Summary Report on Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and The United Kingdom

Transcription

1 Summary Report on Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden and The United Kingdom Tilman Becker, Eckhard Benner and Kristina Glitsch January 1998 Project Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour FAIR-CT

2 This study is part of the project QUALITY POLICY AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS FRESH MEAT Project coordinator: Tilman Becker Institut für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaftliche Marktlehre, University of Hohenheim The study has been carried out with the financial support from the Commission of the European Communities, Agriculture and Fisheries (FAIR) specific RTD programme, CT , Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour. It does not necessarily reflect its views and in no way anticipates the Commission s future policy in this area. This manuscript presents only some of the results. Other studies can be downloaded from

3 Contents Page 1 Introduction Sociodemographics of the Samples Sex Age Household Size Children Full-Time Education Income Women in the Labour Force Sociodemographics of the Samples Summary Food Consumption in Europe Food Consumption Patterns and Trends Food Away From Home Food Expenditure Food Consumption in Europe Summary Meat Consumption in Europe Consumption of Meat and Meat Products The Development of Consumption of Pork, Beef and Veal, Lamb and Poultry Meat Consumption - Results from the Sample Frequency of Consumption Changes since Place of Purchase Who are the Heavy Meat Consumers? Meat Consumption in Europe Summary Quality Perception 'Quality in the Shop' 'Eating Quality' Quality Perception - Summary Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 1

4 6 Safety Perception Literature on Safety Perception Safety Perception of the Sample Safety Perception Summary Concerns About Meat Information on Meat Use of Labels Consumer Trust in Information Information on Meat - Summary Visual Inspection of Meat Quality Visual Inspection by Age Quality Perception by Visual Inspection Attitudes Towards Food and Meat Cooking Status Animal Welfare Origin Nutrition Information Safety Price Clusters According to Attitudes Summary and Implications for Quality Policy Summary Implications for Quality Policy References APPENDICES Appendix A: Statistics Appendix B: Tables Appendix C: Questionnaire Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 2

5 Figures Page Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age-group (in %) Figure 2: Age-groups in the Sample: Deviations from the Total Population (in %) Figure 3: Distribution of Households by Size (in %) Figure 4: Figure 5: Distribution of Households by Number of Children Under 16 years of age (in %) Distribution of Age at which Respondents Completed a Full-time Education (in %) Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents by Income Deciles Figure 7: Working Population 1992 (in % of Total Population at the Age of 15 and More) Figure 8: Consumption of selected foods 1994/95 (Sweden 1992) Figure 9: Gross Domestic Product per Capita 1995 (in ECU) and Share of Household Income Spent on Food without Beverages (1994) Figure 10: Per Capita Consumption of Total Meat, (Sweden from 1991) Figure 11: Per Capita Consumption of Different Meats in kg per Year (1996, Poultry: 1995) Figure 12: Per Capita Consumption of Pork in kg per Year, (Sweden: ) Figure 13: Per Capita Consumption of Beef and Veal in kg per Year, (Sweden: ) Figure 14: Per Capita Consumption of Lamb, Mutton and Goat in kg per Year, (Sweden: ) Figure 15: Per Capita Consumption of Poultry in kg per Year, (Sweden: ) Figure 16: Frequency of Beef Consumption per Week by Country Figure 17: Frequency of Pork Consumption per Week by Country Figure 18: Frequency of Chicken Consumption per Week by Country Figure 19: Quality Model Figure 20: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Beef Figure 21: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Pork Figure 22: Average Ratings of 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics - Chicken Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 3

6 Figure 23: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Beef Figure 24: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Pork Figure 25: Average Ratings of Eating Quality Characteristics - Chicken Figure 26: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Beef Figure 27: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Pork Figure 28: Average Ratings of Safety Indicators - Chicken Figure 29: Average Ratings of Concerns - Beef Figure 30: Average Ratings of Concerns - Pork Figure 31: Average Ratings of Concerns - Chicken Figure 32: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assess the quality of beef in the shop just by looking at it." Figure 33: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assess the quality of pork in the shop just by looking at it." Figure 34: Level of Agreement with the Statement "You can assess the quality of chicken in the shop just by looking at it." Figure 35: Level of Agreement with Statement "I like experimenting with new recipes." Figure 36: Level of Agreement with Statement "I do not like cooking very much but it is a job which has to be done." Figure 37: Level of Agreement with Statement "I would never serve a meal without meat." Figure 38: Level of Agreement with Statement "Meat is an essential part of a meal." Figure 39: Level of Agreement with Statement "I prefer to buy meat from animals which I know have been treated well." Figure 40: Level of Agreement with Statement "We should have more respect for animals." Figure 41: Level of Agreement with Statement "I prefer to buy food which is produced locally." Figure 42: Level of Agreement with Statement "It is important that I know the country where the meat I buy has been produced." Figure 43: Level of Agreement with Statement "There is no source of protein like meat." Figure 44: Level of Agreement with Statement "Meat is essential for a balanced diet." Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 4

7 Figure 45: Level of Agreement with Statement "I always check the nutritional labelling on foods before buying them." Figure 46: Level of Agreement with Statement "I am confident that food in the shops is safe." Figure 47: Level of Agreement with Statement "You have to be prepared to pay a higher price to get good quality meat." Figure 48: Level of Agreement with Statement "Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat." Figure 49: Statement "Price is the main thing I consider when buying meat." by Income (Standard Deviation) Figure 50: Deviations from the Average Ratings for the Attitudinal Statements by Cluster Figure 51: Proportions of Countries in the Clusters Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 5

8 Tables Page Table 1: Proportion of Respondents by Sex (in %) Table 2: Average Number of Children Under 16 Years of Age Table 3: Levels of Education Table 4: Respondents in the Labour Force (in % of all Women or in % of all Men) Table 5: Per Capita of Several Food Categories in 1985 and 1995 (in kg) Table 6: Table 7: Expenditures on Food Away From Home as a Share of Total Household Expenditure, (Italy: 1993, Sweden: 1992, Spain: 1990/91) Livestock Numbers in Relation to Population (animal per inhabitant, 1993) Table 8: Quantitative Changes in Meat Consumption since 1992 (in % of Respondents) Table 9: Place of Purchase for Beef, Pork and Chicken (in % of Respondents) Table 10: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers (in %) Table 11: Differences Between Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers Table 12: Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop' Characteristics - Results of a t-test Table 13: Significant Differences in the Importance of 'Eating Quality' Characteristics - Results of a t-test Table 14: Significant Differences in the Helpfulness of 'Safety' Characteristics - Results of a t-test Table 15: Significant Differences in Matters of Concern About Meat - Results of a t-test Table 16: Number of Respondents Who Do Not Look for Any Symbols or Labels When Buying Meat Table 17: Most Trusted Sources of Information about Meat Table 18: Information Sources Most Trusted (Frequencies in % of All Answers) Table 19: Average Age by Agreement with Statement "You can assess the quality of beef just by looking at it" Table 19: Average Helpfulness of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreement with the Statement "You can assess the quality of beef just by looking at it" Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 6

9 Table 20: Rankings of 'Quality in the Shop' Indicators by Agreement with the Statement "You can assess the quality of beef just by looking at it." Table 21: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Meat Consumption According to Cluster Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 7

10 Tables of the Appendix Page Table A1: Household Size in the Sample and Household Size of the Official Statistics (in %) Table A2: Age-groups in the Sample and Age-groups of the Official Statistics 1996 (in %) Table A3: Household Income Decile by Household Size (in %) Table A4: Consumer Prices for Selected Food Products in 1988 in ECU (Sweden not available) Table A5: Sociodemographic Characteristics by Changes in Beef Consumption and Country Table A6: Low, Medium and Heavy Meat Consumers by Employment (in %) Table A7: Consumption Frequencies by Household Income for Two Person Households - Total Sample Table A8: Chicken Consumption by Employment (in %) Table A9: Sociodemographic Characteristics of Low, Medium and Heavy Chicken Consumers Table A10: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the 'Quality in the Shop'-Characteristics and for each Type of Meat (in % of respondents of each country) Table A12: Respondents Who Answered 'Don't know' for each of the Safety Characteristics and for each Type of Meat (in %) Table A13: Consumption Changes by Degree of Concern About Hormones, Antibiotics, Fat/Cholesterol, Salmonella and BSE - Beef Table A14: Consumption Frequencies by Level of Agreement With the Statement "Meat is an essential part of a meal." (in %) Table A15: Average Age by Level of Agreement With the Statements "Meat is an essential part of a meal." and "I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors." Table A16: Level of Agreement With the Statement "I would never serve a meal without meat for visitors" by Age-groups (in %) Table A17: Level of Agreement With the Statement "Meat is an essential part of a meal" by Age-groups (in %) Table A18: SAS-Output of Cluster Analysis Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 8

11 1 Introduction Consumer behaviour towards meat differs distinctly across Europe. Official statistics show differences concerning recent meat consumption patterns as well as changes in meat demand over the last few years in the six EU countries analysed in this study. Main reasons for this may be fundamental cultural differences in diet, as well as the manner in which and the intensity to which consumers react to certain meat issues, such as BSE, salmonella or the use of antibiotics and hormones. Reactions towards meat scares and scandals largely depend on consumers' general attitudes towards meat and the extent to which consumers trust in public as well as private institutions dealing in some manner with food safety. In order to gain more detailed and comparative information on consumer behaviour towards meat, surveys were conducted in Spring 1997 in each of the participating countries of the EU-funded project, "Quality Policy and Consumer Behaviour". This report highlights both the differences and similarities found between the participating countries. The results of the survey can be divided into a mainly descriptive part which contains material from official statistics as well as sociodemographics and information on meat consumption of the households interviewed. Following is a more analytical part dealing with quality and safety perception, information on meat, trust and attitudes towards meat. For those mainly interested in the empirical results of this study, it would be recommendable to skip sections 2, 3, 4.1 and 4.2. First, the samples of each country will be described using sociodemographic characteristics, such as sex, age, household size, number of children, education, and household income (Section 2). As far as possible, these results will be discussed within the framework of previously existing official statistics and corresponding literature. In Section 3, major trends in European food consumption such as the phenomenon of an 'internationalisation' of diet are summarised. Subsequently, it focuses specifically on meat consumption in Europe. Section 4 not only contains information from official statistics, but also the empirical results of the survey regarding the frequencies of meat consumption, changes in meat consumption and places of purchase. Meats considered in this analysis are beef, pork and chicken. The next sections, Section 5 and Section 6, cover consumers' quality and safety perception. This process is analysed on the basis of meat characteristics in a wider sense, which were derived from focus group interviews conducted prior to the survey carried out in each of the countries. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 9

12 Further topics covered in Section 7 and Section 8 are consumers' concerns about meat and the role of consumer information on meat. In order to analyse this, the use of quality labels and marks as well as consumers' trust in information sources were investigated. Finally, Sections 9 and 10 deal with respondents attitudes towards the possibility of quality assessment of meat through visual inspection as well as other various matters concerning meat. A cluster analysis was performed on the basis of attitudes towards meat in order to determine groups of similar types of consumers. The report concludes with a summary and some implications for quality policy in Europe. The information gained through the consumer survey will serve as the basis for Sub-task 3.1 of the project: "To combine the analysis results concerning consumer behaviour and quality policy in the partner countries and to draw conclusions at the EU-level" (see Technical Annex of the Contract). Survey The data was collected in the Spring of 1997 through telephone surveys of 500 households in each country. The interviews were conducted by MRC (Market Research Centre), a commercial telephone survey organisation, using random-digit dialling procedures. Individuals responsible for household food shopping were the subjects of this sample. The questionnaire, which was translated into each of the respective languages, is attached to the Appendix. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 10

13 2 Sociodemographics of the Samples In the following section, several sociodemographic characteristics likely to influence consumer behaviour of the six sub-samples are described. They will be used later in the report to show possible explanations for specific consumer behaviour. In addition, some characteristics within the national samples will be discussed using the official national statistics as a basis. The respondents were chosen using a random sampling method. Thus, more or less the sample ought to reflect the total population in terms of sociodemographics. But since the survey was confined to consumers who are both responsible for their household shopping and also consume meat, and in addition, since a considerable percentage of people refused to be interviewed, it is highly probable that various distortions in this survey exist. 2.1 Sex The proportion of male and female respondents, who usually purchase the food for their households may show a different allocation of roles in the households. Table 1 shows that Sweden and Germany have the highest proportion of men in their samples (25 % and 23 %). The lowest share of men as main household food shoppers exists in Ireland (13 %) and in Spain (11 %). Italy and the United Kingdom range between 15 % and 17 % of men as the major household food shoppers. Apart from traditional male and female roles, such differences may also result from a different proportion of single-households in which a male person was interviewed. In such cases, men are then automatically the main household shopper. Table 1: Proportion of Respondents by Sex (in %) 1 Female Male Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom The countries in all tables and figures are arranged in alphabetical order. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 11

14 2.2 Age Figure 1 shows the average age of the respondents. It ranges from 42.9 years in Germany to a maximum of 47.3 years in the United Kingdom. Further, Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of consumers within the different age-groups. The Swedish and German sample are characterised by a high proportion (nearly 20 %) of consumers who are under thirty. In contrast to this, only 8 % of the Irish respondents belong to this age-group. The highest percentage (24 %) of consumers over the age of sixty can be found in the British sample. It is much lower in the German and Italian sample (about 15 %) Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age-group (in %) 100% Average 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 60 and more Under 30 20% 10% 0% Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom In comparison with official statistics, consumers between the age of are underrepresented in the samples of each country, especially in Ireland (see Table A1). While more than 32 % of the Irish population belong to this age-group, only 7.5 % interviewed in this sample are of this age. This age-group is also distinctly under-represented in the United Kingdom and in Spain. This might show that shopping is more the task of the older generation in these countries. Figure 2 illustrates the deviations in the age structure of the samples from the figures drawn from official statistics. In each country, the responsibility for shopping was concentrated more on the respondents between 30 and 59 years of age. While in Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 12

15 Sweden, the United Kingdom and in Germany, it is more evenly distributed over the agegroups represented in the total population. Figure 2: Age-groups in the Sample: Deviations from the Total Population (in %) % and over Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom Source: EUROSTAT 1997 and own calculations 2.3 Household Size The average household size differs significantly from country to country (see Figure 3). We find large households in Ireland (3.9 individuals), Spain (3.7 individuals) and Italy (3.4 individuals) while the smaller households prevail in Germany (2.9 individuals), the United Kingdom (2.8 individuals) and Sweden (2.7 individuals). For each sub-sample, the average household size clearly exceeds that of the national statistics. Table A2 of the Appendix illustrates that the proportion of single households in the population of each country is far higher than the percentage of single households in the samples. On the other hand, large households are distinctly over-represented in the samples of each country. One reason may be that single and small households were more difficult to contact by telephone or that they more often refused to be interviewed. Figure 3 also compares the distribution of households by size in each of the partner countries. Ireland and Spain can be seen to have the highest percentage of large households: More than 50 % of all households contained at least four people. In Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany about half of the respondents live in single or twoperson households. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 13

16 Figure 3: Distribution of Households by Size (in %) 100% Average Size 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 6 people and more 5 people 4 people 3 people 2 people 1 person 20% 10% 0% Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom 2.4 Children Apart from Ireland, all of the partner countries showed to have nearly the same average number of children under the age of 16 living in the households sampled (see Table 2). Irish households tended on average to have 1.18 children under the age of 16. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of households according to the number of children. Table 2: Average Number of Children Under 16 Years of Age Average number Germany 0.67 Ireland 1.18 Italy 0.63 Spain 0.64 Sweden 0.67 United Kingdom 0.70 Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 14

17 Figure 4: Distribution of Households by Number of Children Under 16 years of age (in %) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 4 children and more 3 children 2 children 1 child No children 20% 10% 0% Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom 2.5 Full-Time Education The length of full-time education is used as an indicator for the educational level in this survey. But, according to different educational systems, the average age at which the respondents completed a full-time education varies greatly between the partner countries (see Figure 4). The average age is the highest in Germany (20.4 years). Figure 5 shows that nearly half of the German respondents were 20 years of age and over at the time they completed a full-time education. The average age is much lower in Spain (17.0 years), in the United Kingdom (17.1 years), in Ireland (17.7 years) and in Italy (17.8 years). The Swedish sample shows that on the average, respondents completed a fulltime education at the age of 18.8 years. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 15

18 Figure 5: Distribution of Age at which Respondents Completed a Full-time Education (in %) 100% Average Age 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 21 and over Under 17 20% 10% 0% Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom Since great differences in the educational systems exist between the partner countries, this indicator should only be used to describe respondents within the given country and not to compare respondents transnationally. For the latter purpose, it would be advisable to set up an educational index, as for example, a form of quantiles of the age at which the respondents completed a full-time education. Although the survey data do not allow the calculation of exact quantiles, the following three categories, which are as equal as possible in terms of number of respondents, will be used in further comparative analyses. Table 3: Levels of Education Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom Educational Years % Years % Years % Years % Years % Years % Level Low < < < < < < Middle High > > > > > > Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 16

19 2.6 Income Income deciles were used in order to compare the income level in different countries. They are defined as ten (income) classes which are characterised by the fact that 10 % of the population belong to each class. The problem is how to calculate both the lower and upper limits of the classes, so that, in the end, 10 % of the population belong to the first class, 10 % to the second, and so forth. If a survey is representative and the income deciles used are correct, 10 % of the sample ought to belong to each of the ten deciles. In this survey, as Figure 6 shows, this is not the case for each partner country. While household income is nearly equally distributed in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy, this is not the case in the samples of Sweden, Spain and, especially, of Germany. In the Swedish sample, the higher income groups (decile 7+8) are over-represented, while the lower income groups are under-represented. In the Spanish and German samples it is the opposite, with 60 % and more of the respondents belonging to the first four income deciles. The highest deciles (9+10) are practically non-existent in the German sample. The reason for this distortion in the German sample is that the deciles are inflated deciles which come from a survey conducted previous to the Reunification. As a result, it does not take the incomes of the former GDR households into consideration. Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents by Income Deciles 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Decile 9+10 Decile 7+8 Decile 5+6 Decile 3+4 Decile % 10% 0% Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom However, one should bear in mind that two different households with the same income level do not automatically have the same financial situation. A decisive factor for the financial power of a household is the number of individuals living from the household budget. In fact, for the households of this survey those having a higher income level Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 17

20 tended to consist of more individuals than households with a lower income level. As Table A3 of the Appendix illustrates for the total sample, 47 % of the single households belong to the lowest income level (decile 1 and decile 2), while only % of households consisting of four or more people belonged to this income level. On the other hand, only 2 % of the single households fall into the highest income level (decile 9 and decile 10), while more than 16 % of the households with four or more persons came under this category. Thus, household income as an indicator for the financial power of a household must be used very carefully. 2.7 Women in the Labour Force Some consumption trends, such as the increasing demand for food which is easy to prepare or for food away from home, are obviously affected by the share of women in the labour force. Figure 7 shows male and female working populations as a percentage of the total population in Figure 7: Working Population 1992 (in % of Total Population at the Age of 15 and More) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% male female 20% 10% 0% Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom Source: EUROSTAT 1995 While the share of men in the labour force only slightly differs in the six countries, the share of women in the labour force differs greatly. Only per cent of all women belong to the working population in Ireland, Spain and Italy and about 50 per cent in Germany and the UK. We find the highest share in Sweden, where about 70 per cent of all women are working. This may be an indication that Swedish women have less time for preparing meals. The consequence for food consumption may be that the consumption of easy to prepare food and/or food away from home is greater than in the Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 18

21 other countries. "Time-pressured consumers do not want to buy ingredients for preparing meals; they want to buy meals." (SENAUER, ASP and KINSEY 1991). Table 4 shows the percentage of female and male respondents of the samples who are employed or self-employed. A high percentage of respondents who participate in the labour force may lead to different consumption patterns. Individuals who work and do not wish to or cannot spend much time preparing meals may have a lower household meat consumption. Table 4: Respondents in the Labour Force (% of all Women or % of all Men) Women Men Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom The percentages of women in the labour force corresponds to a great extent to those given by the official statistics, with the exception of the Spanish and the Swedish sample where working women were under-represented. Working men were under-represented in each of the countries except in Germany and Ireland. 2.8 Sociodemographics of the Samples Summary In this section, several sociodemographic characteristics of the six sub-samples were described. In the following, some of the most striking results are summarised. The highest proportion of male respondents can be found in the Swedish and German sample, where men made up about a fourth of the sample. Germany and Sweden had the highest proportion of respondents under thirty years of age, while the British sample is characterised more by having highest percentage of individuals at the age of sixty and above. In Ireland and to some extent in Spain, we find the highest proportion of large households. In both countries, more than half of the respondents live in households with four people or more. While in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany, about half of the respondents live in single or two-person households. Irish households have significantly more children under the age of sixteen than all of the other countries. The Swedish sample had by far the highest percentage of women in the labour force. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 19

22 3 Food Consumption in Europe Apart from the fact that the proportion of income that is spent on food in Europe has declined in the past and continues to decline, while the per capita income in most countries has increased (Engel's law), there have also been qualitative changes in the food demand. An universally observed long-term trend in Europe is the increasing per capita consumption of food from animal sources. However, by the end of the eighties, this reversed for some animal products and in some countries. Another major trend is that more and more European consumers prefer processed and value-added food products as well as meals away from home (FURITSCH 1994, p. 70). This tendency corresponds to the general growing demand for "time saving" products. Food processors respond to consumer demands by providing many kinds of convenience and prepared foods. At the same time, there is a consumer segment which is characterised by strong preferences for either traditional or natural, unprocessed food. The growing demand for traditional food may reflect the need to maintain typical national or regional food cultures, which perhaps is part of a national or regional identity. In many cases, this trend is pushed by tourism. Tourists wish to try local specialities in the different parts of Europe. Further, growing health concerns and an increased orientation to quality leads to increased demand for natural and unprocessed food products. First, this section will present food consumption patterns and trends in the six countries analysed. Then, it will give a summary of different consumer segments and food cultures in Europe. Finally, the importance of consuming food away from home and food expenditures will be discussed. 3.1 Food Consumption Patterns and Trends During the last decade, food consumption patterns have changed in the countries analysed (except Sweden, since data for Sweden was not available from this source) as Table 5 indicates. While a clear trend towards more or less consumption of cereals and potatoes cannot be observed, the intake of sugar has decreased in all countries which are considered in Table 5, except Spain. In Germany and to a lesser degree in Italy, the consumption of fruit and vegetables was clearly higher in 1995 than ten years before. In Germany, meat consumption has decreased the most, but it has drastically increased in Spain. In all of the countries, egg consumption has decreased, while cheese consumption has increased. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 20

23 Table 5: Per Capita of Several Food Categories in 1985 and 1995 (in kg) Year Germany Ireland Italy Spain United Kingdom Cereals Potatoes Sugar Vegetables ) Fruit (without citrus) ) Meat ) Eggs ) ) 10.1 Cheese ) ) 7.7 1) ) 1990 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (1997) The question of whether factors such as increasing tourism, rising international trade and the thus increasing availability of food products have led to an 'internationalisation' of diet has been investigated by several researchers. Countries of northern and central Europe currently tend to adapt their food consumption to the Mediterranean diet evident by the greater consumption of vegetables, milk and milk products, and fish and by the decreased consumption of animal fats, meat and meat products and eggs. At the same time, the opposite trend can be seen in Mediterranean countries (FURITSCH 1994). WHEELOCK and FRANK (1989) have also come to the conclusion that dietary patterns converge in the advanced industrial countries. By comparing nine European countries, the authors show a growing similarity among these countries, both in total calories derived from animal sources as well as in their total share in the diet. CONNOR (1994) goes a step further by analysing the sources responsible for this convergence in food habits. He argues that one of the major forces to a great extent are the parallel trends in the global determinants of food demand such as household income, relative prices, demographic changes and consumer attitudes. Further, CONNOR maintains that food consumption in Europe is influenced by the consumption patterns of North America, such that the historical per capita food expenditure trends in Northern America can be Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 21

24 used to predict current and/or future trends in Western Europe, particularly at more aggregate levels. Multinational food companies and international trade are emerging as major instruments impelling the convergence of food-expenditure patterns. Thus current trends in food consumption in North America may indicate the future of consumption trends in Europe. BORRUD, ENNS and MICKLE (1996) summarise changes in food choices of North Americans using food consumption surveys conducted since the 1930's by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The authors identified the following major changes since the USDA survey: Americans are eating more grain products (e.g. pizza, lasagne, ready-to-eat cereals, popcorn). Consumption of mixtures that are mainly meat, poultry, or fish (e.g. hamburgers, frozen dinners, chilli con carne) has increased by 38 %. Consumption of separate cuts of beef and pork has decreased by about 50 %. Chicken eaten separately has slightly increased. Consumption of fish and shellfish eaten separately has decreased. Consumption of vegetables of all sources has increased slightly, while consumption of fruits has clearly increased. Americans consume less whole milk but more lower fat milk and milk desserts. Consumption of eggs has clearly decreased. Some of these trends can already be observed in European food consumption as shown in Table 5. Preceding on the assumption that American food trends are adopted by European Consumers, a further decrease in food products from animal sources can be expected. HERRMANN and RÖDER (1995) tested food consumption based on food nutrients (calories, fat, protein) in OECD countries in 1978 and 1988 to determine convergence or divergence by use of a loglinear model. They found that by aggregating across all food products, strong evidence can be shown that the relative differences in per capita calorie, protein and fat demand has declined as well as absolute differences in per capita calorie demand. However, such evidence is less obvious, when disaggregating into individual food products. Trends in food consumption patterns in Western Europe over the last two decades have been analysed by GIL, GRACIA and PÉREZ y PÉREZ (1995). In their study, they argue that a shift in diet within Mediterranean countries toward a continental diet structure is expected to continue together with increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and vegetable oil in Northern countries. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 22

25 In spite of these trends, the composition of the food basket is nonetheless different between the six countries analysed. Figure 8 illustrates the per capita consumption of seven food categories in 1994/95. Figure 8: Consumption of selected foods 1994/95 (Sweden 1992) kg per head and year fish meat & meat prod. cheese milk fruit&citrus vegetable potatoes Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom Source: European Commission (1997), Statistics Sweden (1994) and ZMP 1997 We can find a relatively high consumption of potatoes in Ireland (172 kg per person), which seems to be a result of tradition rather than low prices, since the consumer price of potatoes is relatively high in Ireland in comparison to the other countries as well as in comparison to prices of other food products in Ireland (see Table A4 of the Appendix). The consumption of potatoes is very low in Italy (41 kg per person), although the price of potatoes is comparatively low. Italian consumers traditionally prefer cereals to potatoes. Fruit and vegetable consumption is highest in the southern European countries of Spain and Italy. In contrast, it is very low in Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Cheese had a comparatively low per capita consumption in Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom (8.7 kg, 6.4 kg and 8.6 kg per person). Meat consumption is the highest per capita in Spain. Table A4 shows that the Spanish meat prices are by far the lowest when compared to the other countries. An analysis of national and cross-national consumer segments by BRUNSO, GRUNERT and BREDAHL (1996) shows different food cultures in Europe. The authors conducted a consumer survey in Great Britain, Germany, Denmark and France. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 23

26 The results suggest that most consumers in Great Britain take no particular interest in food and food products. Either they are completely uninvolved or only interested in new snack products or in cheap traditional products. In contrast, the segments with an interested, rational relationship to food constitute about one third of the British, French and Danish population while only 26 % of the German population belong to this segment. These consumers are defined as consumers who take a great interest in healthiness, freshness, ecology/naturalness of food and actively seek information about food products. Great Britain has most conservative consumers, as the study shows. These consumers are interested in predictability and tend to avoid change. The segment of the so-called adventurous consumers, who use food and cooking for self-fulfilment, expressing creativity and social purposes, constitute 12 % in Great Britain, 24 % in Germany, and 25 % in Denmark. The authors outline some implications for food marketers as related to the major segments they identified: Consumers, who are not very interested in food products, are characterised by a low degree of stability, low brand loyality and only a few perceive differences between various food products. Thus, for this segment, price differences are the only obvious possibility for product differentiation. In contrast, rational food consumers are relatively easy to inform about product improvements. Conservative consumers highly value tradition and show strong preferences for both food products and shops of purchase, which will be difficult to alter by marketing activities. Finally, adventurous food consumers need to be stimulated by creativity. For this segment, food products must incorporate ideas of self-fulfilment, creativity, and social togetherness. A study on European food cultures by ASKEGAARD and MADSEN (1995) shows that food cultures in Europe correspond to a great extent to national boundaries. A clustering of 79 European regions based on 138 food-related questions resulted in a 12-cluster solution. These clusters which represent different European food cultures include seven nation-states, and also five transnational regions. Among these clusters, the countries of this EU-report are represented: Sweden, Spain, Italy, the British Isles (Great Britain and Ireland) and the 'Germanic area' of Germany, Austria and the German speaking part of Switzerland. These food cultures were characterised by ASKEGAARD and MADSEN as follows: The Germanic cluster was identified as being very health conscious whereas 'fast-food meals' are not very popular. Health consciousness was shown by actual, as well as by intended behaviour. Further, the Germanic cluster expressed a willingness to adapt to a greater 'food-consciousness' in the future. In Spain, a healthy diet was shown to be already existing within the food culture, rather than being part of a new food consciousness. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 24

27 Italy was shown as a region with a food culture attaching great importance to sensory enjoyment. A tendency to more convenience-oriented consumption patterns was also shown to be relatively weak. The British Isles were indicated as having a great fondness of sweets and pastries as well as for instant products. There were no variables indicating a distinct food culture. As for Sweden, there was shown to be a tendency to preferring heavier meals. Here the sensory enjoyment of eating was stressed, while showing little preference for natural products. 3.2 Food Away From Home As one might expect, the share of income spent on food purchased for household preparation has steadily declined, whereas the share spent on food away from home has increased. Reasons for the growing importance of food prepared outside the home have been summarised for consumers in the United States in several recent studies. Often, identified factors are rising incomes, increased participation of women in labour force, changes in household demographics, and changes in lifestyle. JENSEN and YEN (1995) analysed the consumption of food away from home using a double-hurdle model (an econometric model that accommodates zero observation in the sample). They found that the employment of women had a positive effect on the level of lunch consumption away from home, however this was not the case for other types of meals. The effects of changing incomes are shown to be both significant and positive. Income shares spent on food away from home cannot be compared exclusively for the six countries in our analysis due to the different methods of calculation used in the reporting of national statistics. For example, household expenditures in Germany usually are computed for three different types of households so that it is not possible to derive average data for the total of all German households. Interpretations and comparisons of national statistical data therefore have to be handled carefully. The data shown in Table 6 is partly contradictory to the suppositions made in Section 2.7. For example, Sweden has the highest share of women in the labour force. A fact which could lead to the assumption that the consumption of food away from home is comparatively high. Data on food expenditure, however, does not support this hypothesis, as households on the average spend only about 3 % of their disposable income on meals away from home. This share is shown to be much higher in Spain and Italy. One reason may be that in the southern European countries as Spain and Italy, the share of food expenditure is already high. Another may be a result of the cultural differences in taking meals outside the home among each of the six countries. The link Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 25

28 between household size and women in the labour force on one side, and income spent on processed foods and food away from home on the other, is probably stronger within a single country than within a cross-country comparison. Table 6: Expenditures on Food Away From Home as a Share of Total Household Expenditure, (Italy: 1993, Sweden: 1992, Spain: 1990/91) Germany (4-person households of wage earners and salaried employees with medium income) Expenditures on Food Away From Home (% of Total Expenditure) 3.40 Italy 4.45 Ireland 2.70 Spain 4.35 (restaurants), 5.67 (bars, coffee houses, pubs etc.), 0.6 (Others) Sweden 3.04 United Kingdom ) The Swedish expenditures on food are not based on total household expenditures but on disposable household income! Source: STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT (1995), Germany, NATIONAL FOOD SURVEY, United Kingdom, HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEY and NATIONAL ACCOUNTS, CSO, Ireland, STATISTICS SWEDEN (1994), INSTITUTO NACIONAL ESTADISTICA (1992), Spain, ISTAT, Italy 3.3 Food Expenditure Engel's law may be analysed either with time-series or cross-sectional data. Figure 9 compares the data of the six countries. The left axis represents the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita measured in ECU as an approximate value for household income. The right axis shows the proportion of income spent on food. Accordingly, we can see that Spain, as the country with the lowest GDP per capita, has the highest food expenditure share, while Germany, the country with the highest GDP per capita, has the lowest proportion food expenditure (together with the United Kingdom). The situation of the other countries is not quite as clear. For the most part, the pattern of food expenditures in the United Kingdom does not fit Engel's law, in so far as, in spite of a rather low GDP per capita the share of income spent on food is lower than in the countries with a higher GDP. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 26

29 Figure 9: Gross Domestic Product per Capita 1995 (in ECU) and Share of Household Income Spent on Food without Beverages (1994) GDP per capita (in ECU) food expenditure (in %) Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom 0 GDP per head food expenditure 1) Spain: 1993 Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (1997), European Commission (1997) Such may indicate that the share of income spent on food is not only dependent on the household income (using the gross domestic product per capita as an approximation), but also on the level of food prices, consumer preferences, cultural differences, etc. When we take a closer look at food expenditure in these six countries, we find quite different patterns. Spain is characterised by a very high share of income spent on food (28 %). In the United Kingdom and in Germany, the expenditure on food is lower, about only 11 % of total household expenditure. Swedish, Italian and Irish consumers spend about % of their household income on food. 3.4 Food Consumption in Europe a Summary According to the findings of previous studies, the following trends in food consumption are likely to continue over the next years: decreasing per capita consumption of food products from animal sources, convergence of continental and Mediterranean diet, influences on European food consumption patterns by North-American food consumption, and increasing consumption of food away from home and ready to serve meals. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 27

30 4 Meat Consumption in Europe 4.1 Consumption of Meat and Meat Products The consumption of total meat and meat products has developed in different directions among the six analysed EU-countries between 1987 and 1996 (see Figure 10). The most striking aspect is that in the United Kingdom, meat consumption has declined over the last few years, although it was already at a very low level. An even lower level of meat consumption can be observed in Sweden, although it has clearly increased from 1991 to The levels of all other countries range more or less at the EU-average. For the most part, a constantly rising meat consumption can be only found in Spain, while consumers in Germany and in recent years in Ireland have decreased their total meat consumption (carcass weight basis). Figure 10: Per Capita Consumption of Total Meat, (Sweden from 1991) kg per head Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Source: ZMP, various yearbooks Figure 11 illustrates the relative importance of different kinds of meat in each of the six countries. The average per capita consumption of beef and veal is not noticeably different between the six countries. However, we can find large differences concerning pork consumption. While Spain and Germany have the highest consumption of 55 kg per year, only half of this amount (ca. 25 kg) is consumed in the United Kingdom. Poultry consumption also differs greatly between the countries. On the one hand, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Italy are characterised by having a poultry consumption of more than 20 kg per year. On the other hand, poultry consumption is only 8 kg in Sweden and Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 28

31 ca. 13 kg in Germany. Mutton, lamb and goat is nearly insignificant in terms of overall consumption in Sweden, Italy and Germany. Figure 11: Per Capita Consumption of Different Meats in kg per Year (1996, Poultry: 1995) kg mutton, lamb, goat poultry pork beef & veal 0 Germany Ireland Italy Spain Sweden United Kingdom Source: ZMP 1997, Statistisches Bundesamt (1997) 4.2 The Development of Consumption of Pork, Beef and Veal, Lamb and Poultry The trend in the consumption of total meat is actually the result of an increasing or decreasing consumption of the various types of meat. When we look at the pork consumption in Figure 12 we can see that the quantities for Germany and Spain converge. In 1987, Germany was characterised by having a very high level of pork consumption but since the beginning of the nineties it has decreased to 55 kg as a consequence of growing health concerns. While it is true that fish and poultry have been substituted for pork, yet at a slower rate so that pork consumption remains at a high level. During the same period, pork consumption in Spain has increased from only 39 kg to 55 kg, which entails a very high consumption of total meat (see Figure 10). In Sweden, Ireland and Italy we can find a similar situation in that the consumption of meat in all three countries is slightly increasing. In contrast, the United Kingdom has the lowest per capita consumption of pork, which until 1995 only slightly declined. Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat 29