IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i2p234-d1040255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences for Processed Meat Reformulation Strategies: A Prototype for Sensory Evaluation Combined with a Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Xinyi Hong

    (School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
    School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Chenguang Li

    (School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Liming Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
    Irish Institute for Chinese Studies, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Mansi Wang

    (School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Simona Grasso

    (School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Frank J. Monahan

    (School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, D04V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Consumption trends demand healthier meat products and require research into reformulation strategies. Ambiguities in consumer preferences for two processed meat reformulation strategies (i.e., ingredient “reduction” and nutrient “addition”) were investigated. Using physical prototypes of omega-3-enriched pork sausages and sensory evaluation to reduce hypothetical bias, followed by a choice-based conjoint experiment, results suggested that consumers valued both “addition” and “reduction” reformulation strategies, and consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) premiums were the highest for omega-3 addition, followed by fat reduction, and were lowest for salt reduction. Moreover, WTP was influenced by sensory preferences and was positively correlated with sensory liking levels. Providing health-related information improved consumers’ sensory perceptions of omega-3-enriched sausages. Findings imply that reformulated healthier meat products are acceptable to consumers. Moreover, to enhance consumers’ valuation on new launches of healthier processed meat products, meat manufacturers should inform consumers of health-related reformulation information, provide consumers with opportunities to taste newly developed healthier processed meat products, and continuously optimize consumers’ sensory experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinyi Hong & Chenguang Li & Liming Wang & Mansi Wang & Simona Grasso & Frank J. Monahan, 2023. "Consumer Preferences for Processed Meat Reformulation Strategies: A Prototype for Sensory Evaluation Combined with a Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:234-:d:1040255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/2/234/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/2/234/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.
    2. Lähteenmäki, Liisa & Lampila, Piritta & Grunert, Klaus & Boztug, Yasemin & Ueland, Øydis & Aström, Annika & Martinsdóttir, Emilia, 2010. "Impact of health-related claims on the perception of other product attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 230-239, June.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    4. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Konuk, Faruk Anıl, 2021. "The moderating impact of taste award on the interplay between perceived taste, perceived quality and brand trust," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Adriano Profeta & Marie-Christin Baune & Sergiy Smetana & Sabine Bornkessel & Keshia Broucke & Geert Van Royen & Ulrich Enneking & Jochen Weiss & Volker Heinz & Sopie Hieke & Nino Terjung, 2021. "Preferences of German Consumers for Meat Products Blended with Plant-Based Proteins," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    8. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Áron Török & Ching-Hua Yeh & Davide Menozzi & Péter Balogh & Péter Czine, 2023. "Consumers' preferences for processed meat: a best–worst scaling approach in three European countries," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    2. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Tensay Meles & L. (Lisa B.) Ryan & Sanghamitra Mukherjee, 2019. "Preferences for Renewable Home Heating: A Choice Experiment Study of Heat Pump System in Ireland," Open Access publications 10197/11467, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    4. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    5. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    6. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    7. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    8. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    9. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    10. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    12. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    13. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    14. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    17. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    18. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    20. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.

    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:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:234-:d:1040255. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.