national consumer behaviour report: italy€¦ · national report on consumer behavior - italy-4...

National Consumer Behaviour Report:Italy

Mara Miele and Vittoria Parisi

October 1997

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

This study is part of the project

QUALITY POLICY AND CONSUMERBEHAVIOUR TOWARDS FRESH MEAT

Project coordinator:

Tilman BeckerInstitut für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaftliche Marktlehre,

University of Hohenheim

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

National Report on Consumer Behavior - Italy-

1

Index

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE......................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Structure of population by age groups: 1951-1991 .................................................................... 8

1.1.2 Households by size: 1951-1991................................................................................................ 67

1.1.3 Distribution of population by age and localisation (1/1/96) ..................................................... 67

1.1.4 Composition and localisation of the population by household size, 1991 ................................. 67

1.1.5 Age group 18-34 living with parents (%).................................................................................. 67

1.2 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....................................................................................................................... 67

1.2.1 Unemployment : 1971-1997..................................................................................................... 67

1.2.2 Labour force and unemployment by gender and by regions: January 1997 .............................. 67

1.3 IMMIGRATION.................................................................................................................................... 67

1.3.1 Immigration: Var. 1951-1995 .................................................................................................. 67

1.3.2 Immigrants from extra-EU countries........................................................................................ 67

2 CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR........................................................................................................... 67

2.1 DECLINING EXPECTATIONS OF CONSUMPTION ...................................................................................... 67

2.2 STRUCTURE OF FOOD CONSUMPTION IN ITALY. .................................................................................... 67

2.2.1 Shopping behavior by education.............................................................................................. 67

2.2.2 Shopping behavior by income groups. ..................................................................................... 67

2.2.3 Food expenditures on total consumption.................................................................................. 67

2.2.4 Structure of Italian food consumption 1995 ............................................................................. 67

2.2.5 Var. household food consumption ............................................................................................ 67

2.2.6 Household food consumption in Italy, 1995 (average montly per capita quantity in gr; 100=

Italian avg.) .......................................................................................................................................... 67

2.2.7 Mediterranean component of Italian food structure (kg per capite).......................................... 67

2.3 TRENDS IN MEAT CONSUMPTION IN ITALY ........................................................................................... 67

2.3.1 Structure of Italian meals ........................................................................................................ 67

2.3.2 Household food consumption (prices 1990, billion liras) ......................................................... 67

2.3.3 Var. household food consumption ............................................................................................ 67

2.3.4 Household food consumption (average montly per capita quantity in gr) ................................. 67

2.4 THE CONSUMPTION OF BEEF AND VEAL IN ITALY ................................................................................. 67

2.4.1 Meat consumption per head by region: 1989 (Italy=100)......................................................... 67

2.4.2 Meat consumption 1991-1996 (kg per capite) .......................................................................... 67

2.4.3 Meat price variation in 1996 compared with the same period in 1995 ..................................... 67

2.5 TRENDS IN EATING STYLES IN ITALY ................................................................................................... 67

2.5.1 Map of eating styles in Italy..................................................................................................... 67

2.5.2 Eating styles in Italy and meat................................................................................................. 67

2.6 CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION OF MEAT QUALITY IN THE LAST YEARS......................................................... 67

2.6.1 Preference of beef and veal by typology .................................................................................. 67


2

2.6.2 Maps of perceived qualities ..................................................................................................... 67

2.7 THE ROLE OF RETAILING IN THE CHANGES IN MEAT CONSUMPTION ........................................................ 67

2.7.1 Italian distribution channels (1/1/96)....................................................................................... 67

2.7.2 Trend in meat retailing shops .................................................................................................. 67

2.8 THE ROLE OF CONSUMER ASSOCIATIONS IN ITALY ................................................................................ 67

3 ITALIAN SURVEY: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE ..................................................... 67

4 CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR........................................................................................................... 67

4.1 FREQUENCY OF CONSUMPTION ........................................................................................................... 67

4.1.1 Q.1 on average, how often, is … eaten in your household each week? ..................................... 67

4.1.2 Penetration rate of beef, pork and chicken consumption .......................................................... 67

4.2 CHANGES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS...................................................................................................... 67

4.2.1 Q.2a e Q2b has the amount of … eaten in your household changed or not in the last five years,

that is since 1992? And does your household now eat more or less … than it did in 1992?.................... 67

4.3 PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR BEEF, PORK AND CHICKEN (%) .................................................................... 67

4.3.1 Q4 where do you mainly buy fresh (raw) …?............................................................................ 67

5 QUALITY PERCEPTION.................................................................................................................. 67

5.1.1 Q5 now I want to ask you about meat quality. How important or unimportant are each of the

following for assessing the eating quality of beef?................................................................................. 67

5.1.2 How important or unimportant are each of the following for assessing the eating quality of

pork? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………67

5.1.3 Q5 now I want to ask you about meat quality. How important or unimportant are each of the

following for assessing the eating quality of chicken? ........................................................................... 67

5.2 QUALITY PERCEPTION AT THE SHOP .................................................................................................... 67

5.2.1 Q6 I would now like you to think about shopping for beef. When you are shopping for beef how

helpful or otherwise are each of the following for predicting the eating quality of the beef?.................. 67

5.2.2 Q6 I would now like you to think about shopping for pork. When you are shopping for pork how

helpful or otherwise are each of the following for predicting the eating quality of the pork? ................. 67

5.2.3 Q6 I would now like you to think about shopping for chicken. When you are shopping for

chicken how helpful or otherwise are each of the following for predicting the eating quality of the

chicken?................................................................................................................................................ 67

5.2.4 Eating quality :Rank of Quality characteristics, at the shop ................................................... 67

6 SAFETY PERCEPTION..................................................................................................................... 67

6.1 CONCERNS ........................................................................................................................................ 67

6.1.1 Q7 how concerned or unconcerned are you personally about each of the following when buying

beef? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………67


pork? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………67


chicken?................................................................................................................................................ 67


3

6.1.4 Rank of Concerns .................................................................................................................... 67

6.2 SAFETY INDICATORS .......................................................................................................................... 67

6.2.1 Q8 and how helpful or otherwise are each of the following in assessing the safety of beef?...... 67

6.2.2 Q8 and how helpful or otherwise are each of the following in assessing the safety of pork? ..... 67

6.2.3 Q8 and how helpful or otherwise are each of the following in assessing the safety of chicken? 67

6.2.4 Safety issues ............................................................................................................................ 67

6.3 ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 67

6.3.1 Q9 Now I would like to read out some statements which other people have made about food and

meat generally. For each one, please tell me how much you personally agree or disagree. You may agree

strongly, agree a little, neither agree nor disagree, disagree a little or disagree strongly...................... 67

6.4 VISUAL INSPECTION ........................................................................................................................... 67

6.4.1 Quality perception by visual inspection ................................................................................... 67

6.4.2 You can asses the quality of beef in the shop just by looking at it (by age class) ...................... 67

6.4.3 Cooking................................................................................................................................... 67

6.4.4 Animal welfare ........................................................................................................................ 67

6.4.5 Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 67

6.4.6 Image and Nutritional Status ................................................................................................... 67

6.4.7 Safety and Information ............................................................................................................ 67

6.4.8 Market transparency................................................................................................................ 67

6.5 SYMBOLS AND LABELS ....................................................................................................................... 67

6.5.1 Which brand or labels look for when buying meat?.................................................................. 67

6.5.2 Q 11 when you looking for information on the safety of meat who or what do you most trust? . 67

6.6 FIRST IMPLICATION FOR QUALITY POLICY ............................................................................................ 67

APPENDIX- LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. 67

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 90


4

Introduction

The analysis of consumer behavior towards meat in the six countries participating to the

FAIR project 95- 0046 has been conducted in a period of great changes. With regard to the

Italian case it is important underlining the main features of the general socio-economic context

in which are located both the analysis of the general trend of meat consumption, and the

interpretation of the empirical data, collected in March 1997. Among the plurality of factors

affecting consumer behavior, in this specific case, it is worth mentioning two events of 1996:

the drop in the inflation rate and the BSE scare.

Year 1996 represented a very specific moment for Italian society: in July 96, for the first

time since 1968, the end consumption prices rate was negative (-0.2) and the inflation rate

progressively decreased down to the level of 3% at the end of the year.

After thirty years of high inflation rates, Italy has reached the average inflation rate of the

EU1 and showed performances closer to those of Germany, France and UK. Such a result was

the outcome of a series of political initiatives and economic maneuvers, started in 1992 in

order to meet the Maastricht Treat requirements.

Moving from a focus on macroeconomic data to individual behaviors, it is worth

underlining how the former have strongly affected the latter ones. In the area of investments

the long period of high inflation rates have created a "collective mental habit" of permanent

expectations of rising prices, and for a long time there has been a strong preference for short

terms investments in State shares: 75 % of the national shares belongs to the households, and

up to now, the high interest guaranteed by the State represented an important share of the

household incomes. Another area of investments has been represented by the so called "shelter

goods", like the real estate, which have greatly increased the costs of housing. The changed

scenario of the very last years has created new opportunities for alternative investments (long

terms public shares and retirement pensions) and for investments in the stock-market,

1 Rate of end consumption prices (% var)UE 12 Germany UK France Italy

1988 3.6 1.3 4.9 2.6 5.01989 5.1 2.8 7.8 3.7 6.31990 5.7 2.7 9.4 3.4 6.51991 5.0 3.5 5.9 3.2 6.21992 4.7 4.2 3.8 2.3 5.21993 3.4 3.6 1.6 2.1 4.41994 3.1 2.7 2.5 1.8 4.01995 3.1 1.9 3.4 1.6 5.2

Source: Censis, 30° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del paese, after Eurostat.


5

traditionally underdeveloped in Italy. Low inflation rates and a new taxation of properties also

created less favorable conditions for investments in real estate. More generally there has been a

beginning of reorientation in investment and saving flows from revenue to production.

In the area of consumption choices, the high inflation climate led to a widely spread

attitude (in that context perceived as economically rational) of "not postponing" a purchase

since "prices would has been rising in the future". In every sector consumption has grown

uninterruptedly for more than thirty years, up until 1991. From 1991 onwards households

consumption showed an opposite trend, slightly increasing only in 1994, and decreasing again

over the last two years. Many commentators agree on the thesis that we are at the end of an

era of "growing consumption": most markets have reached a saturation level, and in the short

period the new situation of low inflation will affect in consumption negatively by adding weight

to money and creating more favorable condition for "buyers" instead of "sellers". Regarding

consumers' behavior, Censis, in the analysis of the main social trends in 1996, reports a widely

spread attitude of "confused waiting for". The same authors support the thesis that in a mature

market, in which most sectors are close to saturation, consumer needs are going to be replaced

by consumer desires, which are less predictable and more volatile. As a consequence, from

now on most likely there will be space mainly for substitution among goods, for new markets

and innovations.

The BSE scare in UK was the second event that greatly affected consumer behavior in

1996, more specifically food choices. Contrary to many other European countries, in which in

1994 and earlier there had been a broad information on the presence of the disease amongst the

UK herds, in Italy the BSE was almost unknown to the public, and information on this topic

never appeared in the main media before March 21st, 1996 2. Since the first day in which the

UK government admitted the possible connection between the BSE and the Creutzfeld-Jacob-

Disease in human beings, the topic has been covered by the media extensively. The three State

networks and the other main national private networks gave information about BSE as opening

headline of the news during the first week after March 21st. For the following two weeks BSE

was still in the headlines. Only during the third week there was a decline of attention to this

topic, both in the national TV channels and the national Press: no more headlines in the TV

news nor in the first page of newspapers, no more long articles in the following pages. Yet

news regarding the market of meat were still present, concerning decrease in beef consumption

and rise in prices of poultry and other type of meat. It is only after the third week that it has

2 For a broad review on the media attitude in presenting the BSE issue to the Italian public see: M.

Miele, G. Brunori, V. Parisi "BSE in the Italian media", in Measurements of consumer attitudes Workshop:Consumer attitudes towards meat, EU project AIR-CAT - series of reports, v.2 n.2, 1996 (AIR-CATMeasurements of consumer attitudes and their influence on food choice and acceptability AAIR3 ConcertedAction, 1994-1998, supp. By CEC, DGXII), pub. By MATFORSK, 1430 As, Norway.


6

started to appear a growing number of articles dedicated to more domestic affairs: the impact

of the decline in consumption of meat on Italian bovine sector, the damage to Italian cattle

breeders. Since the Italian herds are not affected by BSE, many experts could not forecast such

an extreme reaction to the news. Most newspapers pointed out that the Italian herds were BSE

free, and also that both the Italian government and, a couple of days after, the EU commission,

had been taking initiatives to ban English beef from the rest of the European countries.

Nevertheless the BSE scare strongly affected the Italian consumer behavior towards beef, and,

in the short term it led, to substitute beef with "white meats" (chicken, turkey, rabbit, pork)

and with fish. During the first month of occurrence of the BSE scare, consumption of beef and

veal decreased by approximately 40%. Yet, this drop has little affected the general meat

consumption and the overall decrease of meat consumption at the end of the year was 2.4%,

this being the result of a combined effect of substitution for poultry and pork. The data are

quite interesting if we consider prices variations: generally speaking, consumers have reacted

prudentially to the news by choosing different meats and overlooked the rise in prices. As we

can see in the following Table, beef and veal prices have decreased of about 10%; on the

contrary, prices of poultry have literally boosted (up to about 70% for turkey).

A possible comment on this is that more than the content of the information, a key role in

affecting the consumer behavior has been played by the amount of news on this topic in a

limited period of time, coupled with the scandal-mongering tone used by media. Italian

consumers have been forced to question a highly customized practice (shopping food, deciding

about a meal ) and have started to think about a complex and confusing issue, ranging from

health scares, animal welfare considerations and trust in the scientific and political institutions

which are in change of food safety control. At this point (October 1997) it is difficult to

foresee how much the impact of the BSE scare will affect the market of meat in the future.

Many studies3 point to the fact that the beef and veal market had already reached a saturation

level before the BSE scandal, and consumption was already declining. This last event has only

accelerated a long term process of change in consumers preferences, and the levels of beef and

veal consumption (in terms of kg/per head/per year) of the beginning of the nineties will not be

reached again in the future. The BSE scare has strongly affected not only consumers behavior,

but it has also focalized the general attention to the issue of food safety and it has channeled

most of the efforts towards a national meat quality policy on the issue of "traceability". What

seems to be an ongoing process in most retailing companies, producers and processing

industries it is an acceleration in the search for quality specification of meat, mainly due to the

3 Among others see Fanfani, R., Green, R.H., Pecci, F., Rodriguez-Zuniga, M. (1996) I Sistemi di

Produzione della Carne in Europa, Milano: Franco Angeli.


7

aim of regaining consumers confidence: consumers started to pay a growing attention to origin

certification, and to labels that ensure specific schemes of production 4.

In the following paragraphs it will be provided an overview of the main developments in

food consumption in Italy in the light of the general evolution of consumption in the period

after World War II. The first part will give some insights on the major socio-economic and

demographic indicators/factors which affect consumption. General development of

consumption and meat consumption trend represent a focus of par.2. The analysis of the data

collected in March 1997 on quality perception and consumer attitude towards meat is

presented in par.4-7 and in par. 8 it is drawn some conclusions on the first implication for

quality policy towards meat.

1 Socio-demographic change

The Italian population is about 57 million people, from the 50s till the beginning of the

70s there has been a steady growth, from 47 to about 54 million people, but after then it has

not increased significantly. In the last years the number of immigrants has sharply increased,

and this trend has also affected the growth of population. In December 1995 the number of

immigrants with regular visa was 991.469, and 827.342 of them were coming from non EU

countries.

Two main demographic trends have characterized the post-war period: the aging of

population, clearly showed by the changes in the age groups composition and the decline in

the birth-rate, and the trend towards smaller-size households (tab. 1.1 and 1.2).

In 1995, in Italy the birth rate was 9.1 born on 1000 people, the lowest among the EU

countries. Other indicators underline the aging of popultion: the fertility rate (1.17 born per

woman), the low number of young under 14 years old (15.1%) and the highest number of

elderly people (16.4% of the population is over 65 years old).

If we look at the data from 1951 till 1996 the 'over 65 years old' age group has increased

of 8.6 p.p. and the 'younger than 15 years old' has decreased of 11.3 p.p.. Since 1951 till 1991

the total number of households has increased from about 12 to 20 millions, but the

composition of the household has started to change in the sixties towards smaller sizes.

Moreover, if we split the national data in two more homogeneous sub-regions, we can see that

63.6% of the population lives in the North-Center and in this region the dynamic of population

change is more similar to the Northern European countries: if we look at the structure of the

population 70% of the 'old than 65 years old' age group live here. Moreover, the household

4 See Italian National Quality Policy Report, edit by G. Brunori, 1997.


8

average size is 2.7 and more than 70% of the small size household (< 3 members), and 73% of

all single households are resident in the North-Center. On the contrary, the average household

size in the South is 3.1, and almost 60% of the largest household (> 5 members) are

concentrated in this region (Censimento 1991) (tab. 1.3 and 1.4).

The number of single household in Italy has doubled during the last 20 years; this

phenomenon is much more accentuated in the North-Center than in the South, and in large

cities more than in rural areas, nevertheless it does not reach the level of Germany, Sweden or

Great Britain. Moreover, there is a significant diversity between the growth in single

households in those countries and in Italy. In the early days in Northern European countries

the single household used to be linked to an "unavoidable" condition (the death of the partner,

the loss of the family) but more recently it seems to be emerged as a feature of a broader social

change, a new style of living specific of a share of urban population, more frequently in the 25-

45 years old age-group, belonging to the middle class and resident in large cities, who chose a

'less traditional' family structure. In Italy this type of singles is less frequent, in fact the average

age of single households is much higher, and this fact seems to underline a persistency of the

'old type' of singles (singles as a necessity and much less as a choice). On the contrary, a very

specific phenomenon has increased during the last years: it is growing the number of people

between 18 and 34 years old, who live with their parents: from 49% in 1983 to 51.8 in 1990.

This phenomenon is more accentuated for men than for women, and it seems mainly linked to

the growing difficulty in the search for a job and in the lack of a specific social policy for

unemployment: in this context the traditional family provides a shelter and does soften the

impact of the economic trend (tab. 1.5).

1.1.1 Structure of population by age groups: 1951-19911951 1961 1971 1981 1991 var.

% n. % n. % n. % n. % n. 91-51< 15 26.1 12,421,864 14.3 6,521,364 24.4 13,227,663 21.4 12,127,614 15.9 9,008,975 -10.215-34 31.5 14,983,593 35.9 16,383,751 28.3 15,307,260 29.4 16,651,039 31.0 17.601.533 -0.535-44 14.3 6,811,244 14.3 6,536,960 13.6 7,372,972 13.0 7,332,722 13.6 7.724.742 -0.745-65 19.8 9,403,652 24.9 11,346,263 22.4 12,126,832 22.9 12,960,410 24.2 13.752.596 +4.4>65 8.2 3,895,184 10.6 4,827,416 11.3 6,101,820 13.2 7,485,126 15.3 8.700.185 +7.1total 100 47,515,537 100 45,615,754 100 54,136,547 100 56,556,911 100 56.778.031

Source: ISTAT, our elaboration


9

1.1.2 Households by size: 1951-1991Number of members

1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Total1951 1,123,281 2,055,549 2,450,451 2,247,493 1,569,962 2,367,666 11,814,4021961 1,464,377 2,693,471 3,086,113 2,797,966 1,726,469 1,978,533 13,746,9291971 2,061,978 3,509,531 3,582,074 3,390,154 1,892,892 1,544,548 15,981,1771981 3,323,456 4,402,980 4,117,217 4,008,008 1,773,621 1,007,055 18,632,3371991 4,099,970 4,920,050 4,410,961 4,228,722 1,576,409 672,891 19,909,003

Source: various Census.

1.1.3 Distribution of population by age and localisation (1/1/96)<14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65 and more Total

n. % n. % n. % n. % n. %North 3,145,890 11.0 3,170,084 11.1 7,696,581 23.9 6,789,726 23.7 4,648,273 16.3 28,596,444Centre 1,451,886 11.7 1,411,559 11.3 3,248,446 26.1 2,852,671 22.9 2,029,856 16.3 12,446,304South 3,919,315 15.8 3,306,942 13.3 6,125,498 24.7 4,569,865 18.4 2,966,404 12.0 24,807,339Italy 8,517,091 12.9 7,888,585 12.0 17,070,525 25.9 14,212,262 21.6 9,644,533 14.6 65,850,087Source: Annuario Statistico Italiano 1996, our elaboration

1.1.4 Composition and localisation of the population by household size, 1991Number of members

1 2 3 4 5 6 or more total avg.household

numberNorth-Centre 2,974,212 3,507,140 3,170,897 2,644,006 789,111 291,087 13,376,453 2.7South 1,125,758 1,412,910 1,240,064 1,584,716 787,298 381,804 6,532,550 3.1Italy 4,099,970 4,920,050 4,410,961 4,228,722 1,576,409 672,891 19,909,003 2.8

percentageNorth-Centre 72.54 71.28 71.88 62.52 50.05 43.25 100South 27.45 28.71 28.12 37.47 49.94 56.74 100Italy 100 100 100 100 100 100 100% of total 20.59 % 24.71 % 22.15 % 21.24% 7.91 % 3.37 % 100 %Source: ISTAT, 13° general Census of population (20/10/91)

1.1.5 Age group 18-34 living with parents (%)1983 1990

Men Women Total Men Women Total18-19 98.5 93.8 96.1 98.8 94.8 96.820-24 88.9 63.6 75.9 88.4 70.8 79.625-29 47.1 22.4 34.5 50.0 28.1 39.030-34 16.0 7.5 11.8 17.8 9.6 13.7Total 57.7 40.4 49.0 59.1 44.5 51.8Source: Censis 1994, 28° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del Paese

1.2 Unemployment rate

Unemployment rate has fluctuated from about 8% till about 12% during the last 17 years

and it was 12.4% in January 1997 (16.8% for women, tab. 1.6). Unemployment is unevenly


10

distributed between Northern and Southern regions, between age groups, and the sharpest

differences exist between men and women.

If we split this data among the different sub-regions we can see how this index more than

any other ones underlines the different rate of development between the South of the country

and the North-Center: the unemployment rate in the South was 21.7%, and in the North-

Center 8.1% (tab. 1.7).

During the very last years it has worsen the condition of young people: in 1995 the

unemployment rate was 25.8%. Also in this case the unemployment is unevenly distributed: in

the South is 44.8% and in the North-East is 11.9%. Differences are sharper for women: female

unemployment is 55% in the South and 16.1% in the regions of North-East (Censis, 1996).

Women situation has worsen in general: in January 1997 women represented 37.7 of

total employed (in 1994 they were the 35% of total employed). But it has also grown the

number of women looking for a job (from 1,235,000 to 1,433,000) and it has decreased the

number of employed one (from 7,135,000 to 7,090,000). Especially in this case there is great

regional uneveness: 77% of the total employed women live in the North-Center while in the

South there are only 23% of the employed women. In 1997 the women unemployment rate of

the South was 8,5% and the South 8,3%.

1.2.1 Unemployment : 1971-1997Men Women total unempl.

n.(,000)

% labour-force

% men pop. n.(,000)

% labour-force

% female pop. n.(,000)

% labour-force

1971 548 3.8 2.1 561 9.5 2.1 1,109 5.41975 558 3.8 2.1 672 10.7 2.4 1,230 5.91980 708 4.8 2.6 976 13.1 3.4 1,684 7.61985 1,054 7.0 3.8 1,418 17.3 4.9 2,471 10.61990 1,102 7.3 4.0 1,519 17.1 5.2 2,621 11.01994 1,250 8.7 4.5 1,310 15.6 4.5 2,561 11.31995 1,268 8.9 4.6 1,405 16.3 4.8 2,673 11.71997 1,376 9.7 5.0 1,433 16.8 4.9 2,809 12.4Source: ISTAT, various Yearbooks, monthly bullettin of statistic, March 1996 and August 1997


11

1.2.2 Labour force and unemployment by gender and by regions: January 1997labour force employed unemployed

n(,000)

% populat. n(,000)

n(,000)

% labourforce

menItaly 14,107 24.8 12,733 1,376 6.1North-Centre 9,279 25.7 8,755 527 3.4South 4,828 23.3 3,979 849 11.8

womenItaly 8,523 15.0 7,090 1,433 6.3North-Centre 6,190 17.1 5,467 723 4.7South 2,333 11.2 1,624 709 9.9

Men and womenItaly 22,633 39.8 19,824 2,809 12.4North-Centre 15,470 42.8 14,222 1,249 8.1South 7,163 34.6 5,602 1,561 21.7

Source: Bollettino mensile statistico Istat agosto 1997, our elaboration

1.3 Immigration

Immigration is a relatively new phenomenon in Italy that has started to be numerically

significant during the eighties, but has increased at a higher rate since the beginning of the

nineties (tab. 1.8 and 1.9). The total number of immigrants in 1995, with a regular visa, was

991,469, but according to the data collected by Caritas, in 1996 the immigrants who applied

for a visa were 1,200,000. The main flux of immigration comes from North Africa and East

Europe, and migrate mostly to the North and the Center especially in large cities (Rome and

Milan have the largest presence of immigrants). Connected to the new immigration flux is

rising a market for less specialized jobs, that mostly does not match the internal demand for

work, especially in the agricultural sector and in the services (Censis, 1995), and a more

differentiated demand for food.

1.3.1 Immigration: Var. 1951-1995 n % of popul.

1951 47,177 0.101961 62,780 0.141971 121,116 0.221981 210,937 0.371989 490,388 0.861995 991,469 1.73

Source: ISTAT, various Census.


12

1.3.2 Immigrants from extra-EU countriesN. (%)

Regular Visa illegally (*) Total RegularVisa illegally Total1989 246,000 410,000 656,000 37.5 62.5 100.01990 454,000 432,000 886,000 51.2 48.8 100.01991 621,000 497,000 1,118,000 55.5 44.5 100.01992 656,000 524,000 1,180,000 55.6 44.4 100.01993 987,405 - - - - -1995 827,342North 422,836 - - - - -Centre 260,037 - - - - -South 144,469 - - - - -Source: Censis 1994, 28° e 30° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del Paese. (*) Estimate


13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

%

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991

Structure of population by age groups: 1951-1971

< 15

15-34

35-44

45-65

>65

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

%

North Centre South Italy

Distribution of population by age and localisation, 1996

<14

15-24

25-44

45-64

65 and more

Household by size:1951-1991

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Total

number of members

1991

1981

1971

1961

1951

Composition and localisation of the population by household size, 1991

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 and more

number of members

North-Centre South


14

Number of unemployed: 1971-1997 (,000)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1971 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994 1995 1997

Men

Women

Total unempl.

Unemployment rate: 1971-1997

02

468

10

121416

1820

1971 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994 1995 1997

(%)

Men

Women

Total unempl.

0

5

10

15

20

25

(%)

men women total

Unemployment rate by gender and by regions, 1997

Italy

North-Centre

South

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

men women total

Unemployed by gender and by regions, 1997 (,000)

Italy

North-Centre

South


15

2 Consumption Behavior

2.1 Declining expectations of consumption

If we look at the evolution of consumption in Italy since the end of World War II we can

see that it has developed in parallel with and dependently on the evolution of the economy and

the level of employment. During the last years there have been important changes that involved

not only consumers behaviors and attitudes towards the "demand for goods" but also the

strategies of the "supply". Meanwhile also the broader social meaning of this phenomenon

changed. For a long time consumption simply reflected the trend in disposable incomes and the

general economic dynamics, but, more recently, it has gained a sort of self-referentiality. In the

second half of the nineties it has become more evident that consumption is a focus for a

demand for citizenship rights and an ambit for developing individual strategies of standard of

living safeguard.

From the fifties onwards we can trace the evolution of consumption by distinguishing

four phases:

1) Up until middle sixties

2) From the second half of the sixties till the end of the seventies

3) The eighties

4) The nineties

Up until middle sixties, period in which the whole country was involved in a collective

effort of recovering from the war, consumption, (in its modern meaning) characterized mainly

that segment of population with high incomes and resident in urban areas. In the second

period, with the general growth of disposable incomes, consumption is shared by all the

society. In these years the household is the subject that monopolizes the purchasing choices

and that utilizes collectively the goods (cars, refrigerators, washing machines, telephone, TV

sets, encyclopaedias). During the eighties there has been a relevant change. The steady growth

of disposable incomes and the completion of purchasing of household basic goods, has

promoted a process of individualization of consumption. Most commodities became more

personalized and individual interests and tastes prevail among the typologies of the purchased

items. Industrial production starts to offer new goods for individualized mass-use, like the

Walkman and the mini-TV set. Shopping becomes a way of differentiating him/herself, what

you buy is an important tool for defining your lifestyle and making distinction from others, and

the eighties represent the time of triumph for la griffe and the tailored made. Supply of goods

hugely increases, and each product gets split in a multitude of variations, to meet the personal


16

taste of consumers. A good example of this phenomenon in the food sector is represented by

the number of different types of yogurt, breads and cheeses that literally invade the market. In

retailing the specialization of the offer prevails: during the 80s there is a boom of specialized

shops, boutiques dedicated to a narrow range of goods and, more importantly, to a specific

segment of consumers.

The economic recession of the beginning of the nineties played an important role in the

decline of general consumption and in creating a more pessimistic view about future

developments. In this decade a new collectivity of consumption choices seems to prevail: this

new trend is evident in the typologies of products, in modalities of goods' use and in the

characteristics of the retailing companies. In these last years, for example, the family cars, also

among young people become very successful. The brand, that in the former decade represented

the symbol of the individuality and uniqueness of the purchase, has a competitive efficiency

only as far as it guarantees the quality of consumption and a fair quality/price rate. Moreover,

the symbolic aspects of the products acquire a new relevance, and in certain specific case, the

use-value becomes almost irrelevant. The brands that symbolize better the new shared social

values ( authenticity, sincerity, individuality instead of individualism, understatement, a search

for equilibrium) show better performances and are considered the most innovative. There is a

decline of the specialized shops substituted for discount chains, supermarkets, hyper-markets

and shopping centers. These last are more likely frequented by families and are characterized

by the greater quantity of items, which means a wider choice in terms of quality and price. The

retailing companies on the one hand develop specific "price" policies, in order to compete with

the new hard discount chains; on the other hand, invest on innovation for new "services":

entertainment and a climate of leisure time. The most important element that underlines the

trend towards a re-composition of the logic of consumption is the spreading of behaviors

meant to defend the levels of consumption reached in the earlier decade, both in term of quality

and in quantity. Another signal of the same attitude is the emergence of a generalized demand

for institutions or organizations devoted to the safeguard of consumer rights.

2.2 Structure of food consumption in Italy.

The analysis of food consumption development in Italy represents an essential element

for understanding the great change the Italian society faced during the last forty years.

Food consumption has been affected by the general growth in disposable incomes as well

as general consumption, but, more specifically, a relevant role has been played by the increase

in population, by the rural exodus towards urban areas, and by the great South-North

migration of the sixties.


17

In the examined period, there has been a relevant growth in food consumption: many

authors agree on the fact that it has been reached the "saturation level" both in terms of

"quantity" and in terms of "quality"5. These achievements came about with great

transformations:

1) A remarkable reduction of importance of food expenses, which ranged from about

48% of the household final consumption in 1951 to 17.6% of 1996 (Table 2.2.3). On the

contrary non-food expenses grow, especially for housing, health care and free time.

Disposable income looses importance in food choice and new explanatory variables such as

age, education, lifestyle and even gender, become more relevant.

2) A structural change in the traditional alimentary styles. Food consumption has

developed to a certain extent in the same direction of the other industrialized countries,

with the increase of food supply / choice (food mass-consumption) and the affirmation of

convenience-food and health-food. At the same time, the growing relevance of the above

mentioned explanatory variables of food choices has broaden the range of the consumption

models. Among young people it seems to prevail a more Northern European model ( a

preference for hamburgers, bier instead of wine, tea instead of coffee), but in the other age

groups there is a rediscovery of the typical or regional foods. Lately the "Mediterranean

diet" has become more legitimate by medical authorities and very popular in Western

countries (USA and in Northern Europe). It started to represent a workable option for a

lighter diet and the circuits of the typical Italian products have enlarged. One of the main

characteristic emerged in the last years is the growing attention towards food and eating

habits in general6. There are three main aspects that define this trend:

a) growing attention towards quality of products and quality of diet;

b) a search for satisfaction and taste;

c) a growing concern for health and diseases connected with specific diets.

In industrialized countries these are common tendencies and they lead towards a

rationalization of food consumption/use7. More specifically, in the nineties in Italy these trends

led to a decrease in food consumption (see tab. 2.2.5), while for about forty years there has

been a steady increase.

5 See, among others, Fabris, G.P., "Mercati maturi, i bisogni lasciano spazio ai desideri" Consumi

e Costumi, Il Sole 24 Ore, 15 July 1997, and Fanfani, R. and Salluce F. "Food consumption in Italy andEurope: structural change, convergence and differentiation." Paper presented at the Workshop "Meatresearch and consumption in Europe: problems and perspectives" , Bologna, September 29th 1997.

6 Source: IFOR, 1991/1992.7 For a broader discussion on this point see: Malassis L. and Gersi, G (1995). Introduzione

all'economia agro-alimentare , Bologna: Il Mulino.


18

Moreover, there are relevant changes in the food consumption habits: it is increasing the

tendency to have a meal out once a day, and it is growing the process of destructuration of

traditional meals, substituted by snacks. In this new scenario of consumption, time become a

central issue, that is correlated to :

a) a growing demand for "time saving" products, associated with a higher degree of

"convenience", easy and quick to prepare ( pre-cooked, ready-to-serve).

b) a preference towards food outlets that allow to save time for shopping (shopping

centers, hyper-markets and supermarket chains).

The decrease in food consumption of the last years underlines the spreading of new

consumption attitudes: less traditionalism, more pragmatism, a search for a lighter diet, and a

growing awareness and information about what and where to shop for food. There is a less

positive feature that clearly emerged together with these tendencies, which is the increased

flexibility and shrinkage of food expenses, witnessed by the affirmation of the discount chains,

and the growing relevance (inflexibility) of the expenses for housing but also entertainment and

free time. A recent research has documented that, contrary to a common sense hypothesis,

hard discount chains are most frequented by people with high p-income and high level of

education8. The average share of people who shop in hard discount chains is 14.1%, but it is

15.6% for graduated people and respectively 20% and 16.1% for people with high and

medium-high income.

8 Rapporto Censis sullo stato del Paese n. 30, 1996


19

2.2.1 Shopping behavior by educationEducation

Primary school Junior highschool

High school Finaldegree

Total

Shop around to look for reasonableprices

44.1 39.9 41.3 42.2 41.8

Trust the brands 15.6 12.1 10.8 26.6 13.5Usually shop at hard discountchains

11.6 13.9 15.4 15.6 14.1

In favor of a financial support for aconsumer association

31.3 38.6 46.4 32.8 39.6

Source: Censis, 1997, 30° Rapporto sulla situazione del paese 1996 (data year 1995)

2.2.2 Shopping behavior by income groups.Monthly disposable income

Low (< 1.5million It. L.)

Medium-low (>1.5 < 2.5 million

It. L.)

Medium-high (>2.5 < 4 million

It. L.)

High (over 4million It. L.)

Refusedanswer

Total

Shop around to look forreasonable prices

43.6 41.8 40.0 39.3 41.3 41.8

Trust the brands 12.4 15.1 15.4 19.6 9.0 13.5Usually shop at hard discountchains

13.7 14.7 20.0 16.1 8.4 14.1

In favor of a financial support fora consumer association

39.7 44.0 43.8 46.4 27.1 39.6

Source: Censis, 1997, 30° Rapporto sulla situazione del paese 1996 (data year 1995)

The data of the last three years provide evidence of the above mentioned trends. In 1994

food consumption represented 18% of "final consumption" (Table 2.2.3): it has decreased of 6

p.p. over the last 10 years. In the same year the total expenditure for food and drinks was

185,000 billions Italian L (actual price) and there was an increase of expenditures of 3.3 p.p.

compared with 1993. Prices increased of 3.2%, quantity only 0.1%, approximately close to the

dynamic of population growth. In 1995 and 1996 food expenditure represented respectively

17.9% and 17.6% of final consumption. During these two last years total food expenditure has

increased 5.5% in 1995 and 2.8% in 1996, but this increase comes only from the "price"

component. In 1996, for the first time after the end of World War II, the quantity of purchase

food has decreased, even though food prices have increased less than non-food prices.

In the last years the level of per-capita consumption of the main products underlines:

a) the enduring difference in food choice between rural and urban population (Table

2.2.6);

b) a relevant regionalism in food preferences, especially regarding meat consumption

(Table 2.2.6 and 2.2.7);

c) and points to the strengthening of the "Mediterranean component" (Table 2.2.7) of

the Italian diet.


20

Rural population is characterized by a more traditional diet, with higher quantity of

almost every type of food and with a lower diffusion of the use of mineral waters. Urban

population is characterized by a more modern consumption model, remarkably different for

lower meat and wine consumption.

Rural population/ food traditionalism Urban Population / food innovation

Higher quantity of

Bread, Pasta, Meat and Wine

Higher quantity of:

Fish, Mineral water, Fruit

The socio-economic and demographic trends presented in chapter 1 suggest to analyze

the structure of food consumption by regions. It emerges a more complex situation in which

different traditions in food habits, with the above mentioned trends, play an important role in

the consumption patterns. It is quite relevant the difference in food consumption models in the

three sub-regions North, Center and South. The North is characterized by a lower food

consumption in general, with the exception of mineral waters, wine and cheese. The South, on

the contrary is characterized by higher quantity of bread, pasta, fish, eggs and the lowest

consumption of mineral waters. The regions of the Center are characterized by the highest

consumption of meats and olive oil, and average consumption of the other foods.

Even though the national data differ sharply from the European Union average and show

the relevance of the Mediterranean component of the Italian food structure (tab. 2.2.7), the

Mediterranean diet as such is more widely spread in the South than in the rest of Italy.

Compared with the average EU the Italian demand for food is characterized not only by a high

presence of the traditional Italian products (pasta, bread, fruit and vegetable) but also by a

higher level of consumption of beef and veal (+21%) and lower consumption of pork (-29%)

and poultry (-5%).

2.2.3 Food expenditures on total consumptionStructure (%) Var. %

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1992/91

1993/92

1994/93

1995/94

1996/95

Food exp. on total consumption 18,8 18,6 18,4 18,5 17,9 17,6 -0,2 -0,2 0,1 -0,6 -0,3Source: INEA, variuos Yearbooks


21

2.2.4 Structure of Italian food consumption 1995% of totalexpenses

Var. 1985/1995:quantity

Var. 1985/1995:prices

bread, pasta and processed cereals 12.4 0.67 5.31MEAT 26.6 -0.17 4.47fish 5.9 1.21 5.62dairy products and eggs 15.0 0.70 5.19olive oil and fats 3.8 -0.46 4.46fruit and vegetables 21.4 0.62 4.04coffee, tea, cacao, sugar, jam, andother processed food

7.2 1.39 3.67

alcoholic drinks 5.3 -1.45 6.18soft drinks 2.4 6.45 5.08total food 100 0.44 4.77Source: INEA, L’agricoltura italiana conta, 1996

2.2.5 Var. household food consumptionQuantity1 Prices2

1994/93 1995/94 1996/95 1994/93 1995/94 1996/95Total foodconsumption

0.0 -0.5 -1.3 3.2 6.0 4.1

Bread and cereals 0.2 -0.1 0.9 4.4 2.8 1.8Meat -0.3 -1.4 -2.4 3.4 3.8 3.5Fish -0.1 -2.4 -0.1 2.2 3.3 3.4Milk, cheese, eggs 0.3 1.2 0.3 5.1 9.0 4.7Oils -1.0 -2.4 -4.7 3.0 10.5 16.0Fruits and vegetables 0.2 -0.5 -2.2 0.7 5.8 4.5Potatoes 0.1 -4.1 0.8 20.9 29.1 -16.1Sugar -0.5 0.5 -3.0 5.5 11.4 5.3Coffe, tea, cocoa 0.1 0.8 0.4 4.1 22.4 -0.8Others 0.4 2.5 2.0 1.8 6.5 4.6Soft drinks 1.7 2.6 0.7 2.3 5.9 6.7Alchoholic drinks -1.6 -0.8 -4.4 2.6 4.9 7.7

Total end consumpt. 1.5 1.8 0.7 4.7 5.8 4.51prices 1990; 2difference between total var. and quantity var.Source: INEA, Yearbooks 1997


22

2.2.6 Household food consumption in Italy, 1995 (average montly per capita quantity in gr; 100= Italian avg.)Food type North Centre South Urban areas

(50,000inhabitants)

Rural areas

Bread 85.1 103.3 116.5 93.9 103.4Pasta 82.1 99.3 122.3 96.2 102.1Beef and veal 99.9 110.1 94.8 99.2 100.5Poultry 97.0 105.9 100.6 99.9 100.1Other types of meat (no cured meat) 92.0 109.1 105.2 81.3 110.6Fish 79.0 102.4 124.5 109.8 94.5Olive oil and diff. oils (dl) 89.5 115.8 100.0 100.0 100.0Milk (dl) 104.7 96.9 96.9 98.4 100.0Cheese 112.3 84.5 93.2 98.9 100.6Eggs (n) 90.0 100.0 120.0 100.0 110.0Fruit 104.4 100.7 94.3 103.6 98.0Sugar 97.4 97.9 104.2 91.7 104.6Coffe and tea 100.2 95.6 102.1 96.5 102.1Mineral water (dl) 122.8 102.4 71.5 108.1 95.9Wine (dl) 111.8 120.6 73.5 94.1 105.9Source: INEA, Yearbook 1997

2.2.7 Mediterranean component of Italian food structure (kg per capite)Italy EUR./UNION Var It/EU

Bread, pasta and processed cereals 120 81 +48%Vegetables 176 116 +52%Fruit 124 93 +33%Wine 63 37 +58%Milk 61 110 -45%Pork 30 42 -29%Beef 23 19 +21%Poultry 19 20 -5%Source. INEA, L’agricoltura italiana conta, 1995, 1996, 1997, L’informatore zootecnico after EU Commission report

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Bre

ad, p

asta

and

proc

esse

d ce

real

s

Veg

etab

les

Frui

t

Win

e

Milk

Pork

Bee

f

Poul

try

Mediterranean component of italian diet(kg per capite)

Italy EU


23

2.3 Trends in meat consumption in Italy

The analysis of meat consumption in Italy would not be accurate without an awareness

of the great symbolic value that meat, and namely beef and veal, has had for the Italians. In

Italy, a regular consumption of meat was a major indicator of belonging to a wealthy class.

There is a large literature showing that consumption trends in Italy in the post-war era have

been strongly affected by this symbolic aspect: one of the first effect of the economic

development and the consequent increase in the personal incomes has been a boost in meat

consumption, especially beef and veal, whose nutritional value was considered the highest.

Nutritional science in the considered period strongly supported this belief and affected

the trend of a constant growth in meat consumption. Daily meat consumption was welcome for

a correct nutrition, especially for teen-agers.

As shown in the figure, per head meat consumption has increased more than six times

from 1946 to 1992, reaching the level of 85 Kg in 1992. Though, the steady rate of growth

until the 1990 was the result of relevant changes in the consumption patterns, that can be

analyzed dividing the considered period into three periods:

- until about 1972;

- from 1972 to 1992;

- from 1992 onwards;

An important specificity of the Italian model of meat consumption is the strong

prevalence of beef and veal over the other typologies, at least by the end of the eighties.

Though pork and poultry are an important component of the Italian food tradition, meat

consumption until the Seventies centered upon beef and veal, configuring a rather original

pattern of consumption in Europe.

To understand the reasons for the emergence of such pattern, it is important to consider

the structure of traditional Italian meals, based on three quite defined sectors: a first course,

whose basis is pasta or rice; a second course, based on meat or fish, served with a side-dish of

vegetables or potatoes; a dessert made of cakes or fruit (or both).

In 1992, a survey made by a prominent specialized magazine, Largo Consumo (Torelli

1991) revealed a similar structure of the meals :


24

2.3.1 Structure of Italian mealsPct. of interviewed people: Lunch DinnerFirst course 81.4 39.7Second course 88.9 94.2Beef and veal 75.0 42.1Pork 4.3 1.6Other 41.4 17.2Eggs 24.0 37.2Fish 43.4 24.1Ham sausages 9.8 37.7Cheese 18.9 61.8Canned meat 1.5 6.7Vegetables 86.0 93.5Dessert 86.0 86.4Main course 5.3 -Source: Torelli 1991

Except from a share of people that have a “lighter” meal for dinner, more than 80%

structure their meals in this way. If we examine the role of beef and veal in the second course

compared to that of pork, we can see a strong dominance of the first over the second. Pork

consumption per head in the 1992 was the same as beef and veal, and this figure apparently

contradicts the available statistics. Indeed, it explains the different role played by the different

types of meat.

In the Italian food tradition, pork meat has been available, for a great part, in the form of

processed or cured meat, which means ham and several types of sausages. Most of them do

not need cooking since they are consumed cold, so that they were used (and still are) mainly as

“starters” or “snacks” or in fast meals. But there was another reason why pork had a secondary

role in the Italian diet: pig meats, especially the processed ones, are perceived as particularly

tasty, but not as healthy as beef and veal, for the higher contents in fat and for the presence of

black pepper in most of its products.

Otherwise, products with an healthier appeal, like chicken or turkey, had to be bought as

a whole or in halves and it required long time for preparation (cleaning and cutting) and

cooking. Up to the nineties beef and veal, at least the most common cuts, showed better

characteristics both in terms of perceived quality and convenience.

Moreover, in the first two decades after World War II, both the production system and

the distribution channels in the beef and veal sector were in a more favorable situation to meet

the increasing demand for meat9. Given the persistency of the traditional structures and farming

systems in the Italian agricultural sector, and, compared with the northern European countries

the specificity of the survival of the traditional distribution channels (largely based on

9 For a broader discussion on this point see "The structure of the Bovine chain" in Meat Quality

Policy Report in Italy, (1997) ed. by G. Brunori, EU-Fair project 0046 Quality Policy and ConsumerBehavior, Pisa: Il Borghetto.


25

specialized butcheries), pork and poultry did not increased the sales (as much as in North-

Europe), for the higher level of services incorporated (convenience) .

To summarize, increase in p-income, nutritional wisdom, the trend towards a

simplification of the daily effort to prepare meals and the structure of the Italian agro-food

system have pushed beef and veal per head consumption to the highest levels in Europe.

Year 1972 can be considered a turning point in the patterns of meat consumption.

Economic recession, which in Italy was particularly strong, stimulated Italians to look for

cheaper alternatives to beef and veal. The switch was also encouraged by the public authorities

through communication campaigns in support for “alternative meats”, since beef was a relevant

item in the Italian Agro-Food trade deficit. It is from these years onwards that we can observe

a steady growth in the consumption of pork and poultry; between 1970 and 1975, for example,

beef and veal consumption decreases while pork consumption increases by 50% and poultry by

25% (graf Beef, Pork and Poultry 1946-1996).

Though income is certainly an important explanatory variable of change, confirmed by

the temporary increase of consumption in beef and veal around 1980, the trend towards

substitution cannot be explained only on this basis. Indeed, from 1973 onwards the above

mentioned constraints to alternative meats consumption are progressively lifted.

An important factor of change in consumption patterns is the different modernization

rate of the pork and poultry sectors, compared with the bovine sector. During these years

product innovation, packaging, branding and advertisement are common features in the poultry

industry as well as in the pork industry, while in the beef industry there is a remarkable delay.

Modern marketing strategies and products innovation, like lean pig meat, have allowed to

correct conventional wisdom against some pork products: for example, cured ham has gained a

high reputation of healthiness among consumers (Torelli 1991).

Industry develops production processes oriented to increase convenience, which make

fresh pork and chicken available in the form requested by the consumers: pork steaks and stew,

cleaned and cut chicken, single parts (legs, breasts) are increasingly available for individual

consumption, overcoming the need to buy the whole carcass. Correspondingly, at the farm

level the sector undergoes a process of strong concentration which allows a stronger

integration with the industry and quicker innovation processes.

The change in food distribution channels and the increased quantity of meat sold by

supermarket chains, about 50%, have made pork and poultry products increasingly available,

allowing for a greater range of choice to consumers. The same can be said for fish, whose

consumption has increased from about 10 kg per head in 1980 to 16.6 kg per head in 1993. It

is only from 1992 that we can observe a trend of decreasing consumption for total meats. The

reasons of this decline will be analyzed more in detail in the following section.


26

2.3.2 Household food consumption (prices 1990, billion liras)1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Bread and cereals 16.030 17.136 17.764 17.746 18.633 18.766 18.912 18.964 18.988 18.966 19.142Meat 31.404 35.233 42.073 43.048 43.140 43.140 43.204 43.024 42.877 42.273 41.250Fish 6.308 6.229 7.197 8.595 9.840 10.025 9.997 9.899 9.885 9.650 9.637Milk, cheese,eggs

15.673 16.977 19.473 21.263 22.185 22.274 22.418 22.459 22.518 22.780 22.857

Oils 4.972 5.464 5.574 5.928 5.895 5.896 5.899 5.861 5.795 5.658 5.393Fruits andvegetables

28.008 28.722 30.120 31.078 32.824 32.923 33.087 33.156 33.209 33.053 32.337

Potatoes 1.615 1.587 1.631 1.558 1.661 1.652 1.657 1.661 1.663 1.594 1.607Sugar 1.500 1.602 1.928 1.850 1.880 1.883 1.887 1.885 1.876 1.886 1.829Coffe, tea, cocoa 2.392 2.750 2.906 3.234 3.386 3.385 3.383 3.389 3.390 3.417 3.430Others 3.444 3.479 3.836 4.175 4.920 5.121 5.170 5.154 5.170 5.299 5.406Total food 11.346 119.179 132.502 138.475 144.364 145.065 145.614 145.452 145.371 144.576 142.888

Non alcoholicdrinks

1.270 1.366 1.700 1.962 3.129 3.272 3.397 3.487 3.545 3.636 3.662

Alcoholic drinks 9.370 9.448 9.652 9.284 8.747 8.638 8.448 8.215 8.077 8.011 7.657Total drinks 10.640 10.814 11.352 11.246 11.876 11.910 11.845 11.702 11.622 11.647 11.319Total foodconsumption

121.986 129.933 143.854 149.721 156.240 156.975 157.459 157.154 156.993 156.223 154.207

Tobacco 6.942 9.978 12.123 12.612 11.713 11.714 11.202 11.706 11.441 11.312 11.370Source: Agrisole, 11-17 aprile, 1997

2.3.3 Var. household food consumptionQuantity1 Prices2

1975/70

1980/75

1985/80

1990/85

1992/91

1993/92

1994/93

1975/70

1980/75

1985/80

1990/85

1992/91

1993/92

1994/93

Total foodconsumption

6.7 10.7 4.0 4.4 0.3 -0.1 0.1 83.7 121.4 79.8 28.9 5.0 1.8 3.2

Bread and cereals 6.7 3.6 -0.1 5.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 82.7 124.5 84.9 32.6 5.5 6.5 4.4Meat 12.4 19.4 2.3 0.3 0.1 -0.4 -0.1 85.1 118.2 72.8 26.2 4.2 5.6 3.4Fish -1.3 15.5 19.4 14.6 -0.3 -1.0 - 88.8 161.7 105.7 50.4 6.2 2.0 2.2Milk, cheese, eggs 8.3 14.7 9.1 4.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 76.7 145.8 90.2 30.6 3.4 4.9 5.0Oils 9.8 2.0 10.7 -0.5 0.1 -0.7 -1.0 128.7 38.8 73.3 18.3 3.0 0.9 4.0Fruits and vegetables 2.5 4.9 3.1 5.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 80.4 157.4 79.6 25.6 7.0 -7.5 0.7Potatoes -1.7 2.8 -4.5 6.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 97.4 87.3 80.5 29.8 -2.4 -3.7 20.9Sugar 6.8 20.4 -4.1 1.6 0.2 -0.2 -0.4 76.5 108.9 53.2 12.0 2.4 7.3 5.5Coffe, tea, cocoa 14.6 5.6 11.4 4.7 - 0.1 0.1 62.9 182.1 66.0 12.1 3.4 0.8 4.1Others 0.8 10.2 8.9 17.9 1.0 -0.4 0.4 79.9 66.7 95.7 33.1 4.2 4.8 1.9Soft drinks 7.5 24.4 15.5 59.9 3.8 2.7 1.8 81.3 109.0 100.5 46.0 4.9 3.3 2.3Alchoholic drinks 0.8 2.2 -3.8 -5.7 -2.2 -2.8 -1.5 70.0 78.0 71.8 37.8 6.1 4.1 2.6Total end consumpt. 19.7 27.9 8.6 19.8 1.4 -3.1 2.0 96.0 149.3 101.8 40.3 5.3 5.2 4.4

1prices 1985; 2difference between total var. and quantity var.Source: INEA, Yearbooks 1992 e 1995


27

2.3.4 Household food consumption (average montly per capita quantity in gr)1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Bread 5,560 5,505 5,339 5,238 5,1029Pasta 2,833 2,776 2,699 2,730 2,660Beef 1,897 1,858 1,754 1,736 1,690Poultry 1,150 1,104 1,072 1,082 1,076Other types of meat (no cured meat) 767 735 699 729 734Fish 1,169 1,148 1,150 1,120 1,126Oils (dl) 23 21 20 20 19Milk (dl) 66 65 64 65 64Cheese 1,246 1,255 1,243 1,226 1,241Eggs (n) 12 11 11 11 10Fruit 7,933 7,731 7,530 7,479 7,268Sugar 1,425 1,351 1,304 1,265 1,262Coffe and tea 457 440 442 445 429Mineral water (dl) 101 104 108 118 123Wine (dl) 45 42 39 36 34Source: ISTAT, Household consumption, various yearbook

2.4 The consumption of beef and veal in Italy

Beef consumption has changed enormously in Italy from the end of the Second WorldWar to now. During the sixties there was a great increase in beef consumption which witnessedthe end of "poverty" or the increase of per-capita income. In those years beef and meatconsumption were symbols of well-being, and the per capita consumption of beef has increasedfrom about 10 kg/ year in the sixties to 25 kg/ year of the beginning of the nineties. Meattraditionally represents the greatest share of Italian food expenditure: in 1994 it was 27.4% ofthe total food expenses (51.000 billions Italian L.); in 1995 it was 27.05 (tab. 2.3.2). In 1996meat consumption has dropped 2.4% as consequence of the BSE scare and reached the level of26.74% of total food expenses.

Today the overall consumption of meat is stationary, and beef and veal consumption is

decreasing. Nevertheless the consumption of " noble / precious cuts" of beef is increasing and

the consumption of "less noble cuts"(offal and alike) is decreasing. Italian consumers in the

nineties seem to ask for higher quality in consumption of beef and veal, by decreasing the times

of buying/consuming this product, and paying more attention towards healthy food and safety

offered by the alternatives available on the market. In the last years a poorer diet has become

popular: the same trend is evident in the USA and North European countries, based on higher

consumption of vegetables, pasta, sweets and vegetable oils. Such a "Mediterranean diet" has

been highly promoted by medical science authorities who pointed to the growing health risks

connected with a rich ( in term of energy) diet. These opinions have been echoed and widely

communicated by mass media and have overshadowed the image of beef.

The tab. 2.4.1 shows the regional specificity of eating models. From the Table, the range

of variability in the pattern of consumption is quite evident. Beef and veal have regional index

numbers which range from 69 of Trentino to 118 of Toscana and Lazio; pork consumption is


28

still more unevenly distributed, from 58.3 of Liguria to 152 of Marche. Regional differentiation

is not only in structure, but also in trends. While in Northern Italy consumption has followed

the northern European trend, meat consumption in Southern Italy is growing .

2.4.1 Meat consumption per head by region: 1989 (Italy=100)Beef and veal Pork Poultry

Piemonte 100.1 72.8 89.8Valle d’Aosta 108.4 90.5 84.4Lombardia 106.2 81.5 98.4Trentino 69.5 142.3 58.6Veneto 96.1 113.5 97.9Friuli 99.6 96.3 75.1Liguria 102.5 58.3 96.7Emilia 88.7 128.8 106.1Toscana 118.5 113.3 110.5Umbria 109.0 137.8 117.8Marche 110.5 152.1 129.5Lazio 118.4 95.9 121.8Abruzzo 105.8 105.6 119.0Molise 101.2 139.6 114.4Campania 98.7 108.4 102.1Puglia 81.8 79.9 82.1Basilicata 83.5 99.6 88.2Calabria 99.4 93.2 91.0Sicilia 92.4 83.2 90.8Sardegna 94.2 194.0 110.7Italy 100.0 100.0 100.0Source: Largo Consumo 9/91 after ISTAT

2.4.2 Meat consumption 1991-1996 (kg per capite)1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996* var 96/95

Beef 26.4 25.8 25.8 25.3 25.1 23.3 -7,7Pork 27.4 28.9 27.4 28.7 28.6 30.2 5,3Poultry 19.7 19.6 19.2 18.8 18.8 18.9 0,5Total 73.5 74.3 72.4 72.8 72.5 72.4 -0,14

*estimateSource: Istat, various yearbook; Ismea 1995, 1996, 1997

2.4.3 Meat price variation in 1996 compared with the same period in 1995January February March April May June July August September October November December

Pork 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 5.2 5.6 5.5 5.9 6.2 5.5 4.9 4.3Beef first cut 3.9 3.6 3.4 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 -0.2 -0.3Meat 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.8 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.6 4.1 3.4 3.0 2.7Source: INEA 1997 from Largo Consumo


29

Variation rate household meat consumption 1975-1994

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1975/70 1980/75 1985/80 1990/85 1992/91 1993/92 1994/93

Quantity Prices

Variation rate household meat consumption 1993-1996

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1994/93 1995/94 1996/95

Quantity Prices

Household meat consumption 1985-1995 (average montly per capita quantity in gr)

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

4100

4200

1985 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

gr

Meat


30

2.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Beef Pork Poultry

Meat consumption 1991-1996 (kg per capita)

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996*

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Bre

ad, p

asta

and

proc

esse

d ce

real

s

Veg

etab

les

Frui

t

Win

e

Milk

Pork

Bee

f

Poul

try

Mediterranean component of italian diet(kg per capite)

Italy EU


31

Household food consumption

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

years

mill

ion

s it

alia

n L

ira

Total food

Meat

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

% 1970 %1975 %1980 %1985 %1990 %1991 %1992 %1993 %1994 %1995 % 1996

Years

% o

f to

tal f

oo

d e

xpen

ses

Meat


32

Trends in eating styles in Italy

Besides statistical trends, we consider useful to report an important line of analysis such

as that proposed by an Italian consulting group, Monitor 3sc10. They use the concept of “eating

styles” in order to define groups of food consumer by their cultural homogeneity. The exercise

is quite interesting, since through a correct analysis of this grouping it is possible to segment

the market in a very innovative and powerful way, and in the same time it gives very important

insights on the tendencies of consumption at large.

Different eating styles can be mapped over two Cartesian axis, one measuring the degree

of cultural innovation/tradition, and the other measuring the degree of self-indulgence/self

control, as in figure 2.5.1.

10 It is possible to find a discussion about methodology in Fabris (1994).

Meat consumption 1946-1996

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

*

years

Kg

/per

hea

d

Beef and veal

Pork

Lamb and mutton

Horse

Offals

Poultry

Rabbit

Meat Consumption

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

45.000

50.000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

years

mill

ion

s It

alia

n L

ira

Meat


33

2.5.1 Map of eating styles in Italy

innovation

tradition

self indulgence

self control

vegetarian diet

attention to weight

mediterranean diet

food localism

tasty food

complete meals

fast food

snacks

greadiness

nutritional awareness

Applying this map to meat, we could set the following linkages:

2.5.2 Eating styles in Italy and meat.

innovation

tradition

self indulgence

self control

vegetarian diet

attention to weight

mediterranean diet

food localism

tasty food

complete meals

fast food

snacks

greadiness

nutritional awareness

animal welfare

organic and controlled meat

appellation of origin

industrial innovation

In this exercise, innovation coming from industry is associated to consumption styles

characterized by a high degree of acceptance of innovation (included innovation in the

structure of the meals) and self indulgence. Organic and controlled meat, two among the


34

emerging sectors in meat production, should satisfy an increasing demand for health and safety;

animal welfare standard should be looked for by those who are most critic toward the market

system, while there is a large number of groups who wish to join pleasure to safety, and have

some diffidence in industrial products. A very recent research11 on eating styles among young

people between 15 and 29 years old provide quite interesting results: the penetration rate of

meat is very high: only 1% declared to be strictly vegetarian and only 2% declared to eat meat

and fish very seldom. The highest meat consumption is in the North, but fast food chains are

evenly frequented in different locations and in small towns or big cities. The consumption of

meat is remarkably different according to education: a lower consumption of meat and a more

varied diet is correlated to a higher education level. And, last but not least, more autonomous

and less traditional eating styles are being adopted once that the young leaves the family.

2.6 Consumers’ perception of meat quality in the last years

As shown in Table 2.3.2, meat consumption has started to decrease only in the very lastyears, and it has been mainly determined by the decline of consumption of beef and veal.

It is growing the evidence that price variation and trends in disposable incomes are not

explaining completely such changes, an increasing number of surveys have been dedicated to

the investigation of different variables. The most interesting insights about these changes come

from some popular periodicals and private market surveys. Though methodology is not always

homogeneous nor even completely accepted by academics, there is no doubt that these are the

most important sources of information and explanation of what is going on in meat

consumption.

The examined literature on this argument shows that attention has been concentrated on:

• perceived advantages and disadvantages in eating meat;

• requested meat characteristics by consumers;

• preferences about outlets;

• preferences about meat typologies;

• preferences about packaging;

• attitude toward labels;

In an ADN-Kronos research in 1993, a survey on a sample of about 700 consumer

showed that the reckoned optimal meat consumption average frequency was about 3.9 for

11 Survey by IARD, on 1250 young people between 15-29 distributed in Italy. Largo Consumo n. 2

1997.


35

week; though the same consumers told that their normal frequency of consumption was higher:

in other words, they recognized that meats have several disadvantages.

In a Explorer research commissioned in 1990 by Inalca, the greatest industrial group of

meat processing in Italy, consumers who had declared they had increased meat consumption

gave the following reasons:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- veal: easy to prepare; “light”; easy to digest; tenderness

- beef easy to prepare; good taste; nutrient;

- turkey: “light”; easy to digest;

- pork good taste

- poultry “light”; easy to digest; large range of ways to prepare it

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, consumers who declared to having decreased beef consumption gave thefollowing reasons:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- veal: too delicate, not tasty, not nutrient enough, not safe

- beef too tough;

- turkey: too delicate, not tasty;

- pork fat, not digestible, somebody do not like it into family, a too particular taste;

- poultry too “light”; much time to prepare it

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By a cross examination of the two tables is quite clear that in many cases the reasons of

those who have increased consumption are specular to those who have decreased: especially

“lightness” and taste.

On the contrary, some characteristics are competitive to each other: safety, especially

concerning veal, and health, which regards especially pork.

Safety and health issues are among the most important emerged in all of the surveys: in

Italy, before the recent BSE scare, the most relevant concern with safety was related to the

presence of hormones (associated also to poor qualitative performances, such as high water

content); health concerns are to be linked with cholesterol.

What do consumer look for when buying meat? The cited research from Explorer shows

that the most important characteristics for beef and veal are “tenderness” (this is the reason

why veal is very popular in Italy) and “taste”. Unfortunately, there is no possibility for

consumers to recognize in advance tenderness or taste of the meat on sale, whereby their

choice is based mainly on exterior characteristics as color and absence of visible fat. It is for


36

this reason that in the same survey most of the interviewed buyers consider color the most

important factor of choice.

A consequence of this gap between demanded characteristics and level of consumer

information is the importance of trust in the butchers, which is still very high. In the cited

ADN-Kronos survey, 66% of the consumers choose to buy beef and veal in the butcheries. Of

them, 34% indicated trust as the principal reason, and 26% a better quality meat.

As we have seen, meat consumption patterns are rather peculiar in Italy, being centered

upon beef and veal. The most important cuts are “cutlets”, whose reputation is very strong in

the consumers’ perception. Though ground meat is normally made from high quality meat, and

appreciated because of its tenderness and versatility, is nonetheless trusted at a lower degree.

2.6.1 Preference of beef and veal by typology

(source: Rimarko 1993 per Coop (871 interviews)

cutletsveal cutletsground meatbeef steakboiled meatbeef burgerveal stewbeef stewroast beeffillet meatgrilled meatroast vealliver/kidney"carpaccio "

0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5

One of the most recent consumer' survey (after the BSE case), conducted in 1997 by

Nielsen for ISMEA, gives a new map of the 'perceived quality' for meats (2.6.2):

Beef and veal show better performances in terms of digestibility and nutritional

characteristics; Chicken and turkey are considered more digestible, but much less nourishing.

Pork is considered the least digestible. Pork and chicken are considered more convenient and

reasonable, beef and veal are the less convenient and more expensive ones.


37

2.6.2 Maps of perceived qualities


38

2.7 The role of retailing in the changes in meat consumption

Traditional retailing has a still dominant position in meat trade in Italy. According to a

recent evaluation, 50% of the total value of meat is sold by the butcheries, only 25% in the

supermarkets, and the remaining 25% into catering outlets. Nonetheless, changes in retailing

sector are very fast, and their impact on meat consumption, already very relevant so far, is

likely to be increasingly strong. During the period 1985-1995 the number of traditional retails

has decreased from about 325,000 shops to about 200,000. The reduction of the number of

shops is greater in the North (in 1995 - 11.8%, in Italy -8.1%) Meanwhile the number of

supermarkets has increased from 2,100 to 4,787 and hyper-markets has increased from 70 to

225. The GDO (supermarkets and hyper-markets chains) is unevenly distributed over the

national territory: it is mainly concentrated in the Northern regions (see tab.) but in the last

years, it is developing faster in the South.

Retailing can be accounted for at least three important processes:

- concentration and industrialization of the meat sector;

- substitution of beef and veal for poultry and pork;

- development of procedures of quality management and control along the meat chain.

Traditional butcheries are only a subset of the traditional meat retail system, based on

little-size farms, public slaughter houses spread over the territory and several categories of

wholesalers. This system was not fit to the organizational characteristics of supermarket

chains, that need a limited number of reliable counterparts in terms of quality standards,

regularity and punctuality in delivering, and with high volume of business. The growth of

supermarket chain has thereby stimulated the development of such industrial counterparts.

In the last years there has been a dramatic change in the relative share of slaughtered

animals from public to private slaughterhouses. Being the number of slaughterhouses in Italy

approximately 7000 (Ismea 1995) (of which with UE label: about 600, 10% of the total),

industrial slaughterhouses cover 16% of plants, but 50% of production; public slaughterhouses

have decreased from 2400 in 1975 to about 1400 in 1990 (Della Casa, 1992).

The process, we have seen above, has been faster in the poultry and pork sector than in

beef and veal, so that consumers, while maintaining a stronger trust in butchers for beef and

veal, have been attracted by low prices and variety of offer for fish, pork and chicken in

supermarkets. In other terms from beef and veal to alternative meats has come along a change

in the patterns of food purchase.

Only in a second stage a strategy aimed at conquering the trust of consumer for beef and

veal can be observed. At first time retail shops have positioned their "marketing mix" on price

and variety of processed products, being the fresh products only a way to complete their gamut


39

of products. Yet fresh products have become progressively strategic for horizontal

competition, so that the effort of supermarkets on this sector has strongly increased of higher

standards of quality, larger variety, improved service and competitive prices. In an increasing

number of outlets, retailers set up served desks along with self-service desks to give the

consumer a greater confidence.

An important experience in this field comes from Coop-Italia, the biggest retail chain in

Italy, with its brand “Carni con Amore” (“Meat with love”) contemporary to “Frutta con

amore” (“Fruit with love”). The project was started after that a series of food scares

(Chernobyl, Ethanol wine, and hormones in meat) had strongly shocked the consumers’ trust

on food. Its conception is quite original in Italy, involving a “quality system” extended to

hundreds of farms (about 450), 12 slaughterhouses and several middlemen (Gatti, Valli, 1995).

It is based on a scheme of production undersigned by the interested parts by which they pledge

to follow specifics norms, which range from animal breeds to composition of feed, and specify

which drugs are allowed or prohibited, the conditions of slaughtering and transportation.

Furthermore, Coop-Italia set up a framework of controls and imposed on the involved farms

an information system that keep records of each animal.

Within the general decreasing trend of meat sales the project has been considered very

successful since Coop-Italia has so far maintained a positive rate of sales growth in real terms..

The recent BSE case has confirmed the success of this initiative.

After the BSE crisis, Coop was interested by a sharp drop in the beef consumption. The

sales temporarily decreased by approximately 25%, but in the Italian market there was a 25-

50% reduction, with a few peaks at 70-80%. At the end of 1996, however, Coop had almost

completely recovered the previous share: the reduction was only of 3%, while in the Italian

market was about 15-18%. At present sales have further increased by 3% in comparison with

the situation before the BSE crisis and the Italian market is still at -10%. The successful key

was the transparency policy about the meat "Prodotti con amore - Coop". In a very difficult

moment, Coop resulted to be trustable to the consumer because for years it has been pursuing

a quality policy and the control system already existed, tested and flexible to face the new

problem.

In 1997, Coop will achieve sales for 14.000 billion liras (7.8 million US dollars). For the

year 2000, their forecast is approximately 20.000 billion liras (11.1 million US dollars).

The shops are 1.330, mainly located in the northern and central regions of the country.

Total sales are at 65% in supermarkets. In a few years, however, hyper-markets are likely to

contribute at 50% of total sales.

A peculiarity of the Coop system is represented by the fact that a relevant percentage of

its customers consists of "shareholders", which can assure a strong purchasing loyalty. From


40

the present 3.3 million they are forecast to reach 4 million in the 2000. Owing to this

membership and to their suggestions, Coop is able to carefully monitor the requests and the

needs of the consumers.

This successful initiative of Coop-Italia belongs to the traditional quality policies aiming

at meeting the consumers' requirements about safety.

A further successful initiative in the field of product innovation is being carried out by a

group of 60 butchers in Lombardia, who have qualified themselves as "cooking experts"

through a training course sponsored by the local Chamber of Commerce12. Their objective was

focused on winning the consumer confidence, and their improved gastronomic competence has

resulted in an immediate economic benefit. Without any large investment nor restructuring,

innovation entered their shops: different cuts ready-to-cook accompanied by decorative

vegetables strongly affect the consumer's visual impact of the raw product, while the butcher

has become a "gastronomic advisor" able to suggest new recipes. What is radically changed is

the general outlook of the shop, in which the traditional cuts are no more displayed on the

counter.

Such initiative provides at least two interesting results. Firstly, there is a shift in the

consumer's perception of meat from an old product to a new one, and secondly there is a

workable alternative to those who have lost traditional knowledge about meat cooking (new

generations, employed women, etc.).

Results seem to be encouraging. In four years, all the butchers adopting the new selling

formula have improved their businesses. Moreover, they have been able to face the BSE crisis

without any substantial loss, while more traditional butcher's shops were experiencing a very

harsh time.

A further example of service innovation - still in the Lombardia region - is offered by a

chain of butcher's shops under the mark I piaceri della carne (in Italian the word "carne"

stands for both flesh and meat. Consequently the allusive meaning could be translated as "The

pleasures of the meat", but also as "The pleasures of the flesh"). The sales point offers only

white meats (chicken, turkey, duck, etc.) listed in a catalogue of approximately 100 recipes

elaborated by an apposite specific center. The consumer can choose directly in the shop or

alternatively can make orders from home. Within the next two years, they project to open 30

new sales points in the region. The franchiser provides the support for sanitary safety and the

know-how to develop the shop activity. An initial investment of 100-120 million liras is

required, with a forecast turnover of 450 million during the first year.

12 See AL L'Alimentarista, n. 10, October 1997.


41

2.7.1 Italian distribution channels (1/1/96)Number

WholesalesFood shop 39,081Non food shop 76,820Cash & carry 293Shopping centers 22*Retailers, hotel, bars, restaurantsFood retailers 203,.85Non food retailers 372,145Hotel, bars, restaurants 197,365

of which:GDO

Big stores 841Food supermarket 4,787Ipermarket 225

Associated tradeFood retailers 27,838Non food retailers 4,055Hotel, bars, restaurants 1,801

Shopping centers 226*1/4/95Source: AL, 11 December 1996,from Ministero dell’industria e del Commercio – Indis Unioncamere

2.7.2 Trend in meat retailing shops1985 1991 1995 Var 95/91 Var 95/85

Food shops 62,301 57,156 52,605 -8.0 -15.6Delicatessen 8,743 7,736 10,181 31.6 16.4Butcher’s 35,952 35,495 32,806 -7.6 -8.8Source: Federcarni from Seat

2.8 The role of consumer associations in Italy

The first forms of consumers mobilization developed in Italy roughly at the same timeas in other main European countries: the birth of the first consumer association dates back to1955.

The evolution of the consumers movement in Italy, however, shows a few peculiaritiesthat set it apart from the majority of other European countries and resulted in a delayed andlimited development of the movement itself.

About twenty associations are currently operating in Italy with a membership that(according to the most optimistic figures) barely reaches 700.000 persons, i.e. about 1% of theItalian population. The diffusion (and importance) is therefore lower than in other Europeanand American associations. Well-structured national associations capable of providing effectiveservice for the consumers are only five or six; specialized publications dealing with consumerissues are rather weak or absent; conversely, the concern with consumer protection in themedia is indeed prominent.

In our attempt to monitor the activity of Italian consumer associations with reference tothe problem of meat quality, we endeavored to contact all existing national associations


42

(except those few which, on account of their orientation towards highly specialized fields - e.g.banking and insurance services, public services - were clearly unrelated to our area of interest).Twelve associations were contacted; a further association was not directly contacted, but wemanaged to gather information on its activity through the media; in the case of anotherassociation, no contact could be made in spite of our repeated efforts.

Also omitted from the category of the associations which had undertaken actionsregarding the meat quality issue (and consequently filed under the «No Actions» column) therewere an association pursuing a campaign for wholesome nutrition in the schools (activitywhich was considered to be too generic) and another one which still had to supply specificinformation on its future activities at the time of the present report. Finally, two associationsclearly stated that they had not undertaken any initiative of the kind.

The actions of the associations considered to be operating within our area of interesthave been divided into four subgroups:

1) information within the association, thus limited to members only, chiefly by means ofarticles featured on the periodicals published by the associations and distributed to their ownmembers («Internal information» column);

2) information outside the association, mainly through press releases issued by theassociations and featured by the media, but also by means of TV and radio debates («Externalinformation» column);

3) legal actions («Legal actions» column);

4) pressure activity (through petitions and/or personal contacts between theassociations’ representatives and those of the targeted organizations and institutions) andlobbying activity («Pressure - Lobbying» column).

As it can be observed in the chart, information, both internal and external, slightlyprevails, over pressure - lobbying activity; no association proved to have undertaken legalactions. Three associations proved active in three subgroups, two associations in twosubgroups, four in one subgroup only.

Informative activity, both internal and external, was concerned with the followingissues: human safety and health (correlation between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,antibiotics residues in the meat); meat quality (favorable assessment of beef coming fromextensive breeding). Pressure - lobbying activities targeting at slaughtering and meatprocessing industry, national departments (health care, agriculture, industry) and the EUCommission, focused on human safety and health (authorization of the use of antibiotics oncattle for treatment only, creation of an European food and drugs agency on the model of USFDA, support for sanitary certification measures concerning meat and the related productionprocesses).

Numerous consumer associations have been constantly following the evolution of theBSE issue, informing both their own members (through their publications) and the publicopinion (by means of press releases and TV and radio programs) on the developments of theissue itself in different respects (sanitary, commercial and political).


43

Some associations have conducted their food education campaigns by paying specialattention to the meat sector, and amongst the suggestions they provided to consumers, thefollowing appear especially noteworthy:

- To prefer meat obtained from cattle raised through methods as close as possible tothe natural growth cycle;

- To prefer second choice calves in order to issue a message to the productionsystem, against their current breeding methods (intensive and increasingly removedfrom the natural growth cycle) which produce large quantities of first quality meatover short spans of time and reduce second choice cuts to a minimum, inaccordance with the long-established preferences of Italian consumers.

Contacted Actions No Actions Internal External Legal Pressure

associations Information information actions Lobbying

ACU X

ADICONSUM X X X X

ADOC X

ADUC X X

ARCO X

ASSOCONSUMATORI X

CDC X X X X

CODACONS X X

CONFCONSUMATORI X X X X

FEDERCONSUMATORI X X

LEGA CONSUMATORI X X X

Movimento Consumatori X X X

Unione Nazionale Consumatori X X

Total N° 13 9 4 6 6 0 5

Percentage values = 100% 69% 31% 46% 46% 0% 38%

3 Italian survey: characteristics of the sample

In order to analyse consumers behaviour and preferences towards beef, pork and

chicken, the six countries taking part to the project devised a common questionnaire to be

submitted to a sample of 500 consumers in each country.

The interviews, lasting about 25 minutes, were carried out by telephone over the whole

Italian territory to those who usually decide the family purchase of food.

Such a procedure undoubtedly affected the composition of the sample, whose

characteristics are summarised in Table 1. A comparison with the data of the whole Italian

population shows that in our sample:


44

• The ratio of women to men is strongly for the first (83% and 17% respectively);

• The age between 25 and 64 is oversized (83.6% against 54.6% of the overall population),

while individuals under 25 or over 65 are underestimated (respectively 7.2% and 9.2% against

28.6% and 16.8%);

• Families of three members or more are numerous. According to official statistics the

average family composition is equal to 2.8, but in our sample it scores 3.8. Vice versa, singles

percentage is at 6% against 20.6% of the general population (1991 Census). Following the

low national birth rate (9.1 out of 1000 inhabitants), which is the lowest in Europe, the families

without children under 16 are numerous (59% of the sample). In addition, the interviews show

that amongst the six countries of the project Italy has the lower average number of children

under 16.

• The percentage of housewives is relevant, approximately at 41%. As to other work

categories, it is impossible to have a meaningful comparison because the sample accounting

does not correspond to those provided by the official statistics.

As already mentioned, a few characteristics of the sample can be convincingly explained

if considering the method for recruiting the respondents, as well as the requirements of our

survey. Interviews were made to those in charge of food purchase. Therefore, the high

percentage of women (especially housewives) is a consequence of the traditional Italian

family, in which male and female do play different roles. This, moreover, explains also the

reduced number of young people.

The low percentage of singles and individuals over 64, however, can be subsequent to

their frequent refusal to have an interview. In any case, the results of the analysis must

consider that these categories are scarcely represented. The first group is specifically relevant

to the study of consumer behavior towards food, not only because is numerically growing (and

the trends in Northern European countries seem to confirm that in Western Europe it will grow

even more in the near future), but also because more than the other household-groups it

express a less traditional demand for food and has become one of the main target for food

innovation.

Also the second group shows peculiar characteristics of food consumption, in particular

meat consumption: food consumption is being reduced and the shopping composition is

changing. Moreover, it can not be overlooked that, at least in Italy, this range will be more

and more relevant over the next few years.

In order to avoid evaluation errors, it is worth underlining the high cultural level of the

sample: at 70% respondents show a middle-high education level, the highest percentage


45

amongst the six countries. This data does not agree with the official statistics, even though

these are referred to 1991. According to these statistics, in 1991 the overall population had a

secondary school certificate at 63%, with a consequent low level of education; high school

certificate scored 18.5% and certificate degree only 3.9%. Ultimately, only 22% of Italians was

included in the middle-high education level category.

A last consideration can be drawn about income: at 25% respondents did not answer to

the question on the gross family income, and the income of those who have answered is likely

to be undervalued. Several studies show that with answers concerning income, usually all the

sources different from job remuneration are likely to be overlooked, such as rents, yields and

the like.

Variable Percentage Statistiche ufficiali (%)SexFemale 83 51.3Male 17 48.7Age13

Under 30 15.630-39 24.140-49 23.550-59 21.260 and over 15.6Average size: 44.2Household size14

1 person 6.0 20.62 people 19.2 24.73 people 28.4 22.14 people 29.4 21.25 people 11.4 7.96 or more people 5.6 3.4Average size: 3.4 2.8Children under 16No children 58.71 child 23.62 children 14.2

13 The available data from the Istat statistics cover different classes of age; the following table

compares the data of the overall population with those of the sample according the available age classes:<25 25-44 55-64 65 and more total

Sample 7.2 47.0 36.6 9.2 100Italy 28.6 29.8 24.8 16.8 100

*inhabitants on the 1st of January 1996 Source: Annuario Statistico Italiano, 199614 From the category under 30, six categories were eliminated because referred to individuals

under 16. If the data had been included they would be as follows:Frequency Percentage

under 30 83 16,630-39 119 23,840-49 116 23,250-59 105 21,0

60 and over 77 15,4

The data of the official statistics column refer to the 1991 Census.


46

3 children 3.04 or more children15 0.4Average number of children: 0.63Age when stopped full-time education16

<15 years of age17 30.0 63.215-19 years of age 41.6 18.5>19 of years 28.5 3.9Average age: 17.8Occupation of respondent18

Housewife 40.8Student 4.2Retired 10.8Not working 3.4Self-employed 10.0Employed professional or management 11.4Other employed position 19.0Occupation of the person who contributesmost to the household income19

Housewife 7.4Student 0.4Retired 11Not working 0.6Self-employed 13.4Employed professional or management 9.8Other employed position 20.4IncomeDecile 1+2 21.4Decile 3+4 20.2Decile 5+6 11.4Decile 7+8 11.0Decile 9+10 10.8

4 Consumption Behavior

4.1 Frequency of Consumption

The penetration rate (tab. 3.1.2) of three types of meat is high for beef and chicken:beef is at 91.4 and chicken at 93.8. Pork follows much lower at 71.4%. Earlier studies on meatconsumption20 reported a higher level of penetration for beef (98%), and this data seem to beconfirmed by the following answers on "Changes in the last 5 years".

The highest frequency of heavy consumers is found with beef (80%), then with chicken(77%) and last with pork (45.2%).

15 An erroneous data was eliminated: in a family there were registered 16 children under 16.16 Percentages of the official statistics column refer respectively to the secondary and elementary

school, to the high school and to university degree. Data refer to 1991 and were taken from the Annuariostatistico 1996.

17 Four frequencies were omitted because these persons seemed to have terminated their full-education when 2 years old!

18 Frequency refusal: 2.19 Frequency missing: 185 (37%).20 See Coop-Italia consumer report - year 1990-92.


47

4.1.1 Q.1 on average, how often, is … eaten in your household each week?Never Less often than

once a month

Less than once a week but

more than once a month

Once Twice Three

Beef 8.6 7.4 2.6 21.8 29.4 28.6

Pork 28.6 20.6 4.6 24.2 15.8 5.2

Chicken 6.0 12.0 3.8 28.6 29.8 18.8

4.1.2 Penetration rate of beef, pork and chicken consumptionBeef:

Y = 91.4% N = 8.6%

Pork:

Y = 71.4% N = 28.6%

Chicken:

Y = 93.8% N = 6%

Heavy 79.8 45.2 77.2

Moderate 10.0 25.2 15.8

Various 1.4 1.0 1.0

Don’t Know 0.2 -- --

Heavy = from once a week to three times a week;

Moderate = less then once a week and less than once a month.

Consumption by age-group:

heavy consumers: 30-50 years old for Beef/Pork/Chicken.

4.2 Changes in the last five years

During the last five years consumption has changed for all types of meat (tab.1.2.1,1.2.2 ). Almost 50% of the interviewed people have changed beef consumption and 78% ofthem has reduced it. An opposite trend is evident with chicken: 41.8% has changedconsumption, but 74.6% of them have increased it.

The less relevant change regards pork, but even in this case there is a decrease.

4.2.1 Q.2a e Q2b has the amount of … eaten in your household changed or not in the last five years, that issince 1992? And does your household now eat more or less … than it did in 1992?

Yes Less More

Beef 48.4% 78.1% 19.8%

Pork 34.8% 70.5% 27.7%

Chicken 41.8% 14.4% 74.6%


48

4.3 Place of Purchase for Beef, Pork and Chicken (%)

The independent butcher is the most frequented shop for beef, pork and chicken andimmediately after comes the supermarket. This last is more frequented for pork and chickenthan for beef. Only in the case of chicken the "direct from farmer" and "alleva personalmente"(home production) have some relevance.

4.3.1 Q4 where do you mainly buy fresh (raw) …?Beef Pork Chicken

Weekly market 0.4 0.3 0.9

Mega-market 0 0- 0.2

Hyper-market 2.2 2.5 2.3

Supermarket 28.4 31.0 32.6

Macelleria 61.3 54.1 43.9

Piccolo dettagliante 2.4 5.1 4.5

Direct from farmer 2.9 3.1 5.5

Mercato locale 1.3 1.1 2.6

Allevamento biologico 0.2 1.4 -

Alleva personalmente 0.9 1.4 5.5

Polleria - - 1.9

Other - - -

5 Quality Perception

For these questions beside the frequencies we present the results of the SASelaboration Rank proc. and the Wilcoxon Test. From the answers of the Italian respondents itis clear that for the three types of meat flavor is the most important characteristic that defineswhat "eating quality" is about. Smell is quoted as second important characteristic for all type ofmeat, but is tenderness, color and juiciness for pork and beef, while texture is considered moreimportant for chicken.

It is also important to underline that for assessing eating quality, some "attributesrelevant for health concern" like leanness are considered last.


49

5.1.1 Q5 now I want to ask you about meat quality. How important or unimportant are each of the followingfor assessing the eating quality of beef?

Very important Quite

important

Neither Not very

important

Not all

important

Flavor 82.1 15.9 0.4 1.1 0.4

Tenderness 70.2 20.5 0.9 6.2 2.2

Color 67.4 22.4 1.8 5.8 2.7

Smell 66.0 23.1 4.2 5.8 0.9

Leanness 40.1 28.3 2.9 23.4 5.3

Juiciness 61.7 29.7 1.6 5.4 1.6

Free of gristle 41.1 29.5 5.9 17.1 6.5

Texture 55.0 33.6 4.1 4.1 3.2

5.1.2 How important or unimportant are each of the following for assessing the eating quality of pork?Very important Quite

important

Neither Not very

important

Not all

important

Flavor 80.5 16.7 0.6 1.4 0.8

Tenderness 64.1 26.8 1.7 5.1 2.3

Color 57.5 29.9 3.1 7.1 2.3

Smell 63.2 24.7 3.4 5.7 2.9

Leanness 37.4 27.8 2.3 27.2 5.4

Juiciness 60.0 30.1 1.4 7.0 1.4

Free of gristle 36.4 29.6 10.1 14.5 9.4

Texture 54.4 34.6 4.4 4.4 2.1

5.1.3 Q5 now I want to ask you about meat quality. How important or unimportant are each of the followingfor assessing the eating quality of chicken?

Very important Quite

important

Neither Not very

important

Not all

important

Flavor 84.6 12.2 0.4 2.1 0.6

Tenderness 58.2 25.5 2.6 10.6 3.0

Color 62.5 25.1 2.4 8.5 1.5

Smell 72.5 19.5 1.3 4.9 1.7

Leanness 45.7 27.0 3.7 18.7 4.8

Juiciness 54.8 32.9 2.0 7.4 2.9

Free of gristle 35.7 28.6 7.3 18.7 9.6

Texture 64.9 26.6 2.2 4.1 2.2


50

Eating quality : Rank of Quality characteristicsFlavor Tenderness Color Smell Leanness Juicyty Calli Texture

Beef 1 2 3 4 7 5 8 6

Pork 1 2 5 3 7 4 8 6

Chicken 1 5 4 2 7 6 8 3

Wilcoxon Test:

Beef

Flavor > Tenderness > Texture > Leanness

Color Free of gristle

Smell

Juiciness

Pork

Flavor > Tenderness> Leanness

Color Free of gristle

Smell Texture

Juiciness

Chicken

Flavor > Texture > Tenderness > Leanness > Free of gristle

Smell Color

Juiciness

5.2 Quality perception at the shop

For assessing quality at the shop the most important characteristic is color for the threetypes of meat. Also the place of purchase is equally important for beef and pork, but comessecond for chicken. The second important characteristic for beef and pork is the country oforigin. This answer can be interpreted as an outcome of the BSE scare or a search for typicalproducts. Quite relevant is that in the case of chicken "organically produced" is considered thesecond important feature of quality. It is worth underlining that it would have been very usefulto ask the same question for beef and pork. The market for organic meat in Europe after theBSE has grown 52.9%, even though there is little information and scarce availability of thistype of meat. Actually in 1996 there has been a lack of supply to meet the growing demand.

Brand or quality assurance label is not considered a very important clue for assessingquality for beef and chicken, it seems to be more relevant for pork. This answer is interestingsince this clue may have little relevance for beef since there are very few brands or quality


51

assurance labels, and these last are known only in certain regions (in the South of Italy beefbrands are totally absent). But labels and brands have little relevance also in the case ofchicken, and in this sector there are some nationally known brands.

Price is the least important characteristic for all type of meat. This answer is somehowin contradiction with answers to question n.9 (attitudinal statements) in which 60% of therespondent strongly agree with the statement "you have to be prepared to pay a higher price toget good quality meat".

5.2.1 Q6 I would now like you to think about shopping for beef. When you are shopping for beef how helpfulor otherwise are each of the following for predicting the eating quality of the beef?

Very

helpful

Quite helpful Neither Not very helpful Not all helpful

Color 69.4 22.0 2.4 5.1 1.1

Marbling 41.2 32.2 4.0 16.4 6.3

Leanness 34.7 29.9 5.0 23.6 6.8

A brand or quality

assurance label

44.9 23.8 8.7 12.6 10.1

The place of purchase 71.6 17.1 2.9 5.7 2.6

The price 29.9 28.8 4.6 26.3 10.4

The country of origin 59.8 18.3 7.9 8.6 5.4

5.2.2 Q6 I would now like you to think about shopping for pork. When you are shopping for pork how helpfulor otherwise are each of the following for predicting the eating quality of the pork?

Very

helpful


Color 67.1 22.1 2.5 4.8 3.4

Marbling 37.8 31.9 5.9 16.3 8.0

Leanness 35.6 27.9 4.3 23.4 8.8

A brand or quality

assurance label

39.0 25.1 9.0 13.3 13.6


The price 25.7 30.2 5.4 27.7 11.0

The country of origin 47.8 21.4 9.7 10.3 10.9


52

5.2.3 Q6 I would now like you to think about shopping for chicken. When you are shopping for chicken howhelpful or otherwise are each of the following for predicting the eating quality of the chicken?

Very

helpful


Color 65.8 20.9 5.6 5.2 2.6

Leanness 38.5 29.8 7.8 18.5 5.3

A brand or quality

assurance label

43.5 23.5 12.1 12.5 8.4


The price 26.2 29.7 9.7 24.9 9.5

Carne biologica 53.0 24.6 9.6 6.8 5.9

5.2.4 Eating quality :Rank of Quality characteristics, at the shopColour Marbling Leanness Brand Shop Price Organic Origin

Beef 2 5 6 4 1 7 - 3

Pork 1 6 5 4 2 7 - 3

Chicken 1 - 5 3 2 6 4 -

Wilcoxon Test:

Beef

Color >Country of origin > Marbling

Place of purchase Leanness

Brand or quality assurance label

Price

Pork

Color > Marbling > Price

Place of purchase Leanness

Brand or quality assurance label

Country of origin


53

Chicken

Color > Place of purchase > Leanness > Price

Organically produced Brand or quality assurance label

6 Safety perception

6.1 Concerns

When the Wilcoxon test was applied to the data regarding beef, three of the five issuesmentioned were grouped to be of most concern, but the separation was not totally clear.

Hormones, Antibiotics and BSE were considered more relevant than Fat orCholesterol and Salmonella or other Bacteria. The high rank of BSE is due to the short timepassed after the wide media coverage of the events in March 1996.

For pork all issues are ranked the same way and regarding chicken the respondents areless concerned about Fat or Cholesterol. If we look at the percentage of respondents we cansee that in the case of pork and chicken less than 50% of the sample is "very concerned…" andonly in the case of beef more than 50% are "very concerned…". This higher sensibility for beefmay be also interpreted as an other outcome or side-effect of the recent campaign on BSE.

6.1.1 Q7 how concerned or unconcerned are you personally about each of the following when buying beef?Very concerned Quite concerned Neither Not very

concerned

Not all

concerned

Hormones 52.9 26.9 8.0 8.0 4.2

Antibiotics 46.5 28.0 9.5 9.0 6.8

Fat or cholesterol 42.3 25.8 10.6 12.1 9.3

Salmonella or other

bacteria

46.2 24.4 8.7 13.3 7.3

BSE 57.2 14.1 8.8 12.1 7.7


54

6.1.2 Q7 how concerned or unconcerned are you personally about each of the following when buying pork?Very concerned Quite concerned Neither Not very

concerned

Not all

concerned

Hormones 44.3 27.0 9.4 11.6 7.7

Antibiotics 43.4 24.3 9.8 13.3 9.2


Salmonella or other

bacteria

46.9 20.1 10.5 13.0 9.6

6.1.3 Q7 how concerned or unconcerned are you personally about each of the following when buyingchicken?

Very concerned Quite concerned Neither Not very

concerned

Not all

concerned

Hormones 50.1 22.1 9.8 11.7 6.3

Antibiotics 43.7 24.9 10.7 12.4 8.3


Salmonella or other

bacteria

48.9 21.1 10.7 10.9 8.5

6.1.4 Rank of ConcernsHormones Antibiotics Fat Salmonella BSE

Beef 2 4 5 3 1

Pork 2 3 4 1 -

Chicken 1 3 4 2 -

Wilcoxon Test:

Beef

Hormones >Fat or cholesterol

Antibiotics Salmonella or other bacteria

BSE


55

Pork

Hormones

Antibiotics

Fat or cholesterol

Salmonella or other bacteria

Chicken

Hormones > Fat or cholesterol

Antibiotics

Salmonella or other bacteria

6.2 Safety indicators

The first characteristics mentioned for beef, pork and chicken are What the animal wasfed on and The freshness . If we look at the percentage of respondents who consider "Veryhelpful to know what the animal is fed on and freshness …for assessing safety" it is interestingto see how these characteristics would be considered far more important than the others. It isimportant to underline that information on the issue raised in the question are not available forItalian consumers e.g.: there are not labels explaining what the animals are fed on, name ofproducer, the availability of organically produced meat is very low. Only in the case of chickenthere is some availability of this type of meat, and it is quite relevant that "allevamento a terra"(free range) it has been listed as more important than the other options.

Price is considered the least indicator of safety for all three types of meat.


56

6.2.1 Q8 and how helpful or otherwise are each of the following in assessing the safety of beef?Very helpful Quite helpful Neither Not very helpful Not all helpful

What the animal was

fed on

83.3 13.8 0.9 1.6 0.7

A brand of quality

assurance label

50.9 25.1 5.8 9.8 6.4

Name of producer or

farmer

46.7 24.9 6.2 15.0 7.2

Organically produced* 59.2 25.9 4.7 9.5 7.0

Country of origin 62.4 18.8 3.8 9.5 5.4

The price 31.3 25.1 4.3 27.5 11.9

The freshness 80.4 12.9 0.7 4.2 1.8

*frequency missing=43, don’t know=98

6.2.2 Q8 and how helpful or otherwise are each of the following in assessing the safety of pork?Very helpful Quite helpful Neither Not very helpful Not all helpful

What the animal

was fed on

82.5 13.8 1.1 0.6 2.0

A brand of quality

assurance label

47.0 28.9 4.9 10.3 8.9

Name of producer

or farmer

46.1 27.5 6.3 11.5 8.6

Organically

produced*

56.1 25.1 5.2 5.2 8.5


The price 27.8 28.7 3.7 24.1 15.3

The freshness 78.4 16.0 0.8 2.8 2.0

*frequency missing=143, don’t know=86


57

6.2.3 Q8 and how helpful or otherwise are each of the following in assessing the safety of chicken?Very helpful Quite helpful Neither Not very helpful Not all helpful

What the animal

was fed on

83.6 13.1 1.1 1.3 0.9

A brand of quality

assurance label

48.1 27.7 5.9 12.1 6.2

Name of producer

or farmer

47.8 23.9 8.8 11.4 8.1


The price 30.3 26.6 4.8 26.6 11.6

The freshness 82.2 14.2 0.2 2.6 0.9

Free range 71.0 21.3 1.6 4.0 2.0

6.2.4 Safety issuesFeed Brand Name Organic Country Price Freshness

Beef 1 4 5 6 3 7 2

Pork 1 4 5 6 3 7 2

Chicken 1 5 6 3(free-range) 4 7 2

Wilcoxon Test:

Beef

What the animal was fed on > Brand or quality assurance label > Price

Freshness Name of producer or farmer

Organically produced

Country of origin

Pork

What the animal was fed on > Brand or quality assurance label > Price


Organically produced

Country of origin


58

Chicken

What the animal was fed on >Free range > Brand or quality assurance label > Price


Country of origin

6.3 Attitudinal Statements

The final part of the questionnaire was dedicated to investigate about consumer attitudetowards certain areas resulted more problematic in the focus groups

• Visual inspection

• Cooking

• Animal Welfare

• Ethics

• Image

• Nutrition

• Price

• Origin

• Safety

• Information

Respondent were confronted with a series of seventeen statements which they had torate separately on a five point Likert scale (1= "agree strongly" to 5" disagree strongly").

In the Italian sample a certain number of statements seem to be very contested. In the

case in which there was a clear dichotomy in the answers we investigated on three

characteristics of the different groups of respondents : "age", "income" and "level of

education" to identify different typology of consumers.

KNOWLEDGE

STATUS

TRUST

NEW VALUES

MARKET TRANSPARENCY


59

6.3.1 Q9 Now I would like to read out some statements which other people have made about food and meatgenerally. For each one, please tell me how much you personally agree or disagree. You may agreestrongly, agree a little, neither agree nor disagree, disagree a little or disagree strongly.

Agreestrongly

Agreeslightly

Neither Disagreestrongly

Disagreeslightly

You can assess the quality of beef in the

shop just by looking at it

30.1 26.9 2.0 28.5 12.4

You can assess the quality of pork in the


26.5 29.5 2.2 29.3 12.6

You can assess the quality of chicken in

the shop just by looking at it

29.8 28.8 1.9 29.4 10.1

I like experimenting with new recipes 70.3 16.2 3.0 6.8 3.6

I do not enjoy cooking very much but it is a

task which has to be done

33.9 13.4 0.8 44.3 7.4

We should have more respects for animals 89.0 8.5 0.8 0.6 1.0

I prefer to buy meat from animals which I

know have been treated well

76.1 12.9 3.1 5.7 2.2

I would never serve a meal without meat

for visitors

27.8 16.2 1.0 40.8 14.2

Meat is an essential part of a meal 25.3 25.5 1.2 33.5 14.5

Price is the main thing I consider when

buying meat

22.6 25.6 2.2 39.9 9.7

You have to be prepared to pay a higher

price to get good quality meat

58.2 25.2 1.0 11.0 4.6

I always check the nutritional labelling on

foods before buyng them

43.3 20.9 3.2 26.2 6.4

I am confident that food in the shops is safe 31.6 32.6 0.2 20.1 15.5

I prefer to buy food which is produced

locally

67.6 19.7 2.4 7.0 3.2

It is important that I know the country

where the meat I buy has been produced

60.7 17.2 5.4 11.2 5.4

Meat is essential for a balanced diet 53.4 27.1 1.0 12.0 6.5

There is no source of protein like meat 16.6 20.9 1.2 47.8 13.6

6.4 Visual inspection

The first group of statements is about visual inspection. With these statements weintended to investigate whether they could assess the quality of meat just by looking at it. Asecond question has been asked on this issue, releted to the perception of quality , to verifywhether there were significatve difference between the one who can asses the quality of meatby looking at it and those who cannot.


60

The results indicate that visual inspection is an important part of the process ofassessing quality for all types of meat for the majority of the interviewed: nearly 60% of therespondents "agree strongly and slightly" to this point. But for all type of meat about 40% ofthe respondents disagreed.

From the Wilcoxon test it emerged that both groups look for the same characteristics

and have a similar ranking: color is the most important clue with the place of purchasing. The

only relevant difference is that for the one who cannot assess the quality by visual inspection

"brands" and "country of origin" would be more important than for the others.

Agree

strongly

Agree

slightly

Neither Disagree

strongly

Disagree

slightly

You can assess the quality of beef in the


30.1 26.9 2.0 28.5 12.4

You can assess the quality of pork in the


26.5 29.5 2.2 29.3 12.6

You can assess the quality of chicken in

the shop just by looking at it

29.8 28.8 1.9 29.4 10.1

6.4.1 Quality perception by visual inspectionAverage ranks

Those who agree Those who disagreeColor of the beef 2.998 3.219

Marbling of the beef 4.171 4.282

Leanness of the beef 4.377 4.649

A brand or quality assurance label 4.351 3.833

The place of purchase 3.145 2.923

The price of the beef 4.550 4.835

The country of origin of the beef 3.641 3.425

Wilcoxon Test:

Those who agree

Color > Marbling > LeannessPlace of purchase Country of origin Brand Price


61

Those who disagree

If we look at the variables age, income and level of education of the two groups, it

emerges the following situation:

agree strongly or slightly:

disagree strongly or slightly:

Color > Marbling > LeannessPlace of purchase Brand Price

Country of origin

6.4.2 You can asses the quality of beef in the shop just by looking at it (by age class)(proportion of agegroups in each answer category)

<30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60

Agree strongly 16.9 17.6 23.0 17.6 25.0

Agree a little 15.2 20.5 25.8 25.8 12.9

Neither 30.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 30.0

Disagree strongly 15.7 30.7 25.7 20.7 7.1

Disagree a little 18.0 31.1 16.4 23.0 11.5

Don't know 22.2 22.2 0.0 22.2 33.3

Age = > 60;

income= the lowest;

Level of education= low.

Age = <40;

Income = not relevant diff.

Level of education= high.

Highesperiencialknowledge

Lack ofexperience,de-skilling


62

6.4.3 Cooking

There were two statements about cooking:Agree

stronglyAgree

slightlyNeither Disagree

stronglyDisagree

slightlyI like experimenting with new recipes 70.3 16.2 3.0 6.8 3.6I do not enjoy cooking very much but it is atask which has to be done

33.9 13.4 0.8 44.3 7.4

The vast majority of the respondents (86.5%) agreed on the first statements about

experimentig with new recipes, but the second one is more contested: 47.3% agree that

cooking is a "duty" and 51.7% disagree.



Age = no rel. differences

income= low

Level of education= low-med.

Age= <40 but >30;

Income= medium-high

Level of education= high.

Cooking asa routine

Cooking asan option


63

6.4.4 Animal welfareAgree

stronglyAgree


stronglyDisagree

slightlyI prefer to buy meat from animals which Iknow have been treated well

76.1 12.9 3.1 5.7 2.2

On this issue there is a vast majority of respondent in agreement with the statement (90%).

6.4.5 EthicsAgree

stronglyAgree


stronglyDisagree

slightlyWe should have more respects for animals 89.0 8.5 0.8 0.6 1.0

On the statement on respect for animals there is a almost unanimity of agreement (94.5%).

6.4.6 Image and Nutritional Status

Agreestrongly

Agreeslightly


Disagreeslightly

I would never serve a meal without meatfor visitors

27.8 16.2 1.0 40.8 14.2

Meat is an essential part of a meal 25.3 25.5 1.2 33.5 14.5

Also in the case of the image and nutritional status of meat there are two contrasting

attitude. Most respondents disagree (strongly or slightly) with the first statement (55%), but

44% agreed. This is an important results since, from the literature in this field, this is a clear

sign of change in consumers preferences. If we look more closely to the groups who most

agree with this statements it emerges that only among the old generations, traditional

consumers, the status of meat is still high.

On the nutritional status, there is 50.8% in agreement and 48% in disagreement. On this

second statement most disagreement is among consumers with medium- high income, high

level of education and students, age between 30 and younger than 60 years.

(Image)


disagree strongly or slightly: Age = young and middle age

Income = medium-high

Level of education = high.

Post-traditionalconsumers

Age = >60 years old.

Income = very low.

Level of education = low

Traditionalconsumers


64

(Nutritional status)



6.4.7 Safety and InformationAgree

stronglyAgree


stronglyDisagree

slightlyI always check the nutritional labelling onfoods before buyng them

43.3 20.9 3.2 26.2 6.4

I am confident that food in the shops is safe 31.6 32.6 0.2 20.1 15.5

On the first statement most respondents are in agreement, on the second one 63.8 %

agreed on but it is relevant the number of people that doubts about food safety in the shops:

35.47%. Among the respondents with different opinion towards food safety there are not

relevant differences in age, income or level of education.

6.4.8 Market transparency

Most people agree on the need to be prepared to pay higher price for good quality meat

(83.4%), but in the former questions price was not indicate as a good clue of organoleptic

quality. This result may underline that the there is a difference in price between precious

(noble) cuts, like filet or steak, and less precious ones, but it also indicates that there is a lack

of transparency because from price you cannot predict the organoleptic qualities.

On the statement "price is the main thing I consider when buying meat" there two clear

attitude: 48.2% of the respondents agreed on this, and 49.6% disagreed.

Here is quite evident the role of income in affecting attitude/behavior.

The two statements on the "origin of meat" there is a strong agreement: also these data

underline the need of more transparency of the market.

Age = young and middle age




Age = < 30 and >60;

Income = Low;

Level of education = Low.



65

Agreestrongly

Agreeslightly


Disagreeslightly

Price is the main thing I consider whenbuying meat

22.6 25.6 2.2 39.9 9.7

You have to be prepared to pay a higherprice to get good quality meat

58.2 25.2 1.0 11.0 4.6

I prefer to buy food which is producedlocally

67.6 19.7 2.4 7.0 3.2

It is important that I know the countrywhere the meat I buy has been produced

60.7 17.2 5.4 11.2 5.4

(Price)



6.5 Symbols and labels

6.5.1 Which brand or labels look for when buying meat?Beef Pork Chicken

Marchio di attestazione di qualità 23 20Provenienza locale 14 12 12Provenienza italiana 10Vallespluga 7Arena 27AIA 77Amadori 10Altre marche 10Frequency missing 440 454 350

It is worthwhile noticing the extremely high frequency of the missing answers. This result

is easily understandable in the Italian context since meat is still a highly undifferentiated

product.

Age = young and middle age




Age = >60;

Income = Low;

Level of education =Low.



66

6.5.2 Q 11 when you looking for information on the safety of meat who or what do you most trust?Frequency

Government – The Department of Health 79

Consumer Groups 49

Butchers/independent retailers 373

Butcher in the supermarket 372

Friends 50

Riviste 33

Reports 47

Quotidiani 35

Esperti di alimentazione 17

The local doctor/other medical 8

Meat companies 15

Farmer representatives 7

My mother/other family member 20

Allevatore 5

Luogo di provenienza 5

None/Don’t know 193

On this question concerning trust in institutions or other groups in providing information

of meat safety, very clearly butchers emerged as the most trusted figures. Quite numerous it is

the group of respondents who do not know or do not trust anybody.

The magnitude of the number of respondent who indicate the butcher can also be

interpreted as lack of alternatives: the role of the other listed institutions or groups in providing

information in this field it is quite marginal.

6.6 First implication for quality policy

The results of the Italian survey can be summarized in the following points:

• Status/Image of meat, especially beef, has declined. It has declined most in the

younger generation and among consumers with high level of education and medium

or high income.

• Safety is not taken for granted, and the experiences in the private sector offering

extra guarantees are quite successful.

• Eating quality: the clues for assessing eating quality at the moment of shopping are

very few. What seems to emerge almost unanimously is an identification of quality

with organoleptic characteristics (taste, tenderness, juiciness….), yet exactly about

these the information provided to the consumer is lacking. As a consequence, the

butcher is the only one who can offer such information.


67

• Animal welfare/ animal rights issues: consumers' concern about both issues is strong.

The overwhelming number of people who agree with the statement "We should have

more respect for animals" indicates both a changed sensibility, undoubtedly

promoted/ accelerated by the media coverage of the BSE in the UK, and a lack of

specific policies in this field in Italy.

In our opinion the experiences of Coop-Italia and the Butcher's association in Lombardia

are very relevant in the Italian context and can offer some insights for developing a quality

policy in this area. They demonstrate how a negative trend can be turned into a favorable

opportunity through an adequate market strategy. The two examples are interesting for their

differences:

Coop-Italia's brand Carne con Amore (Meat with Love) gained consumer confidence on

the basis of trust in the company. The main issue is the safety of the products: the retailing

company with the application of the scheme of production is able to offer an extra-guarantee

on meat, in a time in which the public institutions devoted to safety control are not trusted

enough.

The butcher's association in Lombardia is a good example in another direction: here the

main issue is innovation in terms of better offer of new services. The butcher has become a

gourmet-advisor, the expert to ask for recipes. The butcher's counter has changed look: The

cuts of meat ("animals in pieces") have disappeared and instead of them there are only ready to

cook meals. This last example seems to anticipate the future demand for meat, i.e. that which is

coming from the youngest and most innovative or less traditional consumers.


68

Appendix- List of tables

Legend SAS Tables 68

Table of state 1 by age 69

Table of state 1 by tea 70

Table of state 1 by income 71

Table of rest2 by age 72

Table of rest 2 by tea 73

Table of rest 2 by income 74

Table of rest 3 by age 75
















69

References

References

Balestrero, G. (1991) ‘Il futuro delle carni alternative e’ già pronto’, Largo Consumo 2.Bocock, R. (1993) Consumption, London: Routledge.Boutonnet, J.P, Simier, J.P. (1995) Les Viandes, Paris: Economica.Brunori, G. (ed) (1997) Meat Quality Policy in Italy, national report for Fair project ‘Quality

policy and Consumer Behaviour’. Pisa: Il Borghetto.Censis (1994) 28° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del Paese 1994. Milano: Franco Angeli.Censis (1995) 29° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del paese 1995. Milano: Franco Angeli.Censis (1996) 30° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del paese 1996. Milano: Franco Angeli.Della Casa, R. (1992) ‘Carni bovine: debolezze da monte a valle’, Largo Consumo 2.Fabris, G. (1994) Consumatore e mercato. Le nuove regole,. Milano: Sperling & Kupfer.Fanfani, R., Green, R. H., Pecci, F., Rodriguez-Zuniga, M. (1996) I sistemi di Produzione

della Carne in Europa. Milano: Franco Angeli.Fiddes, N. (1992) Meat a natural symbol, London (UK) & New York: Routledge.

Gatti S., Pecci F., Varini P. (1994) ‘Il ruolo dei processi innovativi nella riorganizzazione delleprincipali imprese di macellazione della carne bovina in Italia’, paper presented at thecongress ‘Economy and Policy of Innovation’, Cremona, 10th July.

Gatti, S. Valli, C. (1994) ‘La gestione della qualità nella filiera delle carni bovine in Italia: ilcaso della marca commerciale’, paper presented at the congress ‘Quality agro-foodproducts: organisation of the system of firms’, 10th July Cremona, Italy.

Harris, M. (1985) Good to eat. Riddles of Food and Culture, New York: Simon and Schuster.

INEA (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997) Annuario dell’agricoltura italiana, Bologna: Il Mulino.ISMEA (1995, 1996) Filiera carne,. Roma: ISMEA.Istat (1990-1996) Annuario statistico italiano, RomaIstat, (1990-1996) I consumi delle famiglie, RomaLang, T. & (1995) Unmanageable Consumer, London: SAGE.

Malassis, L. Ghersi, G. (eds) (1995) Introduzione all’economia agroalimentare. Bologna: IlMulino.

Miele M., Brunori G., Parisi V. (1996) ‘BSE in the Italian media’ in EU project AIR-CATMeasurements of consumer attitudes and their influence on food choice and acceptability,Norway: MATSFORK.

Miele, M., Brunori, G. (1997) ‘Meat, a declining symbol.The crisis ofconsumers trust after the Mad Cow Disease in UK and the rise of newconsumption styles in Europe’, paper presented at the 60th annualmeeting of the Rural Sociological Society and I.S.A RC-40 &Miniconference on Globalization, August 13-17, 1997 Toronto, Canada.

Montanari, M. (1996) The Culture of Food, Oxford (UK) & Cambridge (USA): Blackwell.


70

Pacifico, R. (1990) ‘Carni bianche: il futuro e’ nel preconfezionato’, Largo Consumo 12.Rossi, N. (ed) (1993) La crescita ineguale, Bologna: Il Mulino.Torelli, F. (1991) ‘La carne nel vissuto degli italiani’, Largo Consumo 9.Torelli, F. (1992) ‘I prodotti avicoli nel vissuto degli italiani’, Largo Consumo 2.Torelli, F. (1995) ‘Il servizio rilancia le carni avicole’, Largo Consumo 2.

Magazines:

Agrisole (1996-1997).

AL l'alimentarista (1996-1997).

Il Sole 24 Ore (1996, 1997).

L’informatore agrario (1996-1997).

L’informatore zootecnico( 1996-1997).

Largo Consumo (1996-1997).

Marketing Espansione (1996-1997).

national consumer behaviour report: italy€¦ · national report on consumer behavior - italy-4...

Documents