pollution of pork with bacteria, and for this

reason pork is well cooked.


4.1.3. Chicken

Safety concerns - Chicken

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not at

all co

ncer

ned

Not ve

ry co

ncer

ned

Neithe

r

Quite

conc

erne

d

Very c

once

rned

Salmonella or other bacteria

Fat or cholesterol

Antibiotics

Hormones

Fig. 4.1.3. Safety concerns – Chicken

Salmonella is also the most important concern. The pattern of concerns is rather

similar to pork.

The following rank shows the importance of the different factors:

Salmonella > Antibiotics > Fat / CholesterolHormones

Bacteria is easier detectable than in pork as when chicken is not fresh, it has a

viscous layer.


4.2. Safety Indicators

4.2.1. Beef

Safety assessment - Beef

0 %

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feed

Brand

/Lab

el

Name

of p

rodu

cer

Organ

ically

pro

duce

d

Count

ry o

f orig

inPric

e

Fresh

ness

Very helpful

Quite helpful

Neither

Not very helpful

Not at all helpful

Fig. 4.2.1. Safety assessment - Beef

The ranking of the characteristics about the beef safety is the following:

Freshness > Feed > Country origin > Label > Name of productOrganically produced Price

The freshness and the feed of the beef are considered to be the most important

safety characteristics. The name of the product and also the labels are not so important.


4.2.2. Pork

Safety assessment - Pork

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Feed

Brand

/Labe

l

Name o

f pro

duce

r

Organ

ically

pro

duce

d

Countr

y of o

rigin

Price

Fresh

ness

Very helpful

Quite helpful

Neither

Not very helpful

Not at all helpful

Fig 4.2.2. Safety assessment - Pork

Safety indicators can be ranked in the following way:

Freshness > Feed > Country of origin > Name o.p.Organic Brand / label Price

Freshness is considered to be the most important safety characteristic


4.2.3. Chicken

Safety assessment - Chicken

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Feed

Brand

/Lab

el

Name

of p

rodu

cer

Freely

bre

eded

Count

ry o

f orig

inPric

e

Fresh

ness

Very helpful

Quite helpful

Neither

Not very helpful

Not at all helpful

Fig 4.2.3. Safety assessment - Chicken

The rank of safety characteristics in chicken is the following:

Freshness > Free range > Brand / Label > PriceFeed Country origin Name o.p.


5. Attitudes

The main factors, which influence the decisions of the consumers when buying

meat, are the quality, the tenderness and the taste, according to the results of and

international enquiry made in 19952. As we have mentioned before, after a large

increase, consumption of meat and meat products has now stabilised, and in some cases

even declined, in Spain. Partly this development can be explained by economic

indicators- especially by the moderate growth of the disposable per capita income- and

the high level of consumption that already has been reached. However, there is some

evidence that consumer attitudes toward meat have changed due to the information

published by the mass media and the consumers associations.

The attitude of the Spanish consumers toward meat is ambiguous, on the one

hand the majority of them consider that meat cannot be substituted easily and that it is

the base of a good nutrition.

On the other hand, many Spaniards consider that the consumption of great

quantities of meat and meat products is not good for their health, as factors like residue

and naturalness are becoming more and more important for them. The consumers react

promptly to the information published in the mass media. Thus, publications about

hormone residues in beef and veal immediately cause a decrease in the demand of these

types of meat.

Recently the publications about the bovine spongiform encefalopathy in British

cows- some specialists recommended the population not to consume beef and veal from

Britain- caused a drop of the Spanish beef and veal prices by approximately 10%. This

was the biggest in the last 30 years3. Immediately after this price drop, some retailers

put notes like "don’t worry: we only sell beef and veal produced in controlled Spanish

breeds and marketed with official origin or quality seals" in the entrance of their stores,

until the market situation stabilised. A department of the Spanish Ministry of

Agriculture gives these seals. Their importance has been growing in the last years as a

consequence of the official quality policy- including advertising campaigns in TV and

other media- the social alarm about hormone residues found in meat, and other factors.

2 GORDON SIMPSONS RESEARCH GROUP quoted in: MILI, 1996, p. 113 El País, 5/6.04, 1996, p. 19


As mentioned before, the main factors, which influence the decisions of the

consumers when buying meat, are the income, the price, the quality, the tenderness and

the taste. However, the importance of other product attributes, like the health (fat-pig

meat), environment, fears about hormones (beef and veal), salmonellas (poultry meat),

cholesterol as positive or negative product attributes is increasing. In this chapter there

are shown some results of empirical studies about the attitudes of Spanish consumers.

According to the consumer inquiry in Spain (Furitsch, 1994), meat is the most

preferred foodstuff, even more than fish. In Spain there are only few persons who reject

the consumption of meat for religious or other reasons (vegetarians). In Spain,

according to a survey made in 1993, the most preferred meat types are sucking lamb and

veal, followed by chicken. The less preferred meat types are rabbit meat, turkey and

edible offals. The preference pig meat is also rather low.

In the Spanish meat market there can be observed a segmentation of the meat

market, as many consumers are willing to pay higher prices pieces of meat and meat

products which have a guaranteed quality. Thus, the market share of veal, poultry, and

other meat products, which are marketed with generic (official) quality seals like

designations of origin, ecological product, etc., is increasing. At the same time, brands

of meat industries (e.g. "Campofrío"), retailers (e.g. "Eroski") and restaurant chains (e.g.

"Fried Chicken of Kentucky") who guarantee the quality of the meat and meat products

(free from hormones, nutrition, etc.) are getting more and more important.

The following figure compares some attitudes toward meat of Spanish and EU-

consumers. The Spanish consumers are more critical toward meat than the average EU-

consumer. Thus, in Spain a higher percentage of the consumers agree to the statements

1 (hormones) and 5 (negative evolution of the meat quality) and a lower percentage to

the statement 9 (guest meal) than in the EU.


Statements Spain E.U.

Agreement Totalagreement

Agreement Totalagreement

Utilisation of hormones and chemical productsin the meat production disturbs me.

In the last 3 years I eat less meat due to thispreoccupation.

I try that the livestock is treated well

In the last 3 years I ate less meat due to thebad treatment of the livestock

Today meat is not as good as it was before

In the last 3 years I ate less meat due to its fatcontent.

In the last 3 years I ate less meat due to thepossible content of noxious ingredients likesalmonella.

Meat makes an important contribution to mydiet.

We always prepare a meal with meat when wehave guests at home.

Nowadays there are available many substitutesof meat.

I eat regularly substitutes of meat.

99

45

68

15

82

37

36

73

44

39

28

96

29

51

7

71

25

26

54

27

29

18

91

48

67

28

64

37

36

71

67

50

30

81

29

47

16

50

23

22

50

51

33

17Fig. 5.01. Attitudes of the consumer toward meat: grade of agreement with selected statements. (1995).

Source: Gordon Simpson research group.

The following figure shows further aspects of the attitudes toward meat of the

Spanish consumers according to another survey made in 1991 by Furitsch. Meat is to

considered to be a food which cannot be substituted (disagreement = D2), and is part of

the basis of a good nutrition (agreement = A3). Nevertheless, the daily consumption is

considered not to be healthy (A11). The statement about the high content of hormones

and preservatives in the meat had the highest acceptance. In general, there is more

agreement to negative statements about meat than to positive statements.


Statements Media Standardvariation

Disagreement:All meat types are equal as they have the same nutritive valueTo eat without meat is like not to eatOnly meat has necessary proteinsMeat products can substitute meatMeat can be bought by anybodyA good piece of meat not always is expensive

2.63.13.63.73.93.9

1.61.61.71.81.61.6

Agreement:Meat colour is not decisive for the qualityI could stop eating meatMeat is the basis of a good nutritionAt home we usually eat always the same kind of meatToday many products can substitute meatToday meat is becoming worse and worseOnly experts know about meatFish is healthier than meatI only eat types of meat that I knowDisposition to change with more information about meat and

its qualityThe daily consumption of meat is not good for healthThere are other foodstuffs that have the same proteins as

meatThe piece and the preparation make meat expensiveThe quality does not depend on the price but on the pieceMeat contents a lot of hormones and preservatives

4.14.34.44.44.44.64.64.84.9

4.94.9

5.05.25.35.5

1.71.81.61.71.71.61.71.61.4

1.51.7

1.51.41.51.4

Fig. 5.02. Attitudes of the consumer toward meat: grade of agreement or disagreement with selectedstatements (1991). Source: Furitsch.

The grade of agreement or disagreement of the previous table may vary

between:

1 : Total disagreement2 : Sufficient disagreement3 : A little disagreement4 : Neither agreement nor disagreement5 : Moderate agreement6 : Sufficient agreement7 : Total agreement

The following chapters analyse the result of the sample.


5.1. Visual inspection

Assessed quality of meat in the shop just by looking at it

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Beef Pork Chicken

Completely agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Completely disagree

Fig. 5.1. Assessed quality of meat just by looking at it

Most of the respondents agree completely (some 55%) or just agree (some 23%)

when being asked if they are able to assess properly the eating quality of meat in the

shop just by looking at it.

5.2. Statements

5.2.1. Cooking statements

C o o k in g s t a t e m e n ts

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

I l i k e n e w r e c i p e s C o o k i n g a s a t a s k

C o m p le t e l y a g r e e

A g r e e

N e i ther

D i s a g r e e

C o m p le t e l y d i s a g r e e

Fig. 5.2.1.Cooking statements


More than half of the respondents (some 55%) like very much to taste new

receipts, and some 16% like to try new receipts to some extent. Almost half of the

respondents (some 45%) do not like cooking, but consider cooking as a necessary task.

However there are also many respondents (some 35%) who like cooking and do not

believe that cooking is just a necessary task.

5.2.2. Animal welfare, ethics

Animal welfare and ethics

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More respect to animals Prefer meat from well treatedanimals

Completely agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.2. Animal welfare and ethics

Most people agree completely to the statement that “we should have more

respect for animals” (> 80%). More than ¾ of the respondents also agree completely

when being asked if they prefer to buy meat from well treated animals.

These high percentages should be seen rather as a theoretical agreement than a

real willingness to achieve a better animal welfare by paying higher prices for livestock

with any “animal welfare label”. Indeed, many consumers living in cities do not know

much about the living conditions of the livestock, and they do not care much about

these themes.

The Spanish government usually is reluctant to support legal proposals which

aim at improving the animal welfare in some production systems of livestock (e.g.

poultry production).


5.2.3. Status of meat

S t a t u s o f m e a t

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

N o m e a l w i t h o u t m e a t M e a t i s e s s e n t i a l p a r t o fm e a l

C o m p l e t e l y a g r e e

A g r e e

N e i t h e r

D i s a g r e e

C o m p l e t e l y d i s a g r e e

Fig. 5.2.3. Status of meat

Only the fifth part of the respondents agrees to the statement that there should be

not meal without meat while some 55% disagree completely, surely due to the

Mediterranean eating habits, where a lot of vegetables and fish is consumed. However,

almost 60% of the respondents think that meat is an essential part of meal.

5.2.4. Price statements

The following figure shows the answers to price statement in the sample:

Price statem e n ts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Price is the m a in factor tobuy meat

H igher price for higher qualitymeat

Completely agree

Agree

Neither

D isagree

Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.4. Price status


Most respondents (more than 40%) say that the price is not the main factor

which they consider when buying meat, and only some 20% consider that it indeed is

the main factor. This result could be expected, as usually respondents tend to

underestimate the importance of the price in their food consumption.

Besides, many Spanish consumers really are willing to pay a bit higher prices for

meat and to spend a higher share of the income for food. However, the willingness to

pay higher prices for higher quality is limited.

On the other hand, almost half of the respondents consider that you have to be

prepared to pay a higher price to get a good piece of meat.

5.2.5. Safety/information

The following figure shows the safety / information answers in the sample:

Safety/Information

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Always check the nutritionallabel before buying

Food in the shop is safe

Completely agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.5. Safety / Information

More than half of the respondents agrees strongly (40%) or slightly (20%) to the

statement that they “always check the nutritional labelling on food before buying them”.

There also are a considerable number of consumers (more than 25%) who usually do

not check the labelling concerning the nutritional value on food.

Most consumers consider that food in the shops is safe.


5.2.6. Origin

The results of the sample is shown in the following graph:

Origin

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Prefer food produced locally The country where meat is produced isimportant

Completely agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree

Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.6. Origin

Among the respondents there seems to be a high preference for buying food,

which is produced locally (more than the 75% agree completely). However, in many

cases, this is not possible due to the regional and international division of labour. Thus,

there are some consumption centres, like Madrid, where due to a lack of local

production most of the foods is produced outside the region.

Most respondents of the sample (some 65%) like to know in which country the

meat they buy has been produced. In the market for beef and veal, in the shops,

frequently the Spanish regional origin is indicated, even in the meat without the label of

Denomination of Origin.


5.2.7. Nutrition

Nutrition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Meat is essential for abalanced diet

There is no source of proteinlike meat

Completely agree

Agree

Neither

D isagree

Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.7. Nutrition

Most consumers believe that meat is essential for a balanced diet. Only

5% disagree strongly to the statement. In Spain, there are only a few people who do not

eat meat. More than half of the respondents thinks that there are other sources of protein

like meat. It may be supposed that many consumers mean mainly fish, although it is not

mentioned any food in the statement.

6. Symbols and Labels

The absolute frequencies for those answers mentioned at least five times for

each type of meat are the following:

Beef Pork Chicken

Origin 12 13 28

Health stamps 9 10 10

Best before date 8 6 10

Organic breeding - 9 20

Quality symbol 12 6 -

Slaughtering house stamp - - 35

EEC quality brand - 5 13

Registered brand 9 - -Fig. 6. Number of answers


Fresh meat usually was sold without any label or brand in Spain, while there

were some brands in the meat product market. The decrease of demand of beef and veal

caused an increased of the importance of labels in this market (Denominations of

Origin, Clara program, etc.). There also is one D.O. in the chicken market. Some

enterprises in the chicken industry and of the meat processing industry have got the ISO

certification.

Now the total amount of fresh meat sold under official quality labels are about

5% (Briz, et al 1997, p. 53). The share of meat sold with quality labels of retailers

should be higher, although there are not available data. The fact that most hypermarkets

and supermarkets are introducing retailer brands, indicates that consumers react

positively in some way to this marketing strategy.

Some consumer groups criticise that there are quality labels that guarantee that

the meat is free of hormones, arguing that according to the legislation, all meat sold

should be free of hormones.

The proliferation of many quality seals has irritated some consumers. Thus,

some enquiries made in Madrid (Briz, et al 1996) show that many consumers are not

well informed about the meaning of many quality labels and to judge the differences

between them.

In the sample, when looking on the safety of meat, respondents trust most origin

labels and quality symbols of beef and veal, origin labels and health stamps of pork, and

slaughtering house stamps and origin labels in the case of chicken. The results are more

plausible in the case of beef, veal and chicken. In the market for beef and veal, there

have been introduced as well origin labels and quality symbols as brands. In the chicken

industry, several enterprises have adapted ISO norms. The importance of organic

breeding in chicken may be due to a certain confusion among many consumers, who do

not know the differences between organic breeding, free range, etc. The importance of

the date in chicken also is plausible due to the danger of salmonella in summer.

In the pork market, the responses are not so plausible as there do not exits

Denomination of Origin for fresh meat (there exits several D.O. for hams and sausages

elaborated with pig meat).


7. Trust

The absolute frequencies of the answers (at least mentioned five times either

type of meat) related to the trust on the information in the meat safety are the following:

Beef Pork Chicken

Government 10 16 8

Ministry of Agriculture 8 7 5

Ministry of Health & Consumption 35 18 14

Consumers associations 26 18 12

Independent butchers 183 71 52

Butchers at supermarkets 85 51 45

Friends 9 8 -

Magazines 9 5 -

Reports 6 13 -

Radio reports - 6 -

Health bureau 6 7 -

Mother, other family persons 14 7 -

I trust myself 35 12 -

None/don’t know 54 197 90Fig. 7. Trust

When looking for information on the safety of meat, people trust most

independent butchers and butchers in the supermarkets. Among institutions respondents

trust most in the Ministry of health and Consumption with regard to meat safety.

Consumer organisations are also considered to be reliable source of information.


8. Further Analysis - Crosstabulations

8.1. Visual inspection by agegroup

Visual inspection by agegroup (beef)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 andover

Disagree strongly

Disagree a litle

Neither

Agree a little

Agree strongly

Fig. 8.1. Visual inspection by agegroup in beef

8.2. Quality perception by visual inspection

The following table shows the average ranks of the characteristic for people who

agree or disagree with assessing the quality of beef by visual perception:

Average ranks

Those who agree Those who disagree

Colour of the beef 3.32 3.45

Marbling of the beef 4.09 4.44

Leanness of the beef 4.08 3.91

A brand or quality assurance label 4.35 3.76

The place of purchase 3.42 3.42

The price of the beef 4.95 5.15

The country of origin of the beef 3.80 3.87Fig. 8.2.1. Average ranks of the characteristics for people who agree and disagree


The ranking of characteristics for the people who can assess the quality just by

looking at it is the following:

Country of originColour of the beef > Leanness of beef > PriceThe place of purchase Marbling of beef

Brand / label

On the other hand, the Wilconox test shows no significant differences between

all of the attributes in the case of the people who can not assess the quality by visual

inspection. One of the reasons for this could be the low sample size in this subgroup (39

respondents).


9. Summary and First Implications for Quality Policy

In Spain, total consumption of met and meat products have been declining

slightly since 1990, reaching a level of some 61-Kg per capita in 1995. Per capita

consumption usually is higher in houses with low income that in household with high

income. It varies considerably between different groups of consumers.

A large share of the respondents consume meat twice or more a week. Most

people think that meat is an essential part of the meal.

The main place of purchase of fresh meat is the butchers, but super and

hypermarkets are increasing their market shares.

The flavour, the tenderness, and the juiciness are considered to be the most

important characteristics of beef and veal, while in the case of pork and chicken, there

are a wide range of characteristics which are important.

When assessing the quality of meat in the shop, the colour and the place of

purchase are considered to be the most important factors. Most respondents think that

they are able to assess quality of meat in the shop just by looking at it.

With regard to safety concerns, most people are concerned about hormones (beef

and veal); salmonella, hormones and antibiotics (pork); and salmonella and hormones

(chicken). It becomes clear that they do not trust the institutions that are responsible for

controlling the carrying out of the laws that prohibit the use of hormones. However,

most respondents believe that the foods that they buy in the shops are safe.

Most people declare that they care a lot about animal welfare. However, the

willingness to pay higher prices for meat from well treated animals is limited. Most

people say that they are prepared to pay a higher price to get a good piece of meat.

Indeed, people with high income, usually eat less meat than people with low income but

they pay higher prices per Kilo of each type of meat.

Most respondents prefer food produced locally. In many regions local

production in much lower than the consumption. Therefore most food has to be

imported from other regions. Great deals of the consumers want to know the origin

(country, region) of the meat they buy.

Until recently, fresh meat was usually sold without any quality label, although

there were some health standards that have to be fulfilled


In the last years, quality seals, Denomination of Origin, and brands have got

more and more importance. In this way, it was tried to achieve market segmentation and

to increase the trust of the consumers on acquiring meat of good quality. In the chicken

market, slaughtering houses that do not have any importance on beef, veal and pork, are

rather important.

When looking for information on the safety of meat, people trust most

independent butchers and butchers in the supermarkets. Among the institutions,

respondents trust most the Ministry of Health and Consumption in regard to meat

safety.

The quality safety of meat products should take into consideration the

confidence of many consumers in the butchers. The implementation of quality seals and

brands in the fresh meat market seems to be useful. However it should be make sure that

consumer know enough about the meaning of each label (quality label, D.O., ISO, etc.)

in order to achieve that these labels really become useful information and increase the

trust of the consumers in the quality of the meat which they buy.

There seems to be a need to improve the trust of the consumers in public

institutions when they look on information on safety of meat. Nowadays, only the

Ministry of Health and Consumption has acceptable results with regard to this question.

It might be useful to work with consumer associations when implementing the quality

policy with regard to meat.

If the quality policy measures that have been introduced recently are

implemented in a serious way, and they are complemented with the measures mentioned

above, and increase of the consumers trust in the meat quality, and as a consequence,

stabilisation of even increase of the meat demand seems feasible.


10. Bibliography

• Briz, J., Mahlau, M., Sector Lácteo Español, (1995), “Acciones y Estrategias de

Marketing Institucionales y Empresariales”. Agricultura, July/ August, pp. 650-655.

• Briz, J., Mahlau, M., Gutiérrez, E., Saunders, S., (1997), “Report on Spanish Meat

Quality Policy”. EU FAIR- CT 95 - 0046. Madrid.

• De Miguel, A., (1995), “La Sociedad Española 1994-1995”. Madrid.

• Eurocarne, (1996) “Informe Anual Eurocarne 1996”. Estrategias Alimentarias

Españolas. Madrid.

• Furitsch, H.P. (1994). “Wohlstandsentwicklung und Nahrungsmittel-nachfrage-

Grundlagen und empirische Untersuchung der Nachfrage nach Nahrungsmitteln und

Fleisch in Spanien”, Diss., Frankfurt a.M., 1994.

• Gordon Simpsons Research Group Ltd (1995), “European Attitudes to Meat.

Consumer Study. London” (private document).

• Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE)

Ø (1993), Encuesta Demográfica 1991, tomo I y II. Madrid.

Ø (1995), Panorámica Social de España 1994.

Ø (1996), Anuario Estadístico 1995.

Ø (1997), Indicadores Sociales de España.

• MAPA, (1996). “La Alimentación en España 1995”, Ministerio de Agricultura,

Pesca y Alimentación. Madrid.

• Mahlau, M., (in cooperation with Briz, J.) (1991) Production, Marketing and

Consumption of Animal Products in Spain, Kiel.

• Mercasa (ed.), (1995), “Alimentos de España. Denominaciones de Origen y de

Calidad”. Madrid.

• Mili, S. (1996). “Comportement du Consommateur et Demande de Viande en

Espagne, France et Italie”. Madrid.

• Rivera Vilas, L.M., Buitrago Vera, J.M., (1996), “La Certificación de la Calidad

Agroalimentaria. "El Boletín", Decembre, pp. 25-31.

• Segrelles Serrano, J.A., (1995), “La Comercialización de Carne en la Provincia de

Alicante”. Alicante.


Annex 1. Sociodemographics

In this annex the sociodemographics of the sample is compared to the

sociodemographics of the whole population. We have to take into consideration that an

exact comparison is not possible, since we have considered only a part of the whole

population, that is: people who are responsible for the shopping in households and

where telephone is available (some 77% of the Spanish households have telephone).

1� Sex

About half of the Spanish people are female (50,8%) and male (29,2%). In the

sample, female people are clearly overrepresented (89%). This fact seems plausible, as

many women are housewives, and do the tasks at home, as well if their husbands are

working or if they are retired. In most households women are responsible for the

shopping of foodstuffs.

In Spain, the share of female people in total labour force is of some 34% (1996)

The following figure shows the structure of the sample:

Sex

Female89%

Male11%

Fig. 1. Sex


2. Age

In the sample the categories "30-39 years" and "40-49 years" are the most

important age classes. Each of them accounts for more than 25% of the interviewed

people. In the whole population, each of this class accounts for some 16% of the people.

The largest categories are people who are less than 30 or over 60 years old.

Age

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

Fig. 2. Age statistics

3. Household size

In the last years the number of households has been increasing in Spain, while

the average size of each household has been decreasing. Concretely, in 1970 there were

8,854 thousand households, in 1981 10,586 thousand households, and in 1991 11,836

thousand. The average size of the households declined from 3.65 in 1985 to 3.25 in

1995.

The average number of children per woman declined from 2.2 in 1980 to 1.2 in

1991. Now it is one of the lowest in Europe.

In spite of these trends, on average Spanish families are larger than families in

most other EU-countries. Thus, some 13% of the Spanish households only have one

member, compared to 26% in the EU-average, while 20% of the Spanish households

have 5 or more members, compared with 9% in the EU-average.


The average household size and proportions in the sample are the following:

H o u s e h o ld s i z e

0 %

5 %

1 0 %

1 5 %

2 0 %

2 5 %

3 0 %

3 5 %

1 p e r s o n 2 p e o p le 3 p e o p le 4 p e o p le 5 p e o p le 6 o r m o r ep e o p le

Fig. 3. Household size

4. Children under 16

The following figure shows the number of children under 16 in the households

of the sample:

Children under 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4 or more

Fig. 4. Children under 16


In most households of the sample (some 60%) no child under 16 is living in the

household. The next categories by importance are households with one child and with

two children under 16.

In the whole population the situation the situation is rather similar, although the

available data are not exactly comparable. More than half of the households does not

live with children, 18% with one child, almost 18% with two children and 11% with

more than two children (including children over 16 years old).

5. Years of full-time education

More than half of the Spaniards (64%) stopped full-time education at an age of

15 or less years and about 20% at an age of 15 to 18 years. The rest (16%) stopped full-

time education being over 18 years old. As a rule, young people have longer full-time

education than older people.

The average age when the respondent stopped full-time education

stop full-time education

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

45,0%

50,0%

less than 15 15 to 18 over 18

Fig. 5. Average age when stopped full-time education

The structure of the sample is rather similar: most respondents (60%) stopped

full time education at an age of less than 15 years, 27% at an age of 15 to 18 years, and

28% at an age of over 18 years.


6. Occupation

In Spain, there is a high rate of unemployment (23%). It is higher for female

people (30%) than for male people (18%) (INE, 1997, p. 137). To some extent, these

figures are improved by "not official" employment, e.g. when the employed people do

not get the social security which is obligatory in "official" works. Considering this type

of unemployment, the unemployment rate reportedly may be of some 11%.

The respondent occupation categories are the following:

O c u p a tion I

0 ,0 %

1 0 , 0 %

2 0 , 0 %

3 0 , 0 %

4 0 , 0 %

5 0 , 0 %

6 0 , 0 %

7 0 , 0 %

House

wife

Retire

d

Not w

orkin

g

Self-e

mplo

yed

Emplo

yed

prof

fesio

nal o

r ma.

..

Other

em

ploye

d po

sition

Fig. 6.1. Occupation categories of the respondent

About 60% of the respondents are housewives. All other categories account for

less than 10% of the answers.

When looking at the occupation of the person who contributes most to the

household income, it can be seen that some 2 % are self-employed and some 28% work

in "lower" categories of employed people (excluding employed professionals, etc.).

When analysing the occupation of the whole population, it can be seen that the main

groups by occupation are housewives (32%) and employed people in "lower" positions

(26%). (see fig. 6.2).


The occupation of the person who contributes most to the household income are

the following:

Occupa t ion I I

0 , 0 %

5 , 0 %

1 0 , 0 %

1 5 , 0 %

2 0 , 0 %

2 5 , 0 %

3 0 , 0 %

3 5 , 0 %

House

wife

Retire

d

Not w

orkin

g

Self-e

mplo

yed

Emplo

yed

prof

fesio

nal o

r man

...

Other

em

ploye

d po

sition

Fig. 6.2. Occupation categories of person who contributes most on the household incomes

7. Household incomes

Considering the income distribution within Spain, the different groups are

divided in deciles:

Decile 1+2 are people with incomes varying from less than 1,056,000 to 1,487,000 pts

Decile 3+4, people with incomes varying from 1,487,000 to 2,166,000 pts

Decile 5+6, people with incomes varying from 2,166,000 to 2,919,000 pts

Decile 7+8, people with incomes from 2,919,000 to 4,043,000 pts

Decile 9+10, with more than 4,043,000 pts

The average income per household in the decile 10 is about 10 times higher than

in the decile 1, and about threefold compared to the income in the decile 5.


The share of the deciles described above in the sample is shown in the following

graph:

Household income

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

45,0%

deci le 1+2 deci le 3+4 deci le 5+6 deci le 7+8 deci le 9+10

7. Household income

It can be seen that most respondents have incomes below average: 40%

correspond to the lowest deciles and 20% to the deciles 3 and 4.


8. Summary

% Characteristics Survey National

Sex Ø FemaleØ Male

88.8 11.2

50.8 49.2

Age A

Ø 16 – 29Ø 30 – 39Ø 40 – 49Ø 50 – 59Ø 60 and over

27.816.715.013.227.3

Age B

Ø Under 30Ø 30 – 39Ø 40 – 49Ø 50 – 59Ø 60 and over

15.3 27.6 28.3 21.7

8.1

41.2 13.6 12.2 10.8 22.2

Household size

Ø 1 personØ 2 peopleØ 3 peopleØ 4 peopleØ 5 peopleØ 6 people or more

Average

4.6 18.8 22.4 28.8 16.8

8.6

14.4 21.8 21.0 26.1 10.9

5.8 3.2

Children under 16

Ø No childrenØ 1 childØ 2 childrenØ 3 childrenØ 4 or more children

Average

59.2 22.8 14.0

3.2 0.8

53.4 18.2 17.8

7.3 3.4 1.9

Age when stoppedfull-time education

Ø < 15 yearsØ 15 – 18 yearsØ More than 18 years

Average age

45.0 27.2 27.8

64.0 18.9 16.2 15.4

Occupation of therespondents

Ø HousewifeØ RetiredØ Others not workingØ Self employedØ Employed professional or

managementØ Other employed position

60.2 6.0 7.5 7.9 7.1

11.3

Occupation ofperson whocontribute mostto the householdincome

Ø HousewifeØ RetiredØ Others not workingØ Self employedØ Employed professional or

managementØ Other employed position

2.018.84.8

29.416.4

28.7

31.711.017.37.46.5

26.1Fig. 8.1. Summary of sociodemographics

national consumer behaviour report: spain...report on national consumer perception of meat quality 4...

Documents