The impact of fat content, production methods and carbon footprint information on consumer preferences for minced meat

Abstract Growing concern over the environmental impacts and other credence characteristics of food has resulted in increasing interest in the quality attributes of meat products in Finland. The aim of this study was to provide information on the relative preferences of consumers for minced meat attributes. Using a choice experiment, we examined whether the meat type, method of production, fat content, price and presence of carbon footprint information have an impact on consumer choice. A low fat content was found to have a particularly positive effect on the choice of a minced meat product. The carbon footprint information had a significant impact on the meat type-specific consumer preferences: the popularity of beef products decreased and of pork products increased when the footprint information was presented to the consumers. Six heterogeneous consumer classes were identified with latent class analysis: price-conscious (23% of the respondents), fat content-conscious (23%), ideological but passive (17%), content with conventional (14%), beef-preferring (12%) and method of production -conscious consumers (11%). Consumers were generally willing to pay more for a low fat content, but the relative willingness to pay estimates were largely dependent on the consumer groups: premiums for organic and animal welfare-oriented production methods also existed. These attributes could thus represent good means for differentiating minced meat products. The impact of carbon footprint information on the willingness to pay estimates was relatively low.

[1]  M. BertaSchnettler,et al.  Utility to Consumers and Consumer Acceptance of Information on Beef Labels in Southern Chile , 2009 .

[2]  M. Loureiro,et al.  A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability , 2007 .

[3]  Jutta Roosen,et al.  Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States , 2003 .

[4]  Carolina Liljenstolpe.  Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production , 2005 .

[5]  T. Becker,et al.  Consumer perception of fresh meat quality in Germany , 2000 .

[6]  J. Swait.  A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data☆ , 1994 .

[7]  David K. Holdsworth,et al.  Food miles: Do UK consumers actually care? , 2010 .

[8]  Wuyang Hu,et al.  Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food , 2004 .

[9]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. , 2005, Health economics.

[10]  L. Fabrigar,et al.  Beyond affect and cognition: Identification of the informational bases of food attitudes , 2006 .

[11]  Thomas P. Holmes,et al.  Attribute-Based Methods , 2003 .

[12]  M. McCarthy,et al.  Factors influencing consumption of pork and poultry in the Irish market , 2004, Appetite.

[13]  E. H. Zandstra,et al.  Differences in health and taste attitudes and reported behaviour among Finnish, Dutch and British consumers: a cross-national validation of the Health and Taste Attitude Scales (HTAS) , 2001, Appetite.

[14]  George MacKerron,et al.  Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK , 2009 .

[15]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[16]  G. María,et al.  Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain , 2006 .

[17]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment , 2006 .

[18]  T. Schroeder,et al.  European preferences for beef steak attributes , 2005 .

[19]  R. Prättälä.  Dietary changes in Finland—success stories and future challenges , 2003, Appetite.

[20]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

[21]  Anssi Tarkiainen,et al.  Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food , 2005 .

[22]  R. Bernabéu,et al.  Women, men and organic food: differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay. A Spanish case study , 2007 .

[23]  Kevin Haninger,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Food Safety: Sensitivity to Duration and Severity of Illness , 2007 .

[24]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter , 2007 .

[25]  Ratapol P. Teratanavat,et al.  Consumer Valuations and Preference Heterogeneity for a Novel Functional Food , 2006 .

[26]  B. Roe,et al.  Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination. , 2010 .

[27]  Francesca Colantuoni,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Traceable Meat Attributes: A Meta-analysis , 2010 .

[28]  M. Gibney,et al.  Relationship between attitudes towards healthy eating and dietary behaviour, lifestyle and demographic factors in a representative sample of Irish adults , 2007, Appetite.

[29]  Frode Alfnes,et al.  Eliciting consumers' willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment , 2010 .

[30]  P. Boxall,et al.  Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach , 2002 .

[31]  K. Grunert,et al.  European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. , 2010, Meat science.

[32]  L. Aramyan,et al.  Using non-food information to identify food-choice segment membership , 2010 .

[33]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[34]  Spencer Henson,et al.  Consumer Assessment of the Safety of Beef at the Point of Purchase: A Pan-European Study , 2008 .

[35]  G. Rausser,et al.  The marginal willingness to pay for health-related food characteristics , 2008 .

[36]  K. Balcombe,et al.  Pesticides, Preference Heterogeneity and Environmental Taxes , 2008 .

[37]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods , 1998 .

[38]  Erminio Monteleone,et al.  Effect of information about animal welfare and product nutritional properties on acceptability of meat from Podolian cattle , 2007 .

[39]  J. Roosen,et al.  Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Health Risk Reduction of Salmonellosis and Campylobacteriosis , 2005 .

[40]  Tom J. Brown,et al.  Basic Marketing Research , 1987 .

[41]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[42]  Eija Pouta,et al.  Consumer choice of broiler meat: the effects of country of origin and production methods. , 2010 .

[43]  N. Hanley,et al.  Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture , 2009 .

[44]  F. Napolitano,et al.  Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[45]  P. Timonen,et al.  Building the content of CSR in the food chain with a stakeholder dialogue , 2008 .

[46]  Azucena Gracia,et al.  The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model , 2008 .

[47]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[48]  U. Enneking.  Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label , 2004 .

[49]  J. Lusk,et al.  Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops , 2006 .