Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb 20;11(2):556.
doi: 10.3390/ani11020556.

European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red Meat Labelling Attributes

Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya  1 , Simona Naspetti  2 , Georgios Arsenos  3 , Emmanuelle Caramelle-Holtz  4 , Terhi Latvala  5 , Daniel Martin-Collado  6 , Stefano Orsini  7 , Emel Ozturk  1 , Raffaele Zanoli  1
Affiliations

European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red Meat Labelling Attributes

Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Food consumption in Europe is changing. Red meat consumption has been steadily decreasing in the past decades. The rising interest of consumers for healthier and more sustainable meat products provides red meat producers with the opportunity to differentiate their offers by ecolabels, origin and health claims. This international study analyses the European consumer preferences for red meat (beef, lamb and goat) in seven countries: Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Through a choice experiment, 2900 responses were collected. Mixed multinomial logit models were estimated to identify heterogeneous preferences among consumers at the country level. The results indicate substantial differences between the most relevant attributes for the average consumer, as well as their willingness to pay for them in each country. Nevertheless, national origin and organic labels were highly valued in most countries.

Keywords: Halal; carbon footprint; consumer preferences; convenience; country-of-origin; discrete choice experiment (DCE); fat; organic food and farming; protein content.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of a choice set.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of fat content presented in red meat cuts.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. FAO Livestock Processed. [(accessed on 29 September 2020)]; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QP.
    1. FAO Food Supply—Livestock and Fish Primary Equivalent. [(accessed on 29 September 2020)]; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CL.
    1. European Environment Agency Food Consumption—Animal Based Protein. [(accessed on 21 October 2019)]; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2018/resource-efficiency-and-low-carbon-e....
    1. Ferguson L.R. Meat and cancer. Meat Sci. 2010;84:308–313. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Olmedilla-Alonso B., Jiménez-Colmenero F., Sánchez-Muniz F.J. Development and assessment of healthy properties of meat and meat products designed as functional foods. Meat Sci. 2013;95:919–930. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.03.030. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources