Showing posts with label consumer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Why Do People Eat Meat?

Why Do People Eat Meat?

Flavor
It seems that taste is the main driver of meat consumption. Meat is consumed predominantly for the pleasure derived from consumption (Becker et al, 2004; Verbecke et at, 2004).

Becker et al (2004) studied the attitudes of members of the general public and found some interesting correlations: 1) The main reason people eat meat is for its taste, and 2) people who eat more meat feel less in control (both of their own health and the conditions under which meat-producing animals are kept).  In fact, the more people ate conventionally produced meat, the less interested they were in pursuing improvements to the meat production system.

So, we seem to be in a situation where the key consumers and enjoyers of meat products are also the most likely actively disinterested in eating in a way that improves their health and the welfare of farmed animals.  This, frankly, needs to change.

Why Do People Not Eat Meat?
A minority of people identify themselves as vegetarian (e.g. 2.3%, Gossard and York, 2003). If you look at why some people do not eat meat--it often includes an objection to modern farming methods. Thus local, sustainable and welfare-friendly farming practises may be sufficient to convince some vegetarians to enjoy meat in moderation (Lennon, 2007).  This may partially explain why some people who identify as vegetarian do eat some meat (Gossard and York, 2003).

Which People Eat Meat?
A study of US consumers found that meat consumption is positively associated with being male, Black and Asian ethnicities and being employed as a laborer.  It is negatively associated with level of education and age, and unrelated to income and geography (Gossard and York, 2003).

A survey in Belgium found that 57% of people eat fresh  (versus prepared/pre-cooked) meat dailly.  The population could be divided into 'straightforward meat lovers' and those who were 'concerned' or 'cautious' due to safety issues such as dioxins and BSE.  The difference between these groups is that 'concerned' consumers are reducing their meat intake in terms of quantity and seeking higher quality. There is also a group is 'indifferent consumers' who are not driven by high enjoyment of meat but are not worried about the issues either, low price is their main concern.

References:
  • Becker, R., Kals, E., Frohlich, P. (2004). meat consumption and commitments on meat policy: combining individual and public health. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 143-155.
  • Gossard MH, York R. (2003). Social structiral influences on meat consumption. Research in Human Ecology, 10, 1-9.
  • Lennon, C. (2007) Why vegetarians eat meat. Food and Wine, August, 60-61.
  • Verbeke, W; Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science, 67, 159-168.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Eating Emu in America

Emu meat is marketed as a healthy red meat with relatively low fat (2.5% versus over 5% for beef, Shao et al, 1999) and cholesterol.  Emus are farmed predominantly in the United States and Australia (Dingle, 1997). However a large scale market for this products has not developed.

Adams et al (2000) argue that emu meat is best marketed as a 'game animal' meat similar to duck and quail.  that is to say, most people would not buy it at the supermarket, but might be willing to try it in a restaurant setting. 

Their survey results suggest that the willingness of people to eat a new meat product, even in a fine dining context, is strongly affected by wider 'social acceptability'.  And at the time of the study the social acceptability of eating emu was consider somewhat low.  Based on its absence from restaurant menus (as far as I have observed) this still seems to be the case.

References:
  • Adams, C.R., Hoover, L.C., Arnett. D.B. and Thomspon, L.D. (2000). Social acceptability's role in an expanded rational expectation model of intention to consume an innovative meat product in a restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 252-262.
  • Dingle, J.G. (1997). Emu and Ostrich production and its consequences for human nutrition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia, 21, 37-43.
  • Shao, C.H., Avens, J.S., Schmidt, G.R., Maga, J.A. (1999). Functional, sensory, and microbiological properties of restructured beef and emu steaks. Journal of Food Science, 64, 1052-1054.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Student Attitudes to GM Food

A survey of 372 students found that factors such as age, gender, bio tech knowledge, politics, religion and trust in government or industry had no consistent relation with willingness to eat transgenicc meat.  Fifty percent of the students indicated that they would eat transgenic meat. These students were also more likely to read labels when shopping, and they had higher trust that scientists are truthful about transgenic meat.

It is interesting that although the FDA and GM animal producers oppose labeling of BM products, as this study suggests that people who attend most to labels are also most accepting of GM meat products.  However this small student self-report study may not reflect actual shopping behavior, or the attitudes of the wider general public.

Sources:
  • Ibrahim, M., Johnson, F. Brewer, A. (2010). Student response to transgenic meat: an analysis of a Fort Valley State University survey. 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida. [Full Text]