Verbeke, W.

English

Wageningen UR (University & Research Centre): Publication System

Verbeke
29
3
Consumer perception of food safety: role and influencing
factors
Wim Verbeke∗
Introduction
Food production and consumption have been under heavy criticism during the
last decade. Many organizations including consumers, industry, producers and
governments, as well as scientists from a plethora of disciplines, have recently been
involved in debates that were initiated by numerous food-safety crises. From all
debated food items, meat is referred to as the food item in which consumer confidence
decreased most during the last decade (Richardson, MacFie and Shepherd 1994;
Issanchou 1996; Becker, Benner and Glitsch 1998). Therefore, research into
consumer decision-making towards fresh-meat consumption is chosen as the
showcase to discuss food-safety issues from the perspective of the demand side of the
food chain, i.e., the consumer.
The relevance of meat issues and a better understanding of consumer decision-
making towards meat became paramount due to distinct changes at the consumer
level. Along with increasing importance of quality, organoleptic and sensory
properties of food, issues relating to food safety, human health and wellbeing have
gained attention, especially with respect to fresh-meat production and consumption.
Meat has traditionally constituted a substantial part of the West-European diet.
Increasing economic and social welfare since the 1950s resulted in increasing
amounts of animal-protein intake. Top meat consumption levels were noticed during
the first half of the nineties in most of the EU countries, but ever since, fresh-meat
consumption levels decreased.
This paper focuses on potential contributions from behavioral sciences (consumer
behavior and marketing) to issues related to food safety. The objectives of this paper
are to review insights in consumer decision-making towards fresh-meat consumption
in situations with uncertainty and risk. This paper summarizes findings from empirical
research implemented in Belgium during the period 1996-2002, which were fully
presented in several publications. Readers are referred to the original publications for
the details of the methodological approaches, empirical analyses, tables and graphs.
Economic impact assessment
The economic impact of food-safety crises is hard to assess. If, for example, the
BSE crisis is considered, the direct cost of the obligatory BSE-testing scheme for
bovine animals aged beyond 30 months, which has been operational since January
2001, is estimated at € 100 per test. For the specific case of Belgium, it is estimated
that about 300,000 of those tests are to be performed every year, which yields a total
                                                          
∗  Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Gent
Chapter 3
30
direct cost of € 30 million per year. Furthermore, as a result of several EU feed bans
(e.g. the bans on feed containing meat-and-bone meal and serious-risk material), some
600,000 tons of hazardous material has to be destroyed every year. This can be
realized at a cost of about € 0.15 – € 0.20 per kg, leading to a total cost of about € 100
million per year.
To pass the direct testing costs and the costs resulting from the new legislation on
to the consumer, meat prices would have to rise by 1.25% to 1.75% at the retail level
(Verbeke 2001b). Combined with an inelastic price-elasticity coefficient for beef of
approximately -0.5 (Verbeke and Ward 2001), such a price increase would result in a
decrease of beef demand by less than 1%. This decrease does not match with the
actual 4-5% decrease in beef demand, which the industry has faced every year since
the BSE crisis. This case exemplifies the decreasing power of neo-classical economic
theory to explain contemporary changes in consumer behavior, as has already been
shown by Bansback (Bansback 1995). When analysing factors influencing meat
demand, Bansback (Bansback 1995) concluded that economic factors explained 60%
of the changes in meat demand during the period 1975-1994, while that share
amounted to almost 90% for the period 1955-1974. Emerging factors include
changing taste and preference patterns and consumer confidence. The issue of
consumer confidence should also be considered as a major cost item, though one that
is extremely difficult to quantify in economic terms. Studies of consumer behavior
from a sociological or marketing perspective can shed light on the role and
importance of consumer confidence related to food, safety and health.
Meat consumption behavior
The evolution of meat consumption in Belgium since 1955 reveals that distinct
long-term changes have taken place. Animal-protein and fat intake have risen along
with increasing wealth in the West-European society. Over time, a gradual shift away
from red to white meat types was observed. Top meat-consumption levels were
reached during the first half of the nineties, with considerable consumption decreases
being noticed since, especially when considering per capita at-home meat intake.
Over a period of seven years (1995-2001) Belgian at-home fresh beef and veal
consumption fell more than 30%, while pork and poultry consumption decreased by
about 8% and 5%, respectively. Out-of-home meat consumption may have increased
but figures are not readily available. Nevertheless, available data from supply balance
sheets and household panels systematically point towards recent significant
consumption declines, which exemplifies a general “malaise” against fresh meat.
With respect to fresh-meat consumption frequency, it was found that daily fresh-
meat consumers were the least inclined to reduce their consumption level as compared
to less frequent consumers. Heavy meat consumers showed the strongest intentions to
maintain their consumption levels, while less frequent consumers intended to decrease
their fresh-meat consumption frequency further, herewith moving away from
consuming fresh meat daily to several times a week or a lower frequency (Verbeke,
Ward and Viaene 2000). Furthermore, the group of low-frequent meat consumers who
show the strongest intentions to cut consumption further is gradually growing over
time.
Verbeke
31
Consumer attitude: perception of fresh meat
In the consumer psychology and behavior disciplines, it is widely recognized that
there exists a distinct filter or gap between the external (objective) and the internal
(subjective) world of consumers (Risvik 2001). This filter, also called a perception
filter, accounts for the difference between scientific objectivity and human
subjectivity. The paramount importance of human subjectivity or perception lies in
the fact that exactly perception – and not necessarily scientific facts – determines
preference and choice. Therefore, this perception should be of interest to health and
nutrition policymakers, and is definitely of interest to the food industry.
The importance of consumer perception has been assessed during two consumer
surveys (1998 and 2000). Attribute-rating profiles of April 1998 reveal that problems
of the beef image pertained to safety and trustworthiness. Pork was characterized as
the most fat, the worst tasting, the least healthy and the overall lowest-quality meat
(Verbeke and Viaene 1999a). Poultry received the best overall perception scores.
The same measurement was repeated two years later, in April 2000, after the
occurrence of the Belgian dioxin crisis. Like the previous meat-safety crises (hormone
abuses, antibiotic residues, BSE), the dioxin scare received considerable attention from
the mass media, which brought the issue to the public’s attention in May 1999. Pork and
especially poultry were affected by the dioxin crisis, which was clearly reflected in
their perceptual profiles. This led to significant shifts towards the “with hormones”
pole of the semantic differential scale (or stronger associations with containing
potentially harmful substances) for the perception of both meats types. Additionally,
perception of poultry on “quality”, “trustworthiness” and “safety” significantly
worsened after the dioxin crisis. No other shifts of the pork and poultry perception
profiles were formed, which is reasonable in the absence of substantial changes in
sensory, price, convenience or animal-welfare issues during the considered time
interval (Verbeke 2001a). Reversibly, beef perception improved on safety attributes.
Remarkably, beef consumption continued to decrease whereas pork and poultry
consumption stabilized. Furthermore, about 25-30% of the consumers reported high
concerns about BSE in poultry or dioxins in beef, which is in direct contrast with
scientific evidence.
Considerable bias was discovered between meat facts or scientific-indicator
criteria and consumer perception of these facts. This phenomenon has specifically
been addressed related to health, leanness and sensory characteristics of pork
(Verbeke et al. 1999), but was also related to meat-quality labels (Verbeke and Viaene
1999b). Pork perception was found to be worst as compared to beef and poultry on
“leanness”, “healthiness”, and attributes that relate to eating or sensory quality, i.e.
“taste” and “tenderness”. On the contrary, it was scientifically shown that pork can be
low in fat and cholesterol, or excelling in taste and tenderness, depending on the
specific cut and handling throughout the meat chain. Similar conclusions were drawn
related to the perception of quality labels. A considerable part of the interviewed
consumers claimed to buy labeled meat but failed to recall any label unaided.
Additionally, features and benefits are assigned to quality-labeled meat that do not
correspond to the actual performance of the label.
Chapter 3
32
Impact of communication
The gap between scientific facts and their perception by consumers is largely
shaped by communication. Claimed attention to mass-media publicity was found to
have a strongly negative influence on consumer behavior and decision-making
processes towards fresh meat. Consumers, who attended mass-media coverage of
fresh-meat issues, reported significantly higher meat-consumption decreases with
reference to the past as well as stronger intentions for decrease in the future. It was
also found that consumers who pay a high level of attention to media reports, express
higher health consciousness, more misperception of health risks and higher levels of
concern about potential health hazards that were frequently reported in mass media.
While the impact of attention to mass-media publicity was shown to be very
significant, high levels of attention to personal communication from butchers or to
advertising were found to have some but far more limited impact. Meat consumers
who pay high levels of attention to information from butchers reported more positive
meat-attribute perception scores, but this did not translate into associations with health
concern, claimed behavior or behavioral intention (Verbeke, Viaene and Guiot 1999).
The negative impact of television publicity was confirmed through econometric
cross-sectional and time-series analyses. Probabilities to cut fresh-meat consumption
were boosted as consumers reported to have paid high attention to television coverage
of meat issues (Verbeke, Ward and Viaene 2000). Similarly, parameters of television
coverage indices were largely significant and negative in an Almost Ideal Demand
System for fresh meat, contrary to the estimates of the advertising-expenditure
variables, which were insignificant. In case of beef in Belgium during the second half
of the nineties, a negative press over advertising impact ratio of five to one was found
(Verbeke and Ward 2001). It means that five units of positive news are needed to
offset the impact of one similar negative message.
Potential from labeling and traceability
It has been indicated that a label can serve as an important extrinsic product-
quality cue in the evaluation process (Caswell 1992; Issanchou 1996). Furthermore,
meat labeling has been reported as a promising strategy to regain consumer
confidence (Wagner and Beimdick 1997; Wit et al. 1998). In line with these empirical
findings, the Commission of the European Communities enacted regulations
concerning the establishment of a system of identification and registration of bovine
animals, as well as the compulsory labeling of fresh and frozen beef and beef
products. This system has been fully operational since January 2002 and makes beef
labeling possible, including a traceability reference number, slaughterhouse and
cutting-unit license numbers, and name of country in which the animal was born,
raised and slaughtered. Despite numerous labeling efforts by industry and
government, knowledge and perception of labels were discovered to contrast with
exact labeled-product features, but over time the situation seems to improve.
Consumers who experienced (bought) meat with a quality label reported a more
favorable attitude towards and a better knowledge of labeled meat (Verbeke and
Viaene 1999b).
The rational support that consumers seek when making meat-purchasing
decisions can be delivered through the establishment of a waterproof system of
identification, traceability and control, eventually sealed with a label for recognition
Verbeke
33
and additional assurance. Traceability, labeling and assurance schemes are established
to allay consumer concerns, but the standards and realizations are difficult to
communicate and at risk of being perceived by consumers as insufficient or
meaningless. Intrinsic opportunities such as the ability to organize the chain more
efficiently, monitor the chain, and assess individual responsibilities, are broadly
supported by consumers and therefore also an issue of public policy and regulation.
Extensions with respect to process attributes, such as alternative production methods,
origin and labeling, are less relevant to the broad public and only of interest to
specific market segments (niches). Therefore, intervention on the process attribute
side is most appropriate for private initiatives and embraces opportunities for product
differentiation and competitive advantage in well-defined markets (Gellynck and
Verbeke 2001; Verbeke 2001c).
Conclusions
Several years of consumer research on meat consumption in Belgium yielded a
comprehensive picture of the impact of meat-safety issues. There is no doubt about
the existence of considerable misperception by consumers, lack of knowledge and
bias between perception and scientific-indicator criteria related to health and safety
characteristics of meat. Generally, mass-media publicity – following problems or
abuses throughout the food chain – is found to have significantly and negatively
affected decision-making on fresh-meat consumption. On the contrary, little evidence
of effects of positive communication could be shown.
As the starting point of the meat chain, livestock farming urgently needs to be
reoriented towards quality in a broad sense instead of quantity-oriented mass
production. This includes product and process quality, animal welfare and
environment preservation. Quality, health, convenience and variety-seeking trends at
the consumer level urge for product and process innovation, as well as for the
adoption of new technologies and quality control at the meat-industry level. Finally,
the role of the government is twofold. First, it consists of protecting the consumers
through guarding the information spreading and through providing extension related
to potential health risks and benefits. Second, it pertains to provide clear and
unambiguous legal frameworks, including both the establishment and control of
production and product standards. The establishment of regulated traceability systems
is a big leap forward, although it remains an issue of debate whether something is
gained in terms of intrinsic food safety. Definitely, traceability yields opportunities to
gain in terms of consumer confidence and food-safety perception.
Taking away any basis for negative press should be a priority for the food sector.
This can be realized through producing safe and sound products, through acceptable
production methods with respect to animal welfare and the environment, and through
practical applications of comprehensive quality and chain-monitoring systems.
Finally, correct products have to be accompanied by trustworthy communication. This
communication challenge is probably harder to realize than the product-safety
challenge, but the reward in terms of consumer trust and product acceptance is
definitely worth striving for.
References
Bansback, B., 1995. Towards a broader understanding of meat demand. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 46 (3), 287-308.
Chapter 3
34
Becker, T., Benner, E. and Glitsch, K., 1998. Summary report on consumer behaviour
towards meat in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and The United
Kingdom - results of a consumer survey. Universität Hohenheim, Göttingen.
Working Paper FAIR CT-95-0046.
Caswell, J., 1992. Current information levels on food labels. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 74 (5), 1196-201.
Gellynck, X. and Verbeke, W., 2001. Consumer perception of traceability in the meat
chain. Agrarwirtschaft, 50 (6), 368-374.
Issanchou, S., 1996. Consumer expectations and persceptions of meat and meat
product quality. Meat Science, 43, S5-S19.
Richardson, N., MacFie, H. and Shepherd, R., 1994. Consumer attitudes to meat
eating. Meat Science, 36 (1/2), 57-65.
Risvik, E., 2001. The food and I: sensory perception as revealed by multivariate
methods. In: Frewer, L., Risvik, E. and Schifferstein, H. eds. Food, people and
sociey: a European perspective of consumers' food choices. Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg, 23-37.
Verbeke, W., 2001a. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after
the Belgian dioxin crisis. Food Quality and Preference, 12 (8), 489-498.
Verbeke, W., 2001b. Consumer reactions and economic consequences of the BSE
crisis. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Geneeskunde van
België, 63 (5), 483-492.
Verbeke, W., 2001c. The emerging role of traceability and information in demand-
oriented livestock production. Outlook on Agriculture, 30 (4), 249-255.
Verbeke, W., Van Oeckel, M., Warnants, N., et al., 1999. Consumer perception, facts
and possibilities to improve acceptability of health and sensory characteristics
of pork. Meat Science, 53 (2), 77-99.
Verbeke, W. and Viaene, J., 1999a. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat
consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food
Quality and Preference, 10 (6), 437-445.
Verbeke, W. and Viaene, J., 1999b. Consumer attitude to beef quality labeling and
associations with beef quality labels. Journal of International Food and
Agribusiness Marketing, 10 (3), 45-65.
Verbeke, W., Viaene, J. and Guiot, O., 1999. Health communication and consumer
behavior on meat in Belgium: from BSE until dioxin. Journal of Health
Communication, 4 (4), 345-357.
Verbeke, W. and Ward, R., 2001. A fresh meat almost ideal demand system
incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact. Agricultural
Economics, 25 (2/3), 359-374.
Verbeke, W., Ward, R. and Viaene, J., 2000. Probit analysis of fresh meat
consumption in Belgium: exploring BSE and television communication
impact. Agribusiness, 16 (2), 215-234.
Wagner, P. and Beimdick, E., 1997. Determinanten des Erfolgs von
Markenfleischprogrammen. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 75 (2), 171-205.
Wit, M. A. d., Koopmans, M. P., Kortbeek, L. M., et al., 1998. Consumer-oriented
new product development: principles and practice. In: Meulenberg, M. ed.
Innovation of food production systems : product quality and consumer
acceptance. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, 37-66.


Consumer perception of food safety: role and influencing factors

Verbeke, WimLA278010010007730000-0002-9967-7104F4E0A84C-F0ED-11E1-A9DE-61C894A0A6B4

Archivsystem Ask23

Verbeke, Wim

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

https://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/frontis/article/download/989/560

Consumer perception of food safety: role and influencing factors

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wageningen UR (University & Research Centre): Publication System

Archivsystem Ask23

Ghent University Academic Bibliography