Discussion Paper Series

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD ECONOMICS Discussion Paper Series Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability along the Beef Chain by Mary McCarthy & Jennifer Barton Agribusiness Discussion Paper No. 21 April 1998 Department of Food Economics University College, Cork Ireland

2 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 1 CONTENTS ABSTRACT...2 SUMMARY...3 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE IRISH MEAT MARKET THE IRISH MEAT MARKET OTHER FOOD SAFETY ISSUES...8 2: OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY...9 3: MEAT CONSUMPTION AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR MEAT CONSUMPTION IN IRELAND;...11 Consumption of Beef...12 Consumption of Chicken...13 Consumption of Lamb...13 Consumption of Pork and Bacon CONSUMER CONCERNS ABOUT MEAT...13 BSE and behavioural change LEVEL OF RISK ASSOCIATED WITH CONCERN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS, CONCERNS AND SAFETY ISSUES BEEF CONSUMPTION BY CUT...17 Steak...17 Minced beef...19 Roasting joints...20 Stewing joints...21 Burgers...22 Meat pies & ready meals...23 Offal products RISK PERCEPTION AND MEAT CUTS CONCLUSION : CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TRACEABILITY GENERAL FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO TRACEABILITY...26 BSE and traceability...27 Traceability and knowledge of traceability...28 Reasons why traceability would not alleviate consumer concerns QUALITY ASSURED BEEF AND TRACEABILITY OTHER FINDINGS...32 Purchase Location & influences on choice of location...32 Price and traceability...34 Sources of information...34 Implementation of a traceability programme CONCLUSION : CONCLUSIONS...38 REFERENCES...42

3 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 2 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability along the Beef Chain 1 Mary McCarthy & Jennifer Barton Department of Food Economics University College Cork Abstract This paper reports on the findings of a survey of consumer perception and beef consumption patterns in 800 Irish households, completed in July The study finds only 6% of the sample do not eat meat and a negligible number have ceased eating meat due to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) scare. However, 16% of the sample eat meat but not beef and just over half (53%) of these respondents claim to have ceased eating beef due to the BSE scare. Considerably more claim to have altered their pattern of beef consumption by reducing the intake of specific cuts. A significant relationship exists between concern over BSE and the frequency of beef consumption. Respondents associated different levels of risk with different cuts of beef. These levels of risk generally declined when consumers were asked about the levels of risk associated with their regular purchase location. This finding emphasises the influence of trust on the purchase decision. The paper also examines consumers understanding of and demand for, a traceability programme. Eighty two percent of respondents believed that a traceability system would allay their concerns while over 50% stated they were willing to pay 1-10% extra for it. Forty one percent of respondents stated a preference for quality assured beef over traceability but the research found a significant association between preference for traceability and concern about BSE. This suggests that those who are still concerned about BSE lack confidence in systems that are in place. 1 1 This research was funded by the Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin under the food industry sub- programme of the EU Structural Funds

4 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 3 Summary This paper reports on the findings of a survey of consumer perception and beef consumption patterns in 800 Irish households, completed in July Results were as follows: 1. Ninety four percent of respondents ate meat. 2. Eighty four percent of respondents who ate meat ate beef. 3. Forty three percent of respondents stated that they had concerns in relation to meat. 4. Of those who expressed concern, BSE was the predominant concern (81%). 5. Growth hormones, antibiotic residues and salmonella were also mentioned. 6. The increased frequency of chicken consumption was linked to concern over BSE, i.e. those concerned about BSE tended to consume chicken more frequently. 7. Frequency of consumption of lamb is also positively linked with concern over BSE. 8. Of those that do not eat beef, 54% stated that they had ceased eating beef as a result of the BSE scare. About 9% of those who eat meat claim to have ceased eating beef as a result of the scare. 9. A significant relationship exists between concern and resulting behaviour arising from the BSE scare. 10. Three distinct consumer segments were identified; Those consciously concerned about BSE, Those sub-consciously concerned about BSE, Those that are unconcerned about BSE. 11. A strong negative association exists between concern over BSE and the

5 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 4 frequency of beef consumption. 12. Concern about BSE was not related to social class, education level or marital status. 13. Risk perception between beef cuts varied. The perceived risk associated with bulk 2 products was higher than that associated with other cuts of beef. 14. Risk perception of specific beef cuts and the resulting changes in behaviour were positively linked. 15. The analysis showed a relationship between perceived risk and place of purchase. 16. A paired sample t-test indicated that consumers perceived risk for minced beef available on the market in general is higher than that for mince from their regular place of purchase. There were similar findings for other cuts. 17. Fifty five of respondents could not provide a definition for traceability (A broad definition was provided for all respondents). 18. Eighty two percent of respondents that eat beef or ate beef pre-bse believed that traceability would alleviate their concerns in relation to beef: 31% of these respondents stated that the system should trace beef from birth to final point of sale, 21% of these respondents stated that the system required strict control, checks and testing. 19. Fifty two percent of respondents who ate beef pre-bse said they were willing to pay between 1-10% more for beef that was part of a traceability programme. 20. Television was the primary source of information on BSE for 82% of respondents. 21. Slightly over 50% of respondents would trust state bodies to implement a 2 For example: mince, stewing joints and offal

6 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 5 traceability programme. 22. No relationship exists between concern over BSE and the body trusted to implement a traceability programme.

7 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 6 1 Introduction and overview of the Irish Meat Market This section examines meat consumption trends in Ireland with particular emphasis on the beef sector, in the wake of the 1996 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Food safety and other motivating factors influencing consumers meat buying behaviour are also examined. 1.1 The Irish Meat Market The total meat market in the Irish Republic is worth over 1 billion. Meat for household consumption accounts for approximately 82% of this, while hotels, restaurants and pubs account for about 15%, and institutions account for about 3%. In 1996, the average household in Ireland spent between and per week on meat. Table 1.1.1: Annual Meat Consumption in Ireland (kg per head) Beef and veal Sheep meat Pig meat Poultry meat Total Source: CSO Ireland Meat Balance, 1996 Table above, shows how this expenditure translates into per capita consumption for all meats. In the years 1992 to 1996 average per capita consumption of all meats rose from 85.4 kg to 88.7 kg. The increase in poultry meat consumption, from 23.5 kg to 31 kg, was offset by falling consumption of beef and veal and mutton and lamb. In 1996 beef accounted for 14 percent of total meat consumption, compared to 20 percent four years earlier. Poultry meat s share was 35 percent in 1996 compared to 27.5 percent in These figures do not reflect the growing vegetarian segment in Ireland. There are no official figures for vegetarians in the Republic of Ireland, so the UK figures are taken as an indication of Irish trends. The number of

8 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 7 vegetarians in the UK more than doubled over the last decade. UK statistics show that vegetarians accounted for 2.1% of the population in 1984 compared with 4.5 percent of the population in It is also suggested (Food Ireland, 1996), that those avoiding red meat over the same period rose dramatically from 1.9% to 7.3%. Beef and Veal: Beef and veal consumption in Ireland has been decreasing since the mid - eighties, with per capita consumption falling by an average of one per cent each year. This trend is mirrored across Europe, with a move away from red meat consumption in favour of white meats, particularly chicken. For example in the UK, it is currently estimated that four out of every ten people are reducing red meat consumption (Food Ireland, 1996). Price relativity 3 between the two types of meat and health concerns 4 are two of the main reasons cited for this trend. The announcement in the British House of Commons, stating the possible link between BSE and the human equivalent Creutzfeld Jakob Disease (CJD), had massive repercussions for the beef industry world-wide. To date, it is not clear whether the BSE scare will accelerate the decline of beef consumption across Europe. However, the Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO) estimate that beef consumption in Ireland fell by 13% in 1996, although the overall decrease in meat consumption was only 1.3%. Lamb has been the main beneficiary of the BSE crisis in Ireland with retail prices higher than before, due to the increased consumer demand. In a commentary on the trade, An Bord Bia reported that whole leg prices for lamb were over 8% higher at 2.55/lb in 1996 with this increase continuing into 1997(An Bord Bia, 1997). Pork has also benefited from the consumer switch away from beef in the immediate aftermath of the BSE crisis. Prices for pork loin chops (An Bord Bia, 1997) were almost 9% higher in 1996 when compared with The consumption of poultry also increased by almost 6% over the 1995/1996 period (An Bord Bia, 1996). 3 Considerably lower retail prices per kg for chicken than for beef, favour chicken consumption. 4 White meat is perceived to be lower in fat and cholesterol than red meat.

9 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 8 BSE has affected the beef export trade. This is due to the continuing strong preference in major EU markets for domestically produced beef 5. Yet despite prices declining by 15 per cent, the volume of commercial beef exports, at 425,000 tonnes carcass weight equivalent (cwe) in 1996 decreased only 3 per cent compared with 1995 (An Bord Bia, 1996). It is difficult to estimate how long it will take the Beef sector, both domestically and internationally, to recover fully from the BSE crisis. While the EU Commission (European Commission, DG VI, 1997) forecasts a strong recovery in beef consumption to the year 2000, the Meat and Livestock Commission is more cautious in its outlook. It predicts that a recovery may be possible to 1998 but thereafter it could diminish (MLC, 1997). In order to maintain present consumption levels, Irish beef must be marketed effectively to regain consumer confidence. The current negative image of beef among Irish consumers dates back not only to the height of the BSE scare but to the times of the beef tribunal and the growth hormones scandals. As early as 1991, a report on Irish dietary concerns (O Neill and Shanahan, 1991) stated that any particular concern, no matter how insignificant it may be, will be perceived to be more threatening in the context of beef than of dairying. In view of this, educating the consumer in matters relating to food safety is important. 1.2 Other Food Safety Issues In a marketing context, the mental states of consumers are not relevant per se: it is the behaviour that counts, what they purchase or don t purchase. (O Neill and Shanahan, 1991, p.17) The impact of food safety concerns on consumer purchasing behaviour is by no means a new phenomenon. However, new risks such as BSE and E-coli 5 Trade reports suggest that beef consumption decreased (as a result of the BSE crisis) by nearly 40% in both France and Germany, thereby solving their domestic supply imbalance.

10 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability , have forced a redirection of the Irish food industry. As a result food businesses have no alternative but to be driven by food safety if they want to compete. Research into food safety in the UK by Goode et al (1995), and in the US by Shaefer et al (1993) demonstrates that consumers are concerned about the safety of the food supply chain and want more information made available in order to make the correct food choice. Many of them found it impossible to get accurate or reliable information on methods of production, even when it was actively sought, for example from a regularly patronised family butcher. (Goode et al, 1995, p. 9) Research in Ireland (O Neill and Shanahan, 1991) also suggests that consumers knew very little about food and agricultural technology. It seems many of them expressed a favourable attitude to what was natural. In contrast they were antagonistic to what was seen as chemical intervention in food production and processing. 2 Objectives and Methodology Objectives The objectives of this research were to establish consumer attitudes to and requirements for a traceability programme and to identify consumer willingness to pay for such a programme. The study was designed to: acquire in-depth knowledge of consumer concerns and resulting consumer responses, identify the risk perception associated with specific cuts of beef, evaluate variations in risk perception at cut and purchase location level, analyse variations in responses to the BSE scare across socio-economic groupings, assess the sources of information used by consumers. 6 E-coli 0157 (commonly found in raw beef) is a harmful food poisoning bacteria to humans.

11 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 10 Methodology A survey methodology was employed. Eight hundred questionnaires, across twelve counties, were completed. A stratified random sample was selected on this basis within these counties. The interview technique employed was door-to door personal interview. This technique was chosen because of the length of the questionnaire and the time constraints of the study. The interviews were conducted during July 1997, one year and three months after the British Government announced a possible link between BSE in animals and nvcjd in humans. Each questionnaire took about 30 minutes to complete. Seven hundred and ninety two valid questionnaires were returned and analysed using the SPSS analytical computer package. Inferential statistical procedures were used in the analysis to determine the relationships between concerns, attitudes and resulting behavioural changes. The questionnaire focused on the following issues: - meat consumption frequency and consumer concerns; the frequency of consumption and behavioural changes associated with different cuts of beef; how consumer responses to the BSE scare and their perception of risk varied by beef cut; how purchase location and other factors influenced purchase decisions; traceability, including: - consumer understanding of and demand for traceability; consumer preference for traceability, quality assurance, price or purchase location; the organisations or bodies most preferred by consumers to implement a traceability programme; sources of information on the BSE scare; demographic factors affecting beef consumption.

12 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 11 In this paper, discussion focuses on the issues relating to: - consumer consumption trends; attitude to, and requirement for, traceability; source of information about the BSE scare and resulting changes in consumer behaviour. The pilot survey indicated that a significant percentage of the population had no understanding of the term traceability. Therefore during the main survey the respondent was first asked to define their understanding of traceability. Fifty-five per cent of meat eaters could not give a definition of traceability. 3 Meat consumption and consumer behaviour The main focus of this section is consumption by beef cut. The primary cuts are examined in relation to: - 1. frequency of beef consumption by cut 2. consumers perceived risk from beef cuts on the general market 3.consumers perceived risk from beef cuts at their usual place of purchase 3.1 Meat Consumption in Ireland Ninety four percent of the sample consume meat and meat products. Table gives the reasons why these individuals do not eat meat. Fifty three percent of those not eating meat had made a conscious decision to become vegetarian. Taste, BSE and hormones were also mentioned. Table Main Reasons for not Eating Meat Frequency Percent (n=47) Vegetarian Taste High cholesterol BSE Hormones Other

13 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 12 Respondents that eat meat were asked how often they ate beef, chicken, lamb or mutton and pork or bacon. This information gives an indication of the range of meat products eaten. Table provides details on the frequency of consumption by meat type. Table Frequency of Meat Consumption in Ireland, by type Frequency of meat consumption Beef. % Chicken % Pork & bacon % Lamb % (n=745) (n=745) (n=745) (n=745) Never Once a month or less Once a fortnight or less Once a week Twice a week Twice a week Consumption of Beef Eighty four per cent of those who ate meat ate beef, while 34% of the sample ate beef more than once a week. As the primary interest of this report is to establish the impact of the BSE/CJD scare on consumer purchase behaviour, information was sought from the 16% who did not eat beef. The results are shown in table The primary reason cited for not eating beef was the BSE scare with over 50% stating this as the case (i.e. almost 9% of those who eat meat claim to have ceased eating beef as a result of the BSE scare). Table Reasons for not Eating Beef Reason for not eating beef No. % (n=116) Taste Cholesterol 10 9 BSE Other Considerably more claimed to have altered their consumption by reducing their intake of specific beef cuts. There was a significant relationship between concern over BSE and the frequency of beef consumption. People who expressed concern about BSE tended to be less frequent consumers of beef, than those who were not concerned.

14 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 13 Consumption of Chicken Chicken is the most popular meat. Of those who ate meat, 99% ate chicken and 63% ate chicken more than once a week while only 7% ate chicken less than once a week. It appears that chicken was one of the main benefactors of the reduction in beef consumption. A strong correlation exists between frequency of chicken consumption and concern over BSE 7 with a significant number of those who expressed concern over BSE consuming chicken twice to three times a week. Consumption of Lamb Twenty three percent of the sample did not eat lamb or mutton and approximately 16% ate lamb or mutton more than once a week. Lamb also appeared to have gained as a result of the BSE scare. There was a weak correlation between concern over BSE and frequency of lamb consumption. Frequency of consumption of lamb was also positively linked with socioeconomic status with the higher socio-economic groupings tending to consume lamb or mutton more often. Consumption of Pork and Bacon Almost eleven percent of those who stated that they eat meat do not eat pork or bacon while 68% eat pork or bacon once a week or more. There was no correlation between concern over BSE and frequency of consumption of pork or bacon. Frequency of consumption of pork was not related to household size or household income. 3.2 Consumer concerns about meat In response to the question do you have any concerns in relation to meat, almost 57% of meat consumers stated that they had no concerns in relation to meat. Of the 43% who expressed concern in relation to meat, the predominant concern was BSE (81%). The other concerns included growth

15 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 14 hormones (17%), antibiotic residues (16.5%), salmonella (8%) and other (17%) 8. BSE and behavioural change 9 Clearly, the BSE scare was still on the minds of many consumers, with over 35% of the total sample expressing concern. An important point for consideration is the resulting behaviour change associated with this concern. A significant relationship exists between concern and resulting behaviour arising from the BSE scare 10. Of those expressing concern in relation to BSE, 11% did not alter their eating habits in comparison with 64% of those expressing no concern (see table below); Table Behavioural Change as a Result of BSE How has BSE altered Consumption? BSE : concern (n=231) no concerns (n=455) Initially reduced but now back to normal (15%) (13%) Reduced intake and eating less (35%) (13%) Stopped eating certain cuts (16)% (8%) No longer eat beef (24%) (2%) Did not alter consumption (11%) 64%) (p-value <.001) It is clear from this that the BSE scare has resulted in medium term changes in the eating habits of a significant percentage of the population. Interestingly, another 15% of the sample initially expressed no concern in relation to BSE but on further questioning (prior to the introduction of questions specifically related to BSE) stated that they had reduced their intake of specific cuts of beef as a result of the BSE scare and are now unconcerned. Table below displays the changes that this segment made when compared with those other respondents with no concerns. This analysis shows three distinct consumer segments: Those that are consciously concerned about BSE. 7 x²=29.6, df 10, p-value = Responses on concerns do not add to 100% as multiple responses were given 9 This study was completed a year and three months after the March 96 announcement on BSE 10 x² = , df = 4, p-value.<.001

16 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 15 Those that were concerned about BSE and who consequently changed their consumption behaviour and now claim to be unconcerned. From now on these will be referred to as sub-consciously concerned. Those that are unconcerned about BSE. Table Behavioural Change and Sub-conscious Concern about BSE How has BSE altered Consumption? No Concern Change due to BSE (n=352) (n=103) Initially reduced but now back to normal (10%) (19%) Reduced intake and eating less (5%) (43%) Stopped eating certain cuts (2%) (29%) No longer eat beef (2%) (0%) Did not alter consumption ( 81%) (9%) (p-value<.001) BSE and frequency of consumption A strong association exists between concern over BSE and the frequency of beef consumption. Those that have expressed specific concerns about beef but are still eating it tend to do so less frequently than those without concerns. A chi-square analysis indicates a significant relationship between conscious concern and frequency of consumption. Forty four percent of respondents with concerns claim to eat beef once a fortnight or less while only 15% of respondents with no concerns fall into the same category. Table Concern and Frequency of Consumption Frequency of beef consumption and concern concern sub-conscious concern (n=236) (n=104) Never 26% 0% 0 11 Once a month or less 11% 8% 7% Once a fortnight or less 7% 12% 8% Once a week 29% 42% 40% no concern (n=306) respondents do not eat beef due to personal preferences as stated earlier and it is assumed that they were not consumers of beef prior to the BSE scare

17 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 16 Twice a week 21% 25% 26% More than twice a week 7% 14% 18% (p-value <.001) 3.3 Level of risk associated with concern Concern about a product may not necessarily result in a change in eating habits. Of those that expressed concern about BSE, 25% perceived the risk to be high while 41% and 33% believed it to moderate and low respectively. The degree of perceived risk associated with the concern should give a clearer view of the resulting change in consumption behaviour. Respondents that had expressed concern about BSE but had not stopped eating beef were asked what level of risk they associated with BSE. Eight percent of this category believed the risk to be high whilst 38% and 54% perceived the risk as moderate and low respectively. Table Risk Perception and Behavioural Change Risk associated with BSE & resulting change in eating habit 12 No change Back normal to Eating less Stopped eating certain cuts (n=32) (n=24) (n=34) (n=76) High (n=43) 8% 20% 27% 31% Moderate (n=69) 38% 36% 38% 56% Low (n=55) 54% 44% 34% 23% ( p-value=.028) A chi-squared test shows that a significant relationship exists between perceived level of risk and response (respondents who had stopped eating beef as a result of the BSE scare were not included in this analysis). Those who perceive the risk to be low are less likely to dramatically change their eating habits than those who perceived it to be higher. 3.4 Demographic factors, concerns and safety issues Concern about BSE is not related to social class, education level or martial status but associations exist between concern and age category and also family size. Twenty two percent of respondents under the age of 25 were 12 This table displays the level of concern and resulting behavioural change of the respondents that mentioned BSE as a concern

18 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 17 concerned about BSE while 40% of those between the age of 45 to 54 expressed concerns about it. Table shows the levels of concern. Table 3.4.1: Concern about BSE across Age Categories Concern vs age Under 25 (n=129) (n=170) (n=209) (n=166) (n=76) 65+ (n=41) concern 22% 31% 29% 40% 26% 20% Subconscious 15% 12% 17% 10% 13% 2% concern no concern 63% 57% 54% 49% 61% 78% (p-value <.008) Household size influenced the frequency of cuts consumed. An association exists between frequency of consumption of burgers, mince, steak and roasting joint and household size. One would expect this association when considering roasting joints, since it is more economically efficient for a large family to purchase roast, but possibly not for steak. Thirty six percent of onemember households do not eat steak in comparison with 8% of two person households. Forty percent of one-person households do not eat minced beef when compared with 66% of two-person households. In general the larger the household size the less likely it is to have given up consuming beef products. This reflects the individual preferences within the household. There is no relationship between frequency of consumption of offal products or stewing joints and household size. 3.5 Beef consumption by cut The levels of consumption of different cuts and the change in eating habits over the last 2 years were examined. The cuts included were: steak, minced beef (including minced steak), stewing joints, meat pies and ready meals, burgers, roasting joints and offal products. Steak Of those who ate beef 12% did not eat steak and 4% had ceased eating steak in the last two years. Eighty eight percent of those eating beef ate steak and almost sixty percent consumed steak once a week or more. Some

19 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 18 35% of these had reduced their intake, 59% made no change and 4% increased their intake as shown in table Table Concern and Change in Consumption for Steak Change in consumption for steak and level of concern about BSE 13 concern sub-conscious concern (n=101) no concern (n=169) (n=287) Increase 4 (2%) 1 (1%) 15(5%) Decrease 107(66%) 61(62%) 35(12%) No change 58(32%) 39(37%) 237(83%) (p-value <.001) There is a significant relationship between concerns expressed about BSE and change in purchase behaviour for steak. A significant number of those concerned with BSE reduced their intake of steak. Table demonstrates the change in consumer behaviour with the level of risk perception; Table Risk Perception of Steak and Resulting Behaviour General risk perception vs behavioural change Increase (n=20) Decrease (n=199) No change (n=317) High 1 (5%) 23(11%) 10(3%) Moderate 3 (15%) 67(33%) 64(20%) Low 10 (50%) 93(46%) 158(50 No 6 (30%) 16(8%) 85(27) (p-value <.001) Of those that made no change in their eating habits 23% believed that the risk from steak was either high or moderate. When one examines the risk perception associated with consumers usual place of purchase only 8% of this category (no change) believed steak to have a high or moderate risk. Of the 74 respondents that believed steak to have a high or moderate level of risk in general and did not change their eating habits, none believed it to be high risk at their place of purchase. The corresponding results for moderate risk, low risk and no risk are 27%, 44% and 27% respectively. A paired sample t-test indicates that the perceived risk from steak available on the market in general is higher than steak from the regular place of purchase (t=13.66). purchase their steak. This reflects consumer confidence in the place where they relationship to concerns with BSE. The frequency of steak consumption bears little 13 Not including those who did not eat steak pre-jan (Note for all further risk analysis and behavioural change analysis, respondents who did not eat the specific cut prior to January 96 are not included)

20 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 19 Minced beef Sixty four percent of beef eaters consumed processed mince or minced steak. Eleven percent of beef eaters have ceased eating mince as a result of the BSE scare while 38% have reduced their intake of processed mince for the same reason. Consumption of mince has been adversely affected as a result of the scare due to the level of perceived risk. Analysis of behaviour resulting from consumer risk perception in table shows that, of those expressing high risk sixty five percent have reduced their consumption of processed mince, with 43% of those expressing moderate risk and 26% of those in the low risk category reducing their intake. Table Risk Perception of Mince and Resulting Behaviour General risk perception vs behavioural change High (n= 78) Moderate (n= 97) Low (n=91) No (n=51) Increase 4(5%) 3(3%) 6(7%) 2(4%) Decrease 51(65%) 42(43%) 24(26%) 4(8%) No Change 23(30%) 52(54%) 61(67%) 45(88%) (p-value <.001) Place of purchase is important in consumption decision. Respondents were asked their perception of risk at place of purchase. The respondents that attributed high or moderate risk to minced beef and did not change their purchase behaviour believed that the risk from minced beef at their place of purchase was lower than from that purchased elsewhere. Only 3% and 14% of this category believed minced beef had a high or moderate risk at their usual place of purchase. Fifty nine percent of respondents that did not change their eating behaviour and believed minced beef to have a high or moderate risk in general did not believe this to be the case for their place of purchase. A paired sample t-test indicates that the perceived risk from minced beef available on the market in general is higher than minced beef from the consumers regular place of purchase (t=16.73). Consumer risk perception from minced beef was higher than from steak or roast and the resulting change in eating frequency was also higher. 14 The data included here is only for those that consumed processed mince and does not include those who did not eat mince prior to January 96.

21 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 20 A significant relationship exists between the frequency of consumption of processed mince and concern over BSE. Table Risk Perception of Mince and Frequency of Consumption Frequency of consumption of mince vs concern over BSE concern (n=83) sub-conscious (n=55) no concern (n=188) Never (37%) 15 (27%) 14(7%) Once a month or less 6 (7%) 5 (9%) 29(15%) Once a fortnight or less 11 (13%) 9 (16% 32(17%) Once a week or more 35 (42%) 26 (47%) 113(60%) (p-value <.001) Roasting joints Of those who consume beef, 76% eat roasting joints. Twenty five per cent of those respondents who ate roasting joints reduced their intake of roast following the BSE scare. Again, a significant proportion of those who had expressed concern over BSE tended to change their eating patterns. This is illustrated by the fact that 47% of those concerned about BSE claimed to have reduced their intake of roasting joints while only 9% of those with no concerns did so. Table shows the changes in behaviour and level of concern. Table Concern and change in consumption Behavioural Change for Roasting Joints and Concern about BSE concern sub-conscious concern no concern (n=137) (n=90) (n=242) Increase 1(7%) 2(2%) 8(3%) Decrease 64(47%) 30(33%) 23(9%) No Change 72 (52) 58(64%) 211(88%) (p-value <.001) The general level of concern in relation to roasting joints is relatively low when one examines the frequency of use. Family size is a strong influence on frequency of consumption of roasting joints. Consumers risk perception and their resulting response are closely linked. Those who attributed high risk to roasting joints at their usual place of 15 Excluding those who did not eat mince prior to January 96.

22 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 21 purchase tend to have decreased their beef intake. Table displays the changes in behaviour based on level of risk perceived. Table Behavioural Change for Roasting Joints and Risk Perception at Place of Purchase Risk at place of purchase and behavioural change High risk (n=8) Moderate risk (n=56) Low risk (n=205) No risk (n=181) Increase (0)0% (0)0% (6)3% (5)3% Decrease (5)63 % (27)48% (58)28% (21)12% No change (3)37% (29)52% (141)69% (155)86% (p-value < ) Stewing joints Of those who consumed beef, 41% ate stewing joints. Seventeen percent of this group ate stewing joints once a week or more. Of the respondents who expressed concern over BSE, 68% did not eat stewing joints while 54% of those with no concerns did not eat stewing joints. It appears that 89% of respondents who do not eat stewing joints did not do so even before the BSE scare. The associations between concern and behaviour among those respondents that consume stewing joints or have ceased to do so during the last two years are shown in table Table Concern and behavioural change Behavioural Change for Stewing Joints and Concern about BSE concern sub-conscious concern (n=48) 17 no concern (n=68) (n=133+5) Decrease (42) 62% (21)44% (14)10% No change (26) 38% (27)56% (119)86% Sixty two percent of respondents that expressed concern over BSE reduced their intake of stewing joints while only 10% of those with no concerns reacted in the same manner. A link exists between concern over BSE and frequency of consumption of stewing joints 18. Twenty six per cent of those with concerns about BSE 16 The relationship is between concern and decrease and no change (p-value <.001).

23 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 22 ceased eating stewing joints, while only 2% of those with no concerns did so. Seventy per cent of respondents with no concerns eat stewing joints once a fortnight or more in comparison to 50% of those who have concerns. The level of perceived risk and change in consumption were related. Sixty three percent of those who attributed high risk to stewing joints decreased their intake while only 2% of those who attributed no risk responded in the same manner. This is illustrated in table Of those who attributed high or moderate risk to stewing joints in the general market and made no change, some 50% believed the risk to be lower in their place of purchase. A similar pattern was apparent for those who attributed moderate risk to stewing joints generally available in the market place. Table Risk Perception of Stewing Joints and Resulting Behaviour Risk and High risk Moderate Low risk No risk behavioural change (n=32) (n=73) (n=92) (n=42) Decrease 20(63%) 30(41%) 22(24%) 1(2%) No change 12(37%) 43(59%) 70(76%) 41(98%) (p-value<.001) The increased confidence in place of purchase is apparent across all beef cuts with consumers attaching lower levels of risk to products from their usual place of purchase. An evaluation of specific attributes and store performance is discussed later in this report. Burgers Thirty nine per cent of the sample that consumed beef, ate burgers. The analysis in this section relates to those consumers who eat burgers or have done so some time in the past two years. Twenty one percent of these respondents have ceased eating burgers while a total of 44% claimed to have decreased their intake (including those who ceased). Seventy eight per cent of those who expressed concern over BSE have reduced their intake of burgers while only 11% of those who had no concerns decreased their intake. Table indicates the change in behaviour and concern about BSE; Table Concern over BSE and Behavioural Change for Burgers Change in 17 4% (5 ) of the respondents with no concerns increased their consumption of stewing joints. 18 x²=33.81, df=6, p-value<.001.

24 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 23 consumption and concern about BSE concern sub-conscious concern (n=61) no concern (n=80) (n=153) Increase 1(1) 0(0%) 8(5%) Decrease 62(78%) 51(84%) 17(11%) No change 17(21%) 10(16%) 128(83%) (p-value <.001) A significant relationship exists between level of perceived risk and frequency of consumption. Fifty nine percent of those with no concerns in relation to BSE eat burgers once a week or more, while 41% of those with concerns no longer eat burgers. The level of perceived risk is also closely associated with changing behaviour. Sixty seven percent of those that attributed high risk to burgers decreased their intake. The risk perception for burgers also varied between the general market and the location where consumers made their purchase. Meat pies & ready meals Ninety per cent of the sample did not eat meat pies. Five percent of the respondents claimed to have ceased eating meat pies in the last two years. Of those that did eat meat pies 36% ate them once a month or less, while fifty per cent ate them once a week or more. Sixteen percent of this group decreased their intake, 79% made no change while 5% increased their intake. For those that ate meat pies in the last two years 50% decreased their intake and 50% made no change. This is shown in table Table Concern about BSE and Consumption of Meat Pies concern sub-conscious concern (n=23) no concern (n=25) (n=43) Decrease 19 (76%) 18(78%) 9(21%) No change 6(24%) 5(22%) 34(79%) (p-value <.001) Seventy seven percent of those that described meat pies as high risk reduced their intake while no one attributing no risk to meat pies decreased their intake. Table below details changing behaviour and risk. Table Risk Perception and Behavioural Change for Meat Pies No risk Low risk Uncertain Moderate risk High risk (n=11) (n=18) (n=4) (n=26) (n-=31) Decrease 0 (0%) 7(39%) 3(75%) 12(46%) 24(77%) No Change 11(100%) 11(61%) 1(25%) 14(54%) 7(22%) (p-value<.001)

25 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 24 Offal products Sixteen percent of the sample claimed that they consumed offal products (such as liver and kidneys). Of respondents who ate offal products in the last two years, 21% claimed to have ceased while 35% claimed to have reduced their intake. Offal products are consumed on an infrequent basis. Fifty two per cent eat offal products once a month or less while 19% and 34% eat offal once a fortnight or less and once a week or more respectively. Table gives details about consumer concern and the resulting behavioural change. Eighty seven percent of those who consume offal products believe the risk at the place their purchase to be low or none. Risk perception and decision to consume are closely related. Table Concern about BSE and Behavioural Change for Offal Products. Concern vs behavioural change concern sub- conscious concern (n=21) no concern (n=35) (n=62) Increase 2 (6%) 0(0%) 2(3%) Decrease 19(54%) 16(76%) 6(10%) No change 14(40%) 5(24%) 54(87%) 3.6 Risk perception and meat cuts Respondent were asked to rate the level of risk associated with individual cuts on a Likert Scale from high risk(5) to no risk(1 19 ). It is clear from the analysis carried out that the consumers are more concerned about the risk associated with consumption of bulk products, such as mince, than with identifiable meat cuts. A paired sample t-test indicates that consumer thought that the risk level for meat pies, burgers, offal products, mince and stewing joints was significantly higher than beef while steak and roasting joint risks were significantly lower 20. Risk perception was measured for beef cuts in general and for beef cuts at purchase location. The results of this section showed that many respondents associated lower risk with beef from the place where they made their own purchase than with the general level of perceived risk. For example, almost 19 The following codes were used for the purpose of analysis: High 5, moderate 4, uncertain 3, low 2, no 1 20 The mean score for mince was 3.32 when compared to 2.57 for beef (t =-15.03).

26 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 25 sixty per cent of respondents attached a moderate or high risk to mince generally available on the market. But, when asked the same for mince from their usual purchase location, only 30% considered it as a high or moderate risk. Again this reflects the importance that consumers place on the source of their beef. 3.7 Conclusion The analysis shows that a significant proportion of consumers had altered their eating patterns as a result of the BSE scare. This is directly related to their expressed concerns and the level of perceived risk associated with beef. The level of this risk varies across the beef carcass tending to be greater for the lower cost and bulk cuts and offals. Three types of consumers were identified, 1) those with a conscious concern about BSE, 2) those with sub-conscious concern about BSE, 3) those unconcerned by BSE. The response of groups one and two was to reduce or cease eating beef. A significant percentage of the third group did not alter their purchase or consumption behaviour. Place of purchase is also important, with consumers appearing to have a certain level of confidence which is associated with the place they buy their beef. This suggests that the development of an integrated distribution channel is central to the development of a traceability system. Thus retailers will need to ensure the security of their supply channel. 4 Consumer attitudes and requirements for traceability It became apparent during the pilot survey that a considerable percentage of the population were unable to provide any definition or understanding of traceability, so within the main survey the following definition was provided:

27 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 26 Traceability is a mechanism or mechanisms which allows for the tracing of beef through the food chain with rigorous controls 4.1 General Findings with regard to Traceability The respondents who ate beef pre-bse were asked if a traceability programme would alleviate their concerns in relation to beef. Eighty two percent believed that it would. These respondents were then asked what such a system should include. Their responses included: - 31% who stated that the system should trace beef from birth to final point of sale 21 and 21% who stated a requirement for stricter control, checks and testing. Table provides details of other suggestions for inclusion in a traceability programme. Table Components of a Traceability Programme Would Traceability alleviate your concerns? No. % Yes: 82% No: 18% What should a traceability programme include? (n=525) Tracing from birth to final point of sale Stricter controls and checks Known source or origin (country or county) 53 9 Record of feedstuffs for life of animal 35 6 Guarantee of safety 33 6 Chain member accountability 24 4 Don t know The analysis in the next section is based on four segments: - BSE and traceability a) Respondents who do not eat beef due to the BSE scare b) Respondents who have changed consumption patterns as a result of the BSE scare Traceability and knowledge of traceability c) Respondents with an understanding of traceability d) Respondents with no understanding of the term traceability 21 The main consumer understanding of birth to final point of sale in fact refers to farm of origin, highlighting the consumers interest in the origin of the animal.

28 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 27 BSE and traceability The consumer responses to the BSE scare varied across the sample. Over forty percent of those who ate beef before the BSE scare have altered their consumption of beef as a result of the scare. Thirteen per cent initially changed their consumption but have returned to the pre-bse scare levels. Table gives a summary of the expressed changes. Table BSE and Resulting Behavioural Change Alteration in consumption due to the BSE scare 22 No. (n=692). % Initially reduced but back to normal Reduced intake and am eating less Stopped eating certain cuts of beef No longer eat beef Other (eating more or not giving to children) No change a) Respondents who do not eat beef due to the BSE scare (n=67) Almost 16% of respondents did not eat beef. To establish the impact of the BSE-CJD scare on consumer purchase behaviour, information was sought on the reasons for not eating beef. The primary reason stated was the BSE scare (54%). Therefore, almost ten per cent of those who ate beef prior to the scare ceased eating beef as a result of the BSE scare. Sixty-six per cent of this group stated that a traceability programme would alleviate their concerns, which suggests that, given an effective traceability programme, some of this category may consider eating beef again. The most important factors for a traceability programme mentioned by this group were stricter

29 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 28 controls, checks and regular testing (24%), with 22% of the sample mentioning tracing beef from birth to point of sale. For these respondents the important components of a traceability programme do not vary dramatically from the general population. b) Respondents who have changed consumption patterns as a result of the BSE scare (n=214) Approximately 30% of those who ate beef pre-bse stated that they had changed their consumption patterns for beef as a result of the BSE scare, reducing overall intake of beef and sometimes eliminating certain cuts. This represents a large proportion of the sample. Fifty-three per cent were able to offer some understanding of traceability. Of this group 90% felt that a traceability programme would alleviate their concerns. The main components of a traceability programme identified by this group were tracing of beef from birth to final point of sale and stricter control, checks and testing (31% and 22% respectively). Traceability and knowledge of traceability This section evaluates the replies of respondents who: 1. consume beef or ceased to consume beef as a result of the BSE scare and 2. believed that a traceability programme would alleviate some of their concerns (83% of (1 above).) c) Respondents with an understanding of traceability, (45% of those who consumed beef pre-bse 96 (n=311)) Of those respondents with some understanding of traceability, 33% suggested that a traceability programme should include the tracing of beef from birth to final point of sale. Twenty-five per cent suggested that stricter controls, checks and regular testing would be an important component of such a programme. Recording of feedstuffs given to the animal over its life span and known origins of animals and feedstuffs were also cited (about 5% 22 Question posed to respondents - How has BSE altered your consumption of beef? Here is a list of possible choices, which one would you say best describes you?

30 Beef Consumption, Risk Perception and Consumer Demand for Traceability 29 and 9% respectively). Six per-cent mentioned a guarantee of safety as a requirement of a traceability programme. d) Respondents with no understanding of the term traceability (55% of those who consumed beef pre-bse 96 (n=382)) Of those who could not define the term traceability, but when offered a definition, felt that it would help alleviate their concerns in relation to beef (79%), 28% believed that a traceability programme should include the tracing of beef from birth to the final point of purchase. Stricter controls, checks and regular testing were cited by 19%. Other factors mentioned included known source and origins of animals, recording of feedstuffs and guarantee of safety (10%,7% & 6% respectively). Some 20% could not offer any suggestion on the components of a traceability programme. Reasons why traceability would not alleviate consumer concerns. Approximately, 17%(n=127) of those who ate beef at the time of the BSE 23 scare believed that traceability would not alleviate any concerns. Of this group: 46% stated that they had no concerns; 35% do not trust them ; 7% believed that it would be to difficult to implement; 8% were unable to explain why it would not alleviate their concerns. Of those who stated they had no concerns, 91% had not altered their consumption of beef as a result of the BSE scare. 23 (n=689) Table indicates the responses of individuals to the BSE scare that do not believe in traceability. Table Behavioural Change due to BSE and Reasons why Traceability would not Alleviate Concern Reduced intake No change/increase (n=40) (n=76) No concerns 8% 67%