Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 2
Effects of labelling...
Different information
Different products
Different consumers
Case studies:
Dairy drinks
Farmed cod
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 3
Young consumers: fish consumption and attitudes AVS fund
Farmed cod: Ethical issues, different conditions during slaughtering (SEAFOODplus) EU fund
Meat balls: Healthier processed meat productsThe Agricultural Productivity Fund
Dairy drinks (skyr-drinks): Different sweeteners
Projects
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 4
Information: Use and trust
Young consumer attitudes and fish consumption
Icelandic young adults in 20061735 participants, 17-26 years
How often to you use, receive or look for information about fish?
How well do you trust information about fish?
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ads
Government
Radio
Internet
TV
Newsp./Magazine
Supermarkets
Scientists
ConsumerUnions
NutritionRec
FishIndustry
Friends
Doctors
FishMonger
Dietician
Fishermen
Family
Trust
Use/obtain and trust of information
Do not trust at all Neither/nor Trust completely
Never Sometimes Very often
Use
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 6
Which information do consumers look at?
Survey regarding fish 2006
in Iceland (n = 248) and The Netherlands (n = 175), 18 years +
Survey regarding meat 2008
In Iceland (n = 67), 18 years +
Please indicate how often you use the following information when
you buy meat /fish products
(on the packaging, on the shelf in the store or the product label)
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 7
Fish: Which information do consumers look at?
Never Always1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nutrition
FishSpecies
Price
CaptureArea
QualityLabel
WelfaLabel
BrandName
EnvirLabel
Wild/Farmed
CountryOrigin
ExpiryDate
Weight
Iceland
The Netherlands
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nutrition
FishSpecies
Price
CaptureArea
QualityLabel
WelfaLabel
BrandName
EnvirLabel
Wild/Farmed
CountryOrigin
ExpiryDate
Weight
Meat type /
Fish vs Meat: Which information do consumers look at?
Never Always
Fish
Meat
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 9
Which information do consumers look at?
Conclusion
Use or where information is obtained from is not always in line with trust
Different emphasis between countriesDutch look more at nutrition value and species compared to Icelandic consumers
Different emphasis between types of foodInformation about nutrition value, type and price more used for meat products
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 10
Dairy drink study 2010: Effect of labelling
Two dairy drinks on the market (KEA skyr and skyr.is drinks)
Demand for sweet taste: Alternatives ?
White sugar, table sugar
sucrose
Artificial sweetener
acesulfam-K
Artificial sweetener aspartame
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 11
Dairy drink study (skyr drinks): Effect of labelling
Negative attitudes towards white added sugar and artificial sweeteners: Different alternatives ?
Agave syrup/nectarProduced from agave plant1.4 to 1.6 times sweeter than sugarConsists primarily of fructose and glucoseAgave nectar's glycemic index is lower than of table sugar (sucrose)
Agave juice
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 12
Dairy drink study (skyr drinks): Effect of labelling
Aim:
Investigate if/how information about the ingredientsin skyr drinks influenced the consumers liking
Target group: people on the move, 20-35 years
Total of 308 consumers participated, average age 28,1 years
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 13
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Attitude towards ingredients in skyr drinks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
aspartame
acesulfam-k
white sugar
carbohydrates
"skyr" bacterial culture
agave
skimmed milk
protein
1= very negative; 4= neither/nor; 7= very positive
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 14
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Attitudes towards sweet ingredients in skyr drinks
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Co
nsu
me
r %
1 = very negative; 4 = neither / nor; 7 = very positive
agave
white sugar
aspartame
acesulfam-k
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 15
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Central location test
blind tasting and informed tasting (n = 166)
9-point hedonic scale (liking)
Informed tasting:
Skyr.is drinkDrink number x is a low fat and protein rich skyr drink that contains no white sugar. Contains sweeteners instead (aspartame, acesulfam-K)
KEA drinkDrink number y is a low fat and protein rich skyr drink that contains no white sugar and no artificial sweeteners. Contains agave juice instead
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 16
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Overall liking of skyr drinks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Skyr.is-blind Skyr.is-info KEA-blind KEA-info
Lik
ing
sco
res
c c
b
a
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Skyr.is-blind Skyr.is-info KEA-blind KEA-info
Lik
ing
sco
res
Low
High
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Blind tasting and informed tasting
Segmentation:
General interest in healthy eating (low and high interest)
a a
b
b
a
b
cc
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 18
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Different attitudes towards ingredients in skyr drinks
General interest in healthy eating (low and high interest)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
aspartame
acesulfam-k
white sugar
carbohydrates
"skyr" bacterial culture
agave
skimmed milk
protein
highlow
1= very negative; 4 = neither / nor; 7 = very positive
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 19
Dairy drink study: Skyr drinks
Conclusion
Negative attitudes towards aspartame, acemsulfam-K and sugar
KEA skyr drink (with agave juice) was more liked – even better when information about sweet ingredients were provided
Information about ingredients of this kind of dairy drinks affect consumers
If the information is positive (ingredients with more positive image)
Consumers interested in healthy eating
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 20
Is animal welfare important to consumers?
Is labelling on packaging important and does information matter?
“stressed” and “unstressed” farmed fish in Norway
Conventional slaughtering practices and reduced stress prior to slaughter
Sensory evaluationTrained panellists in sensory lab
ConsumersIn-home test With and without information about the fishfarming/slaughtering
Farmed fish study: Effect of labelling
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 23
Farmed fish study: Effect of labelling
Information about the product
The consumers received both samples with and without
information
“unstressed” fish with information:
Positive information
Negative information
“stressed” fish with information:
Positive information
Negative information
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 24
Labelling on packaging
Product descriptionSpecies: Cod, farmedCountry of origin: NorwayWeight: ca. 500 gPrice: -Production: Animal friendly production*. Production with special precautions to minimize stress and suffering for the fish.Store: refrigerated 0-4 C
Eat before: xx of November 2006
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 25
Farmed fish study: Effect of labelling
Results: Sensory evaluation
How are the sensory characteristics of farmed cod?
Characteristic colour, odour, flavour and texture
white, homogenous
sweet, meaty odour and flavour
Flaky, meaty, tough, rubbery, dry texture
Differences between unstressed and stressed?
Unstressed
More meaty, tougher and rubbery texture
Stressed
More flaky and soft Reminds more of wild fish
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 26
Home use test resultsNo liking differences between stressed and unstressed
Did the information affect the consumers ?
● No information● Positive information about
animal friendly production● Negative information
● Information of this kind affect consumers perception of quality
Quality
Farmed fish study: Effect of labelling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Negative information
Positive information
No information
a a
b
Low
High
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 27
Farmed fish study: Effect of labelling
Ethical
37%
Wild fish likers
28%
Indifferent /
Uninvolved
35%
More males, average education
More females, more education, highest fish consumption
Low or high education
Ethical
Wild fish likers
Indifferent (regarding
animal welfare in
fish farming)
Different groups of consumers: Grouped by attitudes towards fish farming and animal welfare
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 28
Again, effects of information about the fish farming on perceived quality
● Indifferent:
No effect of information
● Wild fish likers:
Generally lower quality and
negative information very
considerable effect
● Ethical:
Positive information
resulted in increased
perceived quality
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Negative information
Positive information
No information
Indifferent WildFishLikers Ethical
Low
High
Quality
Kolbrun Sveinsdottir 29
Farmed fish study: Effect of labelling
Conclusion
Sensory differences between stressed and unstressed-Too small to notice during consumption at home
Information about the fish farming and slaughtering
Effects on how consumers like the product
Different groups of consumers!Positive image in fish farming is important