national quality policy report: germany€¦ · consumer behaviour towards food is most...

National Quality Policy Report:Germany

Tilman Becker, Eckhard Benner and Kristina Glitsch

May 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

Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat in Germany 1

Table of Contents

Page

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................6

2 Meat Consumption...........................................................................................................7

2.1 Consumption Trends in Germany...............................................................................7

2.2 Meat Consumption - Results from the Sample ......................................................... 12

2.3 Who are the Heavy Meat Consumers? ..................................................................... 15

3 Quality and Safety Perception......................................................................................... 17

3.1 Literature on Quality Perception.............................................................................. 17

3.2 Quality and Safety Perception of the Sample............................................................ 18

3.2.1 'Quality in the Shop'........................................................................................ 19

3.2.2 'Eating Quality' ............................................................................................... 24

3.2.3 Visual Inspection of Meat Quality................................................................... 28

3.2.4 Safety Perception............................................................................................ 30

4 Concerns About Meat .................................................................................................... 34

4.1 Literature on Concerns about Meat ......................................................................... 34

4.2 Concerns About Meat of the Sample ....................................................................... 35

5 Information on Meat ...................................................................................................... 38

5.1 Results from Literature on Information About Food and Meat................................. 38

5.2 Information Behaviour and Trust in Information - Results from the Sample ............. 41

5.2.1 Use of Labels.................................................................................................. 41

5.2.2 Consumer Trust in Information....................................................................... 42

6 Attitudes Towards Food and Meat ................................................................................. 44

6.1 German Literature on Attitudes Towards Food and Meat ........................................ 44

6.2 Attitudes - Results from the Sample......................................................................... 46

6.2.1 Cooking ......................................................................................................... 47

6.2.2 Status ............................................................................................................. 48

6.2.3 Animal Welfare............................................................................................... 49

6.2.4 Origin............................................................................................................. 49

6.2.5 Safety/Information.......................................................................................... 50

6.2.6 Nutrition......................................................................................................... 51

6.2.7 Price............................................................................................................... 52


7 Summary and Implications for Quality Policy ................................................................. 54

7.1 Summary................................................................................................................. 54

7.2 Implications for Quality Policy................................................................................. 57

8 References ..................................................................................................................... 59

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Sociodemographics.....................................................................................62

APPENDIX 2: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test........................................................................72

APPENDIX 3: Questionnaire..............................................................................................77


Table of Figures

Page

Figure 1: Per Capita Consumption Index for Selected Meat Productsfrom 1981 to 1996 in % (1981=100)...................................................................8

Figure 2: Price Index of Beef, Pork, Chicken and Total Food(Excluding Beverages, Alcohol and Tobacco) in Germany (1981=100) ...............9

Figure 3: Per Capita Meat Consumption in kg in Germany in 1996in Comparison to the EU-Averages (Carcass Weight) .........................................9

Figure 4: Reasons for Not Consuming Pork (n=285) -Values in Percent, Multiple Answers................................................................. 11

Figure 5: Frequency of Meat Consumption in Households (n=493) .................................. 12

Figure 6: Differences Between Beef Consumers and Non-Consumers - RelativeDeviations from the Averages of the Sociodemographic Variables .................... 13

Figure 7: Changes in Meat Consumption in % ................................................................. 13

Figure 8: Place of Purchase (Beef: n=355, Pork: n=448, Chicken: n=458) ....................... 14

Figure 9: Differences Between Respondents Who Buy Beef andPork at Butcher Shops (or Similar Places) and ThoseWho Buy Beef at Super-, Hyper- or Megamarkets ............................................ 15

Figure 10: Quality Model................................................................................................... 19

Figure 11: Helpfulness of 'Quality-in-the-Shop'-Characteristics - Beef................................ 21

Figure 12: Helpfulness of 'Quality-in-the-Shop'-Characteristics - Pork ............................... 21

Figure 13: Helpfulness of 'Quality-in-the-Shop'-Characteristics - Chicken .......................... 22

Figure 14: Importance of Eating Quality Characteristics - Beef .......................................... 25

Figure 15: Importance of Eating Quality Characteristics - Pork.......................................... 25

Figure 16: Importance of Eating Quality Characteristics - Chicken..................................... 26

Figure 17: Quality Assessment by Visual Perception .......................................................... 28

Figure 18: Visual Inspection according to Age Group........................................................ 30

Figure 19: Helpfulness of Safety Indicators - Beef ............................................................. 31

Figure 20: Helpfulness of Safety Indicators - Pork ............................................................. 32

Figure 21: Helpfulness of Safety Indicators - Chicken ........................................................ 32

Figure 22: Concerns - Beef................................................................................................ 35

Figure 23: Concerns - Pork................................................................................................ 36

Figure 24: Concerns - Chicken .......................................................................................... 36


Figure 25: Consumer Trust in Information......................................................................... 43

Figure 26: Cooking Statements.......................................................................................... 47

Figure 27: Status Statements ............................................................................................. 48

Figure 28: Animal Welfare Statements............................................................................... 49

Figure 29: Origin Statements ............................................................................................. 50

Figure 30: Safety and Information Statements.................................................................... 51

Figure 31: Nutritional Statements ...................................................................................... 52

Figure 32: Price Statements ............................................................................................... 53

Table of Tables

Page

Table 1: Differences Between Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers...................... 16

Table 2: Number of Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristic and for each Type of Meat.......................... 20

Table 3: Quality Perception by Visual Inspection - Beef.................................................. 29

Table 4: Information About Food................................................................................... 39

Table 5: Quality Symbols and Labels − Multiple Answers (Number of Answers)............. 42

Table 6: Importance of the Origin of Agricultural Products in the Former FRG .............. 46


Figures of the Appendix

Page

Figure A1: Household Size (1950, 1970, 1990 and 1995) in Germany................................ 62

Figure A2: Unemployment Rate in Germany ...................................................................... 65

Figure A3: Income Distribution of the Various Household Sizes in Germany in 1993 ......... 65

Figure A4: Women in the Labour Force in Germany and the EU........................................ 66

Figure A5: Household Size by Age..................................................................................... 68

Figure A6: Occupation of Respondents andMajor Contributors to the Household Income ................................................... 69

Tables of the Appendix

Page

Table A1: Age Groups and Total Population in Germany .................................................. 64

Table A2: Comparison of the Age Structure (Over 15 Years of Age)from the Sample With Official Statistics in % (n=495)....................................... 67

Table A3: Age which Respondents Completed Full-time Education................................... 69

Table A4: Sociodemographics of the Sample..................................................................... 71


1 Introduction

Consumer behaviour towards food is most characterised by a rapid change in food

preferences. Such especially applies to meat consumption. In order to gain more insight into

consumer meat consumption behaviour, a consumer survey on perception of meat quality and

safety as well as attitudes towards meat was conducted by each of the participating countries

(Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) in March 1997.

The main focus of this report is to show the survey results and to compare them with general

trends of meat consumption in Germany. Accordingly, parts of the "Preliminary Report on

National Consumer Perception and Expectations Regarding Food Quality, in Particular Meat

Quality" (BECKER, BENNER and GLITSCH 1996) serve as the basis for the results of the

German consumer survey.

This report deals with the following topics:

• Meat consumption in general and within the sample

• Quality and safety perception

• Attitudes towards food and meat

• Use of symbols and labels

• Consumer trust in information

• Implications for quality policy

• Sociodemographics of the sample in comparison to the total population (Appendix 1)

The national reports are concerned only with the national view. A summary and conclusions

at the community level will be provided in a separate report available in February 1998.

Statistical data used in this paper is confined primarily to the regional states of the former

Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

Survey

The survey conducted by MRC, an Irish market research centre, was based on telephone

interviews which were conducted on 500 consumers per country in the Spring of 1997.

Individuals responsible for shopping were the subjects of this sample. As a method, a purely

random sampling was applied. A copy of the questionnaire is given in the Appendix.


2 Meat Consumption

In the following section, an overview of meat consumption patterns in Germany is given

together with its development over the last few decades. Accordingly corresponding results

of the consumer survey are illustrated.

2.1 Consumption Trends in Germany

At the beginning of the Eighties, two major trends in food consumption became evident in

Germany; an increasing consumption of fruit, vegetable, cheese and fish, on the one hand, and

a declining consumption of eggs and sugar, on the other. Reasons for these trends are usually

attributed by experts to increasing health concerns, to increasing preferences for a

Mediterranean diet, to concerns over a low-calorie intake, and so forth. In addition,

sociodemographic changes in the German population have led to a greater demand for

convenience foods, ready-to-serve meals and food products in smaller packaging units.

Until 1988, the per capita consumption of meat only slightly increased, but afterwards clearly

decreased. Considering only meat used for human nutrition, the per capita consumption was

69.7 kg in 1988 and only 61.2 kg in 1996 (ZMP Bilanz Vieh und Fleisch 1997). While pork,

and in particular beef and veal, consumption has declined, poultry consumption has drastically

increased (see Figure 1).

Most national statistics give a per capita consumption based on carcass weight which includes

bones, losses, offal used as animal feed and so on. The proportion of carcass meat not

consumed by humans has increased remarkably during the last decades so that the statistics

based on carcass weight tend to overrate per capita meat consumption.


Figure 1: Per Capita Consumption Index for Selected Meat Products from 1981 to19961 in % (1981=100)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

quan

tity

inde

x (1

981=

100)

poultry

pork

beef and veal

total meat

Source: ZMP Bilanz Vieh und Fleisch 1997

The development of pork and beef consumption does not correspond to the development of

relative meat prices (assuming household income has remained constant). Figure 2 illustrates

the price indices of several meat products in comparison to the price index of total food

products. Since 1984 all of the meat price indices can be seen to be below the food price

index. All other factors influencing demand - such as demographics, lifestyles, health

concerns, attitudes towards meat - apparently have outweighed the effects of declining prices

and rising incomes, and driven down the total consumption of meat and meat products.

Poultry seems to have become increasingly important. Apart from declining prices, a greater

demand for convenience has made poultry so popular. But in spite of the growing demand for

poultry, the total quantity consumed (13.8 kg per head in 1996, carcass weight) is still far

below the European average (19.8 kg).

1 only human consumption


Figure 2: Price Index of Beef, Pork, Chicken and Total Food (Excluding Beverages,Alcohol and Tobacco) in Germany (1981=100)

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

cons

umer

pric

e in

dex

(198

1=10

0)

total food

pork (chop)

chicken (frozen)

beef (roast)

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, various yearbooks and StatistischesJahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, various yearbooks

A comparison of the composition of the meat consumption in Germany to the EU-average

can be seen in Figure 3. In Germany, more than half of the meat consumed is pork. This is

clearly above the EU-average (approximately 40 %). Furthermore, total meat consumption in

Germany in 1996 measured in carcass weight per capita (91.3 kg) was higher than the EU-

average (90.9 kg).

Figure 3: Per Capita Meat Consumption in kg in Germany in 1996 in Comparison tothe EU-Averages (Carcass Weight)

15 17,8

55,241,6

13,819,8

1,2

3,8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Germany EU-15

Poultry

Lamb, mutton, goat

PorkBeef and veal

Source: ZMP Agrarmärkte in Zahlen, Europäische Union 1996.


An important trend in the meat market is the increasing popularity of meat replacements

(textured vegetable protein). In this manner, people, especially vegetarians, maintain the

impression of eating meat without actually doing so.

Meat substitution through soya and cereal products were first introduced in Germany in the

early Seventies. In 1985, the IFAK-Institut in Taunusstein was asked to carry out a survey

during the course of which approximately 600 people were questioned on their opinions of

these products. The survey was representative for the city of Mainz and evaluated by

FOLKERS (1987). Prior to the survey, a trend was observed showing a favouring of less meat

in the diet because of influences from the dietetic sciences, and also as a result of augmented

psycho-social concerns such as the respect of animal life.

One out of two persons questioned in the FOLKERS study had heard of soya or cereal meat

replacements, but only one out of ten had actually tried any of them. Furthermore, every

second person questioned said that they were going to try one of these meat replacements,

giving either health or economical advantages as a reason. Consumers unwilling to try meat

replacements argued that they preferred natural foodstuffs and thus fully refused to try

“artificial meat”.

In a representative survey by the SAMPLE-Institut in Mölln in 1984 2000 consumers were

questioned on their consumption habits of pork and their perceived quality. The survey

was evaluated by REWERTS and FOLKERS (1985).

Consumer quality expectations were summarised as follows: no health hazards should be

feared; pork should be tender, juicy and tasty; it should not contain too much fat; it should

not appear pale, soft or exudative; and it should have an appropriate price.

When questioned about their consumption habits, 85 % answered that they consumed pork

regularly and 14 % said they never consumed pork. The non-consumers (a total of 285

persons) were mostly found in the group of the under 30 year olds (20 %). The most

important reasons given for not consuming pork were: ‘health aspects’ (36 %), ‘eat little or

no meat’ (29 %), ‘too many medical residues’ (16 %), ‘pork quality is no good anymore’

(9 %), ‘pork is too fat/has too many calories’ (6 %). Multiple answers were possible. The

price was not mentioned as a reason for not consuming pork (see Figure 4).


Figure 4: Reasons for Not Consuming Pork (n=285) - Values in Percent, MultipleAnswers

1

3

4

5

6

8

9

16

29

36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

too expensive

no comment

generally don't like pork

pork is unhealthy

too fatty / too many calories

other reasons

pork quality is no good anymore

too many medical residues

eat little or no meat

health aspects

Source: Rewerts, Folkers, 1985 and own calculations.

Those questioned who did consume pork mentioned as the most frequent places of purchase

butcheries (66 %), supermarkets (40 %) and discounts (15 %), again multiple answers were

possible.

The results of the questions posed to the consumers of pork were summarised as follows:

• Pork has a good image amongst its consumers and is seen as an essential part of a healthy

and balanced diet.

• The quality of the meat is more important than the price.

• The fat content does not have much influence on consumption patterns.

• Older generations seem more satisfied with the quality of the meat than younger

generations.

• If pork is criticised, then mainly because the taste and cooking characteristics are not

satisfactory.

• Residues in the meat are neither of vital importance nor totally unimportant to the

consumer.

The consumers’ awareness of a lack of quality varies strongly among the different age groups

and the different income groups.


2.2 Meat Consumption - Results from the Sample

In order to get information on the consumption behaviour of the respondents, questions on

the frequency of meat consumption in the households, on changes in meat consumption as

well as on the place of purchase were included in the questionnaire.

The frequency of meat consumption per week was used as an indicator to show the intensity

of meat consumption of the interviewed households. Figure 5 shows that German households

consume a great amount of pork. About 18 % of the respondents consume pork three or

more times per week in their household. More than 70 % of all interviewed consumers eat

pork at least once a week. The percentage of those who said they never eat pork is only about

10 % and thus lower than in the study of REWERTS and FOLKERS (1985).

In contrast to this, beef consumption is very low in Germany. Only 40 % of the respondents

eat beef at least once a week and nearly 30 % said they never eat beef. It can be shown that

chicken is consumed even more often than beef. More than 50 % said they consume chicken

at least once a week, while only 8 % do not eat chicken at all.

Figure 5: Frequency of Meat Consumption in Households (n=493)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Never

Less often than once amonth

Less than once a week butmore than once a month

Once

Twice

Three and more

Percentage

BeefPorkChicken

The question arises of whether or not consumers who never eat beef are different from the

'beef-eaters'. It is highly probable that non-beef-eaters are for the most part households

concerned with health issues, with children, well-educated and thus well-informed about food.

Figure 6 illustrates differences between the two groups by using relative deviations from the

total average of the sociodemographic variables. Astonishingly there are only very slight


differences between the two groups. Respondents who do not eat beef tended to have a lower

household income on the average, a smaller household size, a lower level of education and

slightly more children per household.

Figure 6: Differences Between Beef Consumers and Non-Consumers - RelativeDeviations from the Averages of the Sociodemographic Variables

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

Householdincome

Householdsize

Full-timeeducation

Age Children

Beef-eaters

Non-beef-eaters

In addition, respondents were asked if they altered their meat consumption within the last five

years. Altogether, the majority of the consumers have not altered their meat consumption.

However, more than half of them have reduced their beef consumption, 35 % have reduced

their pork consumption, while at the same time, a considerable number of them (29 %) have

increased their chicken consumption.

Figure 7: Changes in Meat Consumption within the Last Five Years in %

Beef Pork Chicken

More 3.0 8.8 28.6

Less 51.2 35.1 11.5

Unchanged 45.8 56.1 59.9

When asked where they usually buy fresh meat, 60 % of the respondents referred to butcher

shops for purchasing beef and pork (see Figure 8). The supermarket was secondary in

importance for purchasing beef and pork, but the main place of purchase for chicken.

Approximately 12 % of the respondents buy beef and chicken directly from a farmer. As

consumers have an increasing desire to know where the meat they eat originates, purchasing


directly from farmers will probably become more important. Further, hyper- and

megamarkets, weekly markets, local shops and own meat production are of certain

importance for chicken, but not for beef and pork.

Figure 8: Place of Purchase (Beef: n2=355, Pork: n=448, Chicken: n=458)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Self-production

Local shop

Weekly or openmarket

Hyper-/Mega-market

Other

Direct from farmer

Supermarket

Butcher

Percentage

BeefPorkChicken

Since the role of butchers is a special feature in Germany, it is interesting to search for differ-

ences between consumers who mainly purchase at a butcher's and those who prefer more

modern places of purchase such as supermarkets, hyper- and megamarkets. Figure 9 shows

these differences giving relative deviations from the total average of the sociodemographic

variables. For beef, as well as for pork, it is striking that consumers who prefer shopping at

the butcher's have an above-average household income, more children and thus, larger

households.

2 n is defined as numbers of observations.


Figure 9: Differences Between Respondents Who Buy Beef and Pork at ButcherShops (or Similar Places) and Those Who Buy Beef at Super-, Hyper- orMegamarkets

a) Beef

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

Age Householdsize

Children Full-timeeducation

Householdincome

Customers of butchers etc.

Customers of super-, hyper-, megamarkets etc.

b) Pork

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

Age Householdsize

Kids Full-timeeducation

Householdincome

Customers of butchers etc.

Customers of super-, hyper-, megamarkets etc.

2.3 Who are the Heavy Meat Consumers?

So far we have only looked at different kinds of meat and not at the aggregate of meat. To

analyse which types of households are low, medium or heavy meat consumers, a meat

consumption index has been set up as follows: In accordance with the answers to question

Q.1 of the questionnaire 'Never' is replaced by 1, 'Less often than once a month' by 2 and so

on. When adding up the numbers for all three types of meat the smallest possible value is 4 (it

cannot be 3 since this would indicate that the consumer does not eat any of the meats) while

the maximum value is 18. All replies of 'don't know' for one of the three types of meat have

been excluded from this analysis.

A low meat consumer is now defined by having a meat consumption index of up to 8, a

medium meat consumer has an index from 9 to 14 and a heavy meat consumer has an index

of 14 or more. According to this definition, the survey sample can be subdivided into 115 low

meat consumers, 327 medium meat consumers and 46 heavy meat consumers.

When we take a closer look at the households of low meat consumers, we find that they can

be characterised by a below average number of children, and as such, having a smaller


household size. Heavy meat consumers are comparatively large households with an above

average number of children under the age of 16. This does not support the hypothesis that

parents are concerned about negative effects of meat consumption in regard to their children's

health and therefore have reduced it. Meanwhile, low meat consumers are characterised by

having the highest educational level (providing age of completion of full-time education can

be used as an indicator of educational level) and the smallest household size.

Table 1: Differences Between Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers

TotalSample

LowConsumers

(n=115)

MediumConsumers

(n=327)

HeavyConsumers

(n=46)Age 42.9 43.7 42.3 44.0Household-Size 2.9 2.4 2.9 3.6Number of Children 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0Age of Completion of Full-TimeEducation

20.4 21.2 20.0 20.8

Household Income 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.9


3 Quality and Safety Perception

3.1 Literature on Quality Perception

German consumers are extremely sceptical about food quality. Results of a European

consumer survey commissioned by the European Commission (Lebensmittel Zeitung 24,

13.6.1997) supply evidence showing negative attitudes for German consumers regarding food

quality. While the majority of the respondents were of the opinion that the quality of

vegetables, fruits, milk, cheese, eggs, bread and frozen foods is improving, they considered

the quality of ready-to-serve meals, pre-packaged foods, and especially that of fresh meat and

fish to be steadily declining. Compared to the other EU countries, the proportion of

consumers who think that food quality is deteriorating was the highest for Germany and

Greece. One exception for Germany was for bread, cakes and pastries, where an above

average proportion of consumers (49.4 %) claimed that quality is improving.

When comparing with consumers from other European countries, German consumers were

shown to be the most suspicious consumers in terms of food safety. The above mentioned

survey (Lebensmittel Zeitung 24, 13.6.1997) shows that approximately 58 % of the German

respondents considered food not to be safe. The EU-average (35 %) was far below.

In a consumer survey undertaken in the Department of Agricultural Economics in Göttingen

(BECKER, GLITSCH, HOLZAPFEL, 1995) approximately 800 customers of butcheries were

asked about the importance attributed to several quality aspects. These aspects comprise

product characteristics as well as meat production and meat processing. The result is given in

the following hierarchical order:

• non-use of antibiotics in feeding

• responsible transport and slaughtering

• humane animal keeping

• meat preparation characteristics (frying/roasting)

• feeding with regional feed

• animals from small farms

• animals from the region

• low-fat meat

• red-coloured meat

importance


The three most important aspects are meat characteristics which cannot be detected by the

consumer and are often not measurable. For this reason consumers who demand certain

requirements on meat quality need detailed and credible information on the meat they

purchase.

The relation between quality and price is investigated in a survey made by GfK Nürnberg

(FROHN 1992). In the years 1970, 1980, 1985, and 1990 altogether 2000 (1990: 5000)

German housewives were asked to rate the following statement: "You should pay attention to

the price when purchasing, but in the end quality is decisive." The percentage of those who

agreed to this statement increased from 65 % in 1970 to 94 % in 1990. This does not mean

that nowadays the price itself does not play an important role at all, but it suggests that

consumers demand quality more than twenty years ago. FROHN argues that housewives tend

to compare prices more vividly in order to choose the 'best' quality to a 'cheap' price.

3.2 Quality and Safety Perception of the Sample

The evaluation of meat quality plays a major role for consumers in determining meat

purchases. Several studies show that aside from intrinsic characteristics referring to those of

the physical product, extrinsic meat characteristics, such as the origin or environmental

aspects, have become increasingly important to consumers in Germany. In order to meet

consumers demands and to calm consumers', uncertainty it is necessary for meat producers to

consider relevant quality characteristics and communicate meat quality to the consumers.

The focus of this section is quality and safety perception. It will refer more to the consumers'

approach than to a professional approach on meat quality. Quality perception as an

expression also reflects the idea that consumers' evaluation of quality is often incomplete and

inconsistent (see LASSEN 1993, p. 3).

The degree of satisfaction enjoyed while consuming a food product is often only loosely

related to the cues available in the purchase situation (GRUNERT 1996). Therefore, in this

study, the quality evaluation process is supposed to take place in two stages. The first stage

takes place previous to the actual purchase, in which the consumer inspects the meats as well

as requests additional information. The second stage of quality evaluation takes place while

eating the meat.


Since the meat "quality" sought by consumers can only have characteristics of a hypothetical

construction, it can only be used by the consumer as indicators for the quality actually

desired. Such indicators, which are accessible to consumers, cover both characteristics of the

product itself as well as other attributes (e.g. price). This means that for both stages of the

quality evaluation process there must be certain indicators which play a decisive role in

determining meat quality.

The following model (see Figure 10) was chosen as the premise of the empirical analysis. The

quality cues were derived from focus group discussions which were conducted in each of the

six countries.

Figure 10: Quality Model

3.2.1 'Quality in the Shop'

According to this concept, consumers were asked to rate the 'quality in the shop'-characteris-

tics in respect to their helpfulness in assessing meat quality while shopping for beef, pork and

chicken. A five point scale was used between the poles 'not at all helpful' and 'very helpful'. In

addition, the answer 'don't know' was included in the questionnaire. To simplify matters,

answers of 'don't know' were not taken into consideration in the following analyses but

nonetheless will be briefly discussed.

Considering the percentage of consumers who answered 'don't know' (see Table 2) 'marbling'

and 'leanness' seem to be the most problematic of the characteristics for assessing meat quality

in the shop. The percentage of those respondents who didn't know how helpful they consider

'Quality in the shop'

Intrinsic Indicators:

− Colour− Marbling (except

chicken)

− Leanness

Extrinsic Indicators:

− Quality labels

− Place of purchase

− Price

− Country of origin

'Eating quality'

− Flavour

− Tenderness

− Colour

− Smell

− Leanness

− Juiciness

− Free of gristle

− Texture


'marbling' to be was 8.2 % for beef and 9.6 % for pork. In the case of 'leanness' it was 5.4 %

for beef, 3.3 % for pork and 6.3 % for chicken. All in all, consumers seemed to have fewer

problems with extrinsic indicators such as 'place of purchase', 'price' and 'country of origin'

than with intrinsic factors.

Table 2: Number of Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristic and for each Type of Meat

Beef(n=355)

Pork(n=448)

Chicken(n=458)

Country of Origin 5 7 13Place of Purchase 2 4 5Colour 3 4 14Brand/Label 10 11 9Leanness 19 15 29Marbling 29 43 (not asked)Price 3 2 5

Returning to the ordinal five point scale, it is striking that the respondents tended to highly

rate nearly every characteristic. Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13 show data for the

responses on beef, pork and chicken.

'Country of origin' and 'place of purchase' were regarded as being most helpful in determining

the quality of beef in the shop. The great importance given to 'country of origin' for beef can

obviously be linked to the BSE-discussion. While a great importance on the 'place of

purchase' may be due to the fact that beef is usually purchased at a butcher shop, which

maintains a very positive image in Germany. 'Colour', 'brand/label', 'leanness' and 'marbling' all

followed at a similar level of importance. More than 50 % of the respondents regarded 'price'

as not being a helpful indicator.

We can find nearly the same pattern for pork, differing that the place of purchase was

regarded as being more useful than the country of origin. An empirical study from VON

ALVENSLEBEN (1995) also identifies the place of purchase to be the most important criterion

for the quality assessment of pork. He reaches the conclusion, that German consumers place

their trust more in an individual (e.g. the butcher) or in 'natural' animal-keeping than in quality

labels.

Apart from price, extrinsic characteristics of chicken were regarded as being more useful

than intrinsic characteristics. This may be due to the fact that chicken is often purchased


frozen and pre-packaged so that characteristics of 'colour' and 'leanness' cannot be easily

inspected. But when compared to those for beef and pork, most characteristics were rated as

having a lower level of usefulness. Thus, quality assessment in itself seems to be more

important for beef and pork than for chicken.

Figure 11: Helpfulness of 'Quality-in-the-Shop'-Characteristics - Beef

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cou

nty

of o

rigin

Pla

ce o

fpu

rcha

se

Col

our

Bra

nd/L

abel

Lean

ness

Mar

blin

g

Pric

e

Not at all helpful

Not very helpful

Neither

Quite helpful

Very helpful

Figure 12: Helpfulness of 'Quality-in-the-Shop'-Characteristics - Pork

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cou

nty

of o

rigin

Pla

ce o

fpu

rcha

se

Col

our

Bra

nd/L

abel

Lean

ness

Mar

blin

g

Pric

e

Not at all helpfulNot very helpfulNeitherQuite helpful

Very helpful


Figure 13: Helpfulness of 'Quality-in-the-Shop'-Characteristics - Chicken

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cou

nty

of o

rigin

Pla

ce o

fpu

rcha

se

Col

our

Bra

nd/L

abel

Lean

ness

Mar

blin

g

Pric

e

Not at all helpful

Not very helpfulNeither

Quite helpful

Very helpful

Since differences between some of the characteristics, for example between the 'country of

origin' and the 'place of purchase' in the case of beef, were so minimal, we can not be sure as

to their significance for the total population. Before being able to transfer the results from the

sample to the total population, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test3 was first performed.

The results of the tests shows the following order of importance for these characteristics

(those being the most helpful come first). Where one characteristic is written directly below

another, this means that there was no significant difference (at a confidence interval of 5 %)

between the two (or also in cases of more than two).

Beef

As was expected, the 'country of origin' was the most important characteristic for assessing

beef quality in the shop. It was surprising that brandname and quality assurance labels were

only of secondary importance to the consumers. This may have implications for further

quality policy. As for all other meats price as an indicator of quality was of least importance.

3 A description of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and its performance with SAS is attached in the Appendix.

Brand/LabelMarbling Price

LeannessColour>>Country of Origin Place of Purchase > >


Pork

For pork, the pattern was similar, but except that 'place of purchase' came first. The test

shows that the 'country of origin', 'leanness' and 'colour' on the one side, and 'brand/label' and

'marbling' on the other, do not significantly differ from each other.

Even here, brandnames and labels did not fall under the most important characteristics,

although there is much more branded and labelled pork than beef available in Germany.

Chicken

When using the Wilcoxon test, no significant differences were evident in the helpfulness of

each of the characteristics with the exception of the price. Consumers seemed to be either

more undecided or less involved in assessing the quality of chicken.

Differences Between the Meats

So far we have discussed the usefulness of certain indicators for assessing the quality for each

type of meat in particular. To analyse if the importance of each indicator was actually

different between the meats beef, pork and chicken (an assumption which was made in

designing the questionnaire), a Wilcoxon-test was again performed to test whether significant

differences between the average ranks of the indicators could be shown at a confidence

interval of 5 %.

The results show that the characteristics 'colour', 'marbling' and 'brand/label' were regarded as

being nearly equally helpful in assessing the quality of beef, pork and chicken. Other

characteristics were rated differently. Leanness was of greater importance for beef and pork

than for chicken. The place of purchase was very important for beef and pork while it was

clearly less important for chicken. Not surprisingly, the country of origin was regarded as

Brand/LabelMarbling Price

Country of OriginLeannessColour

>Place of Purchase > >

Country of OriginPlace of Purchase

Brand/LabelLeannessColour

> Price


being most important in assessing beef quality in the shop and less important for pork and

chicken.

These results point to the necessity, at least to a certain degree, of different quality policies

for different kinds of meat.

3.2.2 'Eating Quality'

The term 'eating quality' is often connected with quality assurance and stands for attributes

related to the physical food product that are important to consumers and can be provided by

the producers. The producers' task is to find methods to come from customer needs to

product specifications (DALEN 1996). 'Eating quality' is only a part of the many quality

attributes of meat.

Derived from the focus group discussions, characteristics such as 'smell', 'tenderness',

'flavour', 'juiciness', 'free of gristle', 'colour', 'leanness' and 'texture' were identified as being the

most important characteristics for determining the eating quality of meat. Following the

quality model used in this study (see Figure 10), analysing eating quality is the second stage

of the quality assessment process. In the consumer survey, respondents were asked questions

concerning the importance of each characteristic for each type of meat.

Although the answer 'don't know' was included in the questionnaire, it will not be considered

in the following analyses because of its negligible meaning in most cases. However, 'texture'

being the only exception, since a considerable number of respondents answered 'don't know'

(3.1 % for beef, 3.1 % for pork and 5.5 % for chicken). This could indicate that this

characteristic had little meaning for the respondents.

Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16 show the ratings of importance in eating quality for the

intrinsic meat characteristics. Even more than in the case of 'quality in the shop', it was

evident that consumers have a strong tendency to rate each characteristic as very or quite

important. So, after the fact, this type of question is revealed as being inadequate for

obtaining answers, which can be distributed as evenly as possible.

In Figure 14, showing the results for beef, we can see that the first four characteristics are

rated very similarly. Over 50 % of all respondents considered 'smell', 'leanness', 'flavour' and

'juiciness' to be very important, while another 30 to 40 % considered these aspects to be quite

important. The characteristics 'free of gristle', 'colour' and 'leanness' for which about 40 % of


the consumers considered as very important follow. Only 30 % of the respondents rated

texture to be very important, while still nearly 40 % considered it to be quite important.

Figure 14: Importance of Eating Quality Characteristics - Beef

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sm

ell

Ten

dern

ess

Fla

vour

Juic

ines

s

Fre

e of

Gris

tle

Col

our

Lean

ness

Tex

ture

Not at all important

Not very important

Neither

Quite important

Very important

Additionally, more than 90 % of the respondents rated 'smell', 'tenderness', 'flavour' and

'juiciness' for pork as being important (either very important or quite important). All in all,

this rating was very similar to that for beef.

Figure 15: Importance of Eating Quality Characteristics - Pork

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sm

ell

Ten

dern

ess

Fla

vour

Juic

ines

s

Fre

e of

Gris

tle

Col

our

Lean

ness

Tex

ture

Not at all important

Not very important

Neither

Quite important

Very important


Figure 16: Importance of Eating Quality Characteristics - Chicken

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sm

ell

Ten

dern

ess

Fla

vour

Juic

ines

s

Fre

e of

Gris

tle

Col

our

Lean

ness

Tex

ture

Not at all importantNot very importantNeitherQuite importantVery important

Since even here the characteristics do not differ very distinctly from each other in terms of

importance, a Wilcoxon test was performed. The statistically significant ordering of

characteristics according to their importance is as follows:

Beef

As a result of this test, 'tenderness', 'smell', 'flavour' and 'juiciness' were shown equally to be

the most important characteristics in terms of eating quality of beef. 'Colour', 'free of gristle'

and 'texture' are followed. The least important characteristic was 'leanness'. This ranking

reflects a general trend in consumer behaviour towards food: The fat content of food

products was a very important factor in the Seventies influenced by a trend concentrating on

body slimness and a low-fat diet in Germany ("Schlankheitswelle"). Nowadays, trends in

health concerns ("Gesundheitswelle"), and foremost pleasurable eating ("Genußwelle")

prevail.

TendernessSmell

FlavourJuiciness

ColourFree of Gristle

TextureLeanness>>


Pork

For pork, the ranking of importance hardly differs from that of beef. Gristle and meat texture

seem to be of lesser concern for pork than for beef.

Chicken

For chicken, gristle and texture are even less important than leanness. This may be due to the

fact that gristle and texture are not usually a problem in chicken, and that quality is more

consistent than it is for beef and pork.

Differences Between the Meats

A Wilcoxon Test was once again performed in order to analyse whether differences actually

exist between beef, pork and chicken in the rating of importance for each eating quality

characteristic (at a confidence interval of 5 %).

The results indicate that 'flavour', 'tenderness', 'smell' and 'leanness' were not rated

significantly different for beef, pork and chicken. 'Colour' seemed to more important for the

eating quality of beef and pork than for that of chicken. The same applies to the

characteristics of 'juiciness', 'free of gristle', and 'texture'. This is another indication, as

mentioned before, that quality assessment in itself seems to be more important for beef and

pork than for chicken.

>Flavour

TendernessSmell

Juiciness

ColourFree of Gristle

TextureLeanness

>

FlavourSmell

TendernessJuiciness

> >Free of Gristle

TextureColour

Leanness


3.2.3 Visual Inspection of Meat Quality

The consumers were asked whether they could assess the quality of beef, pork and chicken

just by looking at it. The answers, based on a five-point scale, are illustrated in Figure 17. The

results are nearly identical for all of the meats. About 30 % of the respondents strongly or

slightly agreed to the statement while more than 60 % disagreed. This result suggests that for

the majority of the respondents non-visible characteristics of meat are more important than

visible characteristics.

Figure 17: Quality Assessment by Visual Perception

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"You can assess the quality of beef in the shop just bylooking at it."

"You can assess the quality of pork in the shop just bylooking at it."

"You can assess the quality of chicken in the shop just bylooking at it."

To determine whether people who claim that meat quality can be assessed through visual

inspection have different quality perceptions, respondents were devided into two groups -

those who replied "agree strongly" or "agree a little" to the statement "You can assess the

quality of beef in the shop just by looking at it", and those who answered "disagree a little"

and "disagree strongly". Since there were no significant differences in the rating of these

statements according to the type of meat, it will be sufficient to confine the following analysis

to beef.

Here, quality perception in the shop is analysed separately for each group in order to

determine if 'quality in the shop' characteristics rated differently for each group. Table 3


shows the responses for beef. The respondents who agreed to the statement, rated most of

the characteristics distinctly higher than those who disagreed.

Table 3: Quality Perception by Visual Inspection - Beef

Veryhelpful

Quitehelpful

Neither Not veryhelpful

Not at allhelpful

Colour Agree 54 35 4 5 3

Disagree 32 45 3 16 4

Marbling Agree 42 38 5 14 2

Disagree 29 45 6 14 6

Leanness Agree 52 38 2 3 5

Disagree 31 54 6 7 4

Brand/Label Agree 41 30 3 18 9

Disagree 39 35 4 11 11

Place ofpurchase

Agree 66 17 3 9 5


Price Agree 16 31 8 31 14

Disagree 9 28 5 45 14

Country oforigin

Agree 71 19 2 5 3


To check if the differences between the two groups are significant, the Wilcoxon signed rank

test was performed on the basis of the average ranking of the characteristics. The following

ranking shows significant differences for beef:

Those who agreed (n=99):

Country of originPlace of purchase

ColourLeanness

MarblingBrand/lLabel Price> >


Those who disagreed (n=178):

These results indicate that the group of consumers, who believe that beef quality can be

assessed through visual inspection, can be attributed with a different quality perception, such

that intrinsic meat characteristics play an important role. In this case, 'colour' and 'leanness'

were some of the most important characteristics. This may be due to the fact that the

consumers who believe in visual inspection are on the whole older than the other respondents

and accordingly may have better skills in assessing meat quality. The average age was 48 for

this group while consumers not believing in visual inspection were on the average only 41.

Figure 18 illustrates the percentages of different age groups according to both subgroups.

Figure 18: Visual Inspection according to Age Group

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Agree Disagree

60 and over50-5940-4930-39Under 30

3.2.4 Safety Perception

Similar to quality perception, consumers use indicators to assess the safety (which is also a

hypothetical construct) of meat. From the focus group interviews, seven relevant indicators

were selected. The respondents were asked how helpful each of these indicators are in

assessing the safety of beef, pork and chicken. If we have a look at the numbers of

respondents who answered 'don't know' it becomes obvious that only very few consumers do

not have a distinct opinion on these indicators. The indicators with the highest number of

Country of originPlace of purchase

LeannessBrand/Label

ColourMarbling

Price> >


'don't knows' were 'feed' (beef: 9, pork: 13 and chicken: 6) and 'organically produced' (beef: 8

and pork: 14), indicators which require extensive information in order to understand them.

Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the responses to the question on the helpfulness of

safety indicators for beef, pork and chicken. 'Country of origin' was the most important safety

indicator for beef. 70 % of the respondents regarded origin as being very helpful. This was far

less important for pork and chicken, for which only 50 % of the consumers considered origin

to be very important in assessing meat safety. 'Freshness' was determined to be the most

helpful safety indicator for both pork and chicken.

Figure 19: Helpfulness of Safety Indicators - Beef

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cou

ntry

of o

rigin

Fre

shne

ss

Fee

d

Nam

e of

prod

ucer

Org

anic

ally

prod

uced

Bra

nd/L

abel

Pric

e

Not at all helpfulNot very helpfulNeitherQuite helpfulVery helpful


Figure 20: Helpfulness of Safety Indicators - Pork

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fre

shne

ss

Fee

d

Cou

ntry

of o

rigin

Org

anic

ally

prod

uced

Nam

e of

prod

ucer

Bra

nd/L

abel

Pric

e

Not at all helpfulNot very helpfulNeitherQuite helpfulVery helpful

Figure 21: Helpfulness of Safety Indicators - Chicken

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fre

shne

ss

Fre

e ra

nge

Fee

d

Cou

ntry

of

orig

in

Bra

nd/L

abel

Nam

e of

prod

ucer

Pric

e

Not at all helpful

Not very helpful

Neither

Quite helpful

Very helpful

To determine if the differences between some characteristics are significant for the total

population, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was performed. Results of the tests show the

following ordering of the characteristics according to their helpfulness in assessing the safety

of meat.


Beef

Not surprisingly, 'country of origin' was regarded as being the most important indicator of

beef safety, which is probably due to the BSE discussion. Since this is also the most important

characteristic for 'quality in the shop', it may be that consumers consider as an aspect of

quality.' Freshness' and 'feed' follow. 'Feed' belonged to the three most important safety

indicators, although information about the feed given to cattle is seldom available. This can be

thus interpreted as a consumer need for information on animal feedstuffs, which could be met

by the producer. As in the case of quality in the shop, 'price' was of least importance as an

indicator for the safety of beef.

Pork

'Freshness' was the most important characteristic, followed by 'feed', 'country of origin', and

'organically produced'.

Chicken

'Freshness' and 'free-range' were shown to be the most important characteristics for chicken.

Because over the last few years several scandals relating to large industrial egg producers, the

keeping of chicken has been intensely discussed in Germany. As a result, consumers have

become more sensitised to the keeping of chickens. However, this attitude is reflected in real

consumption behaviour to a lesser degree. For example, free-range chickens occupy a smaller

market share than do other chickens.

Name of ProducerOrganically Produced

Brand/LabelPriceFeed>>Country of Origin Freshness > >

Name of ProducerBrand/Label

Price

FeedCountry of Origin

Organically Produced>Freshness > >

Brand/Label PriceFeed>> Country of OriginFreshness > >Free Range Name of Producer> >


4 Concerns About Meat

4.1 Literature on Concerns about Meat

Induced by the declining meat consumption, several studies on consumer concerns on meat

have been undertaken in Germany over the last few years.

In 1994, the NIELSEN GmbH posed the question “What comes to your mind when hearing the

word ‘meat'?” during the course of an extensive consumer survey (LEBENSMITTEL-ZEITUNG

33, 19.8.1994, p. 51). The respondents were allowed to give multiple answers. Two thirds of

the people replied spontaneously “All sorts of meat scandals”. Altogether, about 43 % of the

items mentioned had a negative connotation (e.g. scandals, high price, blood, mass keeping of

animals) while only 21 % of the items were of a positive nature.

In the same year, v. ALVENSLEBEN posed a similar question: “What do you think of when

hearing the word ‘meat’?” (n=388). Answers were - even to a larger extent than in the

NIELSEN study - primarily negative associations, such as BSE (41 %), swine fever (19 %),

mass production (13 %) and use of hormones (10 %). Positive associations such as 'tasty' or

'important in the diet' were only stated by 2 to 3 % of the people interviewed (DLG-

MITTEILUNGEN 1995). V. ALVENSLEBEN argues that when the first image study on meat in

Germany was undertaken in 1972 the reputation of meat was still undamaged. Meat was

viewed as a healthy and tasty food of maximum value. This good image of meat was

maintained until the end of the Seventies. In the beginning of the Eighties, meat started to lose

its good image.

The effects of consumer concerns were quantified in a study by HOFF and CLAEES (1997).

They applied a single equation demand model in order to estimate the influence of scandals

and commodity advertising on the beef demand in Germany. HOFF and CLAEES found that the

declining demand for beef in Germany was caused to over 50 % by scandals due to

agriculture and to the lack of risk management of the BSE crisis by the European

Commission. This result illustrates that consumption behaviour is strongly influenced by

consumer concerns in Germany.


4.2 Concerns About Meat of the Sample

In order to investigate how concerned consumers actually behave nowadays when buying

beef, pork and chicken, respondents were asked to rate the five given matters of concern.

Figure 22, Figure 23 and Figure 24 show the results for beef, pork and chicken.

As expected, BSE was the most threatening concern for beef. Nearly 70 % of the respondents

felt very concerned about it, another 10 % quite concerned. It was followed closely by

concerns over hormones, antibiotics and salmonella. Fat or cholesterol seemed to be of minor

importance, only 20 % replied that they are very concerned.

Antibiotics and hormones are the most important concerns on pork, followed closely by

salmonella. Fat or cholesterol is only a little more important than in the case of beef.

Salmonella is still a major topic of concern in the case of chicken. More than 80 % of the

respondents felt very or quite concerned about it. However, antibiotics and hormones in

chicken are also taken seriously by nearly 80 % of the respondents.

Figure 22: Concerns - Beef

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BS

E

Hor

mon

es

Ant

ibio

tics

Sal

mon

ella

or

othe

r ba

cter

ia

Fat

or

chol

este

rol

Not at all concerned

Not very concerned

Neither

Quite concerned

Very concerned


Figure 23: Concerns - Pork

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant

ibio

tics

Hor

mon

es

Sal

mon

ella

or

othe

r ba

cter

ia

Fat

or

chol

este

rol


Not very concerned

Neither

Quite concerned

Very concerned

Figure 24: Concerns - Chicken

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sal

mon

ella

or

othe

r ba

cter

ia

Ant

ibio

tics

Hor

mon

es

Fat

or

chol

este

rol


Not very concerned

Neither

Quite concernedVery concerned

Looking at the results of the Wilocxon test, BSE, hormones and antibiotics are regarded to be

of most concern to the respondents in the case of beef. Hormones and antibiotics are also the

issues of most concern for pork. Although hormone treatments are more of an issue in beef

production and antibiotics are more related to pig feed, respondents attached the same

importance to both concerns. This may be due to an inaccurate knowledge on both issues.

Fat or cholesterol is perceived to be of least concern for each kind of meat. In the case of

chicken, salmonella is the issue of most concern.


Beef:

Pork:

Chicken:

Salmonella Fat/Cholesterol

BSEHormonesAntibiotics

> >

Salmonella Fat/CholesterolAntibioticsHormones > >

HormonesAntibiotics

Fat/CholesterolSalmonella > >


5 Information on Meat

This section contains empirical and theoretical literature on information about food and meat.

It then will outline results from the consumer survey on the use of labels and symbols as well

as over trust in information available on meat.

5.1 Results from Literature on Information About Food and Meat

Information about food has had a strong influence on attitudes towards food and thus on

consumption behaviour. In Germany, consumers have expressed a growing need for

information on food. Food producers may react to this need, and offer more and more

information, but at the same time, consumers can feel confused and overloaded. They desire

clearer and more trustworthy information.

From a consumer survey commissioned by the DLG (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft),

it follows that two-thirds of the respondents did not feel sufficiently informed about food

quality (BURGER, WAGNER, and MÜLLER 1994). They felt confused by the flood of unclear

information. Results showed that the most often used sources of information on food are

labels, marks (on the product), leaflets and newspaper advertisements. Advertisements in

journals, on the radio and on television are only used to a small extent.

In 1993 and in 1996, the CMA (Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft) asked 1000 or 1100

consumers, respectively, what kinds of information they wished to have on food. Table 4

shows the top ten of all types of information mentioned. The guarantee of quality and

freshness, the date of expiration and the country of origin are currently the most desired

information. While the date of expiration was less important in 1996 than in 1993, the country

of origin and a guarantee of quality have distinctly gained importance.


Table 4: Information About Food

I wish information about 5/1996%

6/1993%

Change (1993 to1996) in percentage

pointsCountry of origin 47 24 +23Guarantee of quality 57 36 +21Quality mark, quality seal 34 24 +10Price 46 38 +8Appearance 28 30 -2Guarantee of freshness 57 63 -6Fat, calories 37 43 -6Taste 29 34 -5Vitamins 28 34 -6Date of expire 50 65 -15Source: CMA (1996) from the Internet (http/www.cma.de/topten.htm)

Perceived risks regarding the best purchasing decisions or the consequences of such a

decision is a significant variable influencing information the search behaviour for information

(LOUDON and DELLA BITTA 1993). Thus information on meat is an even more sensitive

problem than information on food in general. Especially after the increased public discussions

on animal welfare, animal diseases, hormones and antibiotics over the last few years,

consumers are even more suspicious of information on meat and its sources.

But despite an expressed strong need for information on food, consumers have shown not to

make a great effort in searching for information. Information on food is absorbed rather by

chance (=passive) than by intention (=active), especially through journals and television

(VOGELSANG 1996). Consumers prefer information sources which not only serve in gaining

information, but also meet other needs such as conversation or entertainment. Thus, personal

communication and television are the most preferred sources for information on food.

This result is inconsistent with the above mentioned findings of BURGER, WAGNER and

MÜLLER (1994), who found that the most used sources of information about food are labels,

marks (on the product), leaflets and newspaper advertisements. This contradiction might be

caused by different survey concepts. While the first study deals with information on food, the

second is focused more on information on nutrition in general.

Several studies have pointed out that consumers are dissatisfied with the existing information

on meat labels. But, like in the case of food in general, although consumers show a demand

and desire for information, it remains an open question on why so little effort is put into an

active search for information. This is pointed out in detail in a study by BECKER, GLITSCH,


HOLZAPFEL (1995) surveying the purchasing habits of customers who prefer butcheries.

Finally, customers of five rather similar butcheries were selected for the data analysis. Three

of these butcheries offered a premium label meat, which is produced according to animal

welfare criteria, in addition to a traditional assortment. Although most of the customers

ranked animal welfare and other processing-oriented criteria very highly, the actual

information they had on the premium meat programme was astonishingly low.

The purchasers of premium labelled meat were asked about their knowledge of the branding

programme. The majority of the interviewed consumers did not know of more than one

criterion of this programme, even though it matched many of their demands on meat

production to which they had attached high importance. Therefore one method to increase

consumer satisfaction would be a better communication of information.

Further, the consumers interviewed only recognised special labels of origin or of controlled

quality to a small extent. Only 13 % of the interviewed consumers were able to identify one of

the most important labels of the central marketing association of German agriculture (CMA).

Because of the great number of meat labels, consumers seem to be overloaded which such

forms of information.

HAMM and SCHULZ (1997) have reached a similar conclusion. In a survey on changing

consumer behaviour towards beef, more than 500 consumers were asked if when shopping

for beef they orient themselves by quality symbols and labels. Only 35 % answered

affirmatively. Upon being asked which symbols and labels they use, only 62 % (i.e. 21.7 % of

all respondents) were able to concretely name specific symbols and labels. These results make

it clear that quality labels are of minor importance in decisions on beef consumption.

Nevertheless a study of the „Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft“

has shown that 98 % of 1000 consumers interviewed would advocate the labelling of meat in

regard to its origin (ALLGEMEINE FLEISCHER ZEITUNG 1994).

In terms of trusting such information, butchers led in the eyes of German consumers. A study

was conducted at the end of March 1997 by the "Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach" on the

trust in information given over the origin of meat (LEBENSMITTEL-ZEITUNG Spezial 2/97).

Consumers were asked to answer the question "Where do you feel informed correctly about

the origin of meat?" by choosing one of the following answers 'at butcher shops', 'at

supermarkets', 'equally at both ', 'neither', and 'undecided'. While 84 % of the respondents

mentioned butcher shops, only 3 % mentioned supermarkets.


5.2 Information Behaviour and Trust in Information - Results from the Sample

5.2.1 Use of Labels

In an open-ended question, consumers were asked which quality symbols or labels they

normally look for when buying meat. There was a wide-range of answers, and many of them

had nothing to do with symbols or labels in the true sense of the word (for example

'freshness'). Table 5 shows the numbers of 'usable' answers for those items which were

mentioned at least five times for any of the meats.

As expected, the vast majority of answers related to the origin of meat. It was the most

important factor for beef. More than half of the respondents only mentioned 'origin' while

others explicitly named Germany or a certain German state or region.

Brand names did not play an important role for beef and pork. But, in the case of chicken,

more than 10 % of all answers referred to a certain brand (Wiesenhof). Further, quality labels

and best-before dates were mentioned more often for chicken than for beef and pork. This

kind of information seems to be easier to communicate on packaging as in the case of frozen

chicken, than on meat products which are not pre-packaged. The most common quality

labels, the CMA and DLG label, were only named by a few respondents. Some of them were

named incorrectly (e.g. DFG instead of DLG). It is highly probable that consumers would

recognise these labels when they see them, but most of them were not able to name them

spontaneously.

Organic labels are rarely used, especially in the case of chicken. Among the meats, it is most

important for beef. Animal-keeping is most often mentioned in the case of chicken. 10 % of

all responses were related to animal-keeping. Although freshness is neither a label nor a

symbol, it was mentioned by many of the respondents, especially for chicken.


Table 5: Quality Symbols and Labels −− Multiple Answers (Number of Answers)

Beef(n=227)

Pork(n=227)

Chicken(n=243)

Origin 146 115 108

amongst them: Origin in general 83 67 58

Produced in Germany 30 22 33

Produced locally (or ina certain federal state)

33 26 17

Certain brand(for chicken mainly "Wiesenhof")

3 4 27

"Gütesiegel" (Quality Label) 18 20 29

Best-before date 8 10 18

CMA label 7 12 4

Bioland/Demeter (Organically produced) 10 8 4

DLG label 1 3 5

Animal keeping 3 6 25

Freshness 11 13 24

Price 6 4 4

5.2.2 Consumer Trust in Information

In a more or less open-ended question, the interviewees were asked whom they trusted most

when looking for information on the safety of meat. The number of answers was restricted to

three at the most. Figure 25 illustrates the absolute frequencies of the answers given for

information sources which were mentioned by at least ten respondents.

Butchers and independent retailers are shown to be by far the most trusted source of

information on the safety of meat. This supports the special importance of butchers to

German consumers. Official governmental institutions such as, Department of Agriculture or

Department of Health seem to have no importance at all, likewise the meat industry and meat

companies.


Figure 25: Consumer Trust in Information

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Radio Reports

Food writers

Farmer representatives

The Food Safety Board

Myself

My mother/Other familymember

Friends

Reports

Magazines

Consumer Groups

Butcher in the supermarket

Independentretailers/butchers

Number of Answers

Less than ten responses:

• Department of Health

• Newspapers

• Labels

• Television

• Department of Agriculture

• Meat Industry

• Government

• Meat companies


6 Attitudes Towards Food and Meat

This section begins with some results on consumer attitudes towards food and meat given in

various German literature. Following, the findings of the attitudinal questions from the

consumer survey will be presented.

6.1 German Literature on Attitudes Towards Food and Meat

As previously mentioned in Section 3.1, German consumers are shown to be extremely

sceptical about food quality in comparison to other EU-countries. They consider the quality

of ready-to-serve meals, pre-packaged foods, and especially that of fresh meat and fish to be

steadily worsening.

A qualitative study by HALK (1993) based on focus group discussions on consumer distrust

towards food, found that meat and meat products were the food category most distrusted by

the participants. In second and third place, ready-to-serve meals, fruits and vegetables were

mentioned. As main reasons for their distrust, respondents mentioned 'lack of quality', 'lack of

information on origin' and 'way of animal keeping'. HALK argues that consumers do not

distrust specific product categories, but rather a perceived unnatural production and "mass-

processing" of foods for which they disapprove.

In recent years, consumers find it more and more important to know where the food they buy

comes from, i.e. whether it was produced in their home country. A survey was made by the

German institute SCHÖLZEL in 1990 to investigate consumers' attitudes towards the origin

of agricultural products (FROHN 1992). This study covered agricultural products as a whole

and included six EU-countries: Germany (former FRG), the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain

and the United Kingdom.

In order to specify the items to be asked in the final face-to-face interview, a pre-study was

launched, which determined the following items to be suitable for defining the desired final

results: ‘fresh, premium quality, tasty/tastes good, traditional, something special, expensive,

hothouse products, treated/artificial, insipid/tasteless. Those German consumers questioned

were asked to rank the countries on a scale from 1 and 6; 1 being the highest esteemed

country and 6 the least esteemed concerning agricultural products. This was followed by


supplementary questions, in which consumers were to attempt to explain their previous

ranking. The results are shown in Table 6.

German agricultural products were ranked first (1.4), i.e. as highly esteemed by those

questioned, followed by the Netherlands (3.1) and France (3.2). The United Kingdom was

ranked last with 5.3. These results were apparently influenced by ideas handed-down over

generations and possibly also by a sense of national identity. Furthermore, many of those

questioned claimed that food quality controls in Germany were better than anywhere else, and

thus such products are more trustworthy than those from abroad.

For their high ranking of German agricultural products, consumers offered several reasons. 71

% of the consumers found German agricultural products to be ‘fresh’, and 64 % found them

to be of premium quality. 49 % mentioned the good taste and 37 % of the consumers found

traditional aspects of products important for their ranking. Nevertheless, 21 % of the

consumers also claimed that German agricultural products were expensive.

Agricultural products from the Netherlands were described completely differently. Only 10 %

of the consumers found these products to be fresh, and 67 % figured the products originated

from a hothouse. On the other hand, only 4 % claimed that these products were expensive.

French products were often esteemed as special (36 %). Almost half of the consumers were

unable or unwilling to make a statement on Italian, Spanish, or British products (42 %, 57 %

and 34 %, respectively). The fact that consumers were often unable to make a statement

about products from these countries is bound to have influenced their rather low rating

(FROHN 1992).


Table 6: Importance of the Origin of Agricultural Products in the Former FRG

• Ranking of the 6 countries with respect to national agricultural products (Index 1-6 *)Germany Nether-

landsFrance Italy Spain United

KingdomRanking 1.4 3.1 3.2 3.7 4.2 5.3

• Reasons leading to the above ranking - values in percentProducts from.......are Germany Nether-

landsFrance Italy Spain United

Kingdomfresh 71 10 6 3 2 3premium quality 64 8 15 7 3 1tasty/taste good 49 10 15 12 9 2traditional 37 11 17 13 8 10something special 36 7 36 8 6 3expensive 21 4 39 7 6 17hothouse products 6 67 4 4 1 10treated/artificial 4 35 5 11 9 22insipid/tasteless 2 29 5 6 6 31don’t know/no answer 2 10 16 42 57 34* = 1 means the country was ranked first (i.e. best agricultural products); 6 means the country was ranked

last.

Source: Institut SCHÖLZEL, Kelkheim, total population aged over 16, face-to-face interview, n=1200 andCMA-Kompendium der Agrarmarktforschung, in FROHN, 1992.

The attitudes of German consumers towards meat is dominated by negative associations. As

already mentioned above (see Section 4.1), the reputation of meat in Germany has suffered as

a result of several scandals and scares. Since the beginning of the Eighties, meat began to lose

its good image. Often the media is held responsible for these negative attitudes towards meat.

6.2 Attitudes - Results from the Sample

Several questions concerning food in general and meat were asked in the questionnaire. The

respondents were to rate each statement on a five-point scale (1="agree strongly" to

5="disagree strongly"). Questions covered the following areas:

1. Cooking

2. Status

3. Animal welfare

4. Origin

5. Safety/Information

6. Nutrition

7. Price


6.2.1 Cooking

Figure 26 illustrates a positive attitude towards cooking. Nearly 80 % of the respondents said

that they liked experimenting with new recipes. The percentage of male respondents in the

group of those who disagreed is 30 %, and thus distinctly higher than that of the total sample

(23 %). Another difference becomes visible regarding the frequency of meat consumption.

Among those who liked experimenting with new recipes are 20.6 % of who eat chicken at

least twice a week, while the percentage for those who disagreed was only 9.7 %. Regarding

beef and pork consumption, there were only slight differences between the subgroups. This

result suggests that chicken is especially preferred when trying out new recipes.

About 66 % of the respondents disagreed with the second statement, and further expressed

that for them cooking is more than a job which has to be done. 27 % agreed with this

statement and, likewise in this subgroup there were more male consumers (29 %) than in the

subgroup who disagreed (20 %). Astonishingly, the frequency of meat consumption is higher

for those who do not enjoy cooking. 18 % of them belong to low, 73 % to medium and 9 %

to heavy meat consumers (for the definition, see Section 2.3) while among those who

disagreed with this statement, and thus enjoying cooking, 24 % are low, 66 % are medium

and 10 % are heavy meat consumers.

Figure 26: Cooking Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"I like experimentingwith new recipes."

"I do not enjoy cooking very much but it is a task which has to be done."


6.2.2 Status

The majority of the respondents did not consider meat to be necessary or essential to a meal.

While nearly 70 % disagreed with the statement "I would never serve a meal without meat for

visitors", only 23 % agreed with it (see Figure 27).

The subgroups of those who agreed and disagreed are characterised by significant differences

in terms of age, sex and consumption frequency. The average age of the respondents who

disagreed is only 41 years but 48 years for those who agreed. Apparently the status of meat is

dependent upon the age of the consumers. This may be due to the fact, that even for meat-

eaters, vegetarian food and vegetarian meals have become an important component of

modern cooking in Germany. Further, it is striking that most of the male respondents agreed

with this statement.

Not surprisingly, respondents, who would never serve a meal without meat for visitors, had a

more frequent meat consumption than the others. About 83 % (in comparison with 65 %) eat

pork at least once a week, and 51 % (in comparison with 37 %) eat beef at least once a week.

These results also apply to the second statement.

Figure 27: Status Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"I would never servea meal without meatfor visitors."

"Meat is an essentialpart of a meal."


6.2.3 Animal Welfare

Figure 28 illustrates a very high concern in Germany about animal welfare. But since only a

very few respondents know or use labels of quality schemes which include animal welfare

regulations, such as BIOLAND (see section 5.2.1) this attitude does not seem to affect actual

consumption behaviour. Nonetheless, in order to meet consumer needs, meat producers and

retailers should consider animal welfare in their meat production and in their communication

of information.

Figure 28: Animal Welfare Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"I prefer to buy meat from animals which I knowhave been treated well."

"We should have more respect for animals."

6.2.4 Origin

Altogether, about 85 % of the respondents expressed that both the origin of food in general

and the origin of meat are important to them (see Figure 29). This result on the one hand

corresponds to the outstanding importance of the 'country of origin' as an indicator for meat

safety (see section 3.2.4), and on the other hand to the great significance of labels of origin

(see section 5.2.1).

The respondents who disagreed with the statement, "I prefer food which is produced locally"

(n=49), and thus are apparently not interested in the origin of food tended to be relatively

young, highly educated with a higher household income as compared to the average


consumer. A very high percentage (41 %) of them are male consumers. These results also

apply to the second statement.

Figure 29: Origin Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"I prefer to buy food which is produced locally."

"It is important that I knowthe country where the meatI buy has been produced."

6.2.5 Safety/Information

About 55 % of the respondents agreed with the statement "I am confident that the food in the

shops is safe", while 35 % disagreed (see Figure 30). Examining the differences between the

more suspicious consumers and those who trust in the safety of food in the shops led to

interesting findings. The trusting consumers are characterised by having a higher consumption

of pork and chicken. On the average, they are older, were younger when they completed their

full-time education, and they a lower household income.

Further, the places of purchase for beef and pork differed between the two subgroups. 26 %

(28 %) of the trusting respondents purchase beef (pork) at supermarkets, hypermarkets or

megamarkets, while this percentage is only 16 % (23 %) for the more suspicious respondents.

In both subgroups, nearly the same percentage of respondents preferred purchasing at the

butchers', but 15 % of the suspicious respondents purchase beef directly from the farmer. This

percentage is much lower for the respondents who agreed with the first statement (8 %).

Most of the consumers interviewed (55 %) said that they regularly check the labelling on

foods before buying them. About 34 % disagreed with this statement. There were only slight


demographic differences between both subgroups, except that of the average age and the

percentage of male consumers. While the average age of the respondents who agreed is

45 years, it is only 41 years for those who disagreed. The percentage of male respondents is

much lower in the subgroup for those who always check the nutritional labelling (20 %) than

in the other subgroup (27 %).

Figure 30: Safety and Information Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"I am confidentthat the food inthe shops is safe."

"I always check the nutritional labelling on foods before buying them."

6.2.6 Nutrition

Although more than half of the respondents suppose meat to be essential for a balanced diet

only 40 % agreed that there is no source of protein like meat. Apparently meat is esteemed

not only because it is rich in protein, but also for other reasons.

Those who agreed with the first statement differ from those who disagreed in the following

way: the proportion of male consumers is above average (27 % vs. 15 %), they are slightly

younger, better educated, have a lower household income and consume more beef, pork and

chicken. For example, of those who agreed only 7 % of them do not eat pork at all, while

16 % of those who do not believe that meat is essential do not eat pork at all.

Regarding the second statement, the respondents who disagreed that there is no source of

protein like meat, turned out to be on average younger (40 vs. 47 years). They are better


educated, have slightly more children and consume less meat. Significant differences in sex do

not exist.

Figure 31: Nutritional Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"There is no sourceof protein like meat."

"Meat is essentialfor a balanced diet."

6.2.7 Price

The respondents were confronted with two statements dealing with the price of meat. The

results from both statements support the findings concerning quality and safety assessment

(see Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4). First, the vast majority (77 %) of the respondents disagreed to

the statement "Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat". This corresponds to the

minor importance of price as a quality and safety indicator for meat. Other characteristics of

meat were regarded as being more important for meat quality, such as the country of origin

and the place of purchase.

Further, nearly 80 % of the respondents agreed that you have to be prepared to pay a higher

price in order to get good quality meat. Together these results suggest that a high price is a

necessary but not sufficient characteristic for good quality meat.


Figure 32: Price Statements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disagree strongly

Disagree slightly

Neither

Agree slightly

Agree strongly

"Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat."

"You have to be prepared to pay a higher price to get qood quality meat."


7 Summary and Implications for Quality Policy

7.1 Summary

This consumer study is part of a project which aims to improve quality policy for fresh meat

in the European Union. The most important results from an analysis of the survey data, which

essentially refers to consumption behaviour, quality and safety perception, trust and attitudes

towards meat, are summarised below.

Consumption Behaviour

The consumption behaviour shown in the German sample, defined as the frequency and

changes in the consumption of beef, pork and chicken over the last five years, corresponds to

figures given in the official statistics. Pork was consumed most often, followed by chicken.

Beef ranked last, and moreover, nearly 30 % of the respondents do not eat beef at all. The

non-beef eaters differed only slightly from the others in terms of sociodemographics, in such a

manner, that they on the average had a lower household income, smaller households and

lower level of education.

More than half of the respondents have reduced their beef consumption during the last five

years, and even 35 % have reduced their pork consumption. Consumption of chicken was

increased by nearly 30 % of the respondents.

Beef and pork are mainly bought at butcher shops, while chicken is more likely to be

purchased at supermarkets. Although 60 % of the respondents said they buy beef and pork

mainly at butcher shops, the market share of fresh meat in butcher shops lies far below.

Momentarily there is no explanation for this inconsistency.

Quality and Safety Perception

Two characteristics appeared to dominate the quality perception process taking place before

or during the purchase of beef: the country of origin and the place of purchase. Both of these

are meat characteristics belonging to extrinsic quality characteristics. Since most of the

consumers did not regard themselves as being capable to predict the quality of meat just by

looking at it, they apparently would rather trust an expert.

Also for pork, the place of purchase is the most important feature. In the case of chicken,

there are no significant differences between the characteristics apart from the price.


The results of the survey show that the price of meat is of minor importance to the

respondents in assessing the eating quality, as well as the safety, of beef, pork and chicken.

This does not mean that consumers do not care about the price, but that they do not

necessarily assume that a higher price automatically means higher quality. As the results

concerning the attitude statements show, the majority of the respondents may believe that one

has to pay a higher price to get good quality meat, but the reverse (getting good quality for a

higher price) is not necessarily valid.

The price has apparently lost its function as an indicator of quality, especially in the food

market. Though, JONES and HUDSON (1996) argue that the price itself may act as a signal for

quality. Following their argument, there are occasions when it is rational for consumers to

include price in the set of signals used to assess expected quality, and other occasions, for the

same product, when it is rational to exclude price. Consumers use more signals the more

expensive the product. The analysis of JONES and HUDSON demonstrates that "the 'marginal

value product of a signal' depends on both the number of signals already used and the price of

the good. As price falls, consumers are predicted to rely on fewer signals of quality and at

some point, they will relinquish price as a signal." (JONES and HUDSON 1996, 265). Thus, the

more expensive the product, the more indicators are used by consumers to determine its

quality.

In the second stage of the quality assessment process, 'tenderness', 'flavour', 'smell' and

'juiciness' belonged to the most important eating attributes for all of the three meats.

For assessing the safety of beef, 'country of origin' is perceived to be the most important,

indicator, followed by freshness. Freshness is most important for pork as well as for chicken.

Astonishingly 'feed' belonged to the three most important safety indicators for all of the three

meats.

A separate analysis of quality perception of consumers who regard themselves as being able

to predict meat quality by visual inspection showed that these consumers rely on intrinsic cues

more than on extrinsic.

Concerns about Meat

As shown by the literature, German consumers tend to be very suspicious about meat quality

and primarily associate negative issues with meat.


The results of the survey illustrate that BSE is the greatest concern in the case of beef, and

salmonella in the case of chicken. For beef and pork, antibiotics and hormones are equally

important concerns. Fat/cholesterol does not play a big part for all of the three meats.

Information about Meat

Only very few consumers mentioned specific quality labels and marks they normally look for

when buying beef, pork and chicken. In view of all the private quality assurance programmes,

labels, marks and brands which mainly refer to pork and beef, these results point to an

insufficient information policy as well. By far the most important information was the

(country of) origin.

In terms of trust in various information sources, butcher shops are distinctly placed of all

other information sources.

Attitudes

Most respondents, particularly younger female respondents, did not consider meat to be an

essential part of a meal. Parallel to a changing diet, which seems to be influenced by the

Mediterranean diet, the status of meat has declined. Nevertheless, more than half of the

respondents regarded meat as being an essential part of a balanced diet.

Animal welfare issues were very important to nearly all of the respondents. Most consumers

want to know the origin of the meat they buy and have a strong preference for food which is

produced locally.

Many consumers were not confident that food in the shops is safe. They mainly purchase beef

(and to a lesser degree pork) at the butcher shop or directly from the farmer.

More than three quarters of the consumers believed that a higher price must be paid in order

to get good quality meat, but at the same time, that price alone is not an important indicator

for purchasing quality meats.


7.2 Implications for Quality Policy

The aim of this project is "to combine consumers expectations regarding food quality with

organisational and institutional efforts for quality management in the industry trade, with a

view to provide solid indications for improved quality policy" (see Technical Annex of the

Contract).

The first step in reaching this goal has been undertaken through conducting this consumer

study. Knowledge on how consumers form quality and safety assessments of fresh meat and

which attributes are important to them, must be kept in focus throughout the entire process,

from the production of 'raw-material' to marketing it. In the final stage of this project, results

of the consumer survey and the analysis of quality policy will be combined.

The following are some preliminary implications for quality policy:

1. The demand for beef and pork is decreasing not only as a result of scares and scandals.

Experts have found that the decline of the beef demand in Germany is caused by 'only'

about 50 % through scandals due to agriculture and to the lack of risk management of the

BSE crisis by the European Commission. There are other, long-term reasons for the

declining importance of meat in the diet, such as the decreasing status of meat as well as

the declining nutritional significance, as underlined by the survey data. In the first place,

quality policy may play a role to reducing consumers' concerns and in counteracting the

resulting drop in meat consumption.

2. The investigation of quality and safety perception shows, that in some respects, there is a

need for specific quality policies for different meats. The place of purchase is a very

important criterion for beef and pork quality, while it is clearly less important for chicken.

Not surprisingly, the country of origin is regarded as being of most importance in assessing

beef quality in the shop. It is considered to be the second most important factor for pork

and chicken. In this respect, European quality policy is already on the right track. Meat

production itself should focus on 'tenderness', 'flavour', 'smell' and 'juiciness' which have

been shown to be the most important eating quality characteristics for beef, pork and

chicken.

3. Further, the survey reveals a strong need for information on meat. Aside from origin, a

considerable part of the consumers are interested what the animals were fed. This is


obviously connected with a notable concern over hormones and antibiotics in beef, pork

and chicken. These are issues which possibly have been neglected through the focus on the

BSE-discussion over the last years.

4. The majority of the respondents do not use quality labels and marks actively. Possibly

there is too much information hidden behind the names of labels and marks, so that greater

knowledge is required in advance, in order to understand their meanings. Hence, important

issues like animal welfare, feed or origin should be labelled separately.

5. Although consumers wish for more information, they trust the information sources only to

a small degree, apart from that of the butcher. Butchers are regarded as being the most

trustworthy sources of information on meat safety. They could be used more intensively to

communicate information to the consumers. All public bodies responsible for quality policy

do not play a significant role for the consumers, possibly because of a lack of information

on the efforts of such institutions to assure meat safety. Public quality assurance schemes

should find new ways of providing important information without overloading the

consumers.

Besides specific problems in the meat sector, general trends in consumer behaviour should to

be included in the conceptualisation of a quality policy.

As shown by the description on sociodemographic changes in Germany (see Appendix 1),

changing consumption and nutritional patterns can be expected in the future, which likewise

will reflect the ever decreasing household-size and the shrinking time-budget of the majority

of the consumers. An increasing demand for convenience foods, which can already be

observed, will continue to have consequences for meat consumption.


8 References

ALVENSLEBEN, R. v. (1995) Den Imageverlust von Fleisch bremsen, in: DLG-Mitteilungen

2/1995, 55-57.

BECKER, T., E. BENNER, and K. GLITSCH (1996) Preliminary Report on National Consumer

Perception and Expectations Regarding Food Quality, in Particular Meat Quality.

Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Göttingen.

BECKER, T., K. GLITSCH, and R. HOLZAPFEL (1995), Neue Organisationsformen zur

Qualitätssicherungen bei Fleisch und Fleischprodukten, in: Schriftenreihe der

Landwirtschaftlichen Rentenbank, Band 9, S. 113-164.

BURGER, H.-G., P. WAGNER, and A. MÜLLER (1994) Verbraucher mit Informationen über

Lebensmittelqualität unzufrieden, in: Wirtschaft & Ware - Wöchentliche Beilage zu

Milch - Fettwaren - Eier - Handel, No. 46, 19. April 1994, 229-230.

CMA (1996), Internet, http/www.cma.de/topten.htm

DALEN, G. A. (1996) Assuring Eating Quality of Meat, in: Meat Science, Vol. 43, No. S,

S21-S33.

DEUTSCHER STÄDTETAG (1997) Internet, http:\\www.staedtetag.de\pages\dst_a42.html.

DLG-Mitteilungen 2/1995.

FOLKERS, D. (1987), Verbrauchermeinungen zu Fleischersatz aus Pflanzeneiweiß, in: AID-

Verbraucherdienst 32, Heft 6.

FROHN, H. (1992), Kompendium für Lebensmittel-Marketing.

GRUNERT, K. G. (1996), What's in a Steak? A Cross-Cultural Study on the Quality

Perception of Beef, MAPP working paper no. 39, June 1996.

HAHN, G. (1996) Verbrauchertrends und Marktanforderungen bei Frischfleisch, in:

Fleischwirtschaft 76 (3), S. 228-233.

HALK, K. (1993) Bestimmungsgründe des Konsumentenmißtrauens gegenüber Lebensmitteln,

München.

HAMM, U. and F. SCHULZ (1997) Qualitätssiegel und -zeichen beeinflussen das Kaufverhalten

kaum, in: allgemeine fleischer-zeitung, 27. August 1997, Nr. 35.


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

die Nachfrage nach Rindfleisch - Eine ökonometrische Analyse, in: Agrarwirtschaft

10/1997, 332-344.

JONES, P. and J. HUDSON (1996) Signalling product quality: When is price relevant? in:

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organisation, Vol. 30 (1996), 257-266.

KÜFFNER, H. and R. WITTENBERG (1995) Datenanalysesysteme für statistische

Auswertungen. Stuttgart, New York.

LASSEN, J. (1993) Food Quality and the Consumers, MAPP working paper no 8, March

1993.

LEBENSMITTEL-ZEITUNG, various issues.

LEBENSMITTEL-ZEITUNG Spezial 2/97

LOUDON, D.L. and A.J. DELLA BITTA (1993) Consumer Behavior - Concepts and

Applications.

OTT, W. (1993) Single-Haushalte, in: AID-Verbraucherdienst 38, Heft 12.

REWERTS, I. and D. FOLKERS, (1985) Die Qualität von Schweinefleisch aus Sicht der

Verbraucher, in: AID-Verbraucherdienst 30, Heft 4.

SACHS, Lothar (1991) Statistische Methoden - Planung und Auswertung. Berlin, Heidelberg,

New York etc.

SAS (1990) Procedures Guide, Cary, NC, USA.

Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland 1996, Statistisches Bundesamt (eds.), Wiesbaden.

Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deuschland, various yearbooks, Statistisches

Bundesamt (eds.), Wiesbaden.

Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, various yearbooks.

Statistisches Jahrbuch für die DDR, various yearbooks.

VOGELSANG, Renate (1996) Informationsbedürfnisse und bevorzugte Informationsquellen im

Ernährungsbereich - Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Studie, in: aid-Verbraucherdienst 41,

12/96, 268-272.

ZMP Bilanz Vieh und Fleisch, various yearbooks.

ZMP Agrarmärkte in Zahlen - Europäische Union, various yearbooks.


APPENDICES


APPENDIX 1: Sociodemographics

As has been proved, sociodemographic variables affect food consumption patterns.

Therefore, the most relevant sociodemographic variables were included in the questionnaire.

The following section consists of two parts. The first part highlights major sociodemographic

developments in Germany and their influence on food consumption. In the second part the

sample is described by using the sociodemographic information from the survey as well as by

comparing the figures to the official statistics.

A1.1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the German Population

One of the main demographic factors affecting food consumption patterns is the household-

size. In Germany, the percentage of single and two-person households has risen continuously

since 1950 from 45 % to more than 60 %, while three or more person households have

decreased (see Figure A1). The average size of German households has dropped from 3.0 to

2.2 persons from 1950 to 1995. Currently Germany has the lowest average household size in

Europe with the exception of Sweden and Denmark.

Figure A1: Household Size (1950, 1970, 1990 and 1995) in Germany4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1950 1970 1990 1995

1-person-household

2-person-household

5 persons and more

4-person-household

3-person-household

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, various yearbooks

4 1995 data include the former GDR


In former times single households were often run by old widowed people (often women) and

very young people (such as students). Nowadays more and more single households are run by

20-45 year old people who currently cover about 35 % of all single households (OTT 1993).

This development is supported by long-term social trends, such as increasing divorces, rising

income, rising share of women in the labour force, changing norms and values. The

development clearly shows that the trend to single households is not only a result of the

changing age structure but also of a changing ‘way of life’. Furthermore, single households

tend to be established in large cities. Munich is the front-runner, where currently more than

52 % of all households are single households (DEUTSCHER STÄDTETAG 1997). But now as

ever, the share of single households in East Germany is lower (30.4 %) than in West Germany

(35.9 %)

The implication of this trend to smaller ‘families’ is an increasing importance of ready-to-

serve meals and food consumed away from home since time consuming for cooking is more

worth for more people than for one or two persons.

The changing age structure of a population has also an influence on the food consumption

patterns. In Table A1 these different age groups are shown for the German population. They

have been splitted into former Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and former German

Democratic Republic (GDR) for the time before the unification of the two German states. It

can be seen that the group of teenagers under 15 years of age has sunk from 18 % to 15 % in

Western Germany while in the former GDR this group remained relatively constant at 19 %.

For Germany in 1995 this group holds only 15.3 % (provisional) whereas the age group of

the over 60 year olds has risen from approx. 19 % in 1980 to almost 23 % (provisional) in

1995. This shift in proportions between old and young is going to aggravate in the future.

According to certain predictions by the year 2000 the under 15 year olds will hold less than

15 % while the over 60 year olds will hold more than 30 % of the total population in

Germany (FROHN, 1992).

The rise in the total population between 1985 and 1990 in the former FRG can only be

explained by a considerable immigration surplus as the excess of birth over death is falling in

this period (HAHN, 1996). This rise in total population and the fall in total population in the

former GDR between 1985 and 1990 is bound to have been a consequence of the opening of

the border between the two German states in 1989.


Table A1: Age Groups and Total Population in Germany

1980 1985 1990 1995*

Age Groups former former former East & West

FRG GDR FRG GDR FRG GDR

under 15 years 18.2 19.5 14.9 19.1 15.0 19.6 15.3

15-24 years 16.0 16.4 16.7 15.8 13.0 14.4 13.8

25-60 years 46.5 44.9 47.7 46.7 50.4 47.7 48.2

over 60 years 19.3 19.2 20.7 18.4 21.6 18.3 22.7

Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total population in million 61.538 16.737 60.975 16.644 63.254 16.111 not available

Population per km2 247 154 245 154 254 149 not available

* provisional

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch für die BRD and Statistisches Jahrbuch für die DDR, in FROHN 1992, andown calculations.

One of the main factors affecting food consumption patterns is the rate of unemployment in

a country. The rate of unemployment could be a candidate variable to explain the growing

diversification of the offered foodstuffs. The shares of high quality/high price and low

quality/low price goods have become more important, while the share of medium ranged

products has become less important. Furthermore, the unemployment rates - and especially

differences in unemployment rates between countries - could give some reasons for

differences in outlet structures.

As shown in Figure A2 the rate of unemployment in Germany has been fluctuating between

6 % and almost 10 % for the past 12 years. Since the unification of the former FRG and the

former GDR in 1989, the situation has become more severe. The unemployment rates in the

five former states of the GDR have been well above 10 % since the unification and have risen

to 16 % in 1994. Between 1980 and 1994 the rate of unemployment in the former FRG was

constantly slight below the EU-average and both varied in the same manner.


Figure A2: Unemployment Rate in Germany

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Rates for the former FRG Rates for the former GDR EG-12

Per

cent

%

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, various yearbooks, and StatistischesJahrbuch für das Ausland, various yearbooks.

The distribution of income in a country can also provide important information. In Figure

A3 this distribution is shown for Germany. The values in the columns are the total number of

households in that category in 1000. It can be seen that single households are often

households with low income while the share of two-person-households is relatively constant

between a net income level of 1800 DM and 7500 DM. High income households tend to be

composed of three or more people, often including two or more wage-earners.

Figure A3: Income Distribution of the Various Household Sizes in Germany in 1993

19414125

3131

1031887

325 198 86

654

157

1038

2200

1509

23091522

1271 474

909

58 350

12072757

22452534 986

1356

969

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

under1000

1000-1800

1800-2500

2500-3000

3000-4000

4000-5000

5000-7500

over7500

others

monthly net income in DM

one-person-households two-person-households three-and more person-households

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1995.


Another demographic factor affecting food consumption is the increasing participation of

women in the labour force. In Germany the share of women in the total labour force in 1984

was 38.9 % and had risen to 42.0 % in 1994. The amplitude in 1991 can be explained by the

addition of the former GDR to the data where the share of women in the labour force had

always been very high: 49 % in 1985 and 46.7 % in 1990 (STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT,

Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland, 1989 and 1993). The share of women in the labour

force in Germany between 1984 and 1994 lies slightly above the EG-12 average with the

exception of 1988 (see Figure A4).

Figure A4: Women in the Labour Force in Germany5 and the EU

37

38

39

40

41

42

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

% W

om

en in

th

e L

abo

ur

Fo

rce

Germany

EU

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Ausland, various yearbooks.

5 until 1990 only former FRG


A 1.2 Sociodemographics of the Sample

Sex

The target group of the survey are persons who are mainly responsible for food shopping.

Since housekeeping in Germany still is a task of women the sample is clearly dominated by

female respondents. Only 23 % of the sample are male respondents. More than a quarter of

them live in single households while only 12 % of the female respondents belong to single

households.

Age

The average age of all respondents who are at least 15 years old is 42.9 years. More than

50 % are at the age of 30-50 (see Table A1). Only 15 % of the sample are 60 and over.

Having a closer look to the types of households which are prevailing in each age-group we

can see that most of the respondents who are under 30 or over 60 live in one-person or two-

person households while most of the 30-50 years old respondents live in three- or four-person

households and the 50-60 year old in two- or three-person households.

Compared to the official statistics, it becomes obvious that the young consumers as well as

those over 60 are clearly underrepresented. Thus, the 'middle-aged' seem to be mainly

responsible for shopping and cooking.

Table A2: Comparison of the Age Structure (Over 15 Years of Age) from the SampleWith Official Statistics in % (n=495)

Age Group OfficialStatistics

Sample

15-24 16.3 7.3

25-60 56.9 78.8

over 60 26.8 13.9

Source: Statistisches Jahrbuch 1996, sample data

Household Size

The household size of the sample does not correspond to that given in national statistics.

While the national proportion of single-households is about 35 % (STATISTISCHES

BUNDESAMT 1996), it is only 15 % in the sample (see Table A4). A reason may be that

singles were more difficult to be contacted or refused to give an interview more often than


others. As a result, the average household size of the sample (2.9 people per household) is

higher than the average size of all German households, which is 2.2 people.

As Figure A5 illustrates, the size of the households is influenced by the age of the

respondents. While most of the '60 and over' and 'Under 30' age group live in single or two-

person households (first two columns) the larger households are mainly run by the 'middle

aged' respondents.

Figure A5: Household Size by Age

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 P

erso

n

2 P

erso

ns

3 P

erso

ns

4 P

erso

ns

5 P

erso

ns

6 an

d m

ore

60 and over

50-59

40-49

30-39

Under 30

Children Under 16

The average number of children under 16 of all households (including those who have no

children) is 1.7. Table A4 shows that 60 % of the households do not have children under the

age of 16. 36 % of the respondents have one or two children and only a very few have more

than two children living in their household.

Years of Full-time Education

Years of full-time education may be an indicator for the level of education. The age in which

the respondents completed their full-time education was on the average 20.4 years. It is the

higher the younger the respondents are. About 20 % of the respondents stopped full-time

education before they were eighteen, 54 % at the age of 18-21 and 26 % when they were


over 21. Compared to other European countries this is very high and seems to be a special

feature for Germany.

In order to compare the educational level of respondents of different countries, categories of

low, middle and high levels of education were built, so that at the end nearly the same

proportion of respondents belong to each category.

Table A3: Age which Respondents Completed Full-time Education

Educational Level Percent

Low (under 19 years of age) 39

Middle (19-20 years of age) 27

High (over 20 years of age) 35

Occupation

Figure A6: Occupation of Respondents and Major Contributors to the HouseholdIncome

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Not working

Student

Self-Employed

EmployedProfessional

Retired

Housewife

Other EmployedPosition

Percent

Main ContributorInterviewed person

Out of all female respondents 199 (51.7 %) women are employed while 186 (48.3 %) women

do not belong to the labour force.


Household Income

In order to make the income of the interviewed households comparable income deciles were

used in the questionnaire in each country. Table A4 shows the relative frequencies of

households for income categories which consist of two deciles in each case.

If the survey is representative there should be 20 % of the respondents in each category.

Instead, the low income groups are overrepresented while the highest income groups nearly

do not exist in the sample. One possible reason for this distortion might be that many

respondents refused to answer the income question. The rate of response to this question is

only 78 %. 18 % refused to answer and 4 % did not know their household income.

A further reason is that at the time when the survey was conducted recent deciles which take

the households of the former GDR into consideration were not available from the national

statistical office.


Table A4: Sociodemographics of the Sample

Variable Percentage

SexFemaleMale

7723

Age (n=495)Under 3030-3940-4950-5960 and overAverage age: 42.9

1926251515

Household-size1 person2 people3 people4 people5 people6 or more peopleAverage size: 2.9

1530232372

Children under 16no children1 child2 children3 children4 children

60191731

Age when stopped full-timeeducation

Under 171718192021Over 21Average age: 20.4

109201511826

Occupation of respondentHousewifeRetiredStudentOthers not workingSelf-employedEmployed professional ormanagementOther employed position

2711627

1136

Occupation of main contributorHousewifeRetiredStudentOthers not workingSelf-employedEmployed professional ormanagementOther employed position

3175213

1942

Women in the labour force 48

IncomeDecile 1+2Decile 3+4Decile 5+6Decile 7+8Decile 9+10

263820142


APPENDIX 2: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

In the underlying survey, the questionnaire data which is to be tested is characterised as

follows:

1. An ordinal scale: The data is derived from a five point rating scale. Unless we cannot be

sure that the five points have the same distance from each other, it is not allowed to con-

sider the data to be numeric. Thus, the assumptions for using a t-Test are not met.

2. More than two samples: Since we want to compare the importance (or helpfulness) of

several meat characteristics we have to regard the responses to each characteristic as being

a particular sample. Consequently, the number of samples corresponds to the number of

characteristics.

3. Related samples: Since the same respondents answered several questions the samples are

no longer independent.

The test which fits the data best is the Friedman's test. But the hypothesis H0 of the

Friedman's test is, that there are no differences in the average (in our case) importance of

meat characteristics. Thus, we can only detect if there are some differences (H1), but we do

not know where and in which way.

In order to look for evidence of a ranking of the characteristics, multiple Wilcoxon signed-

rank tests for matched-pairs will be applied.

Actually, this test is applicable to two related samples. If we want to compare more than two

meat characteristics we have to apply the test to each pair of characteristics. That means, if

we want to compare eight characteristics we have to apply the test to ( )( )n n* /− =1 2 28

different pairs.

Then, in consideration of consistency we obtain a ranking of characteristics according to their

importance.

SAS-Procedure

SAS/STAT software provides the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Sign test for comparing

the locations of two related samples. The two tests are available in the UNIVARIATE proce-


dure. To use this test, the data should consist of pairs of measurements for a random sample

from a single population.

To use these tests on two related samples:

1. In the DATA step, create a new variable that contains the differences between the two

related variables;

2. Run UNIVARIATE, using the new variable in the VAR statement.

The Wilcoxon signed rank statistics S is then computed by the procedure UNIVARIATE as

follows (see SAS Procedures Guide, Version 6, 626-627):

1. The (nonzero) differences between pairs of observations are ranked, irrespective of sign.

2. Where ties occur, the average of the corresponding ranks is used.

3. Then, each rank is allocated the sign from the corresponding difference.

4. The sum of the ranks with a positive sign and the sum of the ranks with a negative sign are

calculated. The test statistic is the smaller of these two sums.

Formal description:

S r n (n 1) / 4i= − ++∑where ri

+ is the rank of the differences between two related variables after discarding values

of 0, n is the number of nonzero differences, and the sum is over the differences higher than 0.

Average ranks are used for tied values.

If n is less than or equal to 20, the significance level of S is computed from the exact distri-

bution of S, where the distribution of S is a convolution of scaled binomial distributions.

When n is greater than 20, the significance of level S is computed by treating

S n nV S− −1 2/

as a Student's t variate with n-1 degrees of freedom. V is computed as

V n n n t t ti i i= + + − + −∑( ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( )) /1 2 1 05 1 1 24


where the sum is calculated over groups tied in absolute value and ti is the number of tied

values in the ith group.

If you are testing the hypothesis that the distribution mean or median is equal to 0, the

Wilcoxon signed rank test assumes that the distribution is symmetric. If the assumption is not

valid, the sign test may be used.

Example

Ten respondents were asked to rate three meat characteristics according to their importance

on a five point scale (1=very important, 5=not at all important). Thus, we are confronted with

ordinal scaled data and three related samples. A Wilcoxon signed rank test is to be applied to

examine significant differences between the characteristics.

a) Original Data

OBS Characteristic 1 Characteristic 2 Characteristic 3

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 x x x

2 x x x

3 x x x

4 x x x

5 x x x

6 x x x

7 x x x

8 x x x

9 x x x

10 x x x


b) SAS-Programme

data x; input cimp1 cimp2 cimp3 ; cards; 2 3 3 3 4 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2 1 4 3 2 3 3 ;

/* Average ranks */

proc transpose out=trans;proc rank data=trans out=c; var _numeric_;proc transpose data=c out=trans2;proc means data=trans2 n sum mean std; title 'Average ranks of eating quality characteristics of beef'; output out=param mean=cimp1-cimp3;

/* Wilcoxon-test */data y; title 'Wilcoxon-test, eating quality of beef'; set x; a12=cimp1-cimp2; a13=cimp1-cimp3; a23=cimp2-cimp3;

proc univariate data=y noprint; var a12 a13 a23; output out=ttt probs=wils1-wils3 probm=wilm1-wilm3;

proc transpose out=ttt;proc print data=ttt;

run;quit;


c) SAS-OUTPUT

Average ranks of eating quality characteristics of beef

Variable N Sum Mean Std Dev ------------------------------------------------------ CIMP1 10 12.5000000 1.2500000 0.3535534 CIMP2 10 26.5000000 2.6500000 0.4116363 CIMP3 10 21.0000000 2.1000000 0.5163978 ------------------------------------------------------

Wilcoxon-test, eating quality of beef

OBS _NAME_ _LABEL_ COL1 1 WILM1 p-value of the sign statistic, A12 0.00391 2 WILM2 p-value of the sign statistic, A13 0.03125 3 WILM3 p-value of the sign statistic, A23 0.21875 4 WILS1 p-value of signed rank stat, A12 0.00391 5 WILS2 p-value of signed rank stat, A13 0.03125 6 WILS3 p-value of signed rank stat, A23 0.18750

c) INTERPRETATION

The p-values of sign statistic (which is to be used in the case of a nonsymmetric distribution)

and signed rank statistic are:

cimp1 cimp3 cimp2

(average rank) 1.25 2.10 2.65

cimp1 1.25 − 0.031250.03125

0.003910.00391

cimp3 2.10 − 0.218750.18750

cimp2 2.65 −

We can see that differences between characteristic 1 and 3 are significant at the 3.125 % level

and the differences between characteristic 1 and 2 are significant at the 0.391 % level both for

the signed rank test and for the sign test. Characteristic 2 and 3 are not significantly different

at an acceptable level. Thus, the following order can be derived:

Characteristic 1 >Characteristic 3

Characteristic 2

national quality policy report: germany€¦ · consumer behaviour towards food is most...

Documents