AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Journal: MESC Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to:
E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +1 619 699 6721
Article Number: 5843
Dear Author,
Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen anno- tation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF fi le. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return your corrections within 48 hours.
For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions.
Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in the proof. Click on the ‘ Q ’ link to go to the location in the proof.
Location in article Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go
Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof
Q1 Please confirm that given names and surnames have been identified correctly.
Q2 Please provide a significance for the italic emphasis in the table.
Q3 Please check the telephone/fax number of the corresponding author, and correct if necessary.
Q4 Highlights should consist of only 85 characters per bullet point, including spaces. However, the Highlights provided for this item exceed the maximum requirement, thus, were not captured.
Kindly provide replacement Highlights that conform to the requirement for us to proceed. For more information, please see Guide for Authors.
Please check this box if you have no corrections to make to the PDF fi le. □
Thank you for your assistance.
Our reference: MESC 5843 P-authorquery-v11
Page 1 of 1
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
1
Q4
One technology does not fi t all: Pro fi ling consumers of tender and tenderised
2
beef steaks
3
Valérie L.
Q1
Almli
a,⁎ , Lynn Van Wezemael
b, Wim Verbeke
b, Øydis Ueland
a4 aNofima, PO Box 210, 1431 Ås, Norway
5 bDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium 6
7
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
8 Article history:
9 Received 26 April 2012
10 Received in revised form 15 October 2012 11 Accepted 17 October 2012
12 Available online xxxx 13
1415
16 Keywords:
17 Beef
18 Muscle profiling 19 Marinating by injection 20 Consumer attitudes 21 Hedonic expectations 22 Cross-cultural
23 New production technologies can help the beef sector to improve eating quality, in particular the tenderness,
24 of low-value meat cuts. This paper aims at profiling potential consumers for unprocessed tenderloinM. Psoas
25 major, muscle profiledM. Infraspinatusand marinated by injectionM. Semitendinosusin Belgium (n= 108)
26 and Norway (n= 110). Consumers'hedonic expectations for the three beef cuts, along with their general
27 attitudes towards beef and food technology, were collected in central location tests. Results show that
28 tenderloin triggers the highest hedonic expectations and best appeals to consumers profiled with high beef
29 involvement in both countries. Consumers' expectations for steaks from novel technologies vary with
30 consumers'attitudes towards beef, food technology and food risks and their country of residence, resulting
31 in three additional consumer profiles. Furthermore, general attitudinal profiles of beef consumers also differ
32 between the two countries. The results are useful for the positioning of novel beef products within the two
33 national markets.
34
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
35 36 37
38
39 1. Introduction
40 Beef is one of the most consumed meats in Europe, with consumers 41 in the European Union (EU-27) eating 17.2kgper head per year on 42 average (FAOSTAT, 2011). The European beef sector produces up to 43 8.2 million tonnes of beef per year, accounting for about 13.2% of the 44 world production. Over the last decades, beef producers have diversi- 45 fied their market offerings from the traditional beef steak and roast to 46 an increasing number of processed products, including ready-meals.
47 Beef consumers value beef mainly on its eating quality. Several stud- 48 ies have found that the most important intrinsic quality attributes for 49 beef are taste (flavour), tenderness, juiciness, freshness, leanness, 50 healthiness and nutritional value, together with brands or labels as ex- 51 trinsic quality cues (Banovic, Grunert, Barriera, & Fontes, 2009; Brunsø, 52 Bredahl, Grunert, & Scholderer, 2005; Krystallis, Chryssochoidis, &
53 Scholderer, 2007; Verbeke, Ward, & Avermaete, 2002). Given the high 54 variability of tenderness and tenderness-related traits among beef mus- 55 cles (Rhee, Wheeler, Shackelford, & Koohmaraie, 2004) and the impor- 56 tance of tenderness in shaping consumer satisfaction (Huffman et al., 57 1996; Verbeke et al., 2010), the supply of tender beef is an important 58 challenge for the beef industry (Eggen & Hocquette, 2004). Today a 59 large amount of beef cuts stem from tough muscles, being sold as 60 low-value products and used for stewing, braising or mincing. In 61 order to achieve further market growth, opportunities for the beef 62 industry lie, therefore, in the development of new technologies to
63 increase the sensory quality of tough meat cuts, particularly their
64 tenderness. In addition to directly adding value to low-quality cuts,
65 this would also allow the industry to further develop their range of
66 products, thus better satisfying current consumer demand and possibly
67 reaching new consumer groups. Moreover, improving the eating quality
68 of low-value cuts may contribute to an improved sustainability of the
69 beef sector.
70 Several tenderisation treatments (such as moisture enhancement,
71 blade tenderisation, or enzymatic tenderisation) have potentially
72 positive impacts on beef muscle tenderness (Mueller et al., 2006;
73 Pietrasik & Shand, 2011). Despite a clear preference for tender beef
74 (Lusk, Fox, Schroeder, Mintert, & Koohmaraie, 2001; Shackelford
75 et al., 2001), consumers might not always like the procedures for
76 tenderising beef (de Barcellos et al., 2010). However, only a limited
77 number of studies have investigated personal characteristics of
78 consumers in relation to beef tenderness preferences. Lusk et al.
79 (2001)studied the influence of socio-demographic variables on the
80 probability that a consumer prefers tender steak, showing that age
81 and education had a positive influence, while gender and income
82 were not significantly related to tenderness preferences. Reicks
83 et al. (2011)found that women considered tenderness more impor-
84 tant than men in their purchasing decision of beef steaks. Further-
85 more, consumers over the age of 40 indicated tenderness as a more
86 important purchasing motive than younger consumers. Other demo-
87 graphic variables (region, occupation, income, education, number of
88 children in the household) did not have significant effects. Also, the
89 behavioural (beef consumption frequency) and attitudinal variables
90 (liking of red meat and importance in the diet) did not affect the Meat Science xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 64970305; fax: +47 6497 0333.
Q3
E-mail address:valerie.almli@nofima.no(V.L. Almli).
MESC-05843; No of Pages 10
0309-1740/$–see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.10.002
Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect
Meat Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
91 importance of tenderness as a motive for purchasing beef steaks 92 (Reicks et al., 2011).
93 In a recent paper,Van Wezemael et al. (2012)investigated the 94 effect of technology information on consumer expectations and liking 95 of beef. Based on complementary data from the same consumer 96 experiment, the current paper investigates consumers' attitudes 97 towards beef and food technology and profiles consumers for 98 three tender beef cuts: unprocessed tenderloin (M. Psoas major), 99 M. Semitendinosustenderised by marinating by injection, and muscle 100 profiledM. Infraspinatus. The objective is twofold. Firstly, this study 101 aims at profiling beef consumers differing in their hedonic expecta- 102 tions for the three beef cuts. An important innovative element is the 103 assessment of consumer expectations with respect to tender(ised) 104 beef muscles treated with different technologies. As these beef cuts 105 originate from a variety of muscles (high- versus low-value cuts) on 106 which very different treatments are applied (no tenderisation, mari- 107 nating by injection, or muscle profiling), differences in the cultural, 108 attitudinal and socio-demographic profile of consumers expecting to 109 like the different beef cuts are likely (de Barcellos et al., 2010). Knowl- 110 edge about the socio-demographic and attitudinal profile of con- 111 sumers in relation to beef tenderness expectations may allow the 112 beef industry to better target tender beef products to specific con- 113 sumer segments. Besides, as price is an important factor in most 114 food choice decisions, consumers'stated price level acceptance for 115 the three beef cuts was also investigated. A second objective of this 116 study was to detect cross-country differences, as these may reveal 117 the importance of the cultural context on consumer attitudes and 118 hedonic expectations. Unlike the previously mentioned consumer 119 studies which have been performed among American consumers, 120 this paper will focus on two European countries: Belgium and 121 Norway. The dissimilarity in beef consumption and production prac- 122 tices in the two countries (Van Wezemael et al., 2012) might be 123 reflected in consumer attitudes and expectations for the three beef 124 cuts. The results of the study may be useful for the positioning of 125 novel beef products within the two national markets.
126 2. Materials and methods 127 2.1. Participants and procedure
128 Cross-sectional data were collected among adult beef consumers 129 in Norway (n= 110) and Belgium (n= 108) as described by Van 130 Wezemael et al. (2012). All participants were regular fresh beef 131 consumers, with a consumption frequency of at least once a month. Par- 132 ticipants were recruited from untrained panels who had given their 133 consent to participate in consumer studies. The panels were sourced 134 from the institutes responsible for the data collection: a subcontracted 135 market research agency in Belgium, and the Norwegian Institute for 136 Food, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (Nofima) in Norway. The 137 sample was stratified on gender (males/females: 50/50) and age 138 18–35 and 36–55 years, to account for possible differences in attitudes 139 and experience between these groups. Sample characteristics from the 140 two countries are presented inTable 1. The distributions of gender, 141 age, household composition and occupation covered a wide range 142 of socio-demographic profiles, though without claiming to be statisti- 143 cally representative for the national populations. In particular, the 144 Norwegian sample was biased towards higher education, possibly due 145 to the test location in a university town.
146 2.2. Measures
147 Participants werefirst asked to answer a few questions to establish 148 their eligibility to participate in the study regarding their demographic 149 profile and to what extent they consumed fresh beef. Consumers aller- 150 gic to citrus, kiwi or pineapple and individuals consuming beef less than 151 once a month were excluded. Eligible consumers were then invited to
152 participate in a central location test (located in Ås in Norway and Deinze
153 in Belgium). The questionnaire consisted of four parts: in thefirst part,
154 participants completed a number of questions measuring attitudes
155 to beef (Olson, Scholderer, Brunsø, & Verbeke, 2007) and involvement
156 with beef (Zaichkowsky, 1985), perceptions of beef safety (own source)
157 and risk issues (Hohl & Gaskell, 2008) associated with beef, issues
158 related to food technology (Cox & Evans, 2008), general health interest
159 (Roininen, Lähteenmäki, & Tuorila, 1999) and food neophobia (Pliner &
160 Hobden, 1992). The questionnaire items that were used for these mea-
161 sures are presented inTable 2. In the second part, participants indicated
162 their expected liking for three meat cuts: unprocessed tenderloin
163 M. Psoas major, muscle profiledM. Infraspinatusand marinated (by in-
164 jection)M. Semitendinosus(seeVan Wezemael et al., 2012). In addition,
165 for each beef treatment participants were asked at what price the steak
166 would be“too cheap to expect a good quality”,”cheap”,“expensive”and
“too expensive to be willing to buy”. The price evaluations were 167 168 performed on categorical scales expressed in local currencies and ad-
169 justed for local market prices. Thus, the price evaluation scales ranged
170 from‘less than 5 EUR/kg’to‘more than 45 EUR/kg’in Belgium, and
‘less than 25 NOK/kg’to‘more than 400 NOK/kg’in Norway. Eight inter- 171 172 mediate categories were created, each with increments of 5 EUR/kg and
173 50 NOK/kg, respectively. The third part measured socio-demographic
174 characteristics. In the fourth part, participants received samples of
175 meat representing each production technology for tasting. Details and
176 results from this sensory experiment were reported inVan Wezemael
177 et al. (2012). Data collection was performed using EyeQuestion® soft-
178 ware (Logic8, Netherlands) in Norway and FIZZ software (Biosystèmes,
179 France) in Belgium.
180 2.3. Statistical analyses
181 With the aim of profiling consumers with high hedonic expecta-
182 tions for the three beef cuts in terms of socio-demographics and atti-
183 tudes, six Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) models (Næs,
184 Brockhoff, & Tomic, 2010), i.e. one per country and per beef cut,
185 were conducted. These PLSR models use the full set of questionnaire
186 items (questionnaire parts one and three described above) as the in-
187 dependent variable set, and expected liking as the dependent vari-
188 able. By comparing these models, differences in consumer profiles
189 between unprocessed, muscle profiled and marinated by injection
190 beef steaks will be highlighted, both within and across countries.
191 In order to study similarities and differences between the Belgian
192 and Norwegian consumer samples in attitudes towards beef and food
193 technology, two Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA)
194 models were built. These models use the questionnaire items as the
195 independent variable set and country (1 = Norway, 2 = Belgium) as
196 the dependent variable. One model focuses on the parts of the ques-
197 tionnaire specifically related to beef and detailed inTable 2, covering five themes as follows: beef consumption, attitudes to the healthiness 198
199 of beef, attitudes towards eating beef as a main course, involvement
200 with beef and attitudes towards beef safety. The other model includes
Table 1 t1:1
t1:2 Sample characteristics in Norway and Belgium (in % of the national samples).
Reproduced fromVan Wezemael et al. (2012).
t1:3 Norway
(n= 110)
Belgium (n= 108)
t1:4
Male 46.4 46.3
t1:5
Female 53.6 53.7
t1:6
18–35 years old 45.5 46.3
t1:7
36–55 years old 54.5 53.7
t1:8
Cohabiting 91.8 91.7
t1:9 Presence of children in the household (0–14 y) 50.9 31.5
t1:10
Post-secondary education 69.1 44.3
t1:11
Working full-time 60.9 49.1
t1:12
Students 30.0 25.0
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
201 the parts of the questionnaire related to food in general, coveringfive 202 themes as follows: concerns about food risks, attitudes to new food 203 production technologies, interest in the healthiness of foods, food 204 neophobia and awareness of food safety incidents (Table 2). In addi- 205 tion to single question items, aggregated scores corresponding to 206 each construct in the questionnaire were included in the models.
207 All PLSR and PLS-DA models were run on standardised variables,
208 using cross-validation on 10 random segments and performing a
209 Jack-knife uncertainty test with 95% confidence interval for the
210 detection of significant variables (Martens & Martens, 2001). Calcu-
211 lations were performed in The Unscrambler X 10.1 (Camo Software
212 AS, Oslo).
Table 2 t2:1
t2:2 Consumer questionnaire items.
t2:3 Variable/construct Items Response scale
t2:4 Beef consumption frequency Frequencies of consumption in the last 14 days:
beef steak, roast beef, beef burger, minced beef, ready meal with beef
Numerical t2:5 Attitudes towards the
healthiness of beef
Eating beef is healthy
Eating beef is necessary for obtaining beneficial nutrients Beef contains important nutrients
Beef is good for general health
Beef is an important part of a healthy diet
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree)
t2:6 Feelings when eating beef Positive–negative Delightful–terrible Exciting–dull Pleasant–unpleasant Satisfied–unsatisfied Good–bad
1 (positive feeling) to 7 (negative feeling)
t2:7 Involvement with beef Beef means a lot to me in my daily diet Beef is very important for my well-being Beef means a lot to me for my nutrition I like the taste of beef very much
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree)
t2:8 Feelings when thinking about beef safety
Optimistic–pessimistic Confident–unconfident Satisfied–unsatisfied Comfortable–uncomfortable Trustful–suspicious At ease–worrying
1 (positive feeling) to 7 (negative feeling)
t2:9 Food risk perception Residues of medicines in meat Genetic modification of food Pesticides in fruit or vegetables Pollutants in foods, e.g. mercury Additives
New viruses such as avianflu BSE (the mad cow disease) Bacteria, e.g. salmonella
Chemicals formed during food preparation, e.g. frying Welfare of farmed animals
Lack of hygiene outside home Develop an allergy Lack of hygiene in the home Put on weight
1 (not at all worried) to 4 (very worried)
t2:10 Attitudes to new food technologies
The benefits of new food technologies are often grossly overstated There are plenty of tasty foods around so we do not need to use new food technologies to produce more
New food technologies decrease the natural quality of food
New food technologies may have long term negative environmental effects It can be risky to switch to new food technologies too quickly
Society should not depend heavily on new food technologies to solve its food problems
There is no sense trying out high-tech food products because the ones I eat are already good enough
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree)
t2:11 General interest in the healthiness of foods
The healthiness of food has little impact on my food choices.
I am very particular about the healthiness of the food I eat.
I eat what I like and I do not worry much about the healthiness of food.
It is important to me that my diet is low in fat.
I always follow a healthy and balanced diet.
The healthiness of snacks has little impact on my food choices.
I do not avoid foods, even if they may raise my blood cholesterol levels.
It is important to me that my daily diet contains a lot of vitamins and minerals.
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree)
t2:12 Food neophobia I am constantly sampling new and different foods.
I do not trust new foods.
If I do not know what is in food, I won't try it.
I like foods from different countries.
Ethnic food looks too weird to eat.
At dinner parties, I will try a new food.
I am afraid to eat things I have never had before.
I am very particular about the foods I will eat.
I will eat almost anything.
I like to try new ethnic restaurants.
1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree)
t2:13 Heard/talked about food safety In the last two weeks, have you
–read or heard anything around food safety incidents in the media?
–talked about or discussed food safety issues?
Yes/no V.L. Almli et al. / Meat Science xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
213 3. Results and discussion 214 3.1. Hedonic expectations
215 In the Norwegian sample, tenderloin obtained a very high and sta- 216 ble mean with a liking score of 8.4 (standard deviation (S.D.) = 0.9) 217 on a scale from 1 to 9 (Table 3). This is 41% higher than the mean 218 expected liking for muscle profiled (6.0) and marinated (6.1) beef 219 steaks and reflects a high positive image of this meat cut, which is re- 220 puted to be particularly tender. Also, perceived healthiness (nutri- 221 tional value and safety) might have played a role in shaping these 222 differences in expectations, as processed beef products are generally 223 perceived as less healthy and less safe than unprocessed beef (Van 224 Wezemael, Verbeke, de Barcellos, Scholderer, & Perez-Cueto, 2010;
225 Van Wezemael, Verbeke, Kügler, de Barcellos, & Grunert, 2010).
226 The fact that non-invasive muscle profiling and highly-invasive mar- 227 inating by injection received equivalent mean hedonic expectations 228 can be related to the low level of concern for food risks in Norway.
229 Furthermore, Norwegian consumers express a high level of trust 230 and confidence in food authorities (Berg, 2005) and show a high 231 open-mindedness for new food technology (see Section 3.4.).
232 Table 3also reports consumers'expected preferences between the 233 three beef cuts based on a comparison of expected liking scores.
234 This table provides insight on potential segment sizes for the three 235 beef cuts. About 84% of participants expect to like tenderloin more 236 than muscle profiled or marinated steaks, while about 16% expect to 237 like these novel steaks at least as much as tenderloin. Each of the 238 novel technologies (muscle profiling and marinating by injection) is 239 preferred to the other one by roughly the same number of consumers, 240 corresponding to 38.2% of the sample for muscle profiled beef and 241 34.5% for marinated beef (Table 3).
242 In the Belgian sample, tenderloin obtained a mean expected liking 243 score of 7.4 (S.D. = 1.7) on a scale from 1 to 9. This is 25% higher than 244 the mean expected liking for muscle profiled beef (5.9) and 37% higher 245 than the mean expected liking for marinated beef (5.4). In terms of con- 246 sumer preferences, about 73.1% of the Belgian participants expect to like 247 tenderloin more than muscle profiled or marinated steaks, while 26.9%
248 expect to like these novel steaks at least as much as tenderloin (Table 3).
249 Further, 45.4% of the Belgian participants show an expected preference 250 for marinated steak compared to muscle profiled steak, against 34.3%
251 with opposite expected preferences.
252 Consumers in the Belgian sample had significantly higher liking 253 expectations towards both muscle profiled and marinated by injec- 254 tion beef in relation to tenderloin, as compared to consumers in the 255 Norwegian sample. This is related to the smaller differences in 256 expected mean liking between products in the Belgian sample.
257 3.2. Profiles of consumers with high expectations for the three beef cuts 258 The profiles of consumers who have the highest expectations for 259 tenderloin, muscle profiled and marinated beef were obtained by 260 PLSR modelling as described inSection 2.3. The results are presented 261 for both Norwegian and Belgian consumer samples inTable 4. Note 262 that only statistically significant items are displayed in the table. For 263 instance, demographics are not reported in the table because they
264 did not differ across consumer profiles corresponding to the different
265 meat cuts.
266 The PLSR models carry limited to moderate amounts of explained
267 variance for expected liking (from 10.6% to 33.7% explained variance),
268 indicating that other parameters than just the set of questions included
269 in the present study influence consumers'expectations. In particular,
270 previous beef consumption experiences (all recruited consumers were
271 regular fresh beef eaters) may have a greater impact on expected liking
272 than the consumers'attitudinal and socio-demographic data. Several
273 questionnaire items were nonetheless statistically significant in the
274 models (Table 4).
275 3.2.1. Consumer profiles in Norway
276 The consumer profiles corresponding to the three beef treatments
277 show similarities and differences (Table 4). Common to all three cate-
278 gories of beef, Norwegian consumers with high hedonic expectations
279 like the taste of beef, feel good and satisfied when consuming beef,
280 consider that beef is healthy/good for health, and feel comfortable
281 and trustful about beef safety. Furthermore, Norwegian consumers
282 who typically show the highest expectations towards tenderloin are
283 also characterised by a relatively high consumption of beef burgers,
284 a positive attitude to beef and healthiness of beef, positive feelings
285 when eating beef, a high level of involvement with beef, positive feel-
286 ings about beef safety, and very little worries about additives in food
287 and lack of hygiene at home. Interestingly, almost the same profile of
288 consumers shows high expectations for muscle profiled beef, despite
289 a lower average expected liking score for this beef type (Table 3).
290 This may indicate that muscle profiling is rightfully perceived as a
291 natural technology to these consumers, somewhat comparable to
292 unprocessed tenderloin cuts.
293 Finally, marinated beef generates the same mean hedonic expecta-
294 tions as muscle profiled beef, a slightly higher actual liking and attracts
295 a different profile of consumers as compared to tenderloin: consumers
296 with lower involvement with beef, more neutral attitudes and feelings
297 towards beef and a tendency to lower food neophobia. Marinated beef
298 may therefore best appeal to consumers who are not primarily fond of
299 unprocessed beef and who expect to value the changes in texture and
300 taste resulting from marinating by injection, without objecting to a cer-
301 tain decrease in naturalness. In other words, although this marinating
302 technology may not satisfy the most enthusiastic and involved beef
303 eaters, it may attract a different consumer segment. This may be
304 worth investigating among non-regular beef consumers (i.e. people
305 consuming beef less than monthly).
306 3.2.2. Consumer profiles in Belgium
307 The consumer profiles corresponding to the three beef treatments
308 in Belgium show clearer differences than in Norway (Table 4). Firstly,
309 the consumers with the highest expectations for tenderloin are
310 characterised by a positive attitude to the healthiness of beef, a high
311 involvement with beef and positive feelings towards beef and beef
312 safety. Secondly, the consumers with the highest expectations for
313 muscle profiled beef share this involvement and these positive feel-
314 ings, however the healthiness of beef does not have a significant in- fluence on their hedonic expectations for this treatment. In addition, 315
316 these consumers show low worries regarding chemicals formed
Table 3 t3:1
t3:2 Average expected liking results and consumers'expected preferences among the three beef cuts (in % of the national samples) based on a comparison of expected liking scores.
t3:3 Norway (n= 110) Belgium (n= 108)
t3:4 Tenderloin Muscle profiled Marinated by injection Tenderloin Muscle profiled Marinated by injection
t3:5 Expected liking (S.D.) 8.4 (0.9) 6.0 (2.1) 6.1 (1.7) 7.4 (1.7) 5.9 (2.0) 5.4 (2.3)
t3:6 Tenderloin is at least as good as (better than)… 100 (0) 97.3 (84.5) 99.1 (83.6) 100 (0) 87 (73.1) 87 (73.1
Q2 )
t3:7 Muscle profiled beef is at least as good as (better than)… 15.5 (2.7) 100 (0) 65.5 (38.2) 26.9 (13.0) 100 (0) 65.7 (45.4) t3:8 Beef marinated by injection is at least as good as (better than)… 16.4 (1.8) 61.8 (34.5) 100 (0) 26.9 (13.0) 54.6 (34.3) 100 (0)
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
317 during food preparation, have a higher acceptance for new food tech- 318 nologies, are less interested in the healthiness of the food they eat 319 and show signs of low food neophobia. Thirdly, consumers with 320 the highest expectations for marinated beef have a positive attitude 321 to the healthiness of beef, like the taste of beef, neither show particu- 322 larly high positive feelings when eating beef nor a high level of in- 323 volvement, do not have strong positive feelings about beef safety
324 other than confidence and trust, are very little concerned about food
325 risks and are less interested in the healthiness of food.
326 Based on these results, it appears that tenderloin consumers in the
327 Norwegian and Belgian samples share the same attitudinal profiles.
328 The main differences between the two countries lie in the profile of
329 consumers with high expectations towards the lower-value beef
330 cuts. For instance, in the Norwegian sample consumers with a highly Table 4
t4:1
t4:2 Consumer attitudes related to expected liking for the three beef cuts in the Norwegian and Belgian (significant items only) consumer samples. + indicates a positive effect of the t4:3 attitudinal item on hedonic expectations,−indicates a negative effect, the absence of a symbol indicates non-significance.
t4:4 Norwaya(n= 110) Belgiumb(n= 108)
t4:5 Tenderloin Muscle profiling Marinating by injection Tenderloin Muscle profiling Marinating by injection
t4:6 Beef consumption
t4:7 Beef burger +
t4:8
t4:9 Healthiness of beef
t4:10 Healthy + + + + +
t4:11 Necessary for nutrients +
t4:12 Contains important nutrients + + +
t4:13 Good for health + + + +
t4:14 Important in a healthy diet + + +
t4:15 Aggregated + + +
t4:16
t4:17 Feelings when eating beef
t4:18 Bad–good + + + + +
t4:19 Unsatisfied–satisfied + + + + +
t4:20 Unpleasant–pleasant + + +
t4:21 Dull–exciting +
t4:22 Terrible–delightful +
t4:23 Negative–positive + + + +
t4:24 Aggregated + + + + +
t4:25
t4:26 Involvement
t4:27 Means a lot in my daily diet + +
t4:28 Important for my well-being + + + +
t4:29 Means a lot for my nutrition + + +
t4:30 Like the taste of beef + + + + +
t4:31 Aggregated + + + +
t4:32
t4:33 Positive feelings about beef safety
t4:34 Optimistic (pessimistic) + + + +
t4:35 Confident (unconfident) + + + +
t4:36 Satisfied (unsatisfied) + + +
t4:37 Comfortable (uncomfortable) + + + +
t4:38 Trustful (suspicious) + + + + +
t4:39 At ease (worrying) + +
t4:40 Aggregated + + + +
t4:41
t4:42 Worry about food risks
t4:43 Residues of medicines in meat −
t4:44 Genetic modification −
t4:45 Pollutants −
t4:46 Additives − −
t4:47 Chemicals − −
t4:48 Lack of hygiene in home −
t4:49
t4:50 New food technology
t4:51 NFT decrease the natural quality −
t4:52 NFT have negative environmental effects −
t4:53
t4:54 Healthiness of foods (HoF)
t4:55 Very careful about the HoF I eat −
t4:56 I do not worry about the HoF +
t4:57 Low in fat diet important −
t4:58 Follow a healthy diet − −
t4:59 Aggregated − −
t4:60
t4:61 Food neophobia
t4:62 If I do not know what is in food, I won't try it − −
t4:63 I am afraid to eat things I have never had before −
t4:64 I am very particular about the foods I will eat −
t4:65 I will eat almost anything + +
aPLSR explained Y-variances (%calibration; %validation) in Norway: tenderloin (33.7; 21.8), muscle profiled (16.9; 6.0), marinated (17.1;1.6).
t4:66
b PLSR explained Y-variances (%calibration; %validation) in Belgium: tenderloin (17.3; 0), muscle profiled (22.3; 12), marinated (10.6; 3.1).
t4:67
V.L. Almli et al. / Meat Science xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
331 positive image of the healthiness of beef have high expectations for 332 both tenderloin and muscle profiled beef, while in the Belgian sample 333 similar consumers have high expectations for tenderloin especially, 334 and marinated beef to some extent (Table 4). It seems that muscle 335 profiling in the Norwegian consumer sample is perceived as a natural 336 process which appeals to the same consumers as tenderloin steak, 337 while in the Belgian consumer sample it is perceived as a technolog- 338 ical process which appeals to consumers with high openness to food 339 technology and low food neophobia. Finally, no significant demo- 340 graphic effects were detected in either country.
341 3.3. Price acceptance for the different beef cuts
342 In order to investigate acceptable price levels for the three beef cuts, 343 consumers were asked to indicate their personal thresholds for too 344 cheap, cheap, expensive and too expensive prices for the three beef 345 cuts. Average retailer prices for each beef cut were provided as a refer- 346 ence point, and category scales were utilised for the measure.Fig. 1re- 347 ports frequency distributions of consumers for the two countries. For 348 the Norwegian sample, the reference retailer price for tenderloin 349 (NOK 399≈€50 per kg) is predominantly considered as“so expensive 350 that [I am] not willing to buy”. Thus, current prices in Norway are posi- 351 tioned too high for the consumers in the sample to be willing to pur- 352 chase beef tenderloin, despite high hedonic expectations for this meat 353 cut. According toFig. 1, a price reduction by about 40% would be neces- 354 sary to reverse this trend towards a perception of“cheap”prices, i.e. at a 355 level under 250 NOK per kg (≈€30 per kg). The too high perceived 356 prices for tenderloin may explain the higher consumption of minced 357 beef compared to beef steaks in this country. Moreover, the price barrier 358 may explain why the Norwegian consumer profile for tenderloin is 359 linked to a high consumption of beef burgers (Table 4) and not beef 360 steaks as would be expected. Thisfinding confirms a real market de- 361 mand for cheaper alternatives for beef steaks with good eating quality 362 in Norway. As described above, the profile of consumers showing the 363 highest expectations for muscle profiled beef follows that of tenderloin, 364 indicating that this beef cut may be a valid alternative for consumers in- 365 terested in tenderloin. However, based on data from the same study, 366 Van Wezemael et al. (2012)reported that actual liking for muscle pro- 367 filed beef is still lower than for tenderloin. It seems therefore important 368 for the potential success of muscle profiled beef that the price should 369 compensate for the lower sensory quality: offering a significantly 370 lower price for muscle profiled beef steaks may help consumers adjust 371 sensory expectations to a lower level and avoid a negative disconfirma- 372 tion of expectations (Deliza & MacFie, 1996).
373 In the Belgian sample, the reference retailer price for tenderloin 374 (€30 per kg) balances between“expensive”and“too expensive”per- 375 ceptions. A price reduction of about 15% would reverse this trend to- 376 wards a perception of“cheap”or“too cheap”prices. Based on the 377 respective consumer samples, it seems therefore that the current 378 price of tenderloin in Belgium is better adapted to the market de- 379 mand than in Norway.
380 In the cases of muscle profiled and marinated beef cuts, retailer ref- 381 erence prices are positioned at the border of“cheap”and“expensive” 382 prices, in both countries. Thus, Belgian consumers attach the same 383 value to the two tenderised beef cuts even though their expected liking 384 for marinated beef is on average lower than for muscle profiled beef 385 (Table 3). It is possible that consumers relied to some extent on the 386 given reference prices when answering these questions. The results 387 for tenderloin in the Norwegian sample testify however that this was 388 not the case when the given reference price was deemed unacceptable.
389 3.4. Norwegian and Belgian attitudes to beef and food technology 390 Figs. 2 and 3 present the key differences between Norwegian 391 and Belgian consumers'attitudes to beef and food technology in the 392 form of weighted regression coefficients plots from PLS-DA models
393 (Section 2.3Statistical Analyses).Fig. 2focuses on beef-related atti-
394 tudes whileFig. 3covers attitudes to general food issues. In these
395 models, variables showing positive regression coefficients are more
396 typical of Belgian consumers than Norwegian consumers, while vari-
397 ables showing negative regression coefficients are more typical of
398 Norwegian consumers than Belgian consumers. On thefigures, only
399 questionnaire items with statistically significant differences between
400 the two countries are shown (Jack-knife uncertainty test with
401 95% confidence interval). Both models showed a high explained
402 Y-variance (68.0% and 69.6%, respectively) and a model validation at
403 nearly 64% with three factors. This indicates that there are clear
404 national differences between the Belgian and the Norwegian samples.
405 3.4.1. Attitudes to beef
406 In terms of beef consumption, Belgian consumers more typically
407 report a high recent consumption of beef steaks and beef burgers
408 compared to Norwegian consumers, who more typically report a
409 high consumption of minced beef and ready-meals with beef com-
410 pared to Belgian consumers (Fig. 2). It is to be noted that translations
411 of beef burger (“hamburger van rundvlees”in Dutch and“hamburger
412 av storfekjøtt”in Norwegian) refer exclusively to hamburgers from
413 beef. Translations of minced beef (“gehakt van rundvlees”in Dutch
414 and“kjøttdeigprodukter”in Norwegian) refer to beef that has been
415 minced, including beef products that can be prepared from it. It is
416 possible that consumers transform minced beef into beef burgers or
417 patties while preparing meals at home. However, since beef burger
418 was included as a specific category in the questionnaire, differences
419 in reported beef burger and minced beef consumption patterns be-
420 tween the two countries are assumed to reflect real product con-
421 sumption differences. Furthermore, no significant difference was
422 found in the total frequency of beef consumption between the two
423 countries, in accordance with the similarity in reported beef con-
424 sumption volumes (19.4 and 20.5 kg per capita yearly in Belgium
425 and Norway, respectively) (FAOSTAT, 2011).
426 Belgian consumers seem to eat beef more out of a nutritional motive
427 (“Eating beef is necessary for obtaining beneficial nutrients”, “Beef
428 means a lot to me for my nutrition”) and report that consuming beef
429 as a main course is dull (as opposed to exciting). Norwegian consumers
430 show less involvement with the nutritional benefits of beef than Belgian
431 consumers, possibly due to their lower consumption of whole beef
432 meat. Moreover, they show a positive attitude to the healthiness of
433 beef (“Eating beef is healthy”,“Beef is good for general health”), yet
434 more typically report, in comparison to Belgian consumers, that con-
435 suming beef as a main course yields negative feelings.
436 Belgian consumers have previously been reported to have a strong
437 involvement with fresh meat (Verbeke & Vackier, 2004). This is con- firmed in the present study as they show a higher involvement with 438
439 beef than Norwegian consumers, which is signalled by a significant ag-
440 gregated variable for involvement and significant effects for two spe-
441 cific involvement items (“Beef is very important for my well-being”,
“Beef means a lot to me for my nutrition”). As mentioned above, Nor- 442 443 wegian consumers show less nutritive involvement but possibly more
444 hedonic involvement than Belgian consumers (“Beef means a lot to
445 me in my daily diet”).
446 Furthermore, Belgian consumers showed more negative feelings
447 about beef safety compared to Norwegian consumers, as they more typ-
448 ically indicated feeling“unconfident”,“uncomfortable”and“suspicious”
449 about beef safety. On the contrary, Norwegian consumers more typ-
450 ically scored high for feeling“satisfied”and “at-ease”about beef
451 safety. Thisfinding is in line with previous studies indicating that
452 Belgian consumers remain vigilant towards beef safety after consecu-
453 tive meat safety incidents (Verbeke, 2005), and illustrates at the same
454 time the particularly high confidence in beef safety in Norway. This is
455 in accordance with the Norwegians'high trust in governmental food
456 controls and food safety in this country (Almli, Verbeke, Vanhonacker,
457 Næs, & Hersleth, 2011; Berg, 2005).
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
Fig.1.PricelevelacceptanceforthethreebeefcutsintheNorwegiansample(n=110;pricesinNOKperkg)andintheBelgiansample(n=108;pricesinEURperkg).
V.L. Almli et al. / Meat Science xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 7
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
458 3.4.2. Attitudes to food technology
459 Corroborating negative feelings towards beef safety, Belgian 460 consumers generally show more concern about food risks than 461 Norwegian consumers. Consumers in the Belgian sample are more 462 strongly concerned about residues of medicines in meat, new viruses 463 such as the avian flu, BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or 464 “mad-cow”disease), lack of hygiene outside and inside of home, risk 465 of developing an allergy and possibility of putting on weight (Fig. 3).
466 On the other hand, consumers in the Norwegian sample are signifi- 467 cantly more concerned than consumers in the Belgian sample about 468 risks related to pesticide residues in fruit or vegetables and additives 469 in food. Such concerns may reflect past experiences with food safety is- 470 sues in the two countries. Belgium was affected by the BSE scandal, a na- 471 tional dioxin scandal on poultry and pork at the end of the 1990s, and a 472 swine fever outbreak at the end of the 1990s (Berg, 2004; Verbeke, 473 2001). However, the international nature of these incidents and the re- 474 lated media attention could possibly also have an impact in Norway, 475 that was not spared from food safety incidents itself (e.g. E. coli O103
476 incident in 2006) (van Kleef et al., 2009). Furthermore, these differences
477 in food risk perceptions might reflect different areas of focus for food
478 risks in the respective national media. Norwegian consumers did not in-
479 dicate having heard or read about food safety issues in the media more
480 than Belgian consumers. However, Norwegian consumers (32%) more
481 often indicated having recently talked about food safety issues than
482 Belgian consumers (21%).
483 When it comes to new food production technologies, Belgian
484 consumers are found to be more conservative and traditional than
485 Norwegian consumers, adhering more strongly to statements“the
486 benefits of new food technologies are often grossly overstated”and
“there is no sense in trying out high-tech food products because the 487 488 ones I eat are already good enough”. This corroborates earlierfindings
489 regarding scepticism towards agro-food processing technologies in
490 Belgium (Verbeke, 2011).
491 It is interesting to note that consumers of beef show contradictory
492 attitudes regarding dietary choices both in Norwegian and Belgian sam-
493 ples. Consumers in the Belgian sample scored high on“the healthiness Fig. 2.Comparison of consumption habits and attitudes towards beef in Belgium and Norway, by PLS-DA. Attitudes significantly more typical of Belgian consumers are represented by positive coefficients and attitudes significantly more typical of Norwegian consumers are represented by negative coefficients. Non-significantly different attitudes between the two countries are not shown.
Fig. 3.Comparison of attitudes towards food risks, new food technology and healthiness of food in Belgium and Norway, by PLS-DA. Attitudes significantly more typical of Belgian consumers are represented by positive coefficients and attitudes significantly more typical of Norwegian consumers are represented by negative coefficients. Non-significantly different attitudes between the two countries are not shown. NFT: new food technologies. HoF: healthiness of food.
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
494 of food has little impact on my food choices”, but also on“it is important 495 to me that my diet is low in fat”. Consumers in the Norwegian sample 496 scored high on“I am very particular about the healthiness of the food 497 I eat”, but also on“I do not avoid foods that raise blood cholesterol”. 498 Furthermore, note that the aggregated variable for healthiness of 499 foods is significantly more associated to Belgian than Norwegian con- 500 sumers, indicating a relatively stronger involvement with healthy food 501 in the Belgian sample.
502 Finally, no clear pattern emerges in terms of food neophobia 503 between the two countries, as both countries are characterised signifi- 504 cantly by some items typical for a higher food neophobia (in Belgium:
505 “Ethnic food looks too weird to eat”and“I am afraid to eat things I 506 have never had before”; in Norway:“I do not trust new foods”and“I 507 am very particular about the foods I will eat”) and some items typical 508 for a lower food neophobia (in Belgium:“I will eat almost anything”, 509 “I like trying new ethnic restaurants”; in Norway:“I am constantly sam- 510 pling new and different foods”,“At dinner parties I will try a new food”).
511 Moreover, the aggregated variable shows no significant difference be- 512 tween the two countries, indicating comparable national samples in 513 terms of food neophobia.
514 4. Summary and conclusions
515 This paper investigated beef consumers'attitudes to beef and food 516 technology, as well as their hedonic expectations for three beef cuts 517 subjected to different levels of processing: unprocessed tenderloin 518 M. Psoas major, muscle profiledM. Infraspinatusand marinated by in- 519 jectionM. Semitendinosus. The present study has a number of limita- 520 tions that should be taken into account when interpreting the 521 findings and the contributions of this study. The use of consumer 522 samples that are not fully representative for the Belgian and Norwe- 523 gian populations imposes constraints on possible generalisation of 524 the results. Furthermore, the limited sample size limits the possibili- 525 ties for segmentation and attitude-based modelling. Further research 526 with larger and more representative samples is needed to verify 527 whether the consumer profiles that were identified may correspond 528 to actual consumer segments in the national beef markets.
529 Results indicate that Norwegian consumers show lower involve- 530 ment with nutritional value and higher hedonic involvement with 531 beef than Belgian consumers, while Belgian consumers show higher 532 involvement in the healthiness of food and more concern about beef 533 safety, food risks and new food technologies than Norwegian con- 534 sumers. Regarding hedonic expectations, it was revealed that tender- 535 loin is preferred to the novel beef cuts by the majority of consumers 536 in both samples. However, 16% of the Norwegian and 27% of the 537 Belgian consumer samples expect to like novel beef cuts at least as 538 much as tenderloin. Among the regular beef consumers in this pro- 539 ject, four attitudinal profiles could be identified. A summary of these 540 profiles is presented inTable 5. Consumers with high expectations 541 for tenderloin may be qualified as“Enthusiastic beef eaters”as they 542 show a high beef involvement, positive attitudes to the healthiness 543 of beef, and positive feelings when eating beef and about beef safety 544 (Table 5). This profile is found in both countries. Analysis of con- 545 sumers' price acceptance indicated that current prices in Norway 546 are too high for consumers in the sample to be willing to purchase 547 beef tenderloin despite high hedonic expectations. Thisfinding con- 548 firms a market demand for cheaper alternatives for beef of good eat- 549 ing quality in Norway. Consumers with high expectations for muscle 550 profiled beef in Norway also match the“Enthusiastic beef eaters”pro- 551 file (although attenuated,Table 4). This beef cut is perceived to be 552 priced at an acceptable level; it may therefore represent a valid alter- 553 native to tenderloin in the market. Belgian consumers with high ex- 554 pectations for muscle profiled beef share a similar profile as in the 555 Norwegian sample, but are less interested in the healthiness of 556 foods (including beef), are very open to new food technologies and 557 report a low food neophobia. They may therefore be qualified as
“Open-minded beef eaters”. Finally, consumers with high expecta- 558 559 tions for beef marinated by injection in the Norwegian sample are
560 qualified as“Indifferent beef eaters”as they are quite indifferent to
561 the healthiness of beef or beef safety, despite expressing positive feel-
562 ings when eating beef. Belgian consumers with high expectations for
563 marinating beef are qualified as “Carefree beef eaters”, being
564 characterised by a low concern for food risks and healthiness of foods.
565 In conclusion, the four profiles of beef consumers that were iden-
566 tified indicate that tenderloin and tender(ised) low-value beef cuts
567 may be complementary and satisfy a broader market demand. Muscle
568 profiled beef in particular has market potential as it generates good
569 hedonic expectations, is perceived to have an acceptable price and
570 is expected to be preferred to marinated steak by 38.2 and 45.4% of
571 the Norwegian and Belgian samples, respectively. New production
572 technologies improving the tenderness of low-value meat cuts, such
573 as the ones investigated in this study, may therefore be key to new
574 market opportunities for the beef sector.
575 Acknowledgements
576 The authors gratefully acknowledge the EU FP6 Integrated Project
577 ProSafeBeef, contract no. FOOD-CT-2006-36241, and the Foundation
578 for Research Levy on Agricultural Products forfinancial support. The
579 journal editor and referees are sincerely thanked for their valuable
580 suggestions to an earlier version of this manuscript.
581 References
582 Almli, V. L., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Næs, T., & Hersleth, M. (2011). General image
583 and attribute perceptions of traditional food in six European countries.Food Quality
584 and Preference,22(1), 129–138.
585 Banovic, M., Grunert, K. G., Barriera, M. M., & Fontes, M. A. (2009). Beef quality percep-
586 tion at the point of purchase: A study from Portugal.Food Quality and Preference,
587 20, 335–342.
588 Berg, L. (2004). Trust in food in the age of mad cow disease: A comparative study of
589 consumers' evaluation of food safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway.Appetite,
590 42(1), 21–32.
591 Berg, L. (2005).Tillitens triangler om forbrukertillit og matsikkerhet [Triangle of trust: On
592 consumer trust and food safety]. Fagrapport nr. 1–2005, ISSN: 1502–6760.
593 82-7063-403-4.
594 Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L., Grunert, K. G., & Scholderer, J. (2005). Consumer perception of
595 the quality of beef resulting from various fattening regimes.Livestock Production
596 Science,94, 83–93.
Table 5 t5:1
t5:2 Summary of the four consumer profiles for tender and tenderised beef cuts. The num-
t5:3 ber of consumers who scored higher than average for the consumer sample per prod-
t5:4 uct and per country is indicated in brackets.
t5:5 Norway
(total samplen= 110)
Belgium
(total samplen= 108)
t5:6 Tenderloin Enthusiastic beef eaters
(n = 69)
High involvement with beef Positive feelings when eating beef
Positive feelings about beef safety Beef is healthy.
Enthusiastic beef eaters (n = 89)
High involvement with beef Positive feelings when eating beef
Positive feelings about beef safety Beef is healthy.
t5:7 Muscle
profiled
Enthusiastic beef eaters (n = 57)
High involvement with beef Positive feelings when eating beef
Positive feelings about beef safety
Beef is healthy.
Open-minded beef eaters (n = 71)
High involvement with beef Positive feelings when eating beef
Positive feelings about beef safety Healthiness of food is not important.
High acceptance for new food technologies Low food neophobia
t5:8 Marinated by
injection
Indifferent beef eaters (n = 46)
Positive feelings when eating beef
Carefree beef eaters (n = 60)
Do not worry about food risks.
Healthiness of food is not important.
V.L. Almli et al. / Meat Science xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 9
UNCORRECTED PR
OOF
597 Cox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to 598 measure consumers' fears of novel food technologies: The food technology 599 neophobia scale.Food Quality and Preference,19(8), 704–710.
600 de Barcellos, M. D., Kugler, J. O., Grunert, K. G., Van Wezemael, L., Perez-Cueto, F. J. A., 601 Ueland, O., et al. (2010). European consumers' acceptance of beef processing 602 technologies: A focus group study.Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 603 11(4), 721–732.
604 Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by external 605 cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review.Journal of 606 Sensory Studies,11, 103–128.
607 Eggen, A., & Hocquette, J. F. (2004). Genomic approaches to economic trait loci and 608 tissue expression profiling: Application to muscle biochemistry and beef quality.
609 Meat Science,66, 1–9.
610 FAOSTAT (2011).Databank from the Statistic Division of the Food and Agriculture Organisa- 611 tion of the United Nations.(In).
612 Hohl, K., & Gaskell, G. (2008). European public perceptions of food risk: cross-national 613 and methodological comparisons.Risk Analysis,28, 735–752.
614 Huffman, K. L., Miller, M. F., Hoover, L. C., Wu, C. K., Brittin, H. C., & Ramsey, C. B. (1996).
615 Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the 616 home and restaurant.Journal of Animal Science,74, 91–97.
617 Krystallis, A., Chryssochoidis, G., & Scholderer, J. (2007). Consumer-perceived quality in 618 ‘traditional’food chains: The case of the Greek meat supply chain.Appetite,48, 54–68.
619 Lusk, J. L., Fox, J. A., Schroeder, T. C., Mintert, J., & Koohmaraie, M. (2001). In-store valua- 620 tion of steak tenderness.American Journal of Agricultural Economics,83, 539–550.
621 Martens, H., & Martens, M. (2001).Multivariate analysis of quality. An introduction.John 622 Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (ISBN 0-491-97428-5).
623 Mueller, S. L., King, D. A., Baird, B. E., McKenna, D. R., Osburn, W. N., & Savell, J. W.
624 (2006). In-home consumer evaluations of individual muscles from beef rounds 625 subjected to tenderization treatments.Meat Science,74, 272–280.
626 Næs, T., Brockhoff, P., & Tomic, O. (2010).Statistics for sensory and consumer science.
627 Chichester, UK: Wiley.
628 Olson, S. O., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Verbeke, W. (2007). Exploring the relationship be- 629 tween convenience andfish consumption: A cross-cultural study.Appetite,49, 84–91.
630 Pietrasik, Z., & Shand, P. J. (2011). Effects of moisture enhancement, enzyme treatment, 631 and blade tenderization on the processing characteristics and tenderness of beef 632 semimembranosus steaks.Meat Science,88, 8–13.
633 Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food 634 neophobia in humans.Appetite,19(2), 105–120.
635 Reicks, A. L., Brooks, J. C., Garmyn, A. J., Thompson, L. D., Lyford, C. L., & Miller, M. F.
636 (2011). Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for
637 purchasing beef steaks and roasts.Meat Science,87, 403–411.
638 Rhee, M. S., Wheeler, T. L., Shackelford, S. D., & Koohmaraie, M. (2004). Variation in
639 palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles.Journal
640 of Animal Science,82, 534–550.
641 Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Quantification of consumer attitudes
642 to health and hedonic characteristics of foods.Appetite,33(1), 71–88.
643 Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., Meade, M. K., Reagan, J. O., Byrnes, B. L., & Koohmaraie,
644 M. (2001). Consumer impressions of tender select beef.Journal of Animal Science,
645 79, 2605–2614.
646 van Kleef, E., Ueland, O., Theodoridis, G., Rowe, G., Pfenning, U., Houghton, J., et al. (2009).
647 Food risk management quality: Consumer evaluations of past and emerging food
648 safety incidents.Health Risk & Society,11(2), 137–163.
649 Van Wezemael, L., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, R., De Smet, S., Scholderer, J., & Verbeke, W.
650 (2012). The effect of technology information on consumer expectations and liking
651 of beef.Meat Science,90(2), 444–450.
652 Van Wezemael, L., Verbeke, W., de Barcellos,M. D., Scholderer, J., & Perez-Cueto, F.
653 (2010). Consumer perceptions of beef healthiness: Results from a qualitative
654 study in four European countries.BMC Public Health,10.
655 Van Wezemael, L., Verbeke, W., Kügler, J. O., de Barcellos, M. D., & Grunert, K. G. (2010).
656 European consumers and beef safety: Perceptions, expectations and uncertainty
657 reduction strategies.Food Control,21(6), 835–844.
658 Verbeke, W. (2001). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after
659 the Belgian dioxin crisis.Food Quality and Preference,12(8), 489–498.
660 Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age.European
661 Review of Agricultural Economics,32(3), 347–368.
662 Verbeke, W. (2011). Consumer attitudes and communication challenges for agro-food
663 technologies.Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech,22(5), 34–36.
664 Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2004). Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh
665 meat.Meat Science,67(1), 159–168.
666 Verbeke, W., Van Wezemael, L., de Barcellos, M. D., Kugler, J. O., Hocquette, J. -F., Ueland,
667 O., et al. (2010). European beef consumers' interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee
668 Insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries.Appetite,54(2), 289–296.
669 Verbeke, W., Ward, R. W., & Avermaete, T. (2002). Evaluation of publicity measures
670 relating to the EU beef labeling system in Belgium.Food Policy,24(4), 339–353.
671 Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.Journal of Consumer
672 Research,12, 341–352.
673
