Agriculture and Human Values 29 (4):507-517 (2012)
AbstractResearch indicates that consumers are particularly concerned about the safety of meat. More highly processed meat is perceived as more unsafe than fresh or natural meats, i.e., consumers trust processed meat less. This paper studies the relationship between perceived trust and day-to-day purchase behavior for meat, giving special attention to the degree of meat processing. Controlling for trust in food chain actors and demographic and socio-economic variables, actual meat purchases of Canadian households are linked to answers from a commissioned food attitudes survey completed by the same households. Expenditures for processed and total meat (but not for fresh meat) are significantly different by three levels of trust in the food industry. Consumer with the lowest trust levels consume less (especially of processed meat) compared to those with higher trust levels. However, in a multivariate setting, trust shows no effect on fresh or processed meat purchases with or without demographic and socio-economic control variables, suggesting that the impact of trust on meat purchases is only small. However, the low trusting consumer segment could potentially be a target for marketing strategies focused on reputation and quality to increase sales in this particular group
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Similar books and articles
Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production:Meeting Consumer Concerns About Meat Safety and Animalwelfare. [REVIEW]Wim A. J. Verbeke & Jacques Viaene - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):141-151.
Meeting Heterogeneity in Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare: A Reflection on Existing Knowledge and Implications for the Meat Sector. [REVIEW]Janneke Jonge & Hans C. M. Trijp - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (3):629-661.
Meeting Heterogeneity in Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare: A Reflection on Existing Knowledge and Implications for the Meat Sector. [REVIEW]Janneke de Jonge & Hans Cm van Trijp - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (3):629-661.
Swiss Market for Meat From Animal-Friendly Production – Responses of Public and Private Actors in Switzerland.Sibyl Anwander Phan-Huy & Ruth Badertscher Fawaz - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (2):119-136.
From Trust to Trustworthiness: Why Information is Not Enough in the Food Sector.Franck L. B. Meijboom, Tatjana Visak & Frans W. A. Brom - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):427-442.
Resilience in the US Red Meat Industry: The Roles of Food Safety Policy. [REVIEW]Michelle R. Worosz, Andrew J. Knight & Craig K. Harris - 2008 - Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2):187-191.
Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):579-596.
Stakeholders on Meat Production, Meat Consumption and Mitigation of Climate Change: Sweden as a Case. [REVIEW]Henrik Lerner, Bo Algers, Stefan Gunnarsson & Anders Nordgren - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (3):663-678.
Home | Archives | Announcements | About the Journal | Submission Information | Contact Us.William Stephens - manuscript
Five Arguments for Vegetarianism.William O. Stephens - 1994 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):25-39.
On the Threshold Argument Against Consumer Meat Purchases.Gary Chartier - 2005 - Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (2):233–249.
Standard Fare or Fairer Standards: Feminist Reflections on Agri-Food Governance. [REVIEW]Martha McMahon - 2011 - Agriculture and Human Values 28 (3):401-412.
Oryx and Crake and the New Nostalgia for Meat.Jovian Parry - 2009 - Society and Animals 17 (3):241-256.
Reducing Meat Consumption in Today’s Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap. [REVIEW]Erik de Bakker & Hans Dagevos - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):877-894.