National Consumer Behaviour Report: Spain

Julin Briz Escribano, Mario Mahlau and Enrique Gutirrez del Olmo October 1997

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

This study is part of the project

QUALITY POLICY AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS FRESH MEAT

Project coordinator: Tilman Becker

Institut fr Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaftliche Marktlehre, University of Hohenheim

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

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

Contents

1. Introduction

page 1

2. Meat consumption 2.1. Frequency of meat consumption 2.2. Changes on meat consumption 2.3. Place of purchase

page 2 page 6 page 6 page 8

3. Quality perception 3.1. Eating quality 3.2. Quality in the shop

page 9 page 9 page 12

4. Safety perception 4.1. Concerns 4.2. Safety indicators

page 15 page 15 page 18

5. Attitudes 5.1. Visual inspection 5.2. Statements

page 21 page 25 page 25

6. Symbols and labels

page 30

7. Trust

page 32

8. Further analysis Crosstabulations

page 33

9. Summary and first implications for quality poliy

page 35

10. Bibliography

page 37

Annex 1. Sociodemographics

page 38

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

1. Introduction The aim of this report is to analyse the consumer behaviour and the perception of the Spanish consumers regarding beef, veal, pork and chicken. The results of the consumer survey, made in 1997, are analysed and compared to the available general information about these themes. The structure of this report is similar to the structure of the similar reports of the other E.U. countries participating in this project. Chapter 2 deals with the consumer behaviour, and chapter 3 with the quality perception. Chapter 4 presents the concerns of the Spanish consumers with regard to meat, and chapter 5 the attitudes toward meat. Chapter 6 treat about the trust of consumers on symbols and labels. Chapter 7 deals with the reliability of different sources about meat safety. Finally the results are summarise and there are presented first implications for quality policy. The sociodemographics of the sample and the whole population are analysed in an annexe.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

2. Meat consumption In the period 1985-1994, the share of the consumers expenditures for meat and meat products in total expenditures decreased from 8,3% to 6,1%. At national level, the structure of the meat consumption, is shown in the following table: (1995) Meat and meat products Beef and veal Chicken Rabbit Sheep and goat Pork Eatable offal Other fresh meat Frozen meat Meat products
Total quantities bought (000.000 kg) Total per capita % Bought by households % Eating out

2,406.2 394.7 637.0 96.8 136.1 336.3 72.6 79.2 36.8 616.6

61.2 10.0 16.2 2.5 3.5 8.6 1.8 2.0 0.9 15.7

84.7 77.1 87.4 91.7 85.3 83.7 89.6 93.4 85.8 84.1

15.3 22.9 12.6 8.3 14.7 16.3 10.4 6.6 14.2 15.9

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

Chicken is the most consumed fresh meat (in 1995) followed by beef and veal and pork. In 1996 pork became the 2nd most consumed meat as a consequence of the BSE and hormones crisis in beef and veal. It can be also seen that some types of meat like sheep, goat, rabbits and edible offal have a more importance in Spain than in other European countries due to habits of consumption. On the contrary, the consumption of frozen meat is remarkably low. The tendency since 1990 is shown in the following table: Quantities bought (000.000 Kg) 1990 Meat and meat products Beef and veal Chicken Rabbit Sheep and goat Pork Eatable offal Other fresh meat Frozen meat Meat products 2,605.9 376.2 699.7 85.5 151.4 370.5 124.2 59.0 76.0 663.4 1992 2,733.6 402.4 720.6 100.8 165.9 367.7 120.3 69.3 71.7 715.0 1994 2,532.1 416.1 682.4 105.9 149.4 344.8 84.7 81.9 36.6 633.2 1995 2,406.2 394.7 637.0 96.8 136.1 336.3 72.6 79.3 36.8 616.6

Fig. 2.2. Trends in meat consumption. Source: La Alimentacin en Espaa, 1995

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

The consumption of fresh meat as well as meat products has declined in the last years. In 1996 the structure on meat consumption changed at the expense of beef and veal. The following table shows the structure of meat consumption depending on the income level and the activity of the housewife: Income level Product Total meat Beef and veal Chicken Pork Low 59.2 7.4 16.6 9.0 Medium 49.2 7.7 13.5 6.6 High 44.7 8.8 11.1 5.1 Activity of housewife Working at Working at home home + having a job 57.3 39.9 6.2 9.9 5.5 8.5 16.1 7.9

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

It can be seen that total meat consumption is higher in households with low incomes than in households with high incomes. In households where housewives are working at home only, meat consumption is significantly higher than in households where they have a job. The following table shows the meat consumption depending of the size of households, excluding people eating out: Product 1 Total meat Beef and veal Chicken Pork 84.0 13.1 25.0 8.7 2 64.0 9.6 18.5 8.2 Size of households (# people) 3 53.1 8.0 14.6 7.3 4 51.8 7.7 14.0 7.5 5 49.8 7.9 13.5 7.3 6 or more 39.6 5.5 10.0 5.8

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

Households with more than six members eat less than half meat per capita than household with one member.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

The meat consumption in Spanish households by the age of the housewife is structured as follows: Product < 29 Total meat Beef and veal Chicken Pork 48.5 5.9 13.1 7.3 Age of the housewife 30 44 47.1 7.6 12.3 6.8 45 - 59 53.0 7.8 14.5 7.4 > 60 60.8 9.4 18.2 7.1

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

Usually meat consumption increases as the age of the housewives increases. The type of food consumed in Spain, according to a survey made in 1993, is shown in the following table: Type of product Meat Total Male Female Age 18 29 30 44 45 64 > 65 90 88 83 75 77 86 91 93 72 82 87 86 8 6 4 3 85 86 83 Vegetables 86 82 89 Fish 81 79 94 Organic prod. 6 4 7

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

It can be seen that many Spaniards use to eat as well meat as vegetables, and also fish. Organic products are not very usual. The most expensive types of meat are veal (1.151 PTAs./ Kg, 1995) and mutton, lamb and goat meat (1.047 PTAs.). The prices of beef (959 PTAs.) and meat products (956 Ptas.) also are above average. The price of pig meat (686 PTAs.) is below average. The lowest prices are paid for edible offals (407 PTAs.) and poultry (330 PTAs.).

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

The following graph shows the prices paid for meat in households with different income levels: Product Low Total meat Beef and veal Chicken Pork 694 1,112 316 667 Income level Medium 741 1,133 328 696 High 821 1,179 377 722 Average 734 1,135 330 687

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

Average meat prices paid by people with high income are higher than prices paid for the same type of meat by people with low income. On the one hand they buy more noble pieces of each type of meat, and on the other hand they also may buy in more expensive retail shops. Prices are higher than average in traditional shops and below average in supermarkets and hypermarkets. The prices paid for meat and meat products are correlated positively with the income level, as households with low income usually buy cheaper pieces than households with high income. On an average, the price per Kg of fish is some 5% lower than the price of meat (1995).

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

2.1. Frequency of Meat Consumption The following graph shows the frequency of meat consumption among the respondents:
Frequency of meat consumption Three or more Twice Once 1 per week< x < 1 per month, Lees once each month Never 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Chicken Pork Beef

percentage

Fig. 2.1.1. Frequency of meat consumption (weekly)

About two thirds of the respondents eat chicken at least twice a week. On the opposite, only one third of the respondents eat pork at least twice a week, while beef and veal takes an intermediate position. It should be noted that many people do not consume pork (24%) or beef and veal (17%), while almost all the people asked consume chicken.

2.2. Changes of Meat Consumption The following table and the corresponding graph show the recent evolution in meat consumption according to the survey: Beef More Less No change 17.8 28.0 54.2 Pork 11.8 28.9 59.3 Chicken 18.8 15.1 66.1

Fig. 2.2.1. Changes on meat consumption in the last five years

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

10

Quantitative changes in meat consumption

70 60 50 percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Beef Pork Chicken

More Less No change

Fig. 2.2.2. Quantitative changes in meat consumption

More than half of the respondents did not change the meat consumption in the last five years. The chicken consumption was especially stable, while beef trends are those which changed most. Almost 30% of the respondents decreased their consumption of beef, veal and pork, while some 18% increased the consumption of beef and veal in some 12% their consumption of pork.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

11

2.3. Place of purchase The following figure shows the importance of the different places of purchase in the sample:
Place of purchase Self-production Local shop Weekly or open market Myper/mega market Other Direct from the farmer Supermarket Butcher 0 10 20 30 percentage
Fig. 2.3.1. Place of purchase

Chicken Pork Beef

40

50

60

The main place of purchase for all types of meat, and especially for beef and veal, is the butchers shop, followed by the supermarket and open markets. Many consumers appreciate the high flexibility of the butchers when meeting the demand for specific quantities and qualities of meat, his ability to give the patrons advice and the proximity of these shops. However, as well supermarkets as hypermarkets are getting more important in the meat share at the expense of the butchers as they usually sell the meat at lower prices than the butchers. In the period 1990-1995, at national level the share of the butchers and other traditional shops in the total sales of meat decreased from 60% to 42%, while the share of supermarkets increased from 27% to 32% and the share of hypermarkets from 4% to 11% (MAPA, 1996, p. 146).

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

12

3. Quality Perception 3.1. Eating quality In the following graphs can be observed the evaluation of different quality characteristics of each type of meat in the survey. 3.1.1. Beef
Importance of characteristics for eating quality of beef
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Te nd er ne ss Fl av ou r C ol ou r Ju ic en es s Le an ne ss of G ris tle Te xt ur e Sm el l

Very important Quite important Neither Not very important Not at all important

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

In the graph it can be observed which are the characteristics to be considered important. The Wilconox test1 shows the ranking within the characteristics: Flavour Tenderness > Juiceness

Colour Smell

>

Texture

Fr ee

>

Leanness

>

Free of gristle

Thus, flavour, tenderness and juiciness are the most important characteristics of the eating quality according to the results of the sample. These are mainly important when the beef is eaten while the other characteristics are appreciated before eating.

The Wilconox test procedure is described in the German Report

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

13

3.1.2. Pork
Importance of characteristics for eating quality of pork
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Le an ne ss Te nd er ne ss Ju ic en es Fr s ee of G ris tle Te xt ur e Sm el l Fl av ou r C ol ou r

Very important Quite important Neither Not very important Not at all important

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

The Wilconox test shows the following ranking in the importance of quality characteristics: Smell Flavour Tenderness Juiciness Colour Texture

>

Leanness

>

Free of gristle

It can be observed that leanness and especially free of gristle are the less important characteristics. Smell is also important because pork can get bad faster than beef and veal.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

14

3.1.3. Chicken
Importance of characteristics for eating quality of chicken
100%

80%

60%

Very important Quite important Neither Not very important Not at all important

40%

20%

0%
el l Te nd er ne ss Ju ic en es s Fr ee of G ris tle Le an ne ss Te xt ur e Fl av ou r C ol ou r Sm

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

The importance of quality characteristics can be ranked in the following way: Smell Flavour Colour > Juiciness Tenderness

Texture

>

Leanness

>

Free of gristle

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

15

3.2. Quality in the shop When assessing the quality of meat at the shop, the characteristics considered to be important may change with regard to the characteristics noticed while cooking and at the moment of consumption, which were already described.

3.2.1. Beef
Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of beef in the shop
100%

80% Very important Quite important Neither Not very important Not at all important

60%

40%

20%

0%
Le an ne ss C ol ou r of pu rc ha se Br an d/ la be l M ar bl in g of or ig in Pr ic e

C ou nt ry

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

The ranking of characteristics is the following: Colour Place of purchase > Country of origin Leanness Marbling Brand / label > Price

The place of purchase and the colour are considered to be the most important characteristics. The low importance of the price may be partly a result of the reluctance of many people to admit in an interview that they usually assume that, as a rule, expensive meat has a better quality than cheap meat.

Pl ac e

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

16

3.2.2. Pork
Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of pork in the shop
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
C ol ou r of pu rc ha se Br an d/ la be l Le an ne ss M ar bl in g of or ig in Pr ic e

Very important Quite important Neither Not very important Not at all important

C ou nt ry

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

The ranking of the characteristics is very similar as in the case of beef and veal: Place of purchase Colour > Leanness Brand / label Marbling Country of origin > Price

Pl ac e

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

17

3.2.3. Chicken
Usefulness of meat characteristics for assessing the quality of chicken in the shop
100% 90% 80% 70% Very important 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Country of origin Place of purchase Colour Brand/label Leanness Price Quite important Neither Not very important Not at all important

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

The ranking of chicken characteristics is the following: Colour Place of purchase > Leanness > Country of origin Brand / Label > Price

The principal characteristics for assessing the quality of chicken in the shop are the colour and the place of purchase. It may be noted that brands/ labels in no case are considered to be the most important factors for assessing the quality of meat in the shop. These results are somewhat astonishing, when considering the huge efforts of the administration and private enterprises to introduce brands/ labels in the meat market. To some extent, they may be explained by the fact that meat traditionally has been sold without using any label or brand.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

18

4. Safety perceptions This chapter analyses how concerned consumers are about different items with regard to the meat consumption. 4.1. Concerns 4.1.1. Beef
Safety concerns - Beef
100%

80% BSE 60% Salmonella or other bacteria Fat or cholesterol 40% Antibiotics Hormones 20%

0%
N ei th er co nc er ne d N ot at al lc on ce rn ed N ot ve ry co nc er ne d co nc er ne d Ve ry

Fig. 4.1.1. Safety concerns Beef

The main factor that concerns people is the hormone content, while BSE is not as important as might be expected. This can be explained on the one hand with the fact that there has been registered no BSE case in Spain, and on the other hand that there has been some intoxication with hormones or similar products in the last years. Fat and cholesterol contents are very low important The rank of importance is the following: Hormones > Antibiotics Salmonella > BSE > Fat / cholesterol

It may be noted that the use of hormones is prohibited in Spain. Nevertheless there is a clandestine market for similar substances which stimulate growth. Hormones can be noticed when cooking the meal as the beef shorten and looses water. Other noxious factors, even more important, are not detected when cooking.

Q ui te

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

19

4.1.2. Pork
Safety concerns - Pork
100%

80%

60%

S a lmonella or other bacteria Fat or cholesterol Antibiotics Hormones

40%

20%

0%
N ot at al lc on ce rn ed N ot ve ry co nc er ne d co nc er ne d co nc er ne d Ve ry N ei th er

Fig. 4.1.2. Safety concerns Pork

The most important concern with regard to pork consumption is salmonella. Hormones are the second factor although there has been few informations about the presence of hormones in pork. The rank of characteristics shows that only few persons are concerned about fat / cholesterol in pork: Salmonella Hormones Antibiotics > Fat / cholesterol

Consumer knows about the risk of pollution of pork with bacteria, and for this reason pork is well cooked.

Q ui te

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

20

4.1.3. Chicken
Safety concerns - Chicken
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
co nc er ne d N ot at al lc on ce rn ed N ot ve ry co nc er ne d co nc er ne d N ei th er

Salmonella or other bacteria Fat or cholesterol Antibiotics Hormones

Q ui te

Fig. 4.1.3. Safety concerns Chicken

Salmonella is also the most important concern. The pattern of concerns is rather similar to pork. The following rank shows the importance of the different factors: Salmonella > Hormones Antibiotics > Fat / Cholesterol

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

Ve ry

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

21

4.2. Safety Indicators 4.2.1. Beef

Safety assessment - Beef
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Br an d/ La be N am l e of pr od O uc rg er an ica lly pr od uc ed C ou nt ry of or ig in Fr es hn es s Pr ic e Fe ed

Very helpful Quite helpful Neither Not very helpful Not at all helpful

Fig. 4.2.1. Safety assessment - Beef

The ranking of the characteristics about the beef safety is the following: Freshness > Feed > Country origin > Organically produced Label > Name of product Price

The freshness and the feed of the beef are considered to be the most important safety characteristics. The name of the product and also the labels are not so important.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

22

4.2.2. Pork
Safety assessment - Pork
100%

80% Very helpful Quite helpful Neither 40% Not very helpful Not at all helpful 20%

60%

0%
Fe ed Br an d/ La N am be l e of pr O od rg uc an er ica lly pr od uc ed C ou nt ry of or ig in Fr es hn es s Pr ic e

Fig 4.2.2. Safety assessment - Pork

Safety indicators can be ranked in the following way: Freshness > Feed Organic > Country of origin Brand / label > Name o.p. Price

Freshness is considered to be the most important safety characteristic

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

23

4.2.3. Chicken
Safety assessment - Chicken
100%

80%

60%

Very helpful Quite helpful Neither Not very helpful Not at all helpful

40%

20%

0%
Br an d/ La be N l am e of pr od uc er Fr ee ly br ee de d C ou nt ry of or ig in Fr es hn es s Fe ed Pr ic e

Fig 4.2.3. Safety assessment - Chicken

The rank of safety characteristics in chicken is the following: Freshness > Free range Feed > Brand / Label Country origin > Price Name o.p.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

24

5. Attitudes

The main factors, which influence the decisions of the consumers when buying meat, are the quality, the tenderness and the taste, according to the results of and international enquiry made in 19952. As we have mentioned before, after a large increase, consumption of meat and meat products has now stabilised, and in some cases even declined, in Spain. Partly this development can be explained by economic indicators- especially by the moderate growth of the disposable per capita income- and the high level of consumption that already has been reached. However, there is some evidence that consumer attitudes toward meat have changed due to the information published by the mass media and the consumers associations. The attitude of the Spanish consumers toward meat is ambiguous, on the one hand the majority of them consider that meat cannot be substituted easily and that it is the base of a good nutrition. On the other hand, many Spaniards consider that the consumption of great quantities of meat and meat products is not good for their health, as factors like residue and naturalness are becoming more and more important for them. The consumers react promptly to the information published in the mass media. Thus, publications about hormone residues in beef and veal immediately cause a decrease in the demand of these types of meat. Recently the publications about the bovine spongiform encefalopathy in British cows- some specialists recommended the population not to consume beef and veal from Britain- caused a drop of the Spanish beef and veal prices by approximately 10%. This was the biggest in the last 30 years3. Immediately after this price drop, some retailers put notes like "dont worry: we only sell beef and veal produced in controlled Spanish breeds and marketed with official origin or quality seals" in the entrance of their stores, until the market situation stabilised. A department of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture gives these seals. Their importance has been growing in the last years as a consequence of the official quality policy- including advertising campaigns in TV and other media- the social alarm about hormone residues found in meat, and other factors.

2 3

GORDON SIMPSONS RESEARCH GROUP quoted in: MILI, 1996, p. 11 El Pas, 5/6.04, 1996, p. 19

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

25

As mentioned before, the main factors, which influence the decisions of the consumers when buying meat, are the income, the price, the quality, the tenderness and the taste. However, the importance of other product attributes, like the health (fat-pig meat), environment, fears about hormones (beef and veal), salmonellas (poultry meat), cholesterol as positive or negative product attributes is increasing. In this chapter there are shown some results of empirical studies about the attitudes of Spanish consumers. According to the consumer inquiry in Spain (Furitsch, 1994), meat is the most preferred foodstuff, even more than fish. In Spain there are only few persons who reject the consumption of meat for religious or other reasons (vegetarians). In Spain, according to a survey made in 1993, the most preferred meat types are sucking lamb and veal, followed by chicken. The less preferred meat types are rabbit meat, turkey and edible offals. The preference pig meat is also rather low. In the Spanish meat market there can be observed a segmentation of the meat market, as many consumers are willing to pay higher prices pieces of meat and meat products which have a guaranteed quality. Thus, the market share of veal, poultry, and other meat products, which are marketed with generic (official) quality seals like designations of origin, ecological product, etc., is increasing. At the same time, brands of meat industries (e.g. "Campofro"), retailers (e.g. "Eroski") and restaurant chains (e.g. "Fried Chicken of Kentucky") who guarantee the quality of the meat and meat products (free from hormones, nutrition, etc.) are getting more and more important. The following figure compares some attitudes toward meat of Spanish and EUconsumers. The Spanish consumers are more critical toward meat than the average EUconsumer. Thus, in Spain a higher percentage of the consumers agree to the statements 1 (hormones) and 5 (negative evolution of the meat quality) and a lower percentage to the statement 9 (guest meal) than in the EU.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

26

Statements

Spain
Agreement Total agreement

E.U.
Agreement Total agreement

Utilisation of hormones and chemical products in the meat production disturbs me. In the last 3 years I eat less meat due to this preoccupation. I try that the livestock is treated well In the last 3 years I ate less meat due to the bad treatment of the livestock Today meat is not as good as it was before

99

96

91

81

45 68

29 51

48 67

29 47

15

28

16

82 In the last 3 years I ate less meat due to its fat content. In the last 3 years I ate less meat due to the possible content of noxious ingredients like salmonella. Meat makes an important contribution to my diet. We always prepare a meal with meat when we have guests at home. Nowadays there are available many substitutes of meat. 37

71 25

64 37

50 23

36

26

36

22

73

54

71

50

44 39

27 29

67 50

51 33

28 18 30 17 I eat regularly substitutes of meat. Fig. 5.01. Attitudes of the consumer toward meat: grade of agreement with selected statements. (1995). Source: Gordon Simpson research group.

The following figure shows further aspects of the attitudes toward meat of the Spanish consumers according to another survey made in 1991 by Furitsch. Meat is to considered to be a food which cannot be substituted (disagreement = D2), and is part of the basis of a good nutrition (agreement = A3). Nevertheless, the daily consumption is considered not to be healthy (A11). The statement about the high content of hormones and preservatives in the meat had the highest acceptance. In general, there is more agreement to negative statements about meat than to positive statements.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

27

Statements Disagreement:
All meat types are equal as they have the same nutritive value To eat without meat is like not to eat Only meat has necessary proteins Meat products can substitute meat Meat can be bought by anybody A good piece of meat not always is expensive 2.6 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5

Media

Standard variation
1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4

Agreement:
Meat colour is not decisive for the quality I could stop eating meat Meat is the basis of a good nutrition At home we usually eat always the same kind of meat Today many products can substitute meat Today meat is becoming worse and worse Only experts know about meat Fish is healthier than meat I only eat types of meat that I know Disposition to change with more information about meat and its quality The daily consumption of meat is not good for health There are other foodstuffs that have the same proteins as meat The piece and the preparation make meat expensive The quality does not depend on the price but on the piece Meat contents a lot of hormones and preservatives

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

The grade of agreement or disagreement of the previous table may vary between: 1 : Total disagreement 2 : Sufficient disagreement 3 : A little disagreement 4 : Neither agreement nor disagreement 5 : Moderate agreement 6 : Sufficient agreement 7 : Total agreement The following chapters analyse the result of the sample.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

28

5.1. Visual inspection

Assessed quality of meat in the shop just by looking at it
100%

80% Completely agree 60% Agree Neither 40% Disagree Completely disagree 20%

0% Beef Pork Chicken

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

Most of the respondents agree completely (some 55%) or just agree (some 23%) when being asked if they are able to assess properly the eating quality of meat in the shop just by looking at it.

5.2. Statements 5.2.1. Cooking statements

C o o k in g s t a t e m e n ts
100%

80%

60%

40%

C o m p le t e l y a g r e e Agree N e ither D isagree C o m p le t e l y d i s a g r e e

20%

0% I like new recipes C o o k ing as a task

Fig. 5.2.1.Cooking statements

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

29

More than half of the respondents (some 55%) like very much to taste new receipts, and some 16% like to try new receipts to some extent. Almost half of the respondents (some 45%) do not like cooking, but consider cooking as a necessary task. However there are also many respondents (some 35%) who like cooking and do not believe that cooking is just a necessary task.

5.2.2. Animal welfare, ethics

Animal welfare and ethics
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% More respect to animals Prefer meat from well treated animals Completely agree Agree Neither Disagree Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.2. Animal welfare and ethics

Most people agree completely to the statement that we should have more respect for animals (> 80%). More than of the respondents also agree completely when being asked if they prefer to buy meat from well treated animals. These high percentages should be seen rather as a theoretical agreement than a real willingness to achieve a better animal welfare by paying higher prices for livestock with any animal welfare label. Indeed, many consumers living in cities do not know much about the living conditions of the livestock, and they do not care much about these themes. The Spanish government usually is reluctant to support legal proposals which aim at improving the animal welfare in some production systems of livestock (e.g. poultry production).

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

30

5.2.3. Status of meat

S tatus of m e a t
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% No meal without m eat Meat is essential part of m eal Completely agree Agree Neither D isagree Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.3. Status of meat

Only the fifth part of the respondents agrees to the statement that there should be not meal without meat while some 55% disagree completely, surely due to the Mediterranean eating habits, where a lot of vegetables and fish is consumed. However, almost 60% of the respondents think that meat is an essential part of meal.

5.2.4. Price statements The following figure shows the answers to price statement in the sample:
Price statem e n ts
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Price is the m a in factor to buy meat H igher price for higher quality meat Completely agree Agree Neither D isagree Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.4. Price status

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

31

Most respondents (more than 40%) say that the price is not the main factor which they consider when buying meat, and only some 20% consider that it indeed is the main factor. This result could be expected, as usually respondents tend to underestimate the importance of the price in their food consumption. Besides, many Spanish consumers really are willing to pay a bit higher prices for meat and to spend a higher share of the income for food. However, the willingness to pay higher prices for higher quality is limited. On the other hand, almost half of the respondents consider that you have to be prepared to pay a higher price to get a good piece of meat.

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

Safety/Information
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Always check the nutritional label before buying Food in the shop is safe Completely agree Agree Neither Disagree Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.5. Safety / Information

More than half of the respondents agrees strongly (40%) or slightly (20%) to the statement that they always check the nutritional labelling on food before buying them. There also are a considerable number of consumers (more than 25%) who usually do not check the labelling concerning the nutritional value on food. Most consumers consider that food in the shops is safe.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

32

5.2.6. Origin The results of the sample is shown in the following graph: Origin
100%

80%

60%

Completely agree Agree Neither Disagree

40%

Completely disagree

20%

0% Prefer food produced locally The country where meat is produced is important

Fig. 5.2.6. Origin

Among the respondents there seems to be a high preference for buying food, which is produced locally (more than the 75% agree completely). However, in many cases, this is not possible due to the regional and international division of labour. Thus, there are some consumption centres, like Madrid, where due to a lack of local production most of the foods is produced outside the region. Most respondents of the sample (some 65%) like to know in which country the meat they buy has been produced. In the market for beef and veal, in the shops, frequently the Spanish regional origin is indicated, even in the meat without the label of Denomination of Origin.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

33

5.2.7. Nutrition
Nutrition
100% 90% 80% 70% Completely agree 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Meat is essential for a balanced diet There is no source of protein like meat Agree Neither D isagree Completely disagree

Fig. 5.2.7. Nutrition

Most consumers believe that meat is essential for a balanced diet. Only 5% disagree strongly to the statement. In Spain, there are only a few people who do not eat meat. More than half of the respondents thinks that there are other sources of protein like meat. It may be supposed that many consumers mean mainly fish, although it is not mentioned any food in the statement.

6. Symbols and Labels The absolute frequencies for those answers mentioned at least five times for each type of meat are the following: Beef Origin Health stamps Best before date Organic breeding Quality symbol Slaughtering house stamp EEC quality brand Registered brand
Fig. 6. Number of answers

Pork 13 10 6 9 6 5 -

Chicken 28 10 10 20 35 13 -

12 9 8 12 9

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

34

Fresh meat usually was sold without any label or brand in Spain, while there were some brands in the meat product market. The decrease of demand of beef and veal caused an increased of the importance of labels in this market (Denominations of Origin, Clara program, etc.). There also is one D.O. in the chicken market. Some enterprises in the chicken industry and of the meat processing industry have got the ISO certification. Now the total amount of fresh meat sold under official quality labels are about 5% (Briz, et al 1997, p. 53). The share of meat sold with quality labels of retailers should be higher, although there are not available data. The fact that most hypermarkets and supermarkets are introducing retailer brands, indicates that consumers react positively in some way to this marketing strategy. Some consumer groups criticise that there are quality labels that guarantee that the meat is free of hormones, arguing that according to the legislation, all meat sold should be free of hormones. The proliferation of many quality seals has irritated some consumers. Thus, some enquiries made in Madrid (Briz, et al 1996) show that many consumers are not well informed about the meaning of many quality labels and to judge the differences between them. In the sample, when looking on the safety of meat, respondents trust most origin labels and quality symbols of beef and veal, origin labels and health stamps of pork, and slaughtering house stamps and origin labels in the case of chicken. The results are more plausible in the case of beef, veal and chicken. In the market for beef and veal, there have been introduced as well origin labels and quality symbols as brands. In the chicken industry, several enterprises have adapted ISO norms. The importance of organic breeding in chicken may be due to a certain confusion among many consumers, who do not know the differences between organic breeding, free range, etc. The importance of the date in chicken also is plausible due to the danger of salmonella in summer. In the pork market, the responses are not so plausible as there do not exits Denomination of Origin for fresh meat (there exits several D.O. for hams and sausages elaborated with pig meat).

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

35

7. Trust The absolute frequencies of the answers (at least mentioned five times either type of meat) related to the trust on the information in the meat safety are the following: Beef
Government Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Health & Consumption Consumers associations Independent butchers Butchers at supermarkets Friends Magazines Reports Radio reports Health bureau Mother, other family persons I trust myself None/dont know Fig. 7. Trust

Pork 16 7 18 18 71 51 8 5 13 6 7 7 12 197

Chicken 8 5 14 12 52 45 90

10 8 35 26 183 85 9 9 6 6 14 35 54

When looking for information on the safety of meat, people trust most independent butchers and butchers in the supermarkets. Among institutions respondents trust most in the Ministry of health and Consumption with regard to meat safety. Consumer organisations are also considered to be reliable source of information.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

36

8. Further Analysis - Crosstabulations 8.1. Visual inspection by agegroup

Visual inspection by agegroup (beef)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Disagree strongly Disagree a litle Neither Agree a little Agree strongly

Fig. 8.1. Visual inspection by agegroup in beef

8.2. Quality perception by visual inspection The following table shows the average ranks of the characteristic for people who agree or disagree with assessing the quality of beef by visual perception: Average ranks Those who agree Colour of the beef Marbling of the beef Leanness of the beef A brand or quality assurance label The place of purchase The price of the beef The country of origin of the beef 3.32 4.09 4.08 4.35 3.42 4.95 3.80 Those who disagree 3.45 4.44 3.91 3.76 3.42 5.15 3.87

Fig. 8.2.1. Average ranks of the characteristics for people who agree and disagree

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

37

The ranking of characteristics for the people who can assess the quality just by looking at it is the following: Colour of the beef The place of purchase > Country of origin Leanness of beef Marbling of beef Brand / label > Price

On the other hand, the Wilconox test shows no significant differences between all of the attributes in the case of the people who can not assess the quality by visual inspection. One of the reasons for this could be the low sample size in this subgroup (39 respondents).

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

38

9. Summary and First Implications for Quality Policy In Spain, total consumption of met and meat products have been declining slightly since 1990, reaching a level of some 61-Kg per capita in 1995. Per capita consumption usually is higher in houses with low income that in household with high income. It varies considerably between different groups of consumers. A large share of the respondents consume meat twice or more a week. Most people think that meat is an essential part of the meal. The main place of purchase of fresh meat is the butchers, but super and hypermarkets are increasing their market shares. The flavour, the tenderness, and the juiciness are considered to be the most important characteristics of beef and veal, while in the case of pork and chicken, there are a wide range of characteristics which are important. When assessing the quality of meat in the shop, the colour and the place of purchase are considered to be the most important factors. Most respondents think that they are able to assess quality of meat in the shop just by looking at it. With regard to safety concerns, most people are concerned about hormones (beef and veal); salmonella, hormones and antibiotics (pork); and salmonella and hormones (chicken). It becomes clear that they do not trust the institutions that are responsible for controlling the carrying out of the laws that prohibit the use of hormones. However, most respondents believe that the foods that they buy in the shops are safe. Most people declare that they care a lot about animal welfare. However, the willingness to pay higher prices for meat from well treated animals is limited. Most people say that they are prepared to pay a higher price to get a good piece of meat. Indeed, people with high income, usually eat less meat than people with low income but they pay higher prices per Kilo of each type of meat. Most respondents prefer food produced locally. In many regions local production in much lower than the consumption. Therefore most food has to be imported from other regions. Great deals of the consumers want to know the origin (country, region) of the meat they buy. Until recently, fresh meat was usually sold without any quality label, although there were some health standards that have to be fulfilled

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

39

In the last years, quality seals, Denomination of Origin, and brands have got more and more importance. In this way, it was tried to achieve market segmentation and to increase the trust of the consumers on acquiring meat of good quality. In the chicken market, slaughtering houses that do not have any importance on beef, veal and pork, are rather important. When looking for information on the safety of meat, people trust most independent butchers and butchers in the supermarkets. Among the institutions, respondents trust most the Ministry of Health and Consumption in regard to meat safety. The quality safety of meat products should take into consideration the confidence of many consumers in the butchers. The implementation of quality seals and brands in the fresh meat market seems to be useful. However it should be make sure that consumer know enough about the meaning of each label (quality label, D.O., ISO, etc.) in order to achieve that these labels really become useful information and increase the trust of the consumers in the quality of the meat which they buy. There seems to be a need to improve the trust of the consumers in public institutions when they look on information on safety of meat. Nowadays, only the Ministry of Health and Consumption has acceptable results with regard to this question. It might be useful to work with consumer associations when implementing the quality policy with regard to meat. If the quality policy measures that have been introduced recently are implemented in a serious way, and they are complemented with the measures mentioned above, and increase of the consumers trust in the meat quality, and as a consequence, stabilisation of even increase of the meat demand seems feasible.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

40

10. Bibliography

Briz, J., Mahlau, M., Sector Lcteo Espaol, (1995), Acciones y Estrategias de Marketing Institucionales y Empresariales. Agricultura, July/ August, pp. 650-655. Briz, J., Mahlau, M., Gutirrez, E., Saunders, S., (1997), Report on Spanish Meat Quality Policy. EU FAIR- CT 95 - 0046. Madrid. De Miguel, A., (1995), La Sociedad Espaola 1994-1995. Madrid. Eurocarne, (1996) Informe Anual Eurocarne 1996. Estrategias Alimentarias Espaolas. Madrid. Furitsch, H.P. (1994). Wohlstandsentwicklung und Nahrungsmittel-nachfrageGrundlagen und empirische Untersuchung der Nachfrage nach Nahrungsmitteln und Fleisch in Spanien, Diss., Frankfurt a.M., 1994.

Gordon Simpsons Research Group Ltd (1995), European Attitudes to Meat. Consumer Study. London (private document). Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE) (1993), Encuesta Demogrfica 1991, tomo I y II. Madrid. (1995), Panormica Social de Espaa 1994. (1996), Anuario Estadstico 1995. (1997), Indicadores Sociales de Espaa.

MAPA, (1996). La Alimentacin en Espaa 1995, Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacin. Madrid. Mahlau, M., (in cooperation with Briz, J.) (1991) Production, Marketing and Consumption of Animal Products in Spain, Kiel. Mercasa (ed.), (1995), Alimentos de Espaa. Denominaciones de Origen y de Calidad. Madrid. Mili, S. (1996). Comportement du Consommateur et Demande de Viande en Espagne, France et Italie. Madrid. Rivera Vilas, L.M., Buitrago Vera, J.M., (1996), La Certificacin de la Calidad Agroalimentaria. "El Boletn", Decembre, pp. 25-31. Segrelles Serrano, J.A., (1995), La Comercializacin de Carne en la Provincia de Alicante. Alicante.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

41

Annex 1. Sociodemographics
In this annex the sociodemographics of the sample is compared to the sociodemographics of the whole population. We have to take into consideration that an exact comparison is not possible, since we have considered only a part of the whole population, that is: people who are responsible for the shopping in households and where telephone is available (some 77% of the Spanish households have telephone).

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

sample, female people are clearly overrepresented (89%). This fact seems plausible, as many women are housewives, and do the tasks at home, as well if their husbands are working or if they are retired. In most households women are responsible for the shopping of foodstuffs. In Spain, the share of female people in total labour force is of some 34% (1996) The following figure shows the structure of the sample:

Sex
Male 11%

Female 89%

Fig. 1. Sex

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

42

2. Age In the sample the categories "30-39 years" and "40-49 years" are the most important age classes. Each of them accounts for more than 25% of the interviewed people. In the whole population, each of this class accounts for some 16% of the people. The largest categories are people who are less than 30 or over 60 years old.

Age
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over

Fig. 2. Age statistics

3. Household size In the last years the number of households has been increasing in Spain, while the average size of each household has been decreasing. Concretely, in 1970 there were 8,854 thousand households, in 1981 10,586 thousand households, and in 1991 11,836 thousand. The average size of the households declined from 3.65 in 1985 to 3.25 in 1995. The average number of children per woman declined from 2.2 in 1980 to 1.2 in 1991. Now it is one of the lowest in Europe. In spite of these trends, on average Spanish families are larger than families in most other EU-countries. Thus, some 13% of the Spanish households only have one member, compared to 26% in the EU-average, while 20% of the Spanish households have 5 or more members, compared with 9% in the EU-average.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

43

The average household size and proportions in the sample are the following:
H o u s e h o ld s i z e
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 person 2 p e o p le 3 p e o p le 4 p e o p le 5 p e o p le 6 or m ore p e o p le

Fig. 3. Household size

4. Children under 16 The following figure shows the number of children under 16 in the households of the sample:

Children under 16
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
Fig. 4. Children under 16

4 or more

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

44

In most households of the sample (some 60%) no child under 16 is living in the household. The next categories by importance are households with one child and with two children under 16. In the whole population the situation the situation is rather similar, although the available data are not exactly comparable. More than half of the households does not live with children, 18% with one child, almost 18% with two children and 11% with more than two children (including children over 16 years old).

5. Years of full-time education More than half of the Spaniards (64%) stopped full-time education at an age of 15 or less years and about 20% at an age of 15 to 18 years. The rest (16%) stopped fulltime education being over 18 years old. As a rule, young people have longer full-time education than older people. The average age when the respondent stopped full-time education

stop full-time education

50,0% 45,0% 40,0% 35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0% less than 15 15 to 18 over 18

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

The structure of the sample is rather similar: most respondents (60%) stopped full time education at an age of less than 15 years, 27% at an age of 15 to 18 years, and 28% at an age of over 18 years.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

45

6. Occupation In Spain, there is a high rate of unemployment (23%). It is higher for female people (30%) than for male people (18%) (INE, 1997, p. 137). To some extent, these figures are improved by "not official" employment, e.g. when the employed people do not get the social security which is obligatory in "official" works. Considering this type of unemployment, the unemployment rate reportedly may be of some 11%. The respondent occupation categories are the following:
O c u p a tion I
70,0% 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 10,0% 0 ,0 %
H ou se w ife R et ire d N ot w or ki ng Se lfem pl oy ed pr of fe si on al or m a. .. po si tio n O th er em pl oy ed

Fig. 6.1. Occupation categories of the respondent

About 60% of the respondents are housewives. All other categories account for less than 10% of the answers. When looking at the occupation of the person who contributes most to the household income, it can be seen that some 2 % are self-employed and some 28% work in "lower" categories of employed people (excluding employed professionals, etc.). When analysing the occupation of the whole population, it can be seen that the main groups by occupation are housewives (32%) and employed people in "lower" positions (26%). (see fig. 6.2).

Em pl oy ed

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

46

The occupation of the person who contributes most to the household income are the following:
Occupation II
35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0%
H ou se w ife N ot w or ki ng R et ire d Se lfem pl oy ed pr of fe si on al or m an ... po si tio n O th er em pl oy ed

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

7. Household incomes Considering the income distribution within Spain, the different groups are divided in deciles: Decile 1+2 are people with incomes varying from less than 1,056,000 to 1,487,000 pts Decile 3+4, people with incomes varying from 1,487,000 to 2,166,000 pts Decile 5+6, people with incomes varying from 2,166,000 to 2,919,000 pts Decile 7+8, people with incomes from 2,919,000 to 4,043,000 pts Decile 9+10, with more than 4,043,000 pts The average income per household in the decile 10 is about 10 times higher than in the decile 1, and about threefold compared to the income in the decile 5.

Em pl oy ed

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

47

The share of the deciles described above in the sample is shown in the following graph:
Household incom e
45,0% 40,0% 35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0% decile 1+2 decile 3+4 decile 5+6 decile 7+8 decile 9+10

7. Household income

It can be seen that most respondents have incomes below average: 40% correspond to the lowest deciles and 20% to the deciles 3 and 4.

Report on National Consumer Perception of Meat Quality

48

8. Summary % Sex Characteristics Female Male 16 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 and over Under 30 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 and over 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people or more Average No children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 or more children Average < 15 years 15 18 years More than 18 years Average age Housewife Retired Others not working Self employed Employed professional or management Other employed position Housewife Retired Others not working Self employed Employed professional or management Other employed position Survey 88.8 11.2 National 50.8 49.2 27.8 16.7 15.0 13.2 27.3 41.2 13.6 12.2 10.8 22.2 14.4 21.8 21.0 26.1 10.9 5.8 3.2 53.4 18.2 17.8 7.3 3.4 1.9 64.0 18.9 16.2 15.4

Age A

Age B

Household size

15.3 27.6 28.3 21.7 8.1 4.6 18.8 22.4 28.8 16.8 8.6 59.2 22.8 14.0 3.2 0.8 45.0 27.2 27.8 60.2 6.0 7.5 7.9 7.1 11.3 2.0 18.8 4.8 29.4 16.4 28.7

Children under 16

Age when stopped full-time education

Occupation of the respondents

Occupation of person who contribute most to the household income

31.7 11.0 17.3 7.4 6.5 26.1

Fig. 8.1. Summary of sociodemographics