IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlofdr/274560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust, Perceptions, Intentions and Behaviour in Meat Consumption

Author

Listed:
  • Muringai, Violet

Abstract

Consumers’ concerns about animal diseases, production and processing methods could drive their choices of food products. Consumers’ choices of food products will influence their nutritional status. Understanding preferences for food products could inform policy and assist in forecasting future demand for food products. In this study, the effects of generalized trust in people and trust in food agents regarding the safety of food on the demand for different forms of meat products, on preferences for pork production characteristics and on human health risk perceptions about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and chronic wasting disease (CWD) are analysed. The following hypotheses are tested (i) consumers who have lower levels of trust (both general and agent specific trust about food safety) are more likely to purchase fresh meat products and less likely to purchase processed meat products as compared to those consumers who have higher levels of trust. Consumers who have lower levels of trust might be more concerned about the use of additives, flavors and the public information on cancer risks of processed food, for example as compared to those consumers who have higher levels of trust; (ii) consumers who have lower levels of trust (both general and agent specific trust about food safety) are willing to pay higher premiums for pork produced under more traditional forms of production as compared to those consumers who have higher levels of trust. Consumers who have lower levels of trust might prefer traditionally raised pork over conventional pork as compared to those consumers who have higher levels of trust due to concerns about the use of antibiotics, the feed given to animals and the use of hormones, for example; (iii) trust (both general and agent specific trust about food safety) is negatively related to human health risk perceptions about BSE and CWD. The three studies are linked in that the effects of trust on consumer behaviour are analysed in three different contexts and trust is measured using the same questions. The first hypothesis is tested using cluster analysis, demand system analysis, probit models, data from two Canada wide surveys (2008 and 2011) and meat purchase data for the period 2002 to 2009 for the same households. The second hypothesis is tested using cluster analysis, conditional and random parameter logit models and data from choice experiments and surveys in Canada in 2011 and in Edmonton in 2009 and 2011. The third hypothesis is tested using ordered probit regressions and data from surveys conducted in Canada in 2009 and 2010, in the U.S. in 2010 (two surveys) and in Japan in 2009. In summary, the results suggest that households with respondents who have lower levels of trust generally purchased more fresh meat products and fewer processed meat products as compared to households with respondents who have medium or higher levels of trust. Households in the low trust cluster generally substitute fresh and semi-processed meat products more than households in the medium and higher trust clusters. Households in the high trust cluster generally substitute semi-processed and fully processed meat products more than households in the low and medium trust clusters. A little surprising but respondents who have higher levels of trust are generally willing to pay higher premiums for traditionally raised pork as compared to those respondents who have lower levels of trust. Although the effects of trust on consumer’s human health risk perceptions about BSE and CWD are not generally the same across countries or between the two diseases, trust does play a role in influencing risk perceptions in each country. In conclusion, trust is an important influence on consumer behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Muringai, Violet, 2017. "Trust, Perceptions, Intentions and Behaviour in Meat Consumption," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 48(1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:274560
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.274560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/274560/files/JFDR_48.1_06_Muringai.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.274560?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Picardy, Jamie Ann & Cash, Sean B. & Peters, Christian, . "Uncommon Alternative: Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Niche Pork Tenderloin in New England," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 51(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:274560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fdrssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.