summary report on consumer behaviour towards … · summary report on consumer behaviour towards...

Summary Report on Consumer Behaviour Towards Meatin 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 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

Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 1

Contents

Page

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 9

2 Sociodemographics of the Samples....................................................................... 11

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

3 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

4 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

4.4 Who are the Heavy Meat Consumers? ......................................................... 37

4.5 Meat Consumption in Europe – Summary ................................................... 40

5 Quality Perception................................................................................................ 42

5.1 'Quality in the Shop' .................................................................................... 44

5.2 'Eating Quality'............................................................................................ 50

5.3 Quality Perception - Summary..................................................................... 54


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

8.1 Use of Labels .............................................................................................. 66

8.2 Consumer Trust in Information ................................................................... 67

8.3 Information on Meat - Summary ................................................................. 70

9 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


Figures

Page

Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age-group (in %) ..................................... 12

Figure 2: Age-groups in the Sample: Deviations from theTotal Population (in %)............................................................................ 13

Figure 3: Distribution of Households by Size (in %)................................................. 14

Figure 4: Distribution of Households by Number of ChildrenUnder 16 years of age (in %).................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Distribution of Age at which Respondents Completed aFull-time Education (in %) ........................................................................ 16

Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents by Income Deciles......................................... 17

Figure 7: Working Population 1992 (in % of Total Population at theAge 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 ofHousehold 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


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 assessthe quality of beef in the shop just by looking at it."................................... 72

Figure 33: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assessthe quality of pork in the shop just by looking at it.".................................. 72

Figure 34: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assessthe quality of chicken in the shop just by looking at it." ............................. 73

Figure 35: Level of Agreement with Statement "I like experimentingwith new recipes."..................................................................................... 78

Figure 36: Level of Agreement with Statement "I do not like cookingvery much but it is a job which has to be done." ........................................ 79

Figure 37: Level of Agreement with Statement "I would neverserve a meal without meat." ...................................................................... 80

Figure 38: Level of Agreement with Statement "Meat is anessential part of a meal." .......................................................................... 81

Figure 39: Level of Agreement with Statement "I prefer to buymeat from animals which I know have been treated well." ......................... 82

Figure 40: Level of Agreement with Statement "We should havemore respect for animals."......................................................................... 83

Figure 41: Level of Agreement with Statement "I prefer to buyfood which is produced locally."................................................................ 84

Figure 42: Level of Agreement with Statement "It is important that Iknow the country where the meat I buy has been produced."..................... 84

Figure 43: Level of Agreement with Statement "There is no sourceof protein like meat."................................................................................. 85

Figure 44: Level of Agreement with Statement "Meat is essentialfor a balanced diet." ................................................................................. 86


Figure 45: Level of Agreement with Statement "I always checkthe nutritional labelling on foods before buying them." .............................. 87

Figure 46: Level of Agreement with Statement "I am confidentthat food in the shops is safe." ................................................................... 88

Figure 47: Level of Agreement with Statement "You have to beprepared to pay a higher price to get good quality meat." .......................... 89

Figure 48: Level of Agreement with Statement "Price is the mainthing I consider when buying meat.".......................................................... 89

Figure 49: Statement "Price is the main thing I consider whenbuying meat." by Income (Standard Deviation).......................................... 90

Figure 50: Deviations from the Average Ratings for theAttitudinal Statements by Cluster .............................................................. 93

Figure 51: Proportions of Countries in the Clusters .................................................... 95


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 ofTotal 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 forAny 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 assessthe quality of beef just by looking at it" ..................................................... 74

Table 19: Average Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators byAgreement with the Statement "You can assess the qualityof beef just by looking at it" ..................................................................... 75


Table 20: Rankings of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreement with theStatement "You can assess the quality of beef just by looking at it." ......... 76

Table 21: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Meat ConsumptionAccording to Cluster................................................................................. 94


Tables of the Appendix

Page

Table A1: Household Size in the Sample and Household Sizeof the Official Statistics (in %) ................................................................106

Table A2: Age-groups in the Sample and Age-groups of theOfficial Statistics 1996 (in %)...................................................................106

Table A3: Household Income Decile by Household Size (in %) ................................106

Table A4: Consumer Prices for Selected Food Products in1988 in ECU (Sweden not available).......................................................107

Table A5: Sociodemographic Characteristics by Changes inBeef Consumption and Country ...............................................................108

Table A6: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers by Employment (in %) ..........108

Table A7: Consumption Frequencies by Household Income forTwo Person Households - Total Sample...................................................109

Table A8: Chicken Consumption by Employment (in %) ..........................................110

Table A9: Sociodemographic Characteristics of Low, Medium andHeavy 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 SafetyCharacteristics 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 theStatement "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 neverserve a meal without meat for visitors."....................................................114

Table A16: Level of Agreement With the Statement "I would never servea meal without meat for visitors" by Age-groups (in %) ...........................114

Table A17: Level of Agreement With the Statement "Meat is an essentialpart of a meal" by Age-groups (in %) .......................................................115

Table A18: SAS-Output of Cluster Analysis..............................................................116


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.


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.


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

Female Male

Germany 77 23Ireland 87 13Italy 83 17Spain 89 11Sweden 75 25United Kingdom 85 15

Source: own calculations

1 The countries in all tables and figures are arranged in alphabetical order.


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 %)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden UnitedKingdom

60 and more

50-59

40-49

30-39

Under 30

45.8 47.344.2 45.242.9 45.9 Average Age


In comparison with official statistics, consumers between the age of 15-29 are under-

represented 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


Sweden, the United Kingdom and in Germany, it is more evenly distributed over the age-

groups represented in the total population.

Figure 2: Age-groups in the Sample: Deviations from the TotalPopulation (in %)

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15


%

15-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60 and over

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 two-

person households.


Figure 3: Distribution of Households by Size (in %)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


6 people and more5 people4 people3 people2 people1 person

2.73.4 3.72.9 3.9 2.8 Average Size


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

Average numberGermany 0.67Ireland 1.18Italy 0.63Spain 0.64Sweden 0.67United Kingdom 0.70



Figure 4: Distribution of Households by Number of Children Under16 years of age (in %)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


4 children and more

3 children

2 children

1 child

No children


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 full-

time education at the age of 18.8 years.


Figure 5: Distribution of Age at which Respondents Completeda Full-time Education (in %)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


21 and over20191817Under 17

18.817.8 17.020.4 17.7 17.1 Average Age


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


EducationalLevel

Years % Years % Years % Years % Years % Years %

Low < 19 39.0 < 17 35.0 < 15 28.5 < 15 40.4 < 17 36.1 < 16 29.1Middle 19-20 26.5 17-18 37.4 15-19 42.5 15-18 29.5 17-19 32.7 16-17 41.0High > 20 34.6 > 18 27.6 >19 29.0 > 18 30.2 > 19 31.2 > 17 29.9



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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Decile 9+10

Decile 7+8

Decile 5+6

Decile 3+4

Decile 1+2


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


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)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


male

female

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


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)

Women MenGermany 48.3 70.2Ireland 33.2 68.2Italy 37.4 55.8Spain 18.5 41.5Sweden 59.9 58.1United Kingdom 46.0 49.3


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.


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.


Table 5: Per Capita of Several Food Categories in 1985 and 1995 (in kg)

Year Germany Ireland Italy Spain UnitedKingdom

Cereals 1985 74.3 100.7 118.1 74.7 74.21995 72.3 79.4 122.2 72.2 81.7

Potatoes 1985 77.7 140.2 38.6 110.9 105.91995 72.8 170.3 39.4 86.9 104.7

Sugar 1985 36.7 39.3 29.0 23.1 42.51995 33.0 39.2 27.3 29.7 36.2

Vegetables 1985 75.1 85.1 176.9 151.1 80.11995 81.3 83.3 177.3 157.0 86.71)

Fruit (without citrus) 1985 48.6 31.7 68.4 66.2 46.01995 63.7 22.7 77.2 67.0 37.51)

Meat 1985 101.1 90.5 84.5 87.1 74.81995 91.7 90.6 89.41) 111.0 73.6

Eggs 1985 17.0 12.4 11.4 17.1 13.51995 13.7 9.2 10.51) 14.91) 10.1

Cheese 1985 14.5 4.2 15.4 4.62) 6.31995 18.3 5.9 18.0 7.61) 7.7

1) 19942) 1990

Source: 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


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.


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)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


kg p

er h

ead

and

year fish

meat & meat prod.cheesemilkfruit&citrusvegetablepotatoes

Source: 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.


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.


• 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


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 HouseholdExpenditure, 19941 (Italy: 1993, Sweden: 1992, Spain: 1990/91)

Expenditures on Food Away FromHome (% of Total Expenditure)

Germany(4-person households of wage earners andsalaried employees with medium income)

3.40

Italy 4.45Ireland 2.70Spain 4.35 (restaurants), 5.67 (bars,

coffee houses, pubs etc.), 0.6(Others)

Sweden 3.04United Kingdom 2.49

1) The Swedish expenditures on food are not based on total household expenditures but on disposablehousehold income!

Source: 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

3.3 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.


Figure 9: Gross Domestic Product per Capita 1995 (in ECU) and Share ofHousehold Income Spent on Food without Beverages (1994)1

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000


GD

P p

er c

apita

(in

EC

U)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

food

exp

endi

ture

(in

%)

GDP per head 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 consumptionare 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.


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)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

kg p

er h

ead

GermanyIrelandItalySpainSwedenUnited KingdomEU-12

Source: 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


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)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


kg

mutton, lamb, goatpoultry

pork

beef & veal

Source: ZMP 1997, Statistisches Bundesamt (1997)

4.2 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 con-

sumption 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.


Figure 12: Per Capita Consumption of Pork in kg per Year, 1987-1996(Sweden: 1989-96)

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

kg p

er h

ead

GermanyIrelandItalySpainSwedenUnited Kingdom


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)

Hog and Pig(head/inhabitant)

Cattle(head/inhabitant)

Sheep and Goat(head/inhabitant)

Germany 0.27 0.16 0.02

United Kingdom 0.14 0.20 0.51

Ireland 0.42 1.77 1.68Sweden 0.26 0.21 0.05

Spain 0.47 0.13 0.61

Italy 0.15 0.13 0.18

Source: 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


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 con-

sumption 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)

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

kg p

er h

ead

GermanyIrelandItaly

SpainSwedenUnited Kingdom


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.


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)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

kg p

er h

ead



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


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)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

kg p

er h

ead



4.3 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 %).


Figure 16: Frequency of Beef Consumption per Week by Country

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Never Less often than once a week Once Twice Three and more


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 20-

30 % of the British, Irish, Italian and Spanish respondents do not consume pork at all.

Figure 17: Frequency of Pork Consumption per Week by Country

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




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.


Presumably the strong decrease in beef consumption in these countries has been at least

been partially compensated by chicken consumption.

Table 8: Quantitative Changes in Meat Consumption since 1992 (in % ofRespondents)

BEEF PORK CHICKENLess More No

ChangeLess More No

ChangeLess More No

Change

Germany 51.2 3.0 45.8 35.1 8.8 56.1 11.5 28.6 59.9

Ireland 49.2 5.6 45.2 22.3 11.2 66.5 11.4 39.2 49.4

Italy 39.3 10.0 50.7 25.8 10.1 64.1 11.8 36.1 52.1

Spain 24.5 15.6 59.9 28.9 11.8 59.3 15.1 18.8 66.1

Sweden 22.0 11.1 66.9 19.6 9.9 70.5 13.6 19.6 66.8

UnitedKingdom

46.5 3.8 49.7 16.8 9.5 73.6 6.7 33.5 59.9


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 quali-

ty/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


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 PORK CHICKENButcher Mega-,

Hyper-,Supermarke

t

Other Butcher

Mega-,Hyper-,

Supermarket

Other Butcher Mega-,Hyper-,

Supermarket

Other

Germany 60.2 21.3 18.5 60.1 26.4 13.5 18.5 50.1 31.4

Ireland 62.1 27.9 10.0 55.1 40.0 4.9 32.5 59.9 7.6

Italy 61.3 30.5 8.2 54.1 33.5 12.4 43.9 35.2 20.9

Spain 53.3 24.8 21.9 49.6 29.2 21.2 44.1 31.2 24.7

UnitedKingdom

37.6 57.7 4.7 32.4 62.3 5.3 18.1 75.7 6.2

Sweden 3.4 82.4 14.2 3.4 81.9 14.7 1.6 80.4 18.0


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.


Table 10: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers (in %)

Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden UKLow 23.6 14.1 15.5 9.8 11.4 19.8

Medium 67.0 62.5 59.0 49.0 75.3 63.5

Heavy 9.4 23.4 25.6 41.2 13.4 16.7


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.


Table 11: Differences Between Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers

AverageMeatConsumption

Age Householdsize

Number ofchildren

Years ofeducation

Householdincome(deciles)

Low 43.7 2.4 0.59 21.2 3.7Germany Medium 42.3 2.9 0.66 20.1 4.0

Heavy 44.0 3.6 0.98 20.9 4.9

Low 46.5 3.4 1.01 17.7 5.6Ireland Medium 45.4 3.8 1.17 17.7 5.7

Heavy 46.3 4.1 1.34 17.8 6.2

Low 48.2 3.0 0.52 17.8 4.1Italy Medium 44.2 3.3 0.60 17.8 4.7

Heavy 42.2 3.8 0.76 17.4 4.7

Low 54.6 2.5 0.10 16.1 3.1Spain Medium 46.0 3.6 0.62 17.2 4.4

Heavy 41.9 4.0 0.81 17.0 4.6

Low 49.9 2.1 0.39 17.1 5.4Sweden Medium 46.7 2.7 0.67 19.0 6.1

Heavy 37.1 3.1 0.95 19.0 6.7

Low 50.1 2.6 0.66 17.5 5.2UK Medium 47.3 2.8 0.68 16.9 5.6

Heavy 44.2 3.2 0.82 16.9 6.0


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


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


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.


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.


Figure 19: Quality Model

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)

'Quality in the shop'

Intrinsic Indicators:

− Colour− Marbling (except

chicken)

− Leanness

Extrinsic Indicators:

− Quality labels

− Place of purchase

− Price

− Country of origin

'Eating quality'

− Flavour

− Tenderness

− Colour

− Smell

− Leanness

− Juiciness

− Free of gristle

− Texture


− 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


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.


Figure 20: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Beef

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Colour

Marbling

Leanness

Brand/Label

Place of purchase

Price

Contry of origin


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.


Figure 21: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Pork

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Colour

Marbling

Leanness

Brand/Label

Place of purchase

Price

Contry of origin


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.


Figure 22: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Chicken

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Colour

Leanness

Brand/Label

Place of purchase

Price

Contry of origin


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 %).


Table 12: Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop'Characteristics - Results of a t-Test


BEEF1st rank origin,

placecolour,place,

leanness,origin

colour,place

place,colour

colour,origin,label

colour,leanness

2nd rank leanness,colour

marbling,label

origin leanness,origin,

marbling,label

marbling place,marbling,

label

3rd rank marbling,label

price marbling,label,

leanness

price leanness price,origin

4th rank price price place,price

PORK1st rank place, colour,

leanness,place

colour,place

colour,place

colour,origin

colour,leanness

2nd rank origin,colour,

leanness

origin origin,marbling,

label,leanness

leanness,marbling,

label,origin

label place

3rd rank label,marbling

label,marbling

price price marbling marbling,label,price

4th rank price price leanness origin

5th rank place

6th rank price

CHICKEN1st rank place,

origin,leanness,colour,label

colour colour colour,place

origin colour

2nd rank price leanness,place

place,origin

leanness label leanness

3rd rank origin,label

leanness,label

label,origin

colour place,label

4th rank price price price price,leanness,

place

price

5th rank origin



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.


Figure 23: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Beef

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Flavour

Tenderness

Colour

Smell

Leanness

Juiciness

Gristle

Texture


Figure 24: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Pork

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Flavour

Tenderness

Colour

Smell

Leanness

Juiciness

Gristle

Texture



Figure 25: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Chicken

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Flavour

Tenderness

Colour

Smell

Leanness

Juiciness

Gristle

Texture


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.


Table 13: Significant Differences in the Importance of 'Eating Quality 'Characteristics - Results of a t-Test


BEEF1st rank tenderness,

juiciness,flavour,smell

tenderness,flavour

flavour flavour,tenderness,

juiciness


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

4th rank leanness colour

5th rank gristle leanness

PORK1st rank flavour,


smell

flavour,tenderness

flavour smell,flavour,


colour


gristle,smell,

texture,colour,

leanness,juiciness

2nd rank colour,texture,gristle,

leanness

leanness,texture,colour,smell,gristle,

juiciness

tenderness,texture,smell,

juiciness,colour

texture tenderness,juiciness,

smell,texture

3rd rank leanness,gristle

leanness colour,gristle

4th rank gristle leanness


Table 13 continue

CHICKEN1st rank flavour,

smell,tenderness,juiciness

flavour,tenderness,

smell,colour,texture,

leanness,gristle,

juiciness

flavour flavour,smell,

juiciness,colour,

tenderness

flavour flavour

2nd rank colour,leanness

smell,texture,colour,

tenderness,juiciness

texture smell,tenderness,juiciness,texture

tenderness

3rd rank texture,gristle

leanness leanness colour smell,gristle,texture,colour,

leanness,juiciness

4th rank gristle gristle gristle

5th rank leanness


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.


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


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'.


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

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Feed

Brand/Label

Name of producer

Organically produced

Country of origin

Price

Freshness



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

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Feed

Brand/Label

Name of producer

Organically produced

Country of origin

Price

Freshness


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.


Figure 28: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Chicken

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry h

elpf

ul, 5

=no

t at a

ll he

lpfu

l)

Feed

Brand/Label

Name of producer

Free range

Country of origin

Price

Freshness


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.


Table 14: Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Safety' Characteristics -Results of a t-Test


BEEF1st rank origin,

freshnessfreshness feed freshness freshness freshness

2nd rank feed origin freshness feed,organic,origin

origin label,feed

3rd rank organic,producer,

label

feed,organic,

label

origin,label

organicproducer

label label origin,organic

4th rank price producer price producer,price

feed price

5th rank price organic producer

6th rank price,producer

PORK1st rank freshness freshness feed,

freshnessfreshness freshness freshness

2nd rank feed,origin,

organic,label,

producer

origin,label,feed,

organic

organic,label,origin,

producer

feed,organic

origin label,organic,

feed

3rd rank price producer price origin,label

label price,origin

4th rank price producer,price

feed producer

5th rank organic

6th rank price,producer

CHICKEN1st rank freshness freshness feed,

freshnessfreshness freshness freshness

2nd rank free range free range,origin

free range free range,feed

origin free range,label,feed

3rd rank feed label,producer,

feed

label,origin,

producer

label,origin

label price,origin

4th rank origin price price producer,price

feed producer

5th rank label free range

6th rank producer producer

7th rank price price



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.


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.


Figure 29: Average Ratings of Concerns - Beef

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry c

once

rned

, 5=

not a

t all

conc

erne

d)

Hormones

Antibiotics

Fat/Cholesterol

Salmonella

BSE


Figure 30: Average Ratings of Concerns - Pork

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry c

once

rned

, 5=

not a

t all

conc

erne

d)

Hormones

Antibiotics

Fat/Cholesterol

Salmonella



Figure 31: Average Ratings of Concerns - Chicken

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4


Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ve

ry c

once

rned

, 5=

not a

t all

conc

erne

d)

Hormones

Antibiotics

Fat/Cholesterol

Salmonella


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.


Table 15: Significant Differences in Concerns About Meat - Results of a t-Test


BEEF1st rank BSE,

hormones,antibiotics

hormones,antibiotics,salmonella,

BSE

hormones,BSE,

antibiotics,salmonella

hormones antibiotics,BSE,

salmonella,hormones

salmonella,antibiotics,

BSE,hormones

2nd rank salmonella fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol antibiotics,salmonella

fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol

3rd rank fat/cholesterol BSE

4th rank fat/cholesterol

PORK1st rank antibiotics,

hormonessalmonella,antibiotics,hormones

hormones,salmonella,antibiotics,

fat/cholesterol

hormones,salmonella,antibiotics

salmonella,antibiotics,hormones

salmonella

2nd rank salmonella fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol antibiotics,hormones,

fat/cholesterol

3rd rank fat/cholesterol

CHICKEN1st rank salmonella salmonella hormones,

salmonella,antibiotics

hormones,salmonella

salmonella salmonella

2nd rank hormones,antibiotics

antibiotics fat/cholesterol antibiotics antibiotics antibiotics,hormones

3rd rank fat/cholesterol hormones fat/cholesterol hormones fat/cholesterol

4th rank fat/cholesterol fat/cholesterol


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


concerned about BSE decreased their beef consumption, only 18 % of those who were

not at all concerned had reduced it.


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: Number of Respondents Who Do Not Look for Any Symbols or LabelsWhen Buying Meat


Beef 271 281 415 357 212 256

Pork 283 334 413 371 191 311

Chicken 256 202 326 333 206 266

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


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.


Table 17: Most Trusted Sources of Information about Meat


1 Independent re-tailers/butchers

Butchers in thesupermarket

Independent re-tailers/butchers




2 Butchers in thesupermarket






3 ConsumerGroups

Own opinion Department ofHealth

Department ofHealth

Newspapers Own opinion

4 Magazines Reports Friends ConsumerGroups

Own opinion Newspapers

5 Reports Farmerrepresentatives

ConsumerGroups

Own opinion Friends Government

6 Friends Newspapers Reports Government Food safetyboard

Labelling


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


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.


Table 18: Information Sources Most Trusted (Frequencies in % of All Answers)


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 FamilyMember

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


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.


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.


Figure 32: Level of Agreement with the Statement, "You can assess the quality ofbeef in the shop just by looking at it."

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts

Agree

Disagree

Neither


Figure 33: Level of Agreement with the Statement, "You can assess the quality ofpork in the shop just by looking at it."

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts

Agree

Disagree

Neither



Figure 34: Level of Agreement with the Statement, "You can assess the quality ofchicken in the shop just by looking at it."

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts

Agree

Disagree

Neither


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.


Table 19: Average Age by Agreement with Statement, "You can assess thequality of beef just by looking at it"

TotalSample


Agree 47.0 47.7 47.8 45.9 45.6 46.0 50.0Disagree 42.6 40.5 42.8 41.7 40.2 46.1 44.1Significance(Prob.>|H|)

0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.9471 0.001


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.


Table 20: Average Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreementwith the Statement, "You can assess the quality of beef just by lookingat it"

Colour Marbling Leanness Brand/Label

Place ofPurchase

Price Origin

Total Sample Agree 1.42 1.91 1.89 2.12 1.73 2.48 1.74Disagree 1.73 2.13 2.04 2.01 1.76 2.77 1.72

Significance Prob.>|T| 0.0001 0.0001 0.0049 0.0735 0.4953 0.0001 0.7322

Germany Agree 1.69 1.97 1.69 2.25 1.68 2.96 1.48Disagree 2.15 2.23 2.00 2.19 1.62 3.27 1.57


Ireland Agree 1.21 1.83 1.34 2.10 1.33 2.19 1.38Disagree 1.35 1.71 1.31 1.78 1.21 2.45 1.43


Italy Agree 1.36 2.07 2.28 2.31 1.51 2.44 1.81Disagree 1.59 2.28 2.61 2.04 1.47 2.80 1.79


Spain Agree 1.56 2.03 2.01 2.51 1.53 2.56 1.98Disagree 1.91 2.40 2.25 2.26 1.67 2.91 1.90


Sweden Agree 1.44 1.83 2.26 1.67 2.52 2.73 1.60Disagree 1.73 2.18 2.46 1.80 2.67 2.81 1.54


United Kingdom Agree 1.34 1.78 1.52 1.86 1.77 2.20 2.07Disagree 1.54 2.00 1.47 2.04 1.89 2.16 2.26



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.


Table 21: Rankings of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreementwith the Statement, "You can assess the quality of beef justby looking at it."


Those who agree1st rank Origin, Place,

Colour,Leanness

Colour, Place,Leanness,

Origin

Colour, Place Colour, Place Colour Colour

2nd rank Marbling,Brand/Label

Marbling,Brand/Label,

Price

Origin,Marbling

Origin,Leanness,Marbling,

Brand/Label

Origin,Brand/Label,

Marbling

Leanness

3rd rank Price Leanness Price Leanness Place,Marbling,

Brand/Label

4th rank Brand/Label,Price

Place, Price Origin, Price

Those who disagree1st rank Origin, Place Place,

Leanness,Colour,Origin

Place, Colour Place, Colour,Origin,

Brand/Label,Leanness

Origin Leanness,Colour

2nd rank Colour,Leanness,

Brand/Label,Marbling

Brand/Label Origin Price Colour,Brand/Label

Place,Brand/Label,Price, Origin,

Marbling

3rd rank Price Marbling,Price

Brand/Label Marbling Marbling,Leanness,

Place, Price

4th rank Leanness,Price,

Marbling



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


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 newrecipes."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 36: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I do not like cooking very muchbut it is a job which has to be done."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 37: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I would never serve a mealwithout meat."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 38: Level of Agreement with Statement, "Meat is an essential partof a meal."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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


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 fromanimals which I know have been treated well."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly



Figure 40: Level of Agreement with Statement, "We should have more respectfor animals."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 41: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I prefer to buy food which isproduced locally."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


Figure 42: Level of Agreement with Statement, "It is important that I know thecountry where the meat I buy has been produced."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly



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 proteinlike meat."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 44: Level of Agreement with Statement, "Meat is essential for abalanced diet."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 45: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I always check the nutritionallabelling on foods before buying them."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 46: Level of Agreement with Statement, "I am confident that food in theshops is safe."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


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.


Figure 47: Level of Agreement with Statement, "You have to be prepared to paya higher price to get good quality meat."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly


Figure 48: Level of Agreement with Statement, "Price is the main thingI consider when buying meat."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly



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)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Income Decile

Ave

rag

e R

atin

g(1

=ag

ree

stro

ngly

, 5=

disa

gree

str

ongl

y)



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 low-

correlated 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)


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.


Figure 50: Deviations from the Average Ratings for the AttitudinalStatements by Cluster

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

Status Role ofPrice

Animalwelfare

Origin Trust inSafety

Nutritionalvalue

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Abo

ve a

vera

ge a

gree

men

tB

elow

ave

rage

agr

eem

ent


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.


Table 22: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Meat Consumption Accordingto Cluster

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3Average household size 3.3 3.1 3.2Average number of children under 16 0.71 0.67 0.88Average age 46.5 45.7 43.3Average income level 4.8 5.0 5.6Average years of full-time education 17.5 17.7 19.1Beef consumption

Never 15.7 % 15.0 % 24.1 %Less than once a week 12.4 % 20.0 % 19.7 %Once 25.7 % 26.3 % 26.4 %Twice 24.2 % 22.5 % 16.7 %Three or more times 21.9 % 16.2 % 13.2 %

Pork consumptionNever 19.7 % 20.7 % 22.7 %Less than once a week 18.2 % 21.5 % 22.2 %Once 31.5 % 30.5 % 29.6 %Twice 18.0 % 16.0 % 16.1 %Three or more times 12.6 % 11.5 % 9.4 %

Chicken consumptionNever 5.5 % 6.3 % 5.3 %Less than once a week 17.3 % 28.2 % 24.5 %Once 32.2 % 27.8 % 30.9 %Twice 25.3 % 20.4 % 21.4 %Three or more times 19.8 % 17.4 % 18.0 %


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.


Figure 51: Proportions of Countries in the Clusters

Spain17%

Germany13%United Kingdom

15%

Sweden12%

Italy19% Ireland

24%

Spain21%

Germany10%United Kingdom

16%

Sweden29%

Italy17%

Ireland7%

Spain13%

Germany26%

United Kingdom19%

Sweden13%

Italy14% Ireland

15%


CLUSTER1(n=1168)

CLUSTER2(n=783)

CLUSTER3


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.


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,


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.


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.


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


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.


12 References

AJZEN, Icek (1988), Attitudes, personality and behavior (Mapping Social PsychologySeries). Milton Keynes.

ANDERSON, Eugene W. and Steven M. SHUGAN (1991), Repositioning for ChangingPreferences: The Case of Beef versus Poultry. In: Journal of Consumer Research18 (1991), pp. 219-232.

ANDERSSON, Hans and Ruben HOFFMANN (1997), National Report on ConsumerBehaviour – The Case of Sweden. Working Paper, Uppsala.

ASKEGAARD, Søren and Tage Koed MADSEN (1995), European Food Cultures: AnExploratory Analysis of Food Related Preferences and Behaviour in EuropeanRegions. MAPP Working paper no. 26, Århus.

BAKER , Gregory A. and Peter J. CROSBIE (1994), Consumer Preferences for FoodSafety Attributes: A Market Segment Approach, in: Agribusiness, Vol. 10, No. 4,pp. 319-324.

BECKER, Tilman, Eckhard BENNER and Kristina GLITSCH (1997), Consumer BehaviourTowards Meat in Germany - Results of a Consumer Survey. Working Paper,Göttingen.

BECKER, Tilman, Eckhard BENNER and Kristina GLITSCH (1996), Consumer Character-istics and Behaviour Towards Meat and Meat Products in Germany, the UnitedKingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Spain and Italy - A Preliminary Synthesis of theNational Reports. Working Paper, Göttingen.

BORRUD, Lori, Cecilia Wilkinson ENNS and Sharon MICKLE (1996), What We Eat inAmerica: 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 ofNational and Crossnational Consumer Segments Using the Food-related LifestyleInstrument in Denmark, France, Germany and Great Britain. MAPP Workingpaper no. 35, Århus.

CONNOR, John M. (1994), North America as a precursor of changes in Western Euro-pean food-purchasing patterns. In: European Review of Agricultural Economics21 (1994), pp. 157-173.

COWAN, Cathal and Michael MANNION (1997), Ireland – Consumer Perceptions of MeatQuality. Working Paper, Dublin.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1995), Die Lage der Landwirtschaft in der EuropäischenUnion, Bericht 1994. Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der EuropäischenGemeinschaften, Luxemburg.


EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1997), Die Lage der Landwirtschaft in der EuropäischenUnion, Bericht 1996. Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der EuropäischenGemeinschaften, Luxemburg.

EUROSTAT (1997), Bevölkerungsstatistik 1997, Luxemburg.

EUROSTAT (1995), Frauen und Männer in der Europäischen Union - Ein statistischesPortrait. 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 nachNahrungsmitteln und Fleisch in Spanien (Social welfare development and fooddemand: Foundation and empirical analysis in the case of the demand for foodand meat in Spain). In: Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 5, Volks- undBetriebswirtschaft; 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 Statisticsfor the Behavioral Sciences, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

GIL, José M., A. GRACIA and L. PÉREZ Y PÉREZ (1995), Food consumption andeconomic development in the European Union. In: European Review ofAgricultural Economics 22 (1995), pp. 385-399.

GRUNERT, Klaus G. (1996), What's in a Steak? A Cross-Cultural Study on the QualityPerception of Beef. MAPP Working Paper no. 39, Århus.

HEERMANN, Emil F. and Larry A. BRASKAMP (eds.) (1970) Readings in Statistics for theBehavioral Sciences, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

HERRMANN, Robert O., Rex H. WARLAND and Arthur STERNGOLD (1997), Who Reactsto 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 convergeinternationally? Measurement, empirical tests and determinants. In: EuropeanReview of Agricultural Economics 22 (1995), pp. 400-414.

HENSON, Spencer and James NORTHEN (1997), National Report on Consumers of Meatin the UK: Volume2. Working Paper, Reading.

HOFF, K. and R. CLAES (1997) Der Einfluß von Skandalen und Gemeinschaftswerbungauf 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.


JENSEN, Helen H. and Steven T. YEN (1995), Wife’s Employment and Food Expendi-tures Away From Home. In: Karen F. FOLK (ed.) (1995), Consumer InterestsAnnual 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 ofMeat 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 ChangingConsumer, St. Paul, Minnesota.

STATISTICS SWEDEN (SCB) (1994), The Family Food Expenditure Survey 1992 − FinalReport. Orebro, Sweden.

STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1994), Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland 1994.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 inDeveloped Countries. In: TRAILL, Bruce (ed.) (1989), Prospects for theEuropean Food System. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels,Belgium.

ZMP (Zentrale Markt- und Preisberichtstelle GmbH), Agrarmärkte in Zahlen,Europäische Union. Various yearbooks, Berlin.


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.


APPENDIX B: Tables

Table A1: Age-groups in the Sample and Age-groups of the Official Statistics,1996 (in %)

Age-groups15-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and

over

Germany Sample 18.8 26.5 25.1 14.9 14.7

Official Statistics 23.1 20.0 15.8 16.0 25.1

Ireland Sample 7.5 27.4 29.3 18.5 17.3


Italy Sample 15.9 24.0 23.4 21.2 15.5


Spain Sample 13.7 24.7 25.4 18.5 17.7


Sweden Sample 17.8 20.4 21.6 19.6 20.4


UK Sample 12.3 22.4 20.0 21.2 24.1


Source: EUROSTAT (1997), own calculations

Table A2: Household Size in the Sample and Household Size of the OfficialStatistics (in %)

Household Size (in %)

1 2 3 4 5 or more

Germany Sample 14.9 29.5 22.9 23.1 9.6

Official Statistics 1995 34.9 32.1 15.8 12.4 4.7

Ireland Sample 8.84 19.1 17.1 20.3 34.8


Italy Sample 6.0 19.2 28.4 29.4 17.0


Spain Sample 4.6 18.8 22.4 28.8 25.4


Sweden Sample 21.8 33.3 16.8 15.4 12.6


UK Sample 14.8 34.0 20.8 19.4 11.0


Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (1997), own calculations


Table A3: Household Income Decile by Household Size (in %)

Income Deciles Household Size (number of persons)1 2 3 4 5 6 and more

1+2 46.5 24.5 19.6 13.5 14.3 12.2

3+4 26.7 23.9 23.2 21.2 22.2 23.1

5+6 18.8 17.8 19.4 21.0 19.4 23.1

7+8 5.6 20.2 21.7 27.2 27.8 20.4

9+10 2.4 13.6 16.0 17.2 16.3 21.1

Sum 100 100 100 100 100 100


Table A4: Consumer Prices for Selected Food Products in 1988 in ECU(Sweden not available)

Germany Ireland Italy Spain UnitedKingdom

Trout, fresh, 1 kg 7.02 7.38 4.80 3.55 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 notavailable

2.76

Bacon, streaky bacon, 1 kg 5.68 4.04 6.65 4.69 3.45

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

Potatoes (most commonvariety), 1 kg

notavailable

0.42 0.25 0.16 0.45

Source: EUROSTAT (1990) and own calculations


Table A5: Sociodemographic Characteristics by Changes in Beef Consumptionand Country

Changes Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden UnitedKingdom

Average income More 3.6 6.5 4.0 4.8 6.0 4.9level Less 4.1 6.1 4.7 4.3 5.9 5.8

No change 4.0 5.4 4.9 4.2 6.3 5.4

Average age More 38.8 44.3 40.8 41.2 43.4 42.2Less 44.2 46.1 46.1 48.3 51.4 47.2No change 41.6 45.4 43.6 44.5 44.4 47.8

Average number of More 20.0 18.0 17.3 16.5 19.4 17.4years of full-time Less 20.1 17.6 17.6 17.5 19.0 17.3education No change 20.2 17.8 18.0 17.0 18.6 16.8

Average number of More 1.0 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.7children under 16 Less 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8

No change 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6

Average household More 3.3 4.5 3.9 3.9 2.4 3.6size Less 2.8 3.7 3.3 3.5 2.5 2.9

No change 2.9 4.0 3.4 3.7 2.8 2.7


Table A6: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers by Employment (in %)

Respondents Low Medium Heavy

Germany employed 24.6 67.0 8.3

not empl. 22.3 67.0 10.7

Ireland employed 15.3 63.0 21.7

not empl. 13.2 62.3 24.5

Italy employed 16.8 57.7 25.5

not empl. 14.5 59.9 25.6

Spain employed 6.8 54.5 38.6

not empl. 10.5 47.8 41.8

Sweden employed 10.2 75.3 14.5

not empl. 12.9 75.2 11.9

UK employed 16.7 64.8 18.5

not empl. 22.3 62.5 15.2Source: own calculations


Table A7: Consumption Frequencies by Household Income for Two PersonHouseholds - Total Sample

a) Beef

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Decile1+2 Decile3+4 Decile5+6 Decile7+8 Decile9+10

Income class

Res

po

nd

ents Three or more times

Twice

OnceLess than once a week

Never

b) Pork

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Income class

Res

po

nd


TwiceOnce

Less than once a weekNever

c) Chicken

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Income class

Res

po

nd


Twice

Once

Less than once a weekNever



Table A8: Chicken Consumption by Employment (in %)

Respondents Never Less oftenthan oncea month

Less thanonce a

week ...

Once Twice Three timesand more

Germany employed 6.4 11.7 27.9 34.7 13.6 5.7

not empl. 11.0 11.4 29.4 30.7 11.4 6.1

Ireland employed 4.2 4.2 4.2 32.3 26.5 28.6

not empl. 4.8 4.2 4.2 30.6 29.0 27.1

Italy employed 6.0 14.5 5.5 25.5 32.0 16.5

not empl. 6.1 10.5 2.7 31.2 28.8 20.7

Spain employed 2.3 2.3 1.1 29.5 31.8 33.0

not empl. 2.7 2.2 4.2 25.9 32.5 32.5

Sweden employed 7.0 6.0 53.3 27.7 5.3 0.7

not empl. 12.7 7.1 43.4 29.7 5.7 1.4

UK employed 1.3 2.2 4.8 36.2 27.5 27.9

not empl. 3.3 3.7 8.9 34.6 26.8 22.7Source: own calculations

Table A9: Sociodemographic Characteristics of Low, Medium and HeavyChicken Consumers

Averages

Frequency of ChickenConsumption

Age Number ofChildren

Years ofEducation

Income

Less than once a month 43.6 0.60 20.7 3.7Germany Once a month to once a week 43.2 0.65 20.2 4.0

Twice a week and more 40.9 0.86 20.4 4.5Less than once a month 46.1 0.89 18.1 4.9

Ireland Once a month to once a week 45.5 1.26 17.5 5.6Twice a week and more 46.1 1.18 17.8 6.1Less than once a month 46.6 0.51 17.5 4.6

Italy Once a month to once a week 45.2 0.60 18.0 5.0Twice a week and more 42.7 0.70 17.7 4.4Less than once a month 43.9 0.37 17.2 4.7

Spain Once a month to once a week 46.0 0.53 17.8 5.2Twice a week and more 44.9 0.71 16.7 3.9Less than once a month 47.3 0.57 18.4 5.7

Sweden Once a month to once a week 46.1 0.67 18.8 6.3Twice a week and more 38.4 0.97 19.1 5.6Less than once a month 53.3 0.45 17.3 4.8

UK Once a month to once a week 48.9 0.59 16.9 5.2Twice a week and more 45.4 0.83 17.1 6.0



Table A10: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the 'Quality inthe Shop'-Characteristics and for each Type of Meat (in % ofrespondents of each country)

Colour Marbling Leanness Brand/Label

Place ofPurchase

Price Countryof Origin

Beef 0.9 8.2 5.4 2.8 0.6 0.9 1.4Germany Pork 0.9 9.6 3.4 2.5 0.9 0.5 1.6

Chicken 3.1 – 6.3 2.0 1.1 1.1 2.8

Beef 1.5 16.1 1.7 4.7 1.5 2.2 3.2Ireland Pork 2.3 17.8 2.3 3.7 2.3 2.8 3.1

Chicken 0.4 – 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.8

Beef 1.3 17.1 3.5 4.4 0.4 1.1 3.1Italy Pork 1.1 19.3 1.7 3.1 0.8 0.8 4.5

Chicken 1.1 – 4.5 3.2 2.1 1.7 24.9

Beef 1.7 49.3 5.6 7.3 1.2 2.2 5.1Spain Pork 3.4 46.8 6.3 9.2 2.9 2.9 10.0

Chicken 2.1 – 6.8 7.6 1.9 1.9 10.9

Beef 2.2 7.2 3.0 3.3 2.2 1.7 1.3Sweden Pork 2.4 7.6 1.5 3.7 2.8 2.4 1.3

Chicken 12.0 – 8.2 4.0 2.2 3.8 2.9

Beef 1.1 10.2 1.1 2.8 0.8 1.1 1.4UK Pork 1.1 9.0 1.3 3.7 1.3 1.1 2.1

Chicken 1.4 – 3.3 2.7 1.8 1.8 3.5



Table A11: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the SafetyCharacteristics and for each Type of Meat (in %)

Feed Brand/Label

Name ofproducer

Organic/Free range

Countryof Origin

Price Fresh-ness

Beef 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 0.8 1.1 0.6Germany Pork 2.9 1.8 2.2 3.1 0.4 0.9 0.2

Chicken 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1

Beef 2.0 3.0 1.7 4.0 1.2 1.5 1.0Ireland Pork 3.4 2.3 3.4 4.5 1.7 2.5 1.4

Chicken 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.2

Beef 1.3 3.5 5.3 21.4 3.3 2.2 1.5Italy Pork 0.6 2.2 2.2 24.1 3.4 1.4 0.3

Chicken 1.3 3.2 3.0 5.3 4.9 2.6 0.9

Beef 9.5 8.0 12.6 8.5 4.9 2.7 1.2Spain Pork 7.9 8.9 14.2 10.0 10.8 3.9 1.1

Chicken 9.0 8.6 11.5 2.5 8.6 3.5 0.8

Beef 7.8 2.4 6.1 3.7 0.7 1.5 1.5Sweden Pork 9.2 1.7 5.0 3.5 0.4 2.2 0.7

Chicken 7.5 1.3 3.8 5.5 0.9 3.1 2.4

Beef 1.9 1.7 2.8 3.0 1.4 1.1 1.1UK Pork 2.1 1.9 1.3 3.7 0.8 0.8 0.3

Chicken 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.6 2.7 0.6 0.2



Table A12: Consumption Changes by Degree of Concern About Hormones,Antibiotics, Fat/Cholesterol, Salmonella and BSE - Beef (in %)

Consumption changes

Less More No change Don't know

Very concerned 36.4 9.3 53.2 1.1Quite concerned 32.3 9.9 56.8 1.1

Hormones Neither 23.8 7.5 65.0 3.8Not very concerned 26.7 9.7 62.1 1.5Not at all concerned 24.9 11.7 63.5 0.0


Antibiotics Neither 26.4 10.3 60.9 2.3Not very concerned 27.0 8.5 63.5 1.0Not at all concerned 22.7 12.1 65.2 0.0


Fat/cholesterol Neither 33.9 8.3 57.8 0.0Not very concerned 30.7 10.0 58.8 0.6Not at all concerned 26.0 11.5 62.2 0.3


Salmonella orother bacteria

Neither 36.2 5.8 58.0 0.0

Not very concerned 31.9 8.1 59.0 1.1Not at all concerned 25.6 15.7 57.4 1.4


BSE Neither 19.8 12.8 67.4 0.0Not very concerned 20.0 9.5 69.5 1.1Not at all concerned 17.5 14.0 67.7 0.9


Table A13: Consumption Frequencies by Level of Agreement With the Statement"Meat is an essential part of a meal." (in %)

BEEF PORK CHICKENAgree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

Never 14.2 24.5 18.8 25.0 5.6 5.5Less than once a week 14.0 20.3 18.3 23.6 22.1 22.8Once 27.2 24.7 30.3 20.2 30.3 31.7Twice 26.6 17.9 18.8 14.5 22.4 22.6Three or more times 21.1 12.7 13.8 6.7 19.6 17.5



Table A14: Average Age by Level of Agreement With the Statements "Meat is anessential part of a meal." and "I would never serve a meal withoutmeat for visitors."


"Meat is an essential part of a meal." - Average AgeAgree 44.3 47.0 44.7 45.7 44.7 48.5Disagree 42.6 44.3 43.8 43.7 49.2 46.6Prob.>|T| 0.2079 0.0223 0.4756 0.1865 0.0050 0.1760

"I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors." - Average AgeAgree 48.5 45.9 47.6 49.8 41.7 50.0Disagree 41.4 45.1 41.4 43.0 47.1 46.2Prob.>|T| 0.0001 0.4658 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018 0.0116


Table A15: Level of Agreement With the Statement "I would never serve a mealwithout meat for visitors" by Age-groups (in %)

Age-groupsUnder 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

Germany Agree 9.4 19.8 27.7 38.9 38.6Disagree 90.6 80.2 72.3 61.1 61.4

Ireland Agree 55.6 56.1 59.7 52.9 63.3Disagree 44.4 43.9 40.3 47.1 36.7

Italy Agree 32.1 37.3 37.1 53.9 68.0Disagree 67.9 62.7 62.9 46.1 32.0

Spain Agree 20.0 21.7 31.1 36.1 52.4Disagree 80.0 78.3 68.9 63.9 47.6

Sweden Agree 32.1 19.8 26.9 40.6 37.6Disagree 67.9 80.2 75.7 83.3 85.6

United Agree 34.6 19.0 26.9 40.6 37.6Kingdom Disagree 65.4 81.0 73.1 59.4 62.4



Table A16: Level of Agreement With the Statement "Meat is an essential part of ameal" by Age-groups (in %)

Age-groupsUnder 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

Germany Agree 38.8 33.6 41.3 40.9 47.9Disagree 61.3 66.4 58.7 59.1 52.1

Ireland Agree 58.3 56.1 54.4 64.4 69.1Disagree 41.7 43.9 45.6 35.6 30.9

Italy Agree 61.8 46.2 44.8 42.3 69.3Disagree 38.2 53.8 55.2 57.7 30.7

Spain Agree 83.1 71.7 79.2 77.5 86.2Disagree 16.9 28.3 20.8 22.5 13.8

Sweden Agree 82.4 78.4 67.6 73.7 68.7Disagree 17.6 21.6 32.4 26.3 31.3

United Agree 55.7 43.3 52.1 57.0 57.4Kingdom Disagree 47.3 56.7 47.9 43.0 42.6



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


FASTCLUS Procedure: Replace=FULL Radius=0 Maxclusters=3 Maxiter=1

Cluster Standard Deviations



APPENDIX C: Questionnaire

summary report on consumer behaviour towards … · summary report on consumer behaviour towards...

Documents