the importance of origin as a quality attribute for beef: results from a scottish consumer survey

copy 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

International Journal of Consumer Studies

27

2 March 2003 pp91ndash98

91

Blackwell Science LtdOxford UKJCSInternational Journal of Consumer Studies0309-3891Blackwell Publishing Ltd 200327Original Article

Origin as a beef quality attribute

A Davidson

et al

Correspondence

John Bower Department of Food and Consumer Studies Queen Margaret University College Edinburgh UK E-mail jbowerqmucacuk

The importance of origin as a quality attribute for beef results from a Scottish consumer survey

Amy Davidson Monika JA Schroumlder and John A Bower

Department of Food and Consumer Studies Queen Margaret University College Clerwood Terrace Edinburgh EH12 8TS UK

Abstract

Perception of country of origin and purchasing habits for

beef were examined for urban and rural Scottish consumers

Origin was identified as being as important as intrinsic qual-

ity cues of colour and leanness with rural consumers giving

more weight to origin than urban ones Most consumers

interpreted lsquoScotch Beefrsquo and lsquoBritish Meatrsquo label logos as

evidence that the beef animals were lsquoborn raised and

slaughtered in Scotland or Britainrsquo respectively The logos

were taken as indicators of quality and safety Both urban

and rural respondents had higher agreement levels with

Scotch beef as a safer higher quality and more expensive

commodity than British meat Rural consumers made more

use of butcher shops for purchase but both groups sought

butcher beef for quality reasons and supermarket sources

because of convenience

Keywords

Country of origin

beef

meat labelling

consumer

perception

Introduction

Following a series of breakdowns in the food supplychain the public debate about food quality in the UKhas been gaining increasing momentum in recent yearsThis is particularly true for beef with the safety of beefhaving been seriously compromised through bovinespongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its human formnew variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD)

1

BSEhas had a considerable negative impact on the demandfor beef

2

In particular the export ban imposed on

British beef and the associated erosion of consumerconfidence in the safety of beef led to a heavy fall indomestic sales

3

In addition there exists increasingly aperception that beef lsquono longer tastes like it used torsquo

4

The quality demanded by consumers is not only prod-uct specific but also process specific

5

lsquoQualityrsquo is definedas the lsquodegree to which a set of inherent characteristicsfulfils requirementsrsquo

6

When evaluating product qualitybefore consumption consumers consider an array oflsquocuesrsquo which give an indication of the quality of theproduct itself

7

These include price product appearanceand packaging features Primarily consumer require-ments clearly concern food quality attributes that canbe experienced as food is eaten taste is a typical exam-ple of an experience attribute Cues for experienceattributes are verified upon consumption of the producteg meat colour predicting texture Depending on thetime lag between consumption and any adverse effectsfood safety may or may not be an experience attributeWith vCJD clearly it is not possible to link individualillness with specific meals This is why quality attributesrelating to production processes are assuming increas-ing importance for consumers within the overall spec-trum of quality attributes required of a product Thesteady increase in organic production systems for food

8

is an expression of this as is the appearance in themarket place of country of origin labels such as in thecase of beef lsquoScotch Beefrsquo lsquoScotch Beefrsquo is a statutoryspecification set at an EU-wide level the designation isof lsquoProtection of Geographic Indicationrsquo (PGI)

9

Since the mid-1960s numerous studies have showncountry of origin effects on product perception

10

butsuch credence attributes cannot be verified readily bythe consumer They must instead rely on agents withinthe supply chain to provide honest and meaningfulinformation Process-oriented quality is concerned withcharacteristics of the production process such as thefulfilment of standards regarding hygiene or animal wel-


bull

A Davidson

et al

92


27



fare (credence attributes) Credible systems of labellingand audit are required to verify these types of attributes

The locality of habitation and local supply may havea bearing on these perceptions McEachern andSchroumlder

11

identified some differences between urbanand rural consumers in Scotland with respect to level ofconsultation of labels at purchase point and attitudestowards animal welfare and meat pricing Overall bothurban and rural respondents had little knowledge andunderstanding of meat labels and quality marks beingprimarily motivated by a combination of price and eat-ing quality Animal welfare issues tended to be dele-gated to the sphere of government responsibility withan assumption that any legal production of meat wouldsit on an ethical base This agreed with the findingsof the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food(MAFF)

12

who observed that consumers typically avoidmaking the connection between meat and live animals

The results of McEachern and Schroumlder

11

were basedon a study of a qualitative nature and further investi-gation is warranted In particular the consumer percep-tion of meat origin whether as an indirect indicator ofgood practice or as a general confidence booster withrespect to product quality and its effect on purchasinghabits warrants scrutiny Studies on perception of theseattributes have importance for local meat productionScottish origins labelling and hence marketing andsales of such products

Country of origin effects on product perception havebeen identified in previous studies

10

Two popular mod-els have arisen in the literature in the halo model con-sumers use country of origin to infer product quality ifthey know little else about the product

1314

in the sum-mary contrast model consumers infer product qualityfrom experience of other products from that country

10

UK consumers differ from EU-wide consumers in pay-ing less attention to origin of meat and more to colourand leanness

15

Although British consumers believe thatproduction hygiene and animal welfare standards inBritain are slightly higher than abroad when choosingbeef these issues are not a priority

12

Glitsch

15

showedthat UK consumers rank place of purchase higher thancountry of origin Similarly Grunert

16

identified place ofpurchase as one of the main factors in expected qualityperception formation for beef However he found thatthis was less the case in the UK

There are indications that beef buying habits as wellas attitudes towards meat differ somewhat betweenrural and urban consumers This study explores thisissue further for a sample of Scottish consumers includ-ing labelling (confidence) issues and with particularemphasis on any differences in weighting of originbetween rural and urban It is recognized that focus onScotch beef with Scottish consumers introduces an ele-ment of possible bias with local produce being per-ceived as superior However there is good reason toexpect Scottish beef to perform more reliably in termsof eating quality than say English beef This is becausethe Scottish cattle herd contains a higher proportion ofbeef suckler herds compared with dairy herds

12

The objectives of this study were first to investigateScottish consumersrsquo perception and interpretation oforigin quality marks specifically for Scottish and Britishlabelling logos and secondly to identify which of thenew labelling laws relating to origin are most desirableto the consumer Finally these perceptions were exam-ined according to variation in consumer characteristics(geographical location purchase frequency and locationof purchase)

Materials and methods

Questionnaire survey

A focus group was conducted before the constructionof the questionnaire This comprised six respondentswith three from each geographical location Within thisthere was a mix of gender age group and relative socio-economic class (SE) corresponding to the divisionsused in the main survey analysis (see Results) The rep-resentation was not exclusive and specific details wererural ndash two females (one younger of lower SE one olderof higher SE) plus one male (older of higher SE) urbanndash two males (both higher SE and older) and one female(younger of lower SE) The focus group session was heldin informal surroundings Verbal prompts were usedalong with examples of the meat logos (actual packag-ing) The discussions were tape-recorded and later tran-scribed by the researchers

The focus group identified that consumers were con-cerned with meat quality and that they had their ownmethod of determining this ndash by visual inspection of the



27


93

A Davidson

et al

bull


meat and by the level of trust in the supplier Countryof origin was considered important and was interpretedas lsquowhere animals were rearedrsquo etc New legislation waswelcomed but there was some concern about possibleincreased prices

The questionnaire was constructed based on the focusgroup findings and on the basis of typical cues relatingto quality in foods and to meat in particular Thusintrinsic cues chosen were lsquocolourrsquo and lsquovisible leannessrsquoextrinsic were lsquopricersquo and lsquolabellingrsquo in general Cre-dence cues were lsquoanimal welfarersquo and lsquoorganicrsquo relatingto animal husbandry Country of origin was includedwithin these measures These were scored on a measureof importance in the form of a graphic line (100 mm)anchored with lsquonot importantrsquo and lsquovery importantrsquoOther questions recorded whether or not origin markswere sought when purchasing and how such marks wereinterpreted

Two major forms of beef logo that appear on meatpacks were displayed lsquoBritish Meatrsquo

17

and lsquoSpeciallyselected Scotch Beefrsquo [beef from farm-assured(SQBLA) farms standards relating to animal welfarefeeding housing and handling facilities medicines andveterinary treatment movement and record books andtraceability]

18

Respondents were given a choice of three interpreta-tions of the logos lsquofull originrsquo (lsquoa mark of origin ndash animalborn raised and slaughtered in BritainScotlandrsquo) lsquopar-tial originrsquo (lsquoa mark of origin ndash animal having spent aperiod of time in BritainScotlandrsquo) and lsquoa mark of qual-ityrsquo The logos were then scored on Likert-type linescales (eg Fig 1) anchored with lsquodisagree stronglyrsquo andlsquoagree stronglyrsquo with statements on safety (lsquoBritishMeatScotch Beef is safersquo cost (lsquoBritish MeatScotchBeef is expensiversquo) and eating quality (lsquoBritish MeatScotch Beef has good flavourtextureoverall qualityrsquo)Final questions recorded demographics and beef pur-chase habits as frequency and main location of pur-chase (lsquosupermarketrsquo or lsquobutcherrsquo)

Consumer sample

Consumers (

n

=

160) were recruited from two geo-graphical areas designated as lsquoruralrsquo and lsquourbanrsquo Ruralrespondents were from north-east Scotland in two smallvillages (Knockando and Alves 20 and 8 miles from

Elgin respectively) Urban respondents were from res-idents of the City of Edinburgh Neither of the rurallocations could be considered deprived or particularlyaffluent being of medium standing in this sense Urbanrespondents (Edinburgh) could be considered as com-ing from a more affluent region Convenience samplingwas used in each case but respondents were requiredto be beef eaters and a balance of numbers and otherdemographic variables (gender age social class) wasintended for the geographical sources

Data analysis

All analyses were performed on the main group andsubgroups created from the whole sample with respectto geographical location consumption frequency andmain beef supplierpurchase source All percentage val-ues for subject groups in tables are rounded to the near-est integer Line scale data were converted to integers(0ndash100) and subjected to analysis of variance (

ANOVA

)and

t

-tests Cross-tabulation (with chi-square) was usedto assess association of subject characteristics SPSS ver-sion 100 (SPSS Inc Chicago IL USA) was used forall analyses

Figure 1

Likert line scales used for measure of attitudes to lsquoScotch Beefrsquo logo term


bull

A Davidson

et al

94


27



Results

Demographic details

The participating consumers (

n

=

160) were balancedfor geographical location and approximately balancedfor other characteristics The profiles of the sample andthe rural and urban subgroups are summarized inTable 1 All respondents were beef consumers althoughfrequency of consumptionpurchase varied

The most common purchase frequency was once perweek (36) ranging from less than once a month(18) to three times per week (6) Most respondentspurchased beef from supermarkets as the main supplierRural respondents bought beef more frequently andhad more use of a butcher as their supplier Both groupsshopped at these locations essentially for reasons oflsquoconveniencersquo for supermarket suppliers and lsquoqualityrsquofor butcher suppliers

Importance of quality cues cf origin

Overall intrinsic cues (colour leanness of appearance)were rated as most important with country of originbeing scored at a similar level (Table 2) These threecues were significantly (

P

lt 005) more important thanthe extrinsic and credence cues This perception wassimilar within subgroups ie colour leanness and coun-try of origin were judged to be the most important cuesThere was some variation between respondents withurban and supermarket shopper respondents rating

country of origin at a lower importance than that of theother group within the subgroup division Animal wel-fare was also rated lower by urban and supermarketconsumers

Reasons for seeking origin information

Most (77) respondents reported that they soughtorigin information at some time (29 always and 48sometimes) but others (23) claimed never to seek thisinformation Subgroups had a similar picture except forlocation of purchase where supermarket shoppersappeared to seek origin on the labelling more so thanthose shopping at butcher shops

Origin information was sought mainly for reasons oflsquoeating qualityrsquo and lsquosafetyrsquo followed by lsquosupport of the

Table 1

Percentage composition of consumer sample and subgroups

Groupsubgroup

Geographical region Age (years) Gender SE

a

Purchase frequency

b

Purchase location

c

Rural Urban 17ndash40 41ndash81 M F Low High lt 1

ge

1 SM B

All (160)

d

50 50 43 57 40 60 49 51 41 59 65 35Geographical regionRural (80) 100 0 41 59 36 64 51 49 33 67 62 38Urban (80) 0 100 44 56 44 56 44 56 50 50 72 28

a

SE socioeconomic class low (E and D) high (C2 C1 B and A)

b

Number of times per week

c

SM supermarket B butcher

d

Values in brackets are groupsubgroup numbers of respondents (

n

=

160)

Table 2

Degree of importance

a

of lsquocountry of originrsquo compared with other quality cues when purchasing beef (all respondents)

Quality cue Mean Standard deviation

Country of origin 714 2647Colour 713 2325Visible leanness 749 2254Price 599 2724Labelling 521 2869Animal welfare 595 3178Organic 232 2557

a

Scale 0

=

lsquonot importantrsquo to 100

=

lsquovery importantrsquo



27


95

A Davidson

et al

bull


country of the supplierrsquo Reasons for subgroups weresimilar but rural respondents had a more balancedcount for these three reasons

Interpretation of current beef labelling marks ndash lsquoBritish Meatrsquo and lsquoScotch Beefrsquo

lsquoScotch Beefrsquo was overwhelmingly taken to mean amark relating to lsquofullrsquo origin ie lsquoborn raised andslaughtered in Scotlandrsquo (76 of all respondents with53 having this interpretation as their sole choiceFig 2)

Interpretation as lsquoa mark of qualityrsquo was chosen by asmaller number of respondents (44 20 solely) andfew (4 3 solely) chose lsquopartialrsquo origin ie lsquohad spentsome time in Scotlandrsquo lsquoQualityrsquo as an additional choicewas mostly combined with the lsquofullrsquo origin status

The lsquoBritish Meatrsquo logo was perceived in a similarmanner with most (69 58 solely) choosing the lsquofullrsquoorigin interpretation (34 23 solely) for qualityalone and (13 8 solely) choosing lsquopartialrsquo origin

This interpretation was similar for subgroupsalthough slightly fewer urban consumers consideredlsquoBritish Meatrsquo to be an indicator of quality (29 cf40)

Attitudes to beef logos

Analysis of attitudes to the meat logo marks showedthat consumers had above average level of agreement

with the statements ie both marks indicated a safeproduct with good eating quality This also applied tothe attitude to lsquoexpensiversquo but this was at obviouslylower levels (Fig 3)

The lsquoScotch Beefrsquo logo received significantly(

P

lt 0001) higher levels of agreement the largest dif-ference being for lsquosafetyrsquo All consumers viewed lsquoScotchBeefrsquo as safer and usually superior in flavour but alsoas more expensive Within subgroups attitude agree-ment was similar

Between respondents comparison for subgroupsshowed some differences between butcher and super-market shoppers Those respondents purchasing beef atbutcher shops thought that both British and Scotchlogos indicated a significantly higher agreement withlsquosafetyrsquo This subgroup also thought that Scotch beefwas superior in texture and overall quality

Desired features of any future origin marks on beef labelling

lsquoCountry where animal raisedrsquo was the indicator chosenby most (87) respondents for proposed beef labellingThere was also high interest in lsquowhere animal was bornrsquo(73) and with lsquowhere slaughteredrsquo (65) All sub-groups agreed with this result

Overall the results have shown

bull Three quality attributescues dominated the respon-dentsrsquo perception of beef leanness country of originand colour

bull The importance placed on country of origin washigher among the rural respondents although itsmeaning was the same ie to predict eating qualityand indicate safety

bull Respondentsrsquo understanding of what current originmarks mean differs greatly from what they actuallymean

Discussion and conclusion

In the current study the majority of consumers per-ceived origin in a manner that did not agree with thedesignated meaning Thus at the time of the researchthe terms lsquoScotch Beefrsquo and lsquoBritish Meatrsquo did not referto where the animal from which the meat was

Figure 2

Consumer respondentsrsquo interpretation of beef label logos


bull

A Davidson

et al

96


27



obtained was born or raised

1920

To Scottish consumerslsquoScotch Beefrsquo signalled that the animals had been raisedin Scotland to producers it means that the animalshave been finished (for a minimum of 3 months) inScotland To give producers and legislators the benefitof the doubt they might argue that only the final man-agement of the animal will affect eating quality thiswould be an approach that focuses on product at-tributes However to consumers and especially in thewake of BSE origin or provenance signals much morethan eating quality

Because of BSE safety is now an important issue andthis view is borne out by the findings of this study forScottish beef Support of local meat retailers alsoappeared to be important more so for rural consumersOther issues of price animal welfare and environmen-tal issues especially organic were thought to be of lessimportance The latter result was surprisingly low giventhe current general lsquogreenrsquo attitude of consumers ieconcern for the environment recycling of waste social

justice etc as discussed by McEachern and Schroumlder

11

but it does confirm the finding of these researchers

11

Thus there was indication of an assumption that thesupplier would ensure that these issues were aboveboard There may be other influences in this perceptioneg sentimental reasons and a degree of confidenceand trust in what is produced locally These aspects werenot assessed in the study and would warrant furtherinvestigation

With respect to beef labels the format existing at thetime of the current study did not appear to providesufficient information Most consumers indicated adesire for more specific details on any future labellingAgain these requirements were not elicited in a free-choice manner but they are by no means technicallyorientated Unfortunately consumers are rarelyinvolved in setting standards for processes and labels

New beef labelling laws were introduced subsequentto the current study (June 2001) with fully comprehen-sive labelling by January 2002 The new EU-wide

Figure 3

Respondentsrsquo attitudes to the logos used on beef in the UK (Likert scale where 0

=

disagree strongly 100

=

agree strongly)



27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull


compulsory beef labelling system came into effect inEngland and Wales on 1 September 2000

21

and in Scot-land on 1 June 2001

22

Labels are now required to showwhere (name of member state or third country) slaugh-ter and lsquocuttingcut inrsquo took place as well as quotingthe licence number of the specific slaughter and cut-ting plant From 1 January 2002 these laws have beenstrengthened further with the requirement of detailsrelating to member state or third country of animalbirth and rearing Thus the rules for origin have beentightened so that for example any beef labelled aslsquoUKrsquo must have come from an animal born raised andslaughtered in the UK

Claims about the origin that are not compulsory canbe made on a voluntary basis under the previous beeflabelling scheme that is continuing alongside the newcompulsory rules Approval will be required for volun-tary claims by a recognized independent third party

The evidence suggests that these new labelling lawsshould be of benefit enlightening the consumer in termsof origin of birth country of rearing place of slaughterand also of cut This will empower consumers to makeinformed choices Regulators and educators in food stillhave work to do in improving labelling and making itless confusingmisleading

This study has shown that origin was rated as impor-tant as previously identified meat quality intrinsicattributes Admittedly consumer respondents wouldhave been aware of the fact that source or origin of beefwas of particular interest to the study Thus lsquooriginrsquobeing highlighted as a quality attribute a priori mayexplain in part the strong support given to the conceptsby the respondents of this study The study has alsofocused on Scotch beef with Scottish consumers Theperception of non-Scottish-based consumers for lsquoScotchbeefrsquo vs lsquoBritish meatrsquo requires study Scotch beef isgenerally perceived as a prime quality food but thismay result from Scots being particularly faithful to localproducts or relatively unadventurous or less lsquovarietyseekingrsquo in dietary terms Measurement of these atti-tudes would be required to clarify such a comparisonOther cues to consider would be those related to animalwelfare and organic meats which although theyreceived a low importance rating in the current studyare still important issues for the emerging organicmarket

References

1 Connor S (2000) Portrait of a nation fed a diet of reassurances

The Independent

27 October 20002 Euromonitor (1999) Market sector meat and poultry

Market Research GB

May

79ndash983 Baines PR amp Harris P (2000) Kite flying the role of

marketing in the post-BSE British beef export industry

British Food Journal

102

454ndash4644 Glover G (1999) A real bone to pick Supermarket beef

is cheap but is it a price worth paying

The Scotsman

3 July 1999

5 Hoffman R (2000) Country of origin ndash a consumer perception perspective of fresh meat


102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)

ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems ndash Fundamentals and Vocabulary

International Standards Organization Geneva

7 Oude Ophuis PAM amp Van Trijp HCM (1995) Perceived quality a market driven and consumer oriented approach

Food Quality and Preference

6

177ndash1838 Buglass D (1998) Growing demand makes organic food

key to future

The Scotsman

29 December 19989 EC Council (1992)

Regulation (EEC) 208192 of 14 July 1992 on the Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs

European Union Brussels10 Minhan C (1989) Country image halo or summary

contrast

Journal of Marketing Research

26

222ndash22911 McEachern MG amp Schroumlder MJA (2002) The role of

livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)

Working Together for the Food Chain Views from the Food Chain Group

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food HMSO London

13 Erickson GM Johansson JM amp Chao P (1984) Image variables in multi-attribute product evaluations country of origin effects

Journal of Consumer Research

11

694ndash659

14 Johansson JK Douglas SP amp Nonaka I (1985) Assessing the impact of origin on product evaluation a new methodological perspective


22

388ndash39615 Glitsch K (2000) Consumers perception of fresh meat

quality cross national comparison


102

117ndash19416 Grunert KG (1997) Whatrsquos in a steak A cross-cultural

study on the quality perception of beef


8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98

International Journal of Consumer Studies 27 2 March 2003 pp91ndash98 copy 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

17 MLC (2001) British Meat Quality Standard [WWW document] URL httpwwwmeatmatterscombritishqualityporkhtml

18 SQBLA (2001) Scottish Beef and Lamb Association Limited [WWW document] URL httpwwwsqblaorguk

19 McEachern MG amp Tregar A (2000) Farm animal welfare in the UK a comparison of assurance schemes Farm Management 10 685ndash708

20 BBC Watchdog (2000) Food and Drink ndash British Meat [WWW document] URL httpwwwbbccoukwatchdogreportsfoodwwmeatshtml

21 MAFF (2000) Beef Labelling Guide for PersonsOrganisations Selling Beef in England Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food HMSO London

22 SFMA (2001) Presentation to Independent Butchers on Beef Labelling Regulations Forth Bridges Hotel Edinburgh 19 March 2001


bull

A Davidson

et al

92


27



fare (credence attributes) Credible systems of labellingand audit are required to verify these types of attributes

The locality of habitation and local supply may havea bearing on these perceptions McEachern andSchroumlder

11

identified some differences between urbanand rural consumers in Scotland with respect to level ofconsultation of labels at purchase point and attitudestowards animal welfare and meat pricing Overall bothurban and rural respondents had little knowledge andunderstanding of meat labels and quality marks beingprimarily motivated by a combination of price and eat-ing quality Animal welfare issues tended to be dele-gated to the sphere of government responsibility withan assumption that any legal production of meat wouldsit on an ethical base This agreed with the findingsof the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food(MAFF)

12

who observed that consumers typically avoidmaking the connection between meat and live animals

The results of McEachern and Schroumlder

11

were basedon a study of a qualitative nature and further investi-gation is warranted In particular the consumer percep-tion of meat origin whether as an indirect indicator ofgood practice or as a general confidence booster withrespect to product quality and its effect on purchasinghabits warrants scrutiny Studies on perception of theseattributes have importance for local meat productionScottish origins labelling and hence marketing andsales of such products

Country of origin effects on product perception havebeen identified in previous studies

10

Two popular mod-els have arisen in the literature in the halo model con-sumers use country of origin to infer product quality ifthey know little else about the product

1314

in the sum-mary contrast model consumers infer product qualityfrom experience of other products from that country

10

UK consumers differ from EU-wide consumers in pay-ing less attention to origin of meat and more to colourand leanness

15

Although British consumers believe thatproduction hygiene and animal welfare standards inBritain are slightly higher than abroad when choosingbeef these issues are not a priority

12

Glitsch

15

showedthat UK consumers rank place of purchase higher thancountry of origin Similarly Grunert

16

identified place ofpurchase as one of the main factors in expected qualityperception formation for beef However he found thatthis was less the case in the UK

There are indications that beef buying habits as wellas attitudes towards meat differ somewhat betweenrural and urban consumers This study explores thisissue further for a sample of Scottish consumers includ-ing labelling (confidence) issues and with particularemphasis on any differences in weighting of originbetween rural and urban It is recognized that focus onScotch beef with Scottish consumers introduces an ele-ment of possible bias with local produce being per-ceived as superior However there is good reason toexpect Scottish beef to perform more reliably in termsof eating quality than say English beef This is becausethe Scottish cattle herd contains a higher proportion ofbeef suckler herds compared with dairy herds

12

The objectives of this study were first to investigateScottish consumersrsquo perception and interpretation oforigin quality marks specifically for Scottish and Britishlabelling logos and secondly to identify which of thenew labelling laws relating to origin are most desirableto the consumer Finally these perceptions were exam-ined according to variation in consumer characteristics(geographical location purchase frequency and locationof purchase)

Materials and methods

Questionnaire survey

A focus group was conducted before the constructionof the questionnaire This comprised six respondentswith three from each geographical location Within thisthere was a mix of gender age group and relative socio-economic class (SE) corresponding to the divisionsused in the main survey analysis (see Results) The rep-resentation was not exclusive and specific details wererural ndash two females (one younger of lower SE one olderof higher SE) plus one male (older of higher SE) urbanndash two males (both higher SE and older) and one female(younger of lower SE) The focus group session was heldin informal surroundings Verbal prompts were usedalong with examples of the meat logos (actual packag-ing) The discussions were tape-recorded and later tran-scribed by the researchers

The focus group identified that consumers were con-cerned with meat quality and that they had their ownmethod of determining this ndash by visual inspection of the



27


93

A Davidson

et al

bull





17


18


Consumer sample

Consumers (

n

=



Data analysis


ANOVA

)and

t


Figure 1



bull

A Davidson

et al

94


27



Results

Demographic details


n

=





P






Table 1


Groupsubgroup


a

Purchase frequency

b

Purchase location

c


ge

1 SM B

All (160)

d


a


b


c


d


n

=

160)

Table 2


a




a

Scale 0

=


=




27


95

A Davidson

et al

bull












P











Figure 2



bull

A Davidson

et al

96


27




1920




11


11




Figure 3


=


=

agree strongly)



27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull



21


22





References


The Independent


Market Research GB

May




102



The Scotsman

3 July 1999



102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)





6


key to future

The Scotsman




contrast


26




15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)





11

694ndash659



22




102




8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98










27


93

A Davidson

et al

bull





17


18


Consumer sample

Consumers (

n

=



Data analysis


ANOVA

)and

t


Figure 1



bull

A Davidson

et al

94


27



Results

Demographic details


n

=





P






Table 1


Groupsubgroup


a

Purchase frequency

b

Purchase location

c


ge

1 SM B

All (160)

d


a


b


c


d


n

=

160)

Table 2


a




a

Scale 0

=


=




27


95

A Davidson

et al

bull












P











Figure 2



bull

A Davidson

et al

96


27




1920




11


11




Figure 3


=


=

agree strongly)



27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull



21


22





References


The Independent


Market Research GB

May




102



The Scotsman

3 July 1999



102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)





6


key to future

The Scotsman




contrast


26




15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)





11

694ndash659



22




102




8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98









bull

A Davidson

et al

94


27



Results

Demographic details


n

=





P






Table 1


Groupsubgroup


a

Purchase frequency

b

Purchase location

c


ge

1 SM B

All (160)

d


a


b


c


d


n

=

160)

Table 2


a




a

Scale 0

=


=




27


95

A Davidson

et al

bull












P











Figure 2



bull

A Davidson

et al

96


27




1920




11


11




Figure 3


=


=

agree strongly)



27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull



21


22





References


The Independent


Market Research GB

May




102



The Scotsman

3 July 1999



102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)





6


key to future

The Scotsman




contrast


26




15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)





11

694ndash659



22




102




8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98










27


95

A Davidson

et al

bull












P











Figure 2



bull

A Davidson

et al

96


27




1920




11


11




Figure 3


=


=

agree strongly)



27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull



21


22





References


The Independent


Market Research GB

May




102



The Scotsman

3 July 1999



102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)





6


key to future

The Scotsman




contrast


26




15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)





11

694ndash659



22




102




8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98









bull

A Davidson

et al

96


27




1920




11


11




Figure 3


=


=

agree strongly)



27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull



21


22





References


The Independent


Market Research GB

May




102



The Scotsman

3 July 1999



102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)





6


key to future

The Scotsman




contrast


26




15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)





11

694ndash659



22




102




8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98










27


97

A Davidson

et al

bull



21


22





References


The Independent


Market Research GB

May




102



The Scotsman

3 July 1999



102

211ndash2296 ISO (2000)





6


key to future

The Scotsman




contrast


26




15

221ndash23712 MAFF (1999)





11

694ndash659



22




102




8

157ndash174


bull

A Davidson

et al

98









bull

A Davidson

et al

98








the importance of origin as a quality attribute for beef: results from a scottish consumer survey

Documents