Faculty of Bio-Science Engineering Academic year 2011 2012

The impact of country-of-origin labelling (COO) on food product preference The case of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat

Lopez Elliot
Promotor: Prof. dr. ir. Wim Verbeke Co-promotor: dr. ir. Filiep Vanhonacker

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master Science in Human Nutrition and Rural Development

Abstract

The purpose of this master thesis is to provide an in-depth examination of importance of country-of-origin (COO) theory in perceptions of consumers in a national setting. It shows how explanatory factors like socio-demographics, familiarity with a countrys products, given importance to food attributes, and willingness to pay for a foreign country product jointly work to explain consumers COO perceptions. Cross sectional data were collected from a web based survey through the panel thesistools (n = 542). This is a quantitative study using a questionnaire with 27 questions among Belgian consumers in the Region of Flanders and Brussels. Findings: Country-of-origin (COO) was the least important product attribute in a list of 13 attributes on average. Yet, findings showed that its importance differed between consumers. A profile is drawn of consumers with a different level of interest in origin, in terms of sociodemographics, and different attitudinal measurements. Further, the impact of country-of-origin was investigated for chicken meat with Belgian versus Brazilian origin, and the association between preference for Belgian chicken meat and country image (significantly different), ethnocentrism (significantly different), interest in foreign cultures (not significant), familiarity with the country (not significant) was investigated, according to country-of-origin theories. Research limitations/implications: The study used only respondents from two of the three regions of Belgium. Future research should seek to develop a multi-dimensional scale for chicken meat of different countries of origin. Practical implications: It seems important to increase consumers familiarity with a COO and its products to improve its overall perception. Products imported from developing countries have the lowest level of familiarity in general. Thus, increasing familiarity with their products is particularly important to achieve export success.

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

After working during months, I want to say that this work would not have been possible without the collaboration of many persons that contributed to get to the final book. First of all, I thank to God, spirituality and faith have drive my life the last years. Then I would like to thanks to my family that in the distance have supported me and give me the encouragement needed to pursue my objectives and dreams. To my mom who tought me the importance of education and being an agent of change, Lupina, you have been my example all my life, and I will always thank you for all your efforts and help and inconditional love, mami te quiero mucho! To my brother Emir Lopez and my sister Erika Lopez who are my examples of excellence, I love you guys more than you think, and through all this process I thought a lot about you, is going to take a while to get where you are but I will meet you in your careers dreams. Very special thanks to my promoter, Prof. Dr. ir Wim Verbeke, who allowed me to be part of an incredible dynamic and organized team or researchers of the Faculty of Bio-science Engineering at Ugent. To Dr. ir. Filiep Vanhonacker, who helped me and supported me through the whole procedure with his quick emails and accurate revisions, without your guidance, patience and kindness this work would not have been possible, I will always thank you for that. To all collaborators that facilitated me information in a very efficient and friendly way: Bastin Valrie (Attach), Direction gnrale Potentiel conomique. Direction des Industries agroalimentaires (Belgium) Dethise Rjane. Documentatiecentrum OIVO (Belgium) Dr Edith Hoc. AFSCA. DG Politique de contrle (Belgium) Dr. Pierre Naassens. Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (AFSCA)(Belgium) Pottier Jean, Regulatory Expert Food Labelling, Nutrition and Health Claims. Animal, Plant and food Directorate-General. Service Food, Feed, Other Consumption Products,

Eurostation/Eurostation (Belgium) Samborski, Vincent. Landbouw en Visserij - Vlaanderen.be, Department of monitoring and Studies (Belgium)

Vanderhasselt Roselien, Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek. Eenheid Dier Veehouderij en dierenwelzijn (Belgium) I would also like to thank to the coordinator of our Master in Science in Human Nutrition and Rural Development, Ann-Marie De Winter, always encouraging students to pursue their objectives, energetic and positive towards all type of difficulties, I see you as an important agent of change in the world, and want to thank you for the work that you do giving support and opportunities to those that probably needed the most. To the university of Gent and their excellent team of professors, researchers and collaborators, impacting my life through knowledge and inspiring through their passion for sciences To my best friend Antoine Pacco, who helped me un til the very last minute, Bolinho Dank u wel!. To my friends Marijke Geerts, Brnice Goffinet, Caroline Smeyers, Celine and Sophie Van den Abeele, Kris and Karen Mathay, Ariel Eberstein, Siska van Nieuwenhove, Anna Munchin, Lauret Benchariff and Igor TSerstevens, who became pillars in the difficult moments, sharing my worries and my succeeds.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ANOVA BE BR COO COOL EC EMBRAPA cooperation) EU FAO LDCs MDCs MMT R2adj SD SE SEM USA USDA VLAM European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation Low developed Countries Middle Developed Countries Millions Metric Tones Adjusted R square Standard Deviation Standard Error Standard Error of the Mean United States of America United States Department of Agriculture Vlaams Centrum voor Agro- en Visserijmarketing vzw (Flemish Centre for Analysis of variance Belgium Brazil Country of Origin Country of Origin labeling European Commission Empresa Brasileira de pesquisa agropecuria (Brazilian agricultural research

Agriculture and Fish marketing WTP Willingness To Pay

pg. 1

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat. 2010............................................................................ 14 Table 2. Major Exporters from Broilers in the World, 2010........................................................... 15 Table 3. Belgian neto production of poultry meat (in tones, carcass weight (kg)) ........................ 16 Table 4. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (n=542) ............................... 31 Table 5. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of knowledge and ethnocentrism ................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 6. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of interest in foreign cultures ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviation on a 7 point scale that ranged from (1) Totally unimportant to Strictly important............................................................................................... 39 Table 8. Relative Importance of Country of Origin for Quartiles ................................................... 40 Table 9. Socio-demographic profiling of Quartiles......................................................................... 42 Table 10. Comparison among quartiles of RI scores of food attributes of BE vs. BR chicken meat ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 Table 11. Difference among quartiles for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat ......................... 49 Table 12. Difference among quartiles for perception of economic development scores BE-BR .. 51 Table 13. Willingness to pay for chicken meat of developed and developing countries .............. 52 Table 14. Difference among quartiles for interest in foreigner cultures ....................................... 53 Table 15. Difference among quartiles regarding familiarity to BR................................................. 54 Table 16. Difference among quartiles for willingness to pay for BR vs. BE chicken products ....... 55

pg. 2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat in Quantity (ready-to-cook-equivalent) ..................... 14 Figure 2. Production of broilers chicken in Belgium by region*, 2000-2011 (pieces) ................... 16 Figure 3. Composition of Poultry Livestock in Belgium, in pieces (2000-2010) ............................. 17 Figure 4. Example of Country of Origin Labeling in a Food Product .............................................. 28 Figure 5. Evaluation of product attributes of Brazilian versus Belgian meat ................................. 45 Figure 6. Evaluation of Brazilian Chicken Meat Production (means) ............................................. 46

pg. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................. 1 LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS ........................................................................................................... 9 1.2 THESIS OUTLINE ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 12 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Chicken Meat .................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Poultry consumption and Trade ................................................................................. 12 2.2 Country of Origin ............................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Influencing Factors of COO ............................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Socio Demographics Characteristics Influence .......................................................... 20 2.3.3 Country image ............................................................................................................ 23 2.3.4 Ethnocentrism ............................................................................................................ 24 2.4 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat commodity: Legal Framework .................... 26 2.4.1 Communication and consumers................................................................................. 28 2.4.2 Consumers Responses ............................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 30 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 30 3.1 Study Design and Subjects ................................................................................................ 30 3.3 Questionnaire and Scales .................................................................................................. 32 3.4 Analyses procedures ......................................................................................................... 35 pg. 4

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 36 4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 36 4.1 Data Editing ....................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 Profiling Variables ............................................................................................................. 38 4.2 Segmentation of variables ................................................................................................ 39 4.3 COO and Country image.................................................................................................... 44 4.3.1 Product perception BE vs. BR ..................................................................................... 44 4.3.2 Production methods perception BE vs. BR................................................................. 45 4.3.3 Perception of broiler chicken farms size BE vs. BR .................................................... 47 4.4 COO and Ethnocentrism.................................................................................................... 47 4.5 COO and Willingness to Pay .............................................................................................. 50 4.6 Interest in foreign cultures................................................................................................ 52 4.6.1 COO and familiarity .................................................................................................... 54 4.7 Influence of level of processing ........................................................................................ 55 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 57 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 57

pg. 5

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Interest in country of origin has increased in society along the years. A large body of research has provided strong empirical evidence of country-of-origin (COO) effects on product evaluations. COO have been found to affect the significance of how consumers associate with distinct foods and may influence their preferences. In an expanding global economy, aspects concerning country-of-origin (COO) and the advantages/disadvantages of its communication are gaining importance, especially in the agro-food sector. For many consumers worldwide, origin has been identified to be a determining purchase criterion in food consumption. Meat consumption has increased in the last decades, shifting preferences for white over red meat, being chicken meat the favorite of global consumers. Health concerns, economic changes and global trade, are some of the possible factors affecting these changes. As result of the increasing demand of chicken meat, production of fresh and processed chicken meat products have increased in many developing countries, such as Brazil, which possess the natural resources, as well as the workforce to produce in big scales. Imports related to the inability to cope with the demand of production, and as a result of the benefits from international prices, have also increased in developed countries such as Belgium. Food marketing seems to have a great influence in consumers purchase, and as a result of that, changing legislations around food safety and food origin in Europe have been changing and improved, in order to protect consumers from misleading information, but also to give the choice to the consumer to get to know deeper the quality attributes of the food product they are purchasing. We investigated this issue with regard to chicken meat in a consumer survey directed to Dutch speaking citizens in Belgium (Flanders and Brussels Capital Region, further referred to as Flanders). The results of our investigation are the subject of this contribution. To estimate consumers importance attached to country of origin and ethnocentrism influence we used a survey with categorical and continuous variables (dichotomous and Likert scale). The sample selection in our approach was based on the consumers purchase option of chicken meat in pg. 6

Flanders. Survey data was gathered through self-administered web-based questionnaires, respondents were members of a panel managed by Thesistools. This study will profile consumers segments (quartiles) that differ in (relative value) importance of country of origin as a food product attribute. The specific focus on the poultry sector is motivated by the significance of the sector in the study area, Flanders (northern region of Belgium); also by its significant higher production of chicken meat in Belgium. Brazil was chosen as comparative country due the importance of its contribution in the world poultry production, but also because it is the first non-EU (developing) country from where chicken meat is imported to Belgium. The segmentation is a necessary tool in order to form groups with specific characteristics and to compare them with the variables that are relevant to the influence of country of origin as a food product attribute. Distinct consumer profiles can be established providing insights as to how to target, communicate and convince these distinct groups to purchase different countries of origins products. We will use country of origin importance as an indicator for the market opportunities of imported chicken meat, while the relative value of country of origin, as a product attribute, will be considered for the ethnocentric positioning of Belgian consumers. The increasing consumption of chicken meat and processed chicken products in Europe is of interest to local and international markets. The relationship between constituents of meat and a healthy diet, (concerns related to saturated fat in animal products, illness and weight), lower cost increasing production in developing countries, and sustained demand for protein origin food products has been related to it. Negative association with red meat consumption and the debate around use of hormones, BSE, food safety, animal welfare, and global price changes can be considered as factors influencing the shifting to the increasing chicken meat consumption at the expenses of red meat and other poultry. It is believed that the influence of the labeling of the country of origin seems to have an impact in consumers preferences. It is important, therefore, to understand how consumers perceive chicken meat attributes (such as country of origin, price, appearance, freshness, environmental friendliness and animal welfare, among others), and how these affect the consumption and purchase intentions with respect to domestic and imported products. pg. 7

Little consumer research has been done specifically with respect to perception of country of origin labeling from Belgian consumers for chicken meat and their processed products imported from developing countries. Hence, the scarcity of insights in consumer perception towards chicken meat provenance, support the motion of the present masters research.

pg. 8

1.1 Objective of the thesis

The overall objective of the present research is to obtain insights in the role of COO as a food product attribute among Flemish consumers related to domestic versus Brazilian chicken meat . More specifically, the following four specific research objectives are hereby set forth: The main objectives of the paper were: 1. Verify the importance of different food product attributes in food purchasing decisions of chicken meat (and the ranking of COO in that list) 2. Profile groups with different levels of interest in COO in terms of sociodemographics, responsibility for food purchase, meat consumer profile, and consumption frequency. 3. Verify whether theory of COO is also applicable in food product preference for the case study of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat in the context of: Country Image; it is expected that the perception that consumers have regarding the image of Brazil would have an effect in the quality evaluation of its products Ethnocentrism; studies support a positive relationship between a favorable perception of domestic products and the preference for products of an equal level of economic development, as well as similarity with respondents' cultural and belief systems. Interest for foreign cultures; Consumers with a strong interest in foreign cultures appear to rate imported food products more highly than consumers who are less interested. Perceived similarity; Food products from countries with similar cultural backgrounds and belief systems tend to be evaluated more positively than products from countries with dissimilar belief systems, the halo effect of a countrys image also influence products evaluation. The present research focuses on chicken meat evaluation as one product category, and narrows down to processed food which as main ingredient contain chicken meat.

pg. 9

1.2 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of a literature review related to chicken meat consumption and trade, country of origin labeling, ethnocentrism, socio-demographics characteristics influence in consumers preference and food quality attributes, among the most important. Chapter 1, provides the introduction, lists of abbreviations and acronyms, tables and figures for a better guide to the reader, and objectives of the present research. Chapter 2, provides literature findings from concepts of interest related to the subject of the thesis. In the first subdivision of this part chicken trade is underlined, including world and local production (Brazilian and Belgian), imports, exports and consumption. In the second subdivision country of origin importance as a food product attribute is described. An overview of important related concepts, such as country image, ethnocentrism and socio-demographics characteristics are also described. In the third subdivision food attributes considered in the questionnaire used are briefly discussed. In the fourth subdivision the relationship between COO labeling and consumers response is underlined. Chapter 3, this chapter describes the materials and methods used in the present research to evaluate the effect of COO in consumers perception of credence attributes . Also this section describes the study design and socio-demographics characteristics of the subjects, the questionnaire and scales, the segmentation profiling and the statistical analysis. Chapter 4, provides a descriptive analysis of the results of the effect of COO on consumers attitudes. This section describes the results obtained for the positioning of COO compared to others food attributes, as well as it influence when computed as a Relative value when evaluating preference of BR. Vs. BE chicken meat. A description of the results of the relationship between COO and country image, ethnocentrism, interest in foreign cultures and perceived similarity is also commented in this section. Chapter 5, provides the general conclusion, the most important findings, and recommendations for further research are set forth.

pg. 10

1.3 Hypothesis

The present research attempts to investigate the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Segments with a different level of importance attached to COO differ in terms of socio-demographics characteristics, meat consumption type and frequency of meat consumption Hypothesis 2: Differences exist between consumers' evaluation of Belgian and Brazilian chicken meat and chicken meat production Hypothesis 3: Importance attached to COO is positively related to consumer preference for domestic chicken. Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between importance attached to COO and level of ethnocentrism. Hypothesis 5: Consumers are willing to pay more for domestic products/developed country products than for foreigner/developing country products. Hypothesis 6: Products from countries with similar cultural backgrounds or belief systems will be evaluated more positively than products from countries with dissimilar belief systems. Hypothesis 7: Importance of COO will be less important for processed chicken meat as compared to chicken breasts

pg. 11

CHAPTER 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW Shifting trade patterns, and the emergence of developing countries as significant exporters of fresh and processed goods, have resulted in a resurgence of markets protectionism over the past few decades. To protect consumers and domestic manufacturers, governments in industrial nations have undertaken measures that range from imposing import barriers, to legislations that mandate a number of public information by labeling. Advertisement pursuing consumers to buy domestic and increasing varieties of imported food products have generated differences in evaluating the importance of food attributes, and therefore food purchase (Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990). The globalization of markets and food production within the last two decades have underscored the need for greater proficiency in understanding the impact of products attributes and country image on cross-national consumers behaviour. Research on country-oforigin (COO) effects, for example, has shown that such proficiency can contribute to the development of effective global marketing programs by synthesizing the attitudinal constructs observed in different national markets with strategy formulation (Baughn & Yaprak, 1993). In the present chapter we will find a literature review related to chicken meat trade and consumption; evaluation of food attributes, being the main focus COO, and concepts related to consumers food preferences.

2.1 Chicken Meat

2.1.1 Poultry consumption and Trade

The evolution of production of poultry as source of edible animal protein has increased in the last years. The consumption of meat in developed countries has increased from 76.3 kg/person/year in 1980 to 82.1 kg/person/year in 2005 (FAO, 2009). This tendency has maintained relatively stable but varying respect to the source of meat, with an increase of pg. 12

chicken meat (within the poultry category) consumption and decrease of cattle meat. By 2010 the average Belgian citizen consumed 9.5 kg/person/year of fresh chicken meat, by 2011 this increased to 10 kg/person/year (VLAM, 2012). According to some revision, the consumption of cattle meat have decreased not only due the price (Fulginiti, 1996) but also due an imago factors (Rozin, Fischler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski, 1999), concerns of health (Stafleu, de Graaf, & van Staveren, 1994) and credence issues such as proportion of saturated fat (Valsta, Tapanainen, & Mnnist, 2005), food safety issues such as link to use of hormones (Alfnes & Rickertsen, European Consumers Acceptance of US Hormone-Treated Beef, 2003), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin contamination (Verbeke, Viaene, & Guiot, Health Communication and Consumer Behavior on Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin, 1999), and environment of production, among others (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2001). At a global level, and as response to the demand, total poultry meat production has increased from 69 in 2000 to 94 million tons in 2008, corresponding to an augmentation of 35% of the production, 86% represented by chicken (FAO, 2010). Global markets have focused on the production of broiler, known as the type of chicken specially bred for meat production (Gallus domesticus) because it grows much faster than an egg breed of chicken (FAO, 2010). In this thesis we will focus only in the definition of EU that specifies that broiler or chicken is the fowl in which the tip of the sternum is flexible (not ossified) (EU, No 543/2008). Estimation of poultry production reports show differences according to the source, sometimes presenting overestimation/underestimation, difficult to discriminate. According to the USDA, for 2010, the United States of America was the first producer in quantity and value of broiler chicken, followed by China and Brazil (see Table 1). The forecast of the global production for 2012 is to increase, driven by strong domestic demand in China and Brazil, however, growth will be slower than the previous years, given the rising cost of feed and a slowdown in U.S. production (USDA, 2011). During the last decade, Brazil has increased remarkably its meat production, being the quantity of poultry meat exports fivefold. In nominal value, Brazils net export of livestock products has gone from US$435 million in 1995 to US$7280 million in 2006. Brazil has

pg. 13

increasingly taken advantage of low feed production costs for its livestock industry and it seems to remain as an important producer of feedstuffs (FAO, 2009), (see Figure 1).

Table 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat. 2010

Producers 2010 United States of America China Brazil EU-27 Mexico World Million Metric Tons/MMT Ready-to-cook Equivalent

MMT 16.6 12.6 12.3 9.1 2.8 76.0

Source: USDA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/CP2011/Broilers-2011-Final.pdf

18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *(f) 2012 Area USA China Brazil UE-27 Mexico

Figure 1. Major Producers of Broiler Meat in Quantity (ready-to-cook-equivalent) Source: USDA-FAS attached reports, official statistics, and results of office research. * Forecast ciphers Notes: Chicken paws are excluded

Since 2000, the amount of imported poultry has increased in Europe (7.5 million kg in 2008, primarily from the EU, Brazil and Thailand), but is mostly used in the convenience food industry as well as in restaurants and institutional catering units (FAO, 2010). The preference for pg. 14

broilers already cut and prepared (processed in meals or products) have also increased in comparison with the whole chicken sales (VLAM, 2012). Factors such as the increased price of chicken feeding and geographical availability for livestock production, have beneficiated countries like Brazil, where soy and corn production have increased in the last years, and where natural-resource endowments influence positively the output of chicken production, allowing it to become the first exporter of the world of broilers (see Table 2), and the primary country non EU that export broilers to Belgium (FAO, 2009; FAO, 2010; ABEF, 2010). In 2010, Brazil was responsible for the 49% of the imports of fresh meat coming from non-EU countries in Belgium, by the third trimester of 2011 this increased to 69%. Table 2. Major Exporters from Broilers in the World, 2010
Major Exporters 2010 Brazil United States of America EU-27 Thailand China World Million Metric Tons/MMT Ready-to-cook Equivalent MMT 3.2 3.1 1.0 0.4 0.4 8.8

Source: USDA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/CP2011/Broilers-2011-Final.pdf

By 2009, according to the reports of VLAM, broilers chicken production in Belgium accounted for 91% of the total poultry category that includes rabbit and wild animals (see Table 3). It is however important to comment on the difficulties presented to interpret and compared production, when figures are published in terms of slaughtering per piece, tones (kilograms) of actual meat (sometimes including fowls), carcass weight, and the discrimination of chicken meat and laying eggs hens within the poultry category.

pg. 15

Table 3. Belgian neto production* of poultry meat (in tones, carcass weight1 (kg))
Category Rabbit meat (incl. wild) Chicken meat Other poultry Total 2000 27838 400360 6866 435064 2001 34965 406172 6815 447952 2002 27517 459076 8594 495187 2003 34734 423590 5729 464053 2004 34838 460611 7328 502777 2005 39394 446835 7328 493557 2006 43845 458000 7132 508977 2007 44196 446203 5769 496168 2008 43179 422252 11689 477120 2009 41836 477359 4826 524021

Source: CLE and NIS (VLAM, 1999-2009) *Refers to real slaughtered pieces without counting the losses Flanders represents the strongest contributor for livestock production in Belgium, therefore its selection as sample region for our research (Figure 2). For 2010, 84% of the poultry meat in Belgium was produced in the Flemish region, while 16% in the Wallonia region, increasing for 2011, being 85/15% respectively for both regions, denoting a decrease of the production in the Wallonia region.

25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0

Flemish Region

Wallonie Region

Brussels Region

Figure 2. Production of broilers chicken in Belgium by region*, 2000-2011 (pieces) Source: http://statbel.fgov.be FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie. a. Preliminary results *Includes loses
1

For poultry it is the weight of the cold body of the slaughtered farmyard poultry after being bled, plucked and eviscerated. The weight includes poultry offal, with the exception of foie gras. For other species, 'carcass weight' is considered to be the weight of the slaughtered animals cold body (EC).

pg. 16

The trade of poultry has fluctuated among EU countries for the last ten years, with a tendency of decreasing production growth (FOD Economie, K.M.O), and decreasing of exports within the EU region and to third countries (no members of EU region). The quantity of broilers grow-out farms have decreased in Belgium (Viaene & Verheecke, 2008; Bernaerts & Demuynck, 2009), and although the ability to cope with difficulties, technology and other factors that have allowed production to increase their output by farm, during the year 2010-2011 there were less slaughtered chickens (see Figure 5). By 2009 there were 3710 grow-out firms while for 2010 were 3642 in Belgium (-1.8%), production fluctuates between 5000-50.000 broilers/farm. Differently to Belgium, Brazilian chicken farms have increased not only in number but also in density of production; improvement in genetics, feeding and management had contributed to this. There are farms from 2550 m2, with 15m of length and 150 of broad, working with 30.000 birds, having approximately 14 birds per square meter (Rural, 2009). According to the Secretary of Agriculture from Parana State (SEAB), by October 2011 was reported a growth of 7,9%, going from 14.059 registered farms in October 2010 to the current 15.177 existing (Aveworld, 2011).

30000000 25000000 20000000

Pieces

Small chicken/eggs producers Broiler chicken Others

15000000 10000000 5000000 0

Figure 3. Composition of Poultry Livestock in Belgium, in pieces (2000-2010) Source: VLAM. http://www.vlam.be/marketinformationdocument/files/Samenstellingveestapel2000-2010.pdf

pg. 17

2.2 Country of Origin

Country of origin and the importance given to it, represent the main subject from interest for the present research. The country of origin (COO) of a food product has become an important marketing tool in the last decades. After studying different characteristics of importance from a food product, researchers started to notice that the country of origin of a product and the image that consumers have about countries, may influence their preferences (Roth & Romeo, 1992; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008; Schnettler, Vidal, Vallejos, & Seplveda, 2009; Pouta, Heikkil, ForsmanHugg, Isoniemi, & Mkel, 2010; Yeh, Chen, & Sher, 2010). Dichter (1962) was the first to argue that a products country origin might influence consumers acceptance of products (Dichter, 1962). One of the first empirical test found significant differences in the evaluation of products that were identical in all respects, except for the name of the country specified on a made in label (Schooler, 1965). Since then, the evaluation of COO effect as a food cue has been the subject of a large number of studies. It has been affirmed that COO has a great impact on product evaluations when consumers are less motivated to process available information (Maheswaran, 1994) therefore is an extrinsic cue from high interest to be study. COO is a complex term to define since the manufacturing can take place in different locations. Consumers can see the brand where the product has been manufactured but actually is impossible for consumers to determine where the raw material is coming from and which ingredients from a food product have been produced in which country. COO represent an extrinsic quality cue, those are related to everything that is product-related, such as price or packaging, while intrinsic quality cues, are part of the physical product, such as color or fat content, (Jacoby & Olson, 1977; Bredahl, 2004; Bilkey & Nes, 1982). Researchers such as Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999) made a distinction between cognitive, affective and normative aspects of COO. He proposed that the cognitive aspect of COO might be regarded as an extrinsic cue for product quality. The affective aspect is related to pg. 18

symbolic and emotional associations with COO, and the normative aspects are related to customer preference and to the decision to purchase or avoid a countrys products being this also related to a pro or contra attitude to the policies and practices of a country. However different studies have shown that COO is not only a cognitive cue. Some researchers (Hong & Wyer Jr., 1989; Hong & Wyer, 1990; Li & Wyer Jr., 1994) showed that the impact of COO cannot be explained entirely by a quality interpretation process. Besides being used as a quality cue, COO has a symbolic and emotional meaning to consumers, by associating a product with status, authenticity and exoticness, moreover, it relates a product to a rich product-country image, with sensory, affective and ritual connotations and is also related to national identity, which can result in a strong emotional attachment to certain brands and products (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). The COO may have a positive or negative effect according to the category of the product; this is known as Domestic Country Bias (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004). It has been also discussed that there is an interaction between product category and product origins (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Roth & Romeo, 1992). Therefore, consumer evaluations of, or preferences for foreign products can be product, origin, or product/origin-specific. The importance of COO has been studied in different types of products and as an exclusive product attribute, as well as related to another food attributes, different findings have been reported. During an evaluation from different attributes, Pouta et al (2010) observed that price had a significant negative effect, as most of the times expected, but that country of origin had a significant positive impact on the probability of choice. When compared to Thailand as the reference level, the products originating from all other countries (Finland, Denmark and Brazil) were preferred by Finnish consumers. Broiler fillets from Denmark were closest to the Finnish alternative in terms of the country of origin. Moreover, the probability that broiler fillets from Brazil were chosen was also higher than for Thailand (this may be also explained by the avian influenza epidemic by the moment when the study was performed). Many of these studies concluded that COO should not be studied as an exclusive cue, and that citizens from developed countries might have a different response when evaluating products from a developed country compared to developing countries. It is therefore from pg. 19

interest to further investigate about this matter (Juric & Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Bolliger & Rviron, 2008; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008).

2.3 Influencing Factors of COO

2.3.1 Socio Demographics Characteristics Influence

Through the years researches have proved that it is necessary to consider the heterogeneity of the cultures and the different characteristics among them. Consumer behaviour can not only be predictive by one or few socio-demographic characteristics. It has been found a relationship between COOs evaluation and characteristics related such as age, gender, and education level (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Alfnes, 2004; Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Mourali, 2005). Schooler (1971), for example, found that older, male, less educated and white consumers were more likely to rate foreign products from less developed countries less favorably, while females rated foreign products more highly than males, Dornoff et al. (1974) could not confirm this for products made in more developed countries (Schooler, 1971; Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Dornoff, Tankersley, & White, 1974). Researchers have found that persons with more education tended to rate foreign products more highly than persons with limited education (Schooler, 1971; Anderson & Cunningham, 1972). It has also been reported that higher income persons tended to have a more favorable acceptance of foreign products in general than did lower income persons (Wang, 1978). There is evidence that subcultures within a population with different cultural characteristics, such as difference of language, may influence culture identification and subsequently create differences in their consumer related behaviour (Laroche & Brisoux, 1989; Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003). Socio-economic and demographic groups have been also studied in relation to food willingness to pay and purchase, being COO a determinant that changes according to different groups. For example, in the study of Juric and Worsley (1989) they observed that New pg. 20

Zealanders from higher socio-economic groups tend more to accept foreign products and that this might be related to their attitude to experiment with foreign cuisine, but also that they accept easily products from less developed countries due their low prices. It is important to consider the development of effective international marketing strategies that are sensitive to subcultural differences within a country to succeed in the marketplace (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).

2.3.2 Quality and Food Attributes

Attribute importance is defined as a person's general assessment of the significance of an attribute for products of a certain type. Attributes often play a determinant role in the outcome due their relation with product beliefs in the evaluation process (MacKenzie B., 1986). Whereas beliefs are the cognitive knowledge that consumers have for attributes, attitudes are the feelings or affective responses. The standard learning hierarchy or high involvement theory (being high involved those who have knowledge about the products and apply it in their assessment) indicates that beliefs go first, followed by affects, and at last by consumers behaviour. In other words, the consumers belief (i.e: qual ity of the product produce in a developed country) will be determinant, if these beliefs cope with the product, the next step in the evaluation will be how do consumers feel about this product (i.e: do they feel identify with it because is manufactured in their own country?) and if this condition is fulfilled, consumers behaviour will be the result with purchase of the product. However, some researchers are skeptical that attitudes can be a good predictor of consumers behaviour (Verbeke, Viaene, & Guiot, 1999). There is general agreement that quality has an objective and a subjective dimension. Objective quality refers to the physical characteristics built into the product and is typically define by engineers and food technologists. Subjective quality is the quality as perceived by consumers (Grunert K. , 2005). Quality perception can be evaluated through specific food attributes, or as a single overall cue, it is determined by different factors, one of the most important are sensory properties due they contribute to a products aesthetics, being related to pg. 21

shelf-life, conformance and reliability (Issanchau, 1996). The overall quality evaluation is based upon the perceptions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Grebitus, 2008). The categorization of cues of the product, intrinsic (e.g. appearance, colour, shape, presentation) or extrinsic (e.g. price, brand name, stamp of quality, country of origin, store, production information and nutritional information) was described by Steenkamp (1989). Two types of quality attributes are distinguished, experience quality attributes, such as convenience, freshness and sensory characteristics that can be experienced at the time of consumption, and credence quality attributes, such as healthiness, naturalness and wholesomeness that cannot be experienced directly. Finally, the overall quality evaluation is hypothesized to be based upon the perceptions of the product with regard to the quality attributes (Becker, 2000). Freshness has been pointed out as the most important credence quality attribute cue used as indicator of quality safety by consumers (Becker, 2000). One of the most important attributes looked at by a consumer influenced by the information is how safe a food is. Consumers expect governments regulate and assure food safety; they expect all food offered in the market to be intrinsically harmless and safe. In normal conditions consumers are not as worried about this food characteristic as they are about others, however the occurrence and publicity about food safety incidents can influence food preferences and consumer behavior towards this characteristic (Lusk, Roosen, & Fox, 2001; Alfnes & Rickertsen, 2003; Verbeke & Ward, 2003; Loureiro & Umberger, 2007). Different food safety incidents, and exposure to meat crisis (diseases and effects on the meat consumption) have influenced meat consumption negatively, particularly in Europe, and the food industry and governments have reacted taking measures and working towards restoring consumer confidence in meat as a safe food product. Traceability systems, quality and origin labeling schemes have been used as a good instrument for addressing the problem, COO has been associated to these, improving consumers confidence, however, it has been said that consumers seem to present selectivity in paying attention to information cues, and that sometimes an overload of information may mislead the attention and have adverse effects on consumers attitude (Verbeke & Ward, 2006). For example, in groups of food such as meat and

pg. 22

fish, has been demonstrated that consumer pay more attention to cues such as expiration date, species name, weight and price than health and nutrition information. Animal welfare is other food attribute that has been used to evaluate quality. It has been noticed that depending on their socio-demographic characteristics, consumer seek for information and have different perceptions of attributes such as animal welfare. Welfare quality is based on; good housing, good feeding, good health, and appropriate behavior of animals (Vanhonacker, Van Poucke, Tuyttens, & Verbeke, 2010). Consumers perception of animal welfare has been considered to influence food choice due the believe that livestock growth conditions and standards in developing countries, are less optimal that in developed countries, being from interest in consumers preference (Carlsson, Frykblom, & Lagerkvist, 2005), however, some others have found that is often evaluated with a less priority compared to primary attributes of a food product, such as general quality, health, and safety (Vanhonacker, Van Poucke, Tuyttens, & Verbeke, 2010).

2.3.3 Country image

The images that consumers have of countries have been acknowledged to have an impact on their propensity to purchase products from those countries (Papadopoulos, 1993). In 1992, Roth & Romeo proposed that: country image is the overall perception consumers form of products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the country's production and marketing strengths and weaknesses. These definitions attempt to explain that the image that consumers have towards a country, the goods produced and their manufacturing ability may be only a perception without objective knowledge, and this perception will influence the consumers behaviour. Nagashima (1970) defined country image as the picture, the reputation, the stereotype that business men and consumers attach to products of a specific country. This image is created by such variables as representative products, national characteristics, economic and political background history, and traditions. Narayana's (1981) defined country image as "the aggregate

pg. 23

image for any particular country's product that refers to the entire connotative field associated with that country's product offerings, as perceived by consumers". Researchers have studied how the image of a country that produces specific products can influence positively or negatively the perception about other products from the same country of origin (Usunier & Cestre, 2007). It has also being said that unlike brands and corporate images, those of nations and other places, are not directly under the mark eters control. It is important therefore, to consider consumers perception of strengths (or weaknesses) among competing countries across products (Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990; Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003) and the interaction of the different factors that may influence the country image, willingness to pay, consumer preferences, and final purchase. It has also been studied that consumers use the country image to infer the quality of a product, this is due they are unable to detect a product quality before purchase, which also suggest that consumers use country attitude to evaluate products that they have not purchased before but that they infer have the same quality as other products from the same country of origin (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Bredahl, 2004; Pouta, Heikkil, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mkel, 2010). From a consumer perspective, quality research derives from perceived quality and not from quality in an objective sense . This effect of country image might influence the perception of the objective evaluation of attributes from food imported from developing countries (compared to developed countries), due the relationship inferred from economical development and quality standards (Juric & Worsley, 1998; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004).

2.3.4 Ethnocentrism

According to various studies, the cause of the appearance of COO effect can be found in consumer ethnocentrism (CE) (Lantz & Loeb, 1996). The concept of ethnocentrism started from the concept we-group feelings, where the in-group is the focal point and all out-groups are judged in relation to it (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004). The origin of this concept was introduced by William Graham Sumner (1906) who referred to ethnocentrism as the technical pg. 24

name for the view of things in which ones own group is the centre of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it (Graham Sumner, 1906). According to Shimp & Sharma (1987), consumers ethnocentrism serves as an important motivation for the decision to purchase domestic products. It acts as a reference and influence consumers judgments of the morality of purchasing foreign made products. Consumer ethnocentrism has been positively related to consumer preference for domestic products, and negatively related to preference for foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). This indicates that the perceived morality of purchasing foreign (vs. domestic) products has an impact on consumers product attitudes. Researchers such as Juric and Worsley (1998) suggest that ethnocentrism, should be included as an important characteristic in studies regarding consumer choice of foreign products, but that other independent or moderating variables should be included as predictors of consumers' perceptions of foreign food products in future researchvariables such as consumers' perceptions of people from a particular country, familiarity with that country and that country's products, their personal values, political convictions or risk attitudes. Ehmke et al. (2008) found that subjects do prefer food from their own country, but the importance of own COO is relative to other product attributes and is not consistent across locations, and these preferences can be influenced by the information given to the public and in accordance with the governments regulation. Juric and Worsley (1998) affirmed that consumers use general country attitudes to evaluate taste of the unfamiliar products and that consumers' ethnocentrism may have a significant role in the purchase of foreign products compared to domestic ones. Choice experiments (Juric & Worsley, 1998; van der Lans, van Ittersum, De Cicco, & Loseby, 2001; Alfnes, 2004; Ehmke, Lusk, & Tyner, 2008) as well as other studies (Orth & Firbasov, 2003) have demonstrated that consumers tend to prefer food from culturally similar countries of origin, indicating ethnocentric tendencies. In the present study we will refer to CE in a context of the beliefs from Belgian consumers about the economic environment and products quality similarities as result of beliefs held about appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products. pg. 25

Country of origin, as an information cue, has been related to activate ethnocentric behaviour and the antecedent knowledge of consumers, which subsequently affect the interpretation and evaluation of product attributes, it is therefore of importance to understand these relationships (Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007).

2.4 Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat commodity: Legal Framework

Nutrition labeling is one example of a population-based approach aimed at helping to make the food selection environment more conducive to healthy choices by providing information to consumers about the nutrient content of a food (Cowburn & Stockley, 2004). In the European Union the organism in charge to regulate labeling the country of origin of a food are the European Council and Parliament, together with the Commission the European Food Safety Agency. The Regulation of the EU No. 1169/2011 indicates that the country of origin or the place of provenance of a food should be provided whenever its absence is likely to mislead consumers as to the true country of origin or place of provenance of that product. Such criteria should not apply to indications related to the name or address of the food business operator (EU, No. 1169/2011). The EU legislation is clear about the case labeling COO of pre-packaged poultry meat and fresh poultry meat, being mandatory when imported from third countries (EU, No 543/2008). During the research of legislation for poultry meat in EU we could found specifications for imported poultry meat, but not knowing if COOL is mandatory for domestic poultry meat, either specification other type of poultry. There is a new proposal of legislation (Regulation EU 1169/2011) that imposes that by 13 December 2013, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the mandatory indication of COO or place of provenance for meat used as an ingredient. This regulation imposes that: (a) the COO or place of provenance of the primary ingredient in question shall also be given; or (b) the COO or place of provenance of the primary ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food. This regulation impose that pg. 26

will be mandatory to indicate the place of birth; the place of rearing; and the place of slaughter, being applied for all agricultural products and foodstuffs, including chicken meat as poultry. This will apply for all origins, domestic and imported. To be able to compare current food legislations, we look at legislation from other developed country. We found that in USA the Agricultural Marketing Agency is the organism in charge of the administration and enforcement of COOL. In 2007 was released the latest final rule for all food commodities combined (CFR 60 and 65), in this regulation is described who has to label and how has to be labeled different food commodities. However is not an easy task for consumers to discriminate through this information. For example Country of Origin Notification for Muscle Cuts. Under the August 1, 2008, interim final rule, if an animal was born, raised, and/or slaughtered in the United States and was not imported for immediate slaughter as defined in 65.180, the origin of the resulting meat products derived from that animal could have been designated as product of the United States, Country X, and/or (as applicable) Country Y, where Country X and Country Y represent the actual or possible countries of foreign origin (Fig. 4). As European Union does, the USDA also has attempt to label and identify food that is been produced or not in their territory, however when is written that if the animal is slaughter in the USA territory but not if imported for slaughtering, becomes a confusing identification of the food product, how many months do the animal has to enter in the territory in order to be consider as USA product, and even if the product is identified as requested with several (if necessary) countries of origin, how is this going to affect food preferences and consumer behaviour. It is due all of these factors that several studies are needed in order to estimate the effect that these regulations have in different countries and in the global market.

pg. 27

Figure 4. Example of Country of Origin Labeling in a Food Product 2.4.1 Communication and consumers

Communication and information provision efforts can have an impact in terms of changing consumers knowledge, shaping their attitudes and redirecting their decisio n making, including food choices and dietary preferences. Due to the high demand of information by the consumers, food industry has to seek ways to offer guarantee concerning food quality and food safety, but consumers are not only looking for a guarantee of food safety, they also are looking for a better health, price-quality relation, to know about the origin of the product and the way of how is been produced and processed, and all these factors are as well, under the influence of the quantity and quality of information consumers receive through the public media, but as well through their own governments or official reports. Some of the labeling information is used some of the time, but circumstances dictate which details are used at one time, different people look for different things, and buying decisions are less to be swayed by labeling than by factors such as quality, value and price (Turner, 1995; Knight, Holdsworth, & Mather, 2007). 2.4.2 Consumers Responses

The present master thesis attempt to investigate and confirm through hypothesis and results the importance given by the consumer to COO as food attribute.

pg. 28

Selling and purchasing food, one of the most basic commodities, used to be an everyday social experience, but because of the development of the industries and the scarcity of time it has become an anonymous process with minimal personal interaction, even without any faceto-face contact when shopping on the internet. Most of the purchases for food items and other products, at least in urbanized areas in developed and some developing countries, are done in supermarkets where there is little interaction between staff and customers and where the consumers have no much time to invest about the origin and method of production from the food they purchase. Food attributes then, can be determinant in de final purchase decision. COO labeling can provide consumers with additional information to make informed choices about the food they wish to purchase and consume (TACD, 2008). To understand consumers behaviour, it is needed an analysis that interprets the conduct occurring at the intersection of the individuals learning history and the consumer setting, as well as the sig nals, utilitarian and informational consequences associated with consumption-related responses (Foxall, Oliveira-Castro, James, & Schrezenmaier, 2011), it is important therefore to pay attention to marketing research.

pg. 29

CHAPTER 3 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Design and Subjects

Survey data were collected through self-administered web-based questionnaires during November 2011 in Flanders. Questionnaires were pretested. Participants were randomly selected from consumer access panel thesistools. The master questionnaire was developed in English and translated to Flemish. The total sample consisted of 542 respondents (Table 4). The sample comprised a wide socio-demographic variety. Compared to census data, our sample consists of a higher share of males (+5%) (Belgium, 2012). The age of the respondents ranged from 20 to 84 years, with an average age of 48.84 years (SD = 13.31), which is somewhat above the populations average age (43.6 years). With regard to household size an oversampling of families with 2-3 members was encountered. Concerning living environment, we created three categories measured on a Likert scale that went from 1, closest to rural, and 7, closest to urban, obtaining two main groups, where closer to urban population predominated. Equal sampling of the provinces Flemish Brabant, Antwerp, West Flanders, East Flanders, and Brussels Capital Region were presented. Regarding nationality of parents, the sample presented a predomination of both Belgian parents. With regard to family financial situation and educational level, an oversampling of higher educated people with a better than average financial situation was found in the sample. Regarding food purchase responsibility, the majority of the sample participated in these activities, while only 12.9% was not participating in food purchase. In addition, the percentage of vegetarians in the study is reported. Strictly speaking, vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet that excludes meat (including slaughtered byproducts; fish, shellfish, other sea animals; and poultry). However, vegetarianism has several variants, some of which are more flexible and include fish (pescetarianism) or stricter and exclude eggs and dairy products on top of the meat (veganism). In this study, vegetarians are referred as to the three previous categories (veganism, pescetarianism, vegeterianism). Given pg. 30

the study purpose, it will be important to consider this group separately, especially for analyses concerning the consumption of chicken meat.

Table 4. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (n=542)

Structure of the Sample Gender (%) Census* 53,7 46,3 12,0 14,6 23,5 30,9 18,9 11,3 55,2 29,4 4,1 2,92 (1,36) 48,0 9,7 42,4 3,92 (2,10) 3,7 15,8 31,5 8,9 16,2 23,8 92,8 7,2 7,8 32,2 60,0 3,1 23,8 40,1 32,9 44,3 42,8 12,9 5,2 12,0 58,9 24,0 5,0 4,6 14,4 59,8 Male Female Age (%) 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60 Household size (%) Single household Family with 2-3 members Family with 4-5 members Family with 6-7 members Mean (SD) Residence (%) Closer to rural Middle category Closer to urban Mean (SD) Province (%) Brussels Capital Region Flemish Brabant Antwerp Limburg West Flanders East Flanders Nationality of parents (%) Both parents were Belgian At least one parent was foreigner Financial Situation (%) Below average Average Better than average Educational Level (%) Primary school High school Higher education (no universitary) Higher education (university) Responsible for food purchase (%) Main responsible Shared responsibility Other person does the food purchase Meat consumer profile (%) Vegetarian Mostly Vegetarian Mostly meat Almost always meat Chicken Consumption frequency (%) Never Less than Monthly Monthly Weekly

10 10 16 8 11 13

pg. 31

2-4 times per week 15,3 Daily 0,9 *Source: FOD Economie. Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Structuur van de bevolking.

3.3 Questionnaire and Scales

First, variables representing the socio-demographic characteristics were included. Respondents were asked about their gender, age, number of household members and zipcode. Within demographics variables living environment was assessed by a seven-point interval scale ranging from rural to urban. Education level was assessed by a 4 categories scale that included: Diploma from primary school, Diploma from High School, Diploma College (no University), and University Diploma. Nationality of parents was assessed by three open questions that participants had to fill in related to own, father and mother nationalities. The variables exposed in the previous three parts contributed to profiling segments for the further analysis. Self-perceived financial situation was probed by a 7 categories scale, with value 1 as difficult, value 4 average and value 7 wealthy. Second, meat consumption was assessed of seven categories starting from vegetarian (those who eat no animal products, those who eat no meat but eggs, dairy and milk, and those who ate no meat but fish, dairy and milk), followed by those who are mostly vegetarian (but eat meat sometimes), who mostly eat meat, and those who eat meat almost always. Frequency of chicken meat consumption was assessed by a frequency scale with six categories, as following: never, less than monthly, monthly, weekly, 2 to 4 times per week, daily or almost daily. Responsibility for the food purchase within the family was assessed by three categories possibilities: I am the main responsible, I share responsibility, and Other people in my family are responsible. Third, 10 product attributes were probed for their perceived importance (PI) in the food purchasing decision process of chicken on a seven-point interval scale ranging from totally unimportant to very important. The product attributes were: quality, taste, origin (domestic or imported), price, appearance, freshness, environmental friendliness, availability, animal welfare, and easy to prepare. PI reflects the individuals reaction from a consumer perspective, i.e. someone who has to weigh and evaluate different product attributes before coming to a pg. 32

purchase decision. The PI contributed to assess the importance given by consumers to intrinsic (quality, taste, freshness, appearance) and extrinsic (origin, price, environmental friendliness, availability, animal welfare, and easy to prepare) food attributes. Fourth, a measurement for preference between Belgian vs. Brazilian chicken meat was assessed by a seven categories scale, starting from Strong preference for Brazilian chicken meat, preference for Brazilian chicken meat, Light preference for Brazilian chicken meat to No preference. Fifth, comparison in terms of product attributes was measured through the following statement: Compared to Belgium, how would you evaluate the chicken meat imported from Brazil in respect to the following attributes: nutrition value, safety, quality, taste, price, value for money, freshness, availability was used. This item was measured on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by much worse and at the right pole by much better, with equal as the mid-point of the scale. This third measure is much more a public opinion, which is presumed to be held rather independent of the consumption decisions. These statements provided information relevant to assess the importance of country of origin in relation to perception of extrinsic and intrinsic food attributes from a domestic vs. an imported product. Sixth, comparison in terms of production characteristics was evaluated through the following statement: Compared to chicken production in Belgium, how would you evaluate the chicken meat production in Brazil in respect to the following conditions: animal welfare, working conditions, hygiene, quality standards, environment friendliness, use from hormones and antibiotics was used. This was scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by much worst in Brazil and at the right pole by much better in Brazil, with equal as the mid-point of the scale. Fourth, a scale that assessed to evaluate the perception of Belgian consumers about the scale of operation from Brazilian chicken compared to Belgian, this was scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by much smaller and at the right pole by much bigger. This evaluation provided information about perception of similarities in production practices. Seventh, similarities in consumers willingness to pay for chicken meat of the following countries was assessed: Brazil, Belgium, France, Sweden, China and USA, using a seven-point pg. 33

interval scale anchored at the left pole by totally not prepared and at the right pole by strongly prepared. This question aimed to compare consumers perception

similarities/disparities among countries. Similarities in WTP between BR vs. BE chicken meat was assessed by the question how much would you be prepared to pay for the following products: Chicken from Brazil instead chicken from Belgium, Processed chicken product s from Brazil instead processed products from Belgium (ex. grounded), Chicken meat with a label produced in Belgium instead a not labeled chicken meat; this was scored on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by Much Less and at the right pole by Much more. This question contributed to evaluate social similarities and ethnocentric preferences. Eight, political, economic and cultural similarities among both countries, BE vs. BR was assessed on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from No similarity to Strong similarity. Economic development perception was assessed using two relevant items on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from Low grade of economic development to High grade of economic development, for both countries, Belgium and Brazil. It has been found that when there is higher similarity between countries of origin there is less difference in preference of products from the same group, these questions attempt to assess the relationship between COO similarities and consumers perception. Ninth, ethnocentric attitude to Belgian products were assessed by 4 statements, It is always better to buy Belgian products, Even if it is more expensive, I still choose to buy Belgian products, We should buy products from other countrie s only if we cannot get them in our country, The quality of local products is equal to the imported products, Local food products are safer. This was assessed by a on a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from Totally disagree to Totally agree. Several studies have found that consumers preference might be influenced by their cognitive, normative and affective mechanism towards products, giving as result preference to domestic above foreigner products (known as ethnocentric behaviour). This question contributed to assess ethnocentric preferences. Tenth, consumer interest toward foreign cultures was assessed through the following affirmations: I read a lot about other cultures, I have a lot of friends from other countries, I travel a lot, I follow the international news, this was done on a 7 levels two -pole scale, going pg. 34

from Totally disagree to Strongly agree. Previous research have found that there is a relationship between interest and contact with foreign cultures and consumer s evaluation towards foreign products. This information attempts to relate ethnocentric preferences and COO theory. Eleventh, awareness of presence of Brazilian chicken meat on the Belgian market was assessed by a three possibilities category, as following: no idea, no and yes, followed by an open question; percentage if answered yes. Familiarity Brazil was assessed by a 7 levels two-pole scale, going from Totally not confident to A lot of confidence. contributed to assess awareness of consumers. Twelfth, willingness to pay for food labeling from BR and BE chicken products was assessed by a 7 categories scale with the following question How much would you be ready to pay for the next chicken products: with the following options, chicken from BR instead chicken of BE, processed chicken products from BR instead processed chicken products from BE and chicken filet with a label produced in BE instead a non -labeled chicken filet. This information

3.4 Analyses procedures

Data were analyzed using SPSS 19.0. Bivariate analyses including cross-tabulation with Chi2-statisitics, Independent Samples T-test and One-Way ANOVA comparison of means with Tukey post hoc tests at 95% confidence were used to profile the segments in terms of sociodemographics, and interval-scaled attitudinal questions. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to find underlying dimensions in the data. Cronbachs alpha was used to measure the reliability of the factor analysis outcome. Given the large sample size and very low numbers of missing responses, pairwise deletion was used as the method for treating missing values in some variables.

pg. 35

CHAPTER 4

4. RESULTS

4.1 Data Editing

Before starting the analysis, different computations were performed in order to make the data appropriate for testing the hypotheses. Data set variables were grouped by adding values to dichotomal variables, such as gender, and for nationality, different nationality than Belgian, was characterized as foreigner. In order to analyse importance of COO a relative value was computed. Missing values were not taken into account in the statistical analysis of general importance given to food attributes, but they were substituted by mean values in the evaluation of the relative value for COO. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis was performed on the pooled sample to group similar variables in constructs. Factor 1 includes the items that refer to the importance attached to the consumption of domestic products over imported products, and will further be referred as Ethnocentrism. Factor 2 includes to the evaluation of political, economical and cultural similarities between BE and BR, will be further referred as Similarity index (Table 5). Factor 3, further referred as interest in foreign cultures grouped self reported evaluation of respondents about affirmation such as I read over other cultures, I have foreign friends, I travel a lot and I follow international news (Table 6). The reliabilities of the ethnocentrism, similarity index and interest in foreign cultures were assessed using Cronbachs . The three of them, ethnocentrism ( = 0.79), similarity index ( = 0.80) and interest in foreign cultures ( = 0.79) had sufficient internal reliability consistency. Consequently, respondents aggregate scores on the three factors were calculated to be used as classification (segmentation) variables in subsequent quartiles analysis (see 4.3 and 4.4) In order to compute the relative importance of COO an equation was calculated and the sample was split in four quartiles.

pg. 36

A new variable that reflects the perceived difference in economic development between Belgium and Brazil was computed by substracting the perceived score for the level of economic development in Brazil from the percevied score for the level of economic development in Belgium. Table 5. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of knowledge and ethnocentrism Political knowledge Economical knowledge Cultural knowledge Is always better to buy BE products Even if more expensive, I rather to buy BE products We should buy only imported products 0.79 when we cannot produce them The quality of the local products is 0.42 the same as the imported products Local food products are more safe 0.68 % Variance explained 37.72 Cronbachs internal reliability 0.79 Ethnocentrism -0.11 -0.07 -0.03 0.89 0.90 Similarity index 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.00 0.03 -0.12 -0.07 -0.10 24.97 0.80

Table 6. Factor loading from principal components analysis for evaluation of interest in foreign cultures I read over other cultures I have foreigners friends I travel a lot I follow international news % Variance explained Cronbachs internal reliability Interest in foreign culture 0.86 0.81 0.78 0.70 62.05 0.79

pg. 37

4.2 Profiling Variables

After respondents were asked about the importance of a list of chicken meat attributes means and standard deviation were classified and presented in descendent order, finding as the three most important freshness, quality and taste. Country of origin on the other hand ranked last (see Table 7). According to literature, it is often found that different cues are considered relatively unimportant to the consumer while others are extremely important (Verbeke & Ward, 2003). Those cues that directly address to the quality consistently receive the highest scores (such as freshness, quality, taste, appearance). The findings of the importance given to intrinsic attributes (e.g. appearance, colour, leanless, shape, presentation), suggest that consumers will use these attributes to infer quality of a product among the most important, while extrinsic attributes (e.g. price, brand name, stamp of quality, country of origin, store, production information, nutritional information) will only be determinant for final purchase when extra information is sought. (Issanchau, 1996; Becker, 1999; Becker, 2000; Dransfield, et al., 2005; Grunert & Wills, 2007). In the general evaluation of qualitys food attrib utes, freshness constituted the most important. This is correlated with findings that show that food safety represents the most important food attribute for meat products (Verbeke & Viaene, 1999), being freshness related to safety. COO has been found to play a determinant role in consumers preferences when studied as single product attribute (Roosen, Lusk, & Fox, 2003; Bolliger & Rviron, 2008; Becker, 1999; Steenkamp, ter Hofstede, & Wedel, 1999; Pouta, Heikkil, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mkel, 2010), but it has also been found that this value tend to decrease when studied together with other attributes, which is confirmed in our findings (Juric & Worsley, 1998; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999).

pg. 38

Table 7. Mean scores and standard deviation on a 7 point scale that ranged from (1) Totally unimportant to Strictly important Product attributes Freshness Quality Taste Appearance (color, texture, etc.) Environmental friendliness Animal Welfare Availability Preparation (ex. Easy to prepare) Price Country of Origin (domestic vs. imported) 4.2 Segmentation of variables Mean 6,45 6,14 6,10 5,66 5,18 5,17 4,96 4,81 4,64 4,52 SD 1,01 1,08 1,07 1,34 1,59 1,62 1,44 1,53 1,53 1,89

First, we created a new variable based on the original variables that measured the importance of ten (10) different food products attributes. This new variable represents the importance of COO relative to other food product attributes. Based on the ranges obtained from Relative Importance of Country of Origin (RICOO), quartile splitting was performed. RICOO was computed using the following formula:

Since perceived importance has little meaning in absolute terms, a relative score was also computed for each of the 9 other product attributes assessed by the respondents. An RI score below the value of 1 indicates that the specific product attribute ranks among the less important product attributes, while a score above 1 corresponds with a relatively important product attribute. As the focus will be on the relative perceived importance of COO, we will use the abbreviation RICOO in further discussion as reference for the relative perceived importance score assigned to the attribute COO. RICOO ranges from 0.18 to 2.06 within the sample, with a mean score of 0.98 (SD=0.23) for the pooled sample. Second, to create segments we used RICOO value as reference, allowing us to split the sample in 4 segments (quartiles) of equal size. Quartile 1 (Q1); ranging from 0.18-0.60, was pg. 39

represented by 24,0% of the sample corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 0-25 percent lowest. Quartile 2 (Q2); ranging from 0.61-0.85, represent 24,7% of the sample corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 25-50 percent lowest. Quartile 3 (Q3); ranging from 0.86-1.04, represented with 25,6% of the sample, corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 0-25 percent highest. Quartile 4 (Q4;) ranging from 1.05-2.06, represent 25,6% of the sample, corresponding to respondents who are, when ranked according to their RICOO value, among the 25-50 percent highest. Mean values and SD for RICOO quartiles are presented in table 8. Table 8. Relative Importance of Country of Origin for Quartiles RICOO Range Mean SD Q1 0.18-0.60 0,39 0,14 Q2 0.61-0.85 0,75 0,70 Q3 0.86-1.04 0,96 0,55 Q4 1.05-2.06 1,18 0,13

Third, the socio-structural profiling of quartiles segmentation variables correspond to socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, household size, living environment, province, nationality of parents, financial situation, and educational level), as well to variables related to meat consumption profile, chicken consumption frequency, responsibility for food purchase and preference for BR vs. BE chicken meat (Table 9). With regard to gender variable (Chi2=9.24 p-value=0.03), we found that gender distribution was not equal among all quartiles. In Q1 relative to the others we found more males. Q2, Q3 and Q4 presented minor deviation among gender, females slightly more present in Q2 and Q4. For the distribution of age groups we found that not all groups were equally distributed (Chi2=26.95 p-value=0.01). Q1 is composed of a significant low amount of people aged >60, while we found a slight overrepresentation of the 51-60 age categories. For Q2, we found a slightly lower representation in the age category 30-40 and 51-60, while slightly overrepresented in the age category below 30 and above 60 . For the Q3 we found relatively low amount of people for the category <30 and a slight overrepresentation of 51-60 years old category. For the Q4 we found a lower representation in the 2 youngest categories. pg. 40

Regarding meat consumer profile we found that Q4 presented the highest percentage of vegetarians and mostly vegetarian respondents respect to the distribution for the whole sample. All four (4) quartiles were highly represented by percentages of consumers that eat mostly meat. Differences among quartiles Q1, Q2, and Q3 were found for frequency of chicken meat consumption, no differences were encountered between Q3 and Q4. With respect to household members and living environment no significant differences were found among quartiles. With respect to the distribution of provinces within quartiles, for Q1 we found a slightly higher representation of Flemish Brabant inhabitants. For Q2 we found a slight higher representation for Antwerp province and slight lower representation of Limburg province. In Q3 we found a slight lower representation of Brussels Capital Region. In Q4 a significant higher representation of Brussels Capital Region was found, a less significant but also higher representation of Limburg and West Flanders provinces, while a slight lower representation of Antwerp province. For nationality of parents, as expected, the highest percentage of respondents had both parents Belgians. Regarding financial situation, we found a high percentage of self-perceived better than average financial situation, only Q3 presented a slight lower representation and a slight greater representation of self-perceived average financial situation. With respect to educational level also for Q3 a slight lower representation was found for higher education, while a slight higher representation for basic education, for Q1, Q2 and Q4 higher education predominated as educational level. Regarding responsibility for food purchase Q1 presented a slight lower representation of main responsibility, and a slight higher representation of other person doing the food purchase. Q4, presented the opposite as Q1, slight higher representation of main responsibility and slight lower representation for other person doing the food purchase. Differences among quartiles were found for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat, ascending values found that Q1 preferred less BE chicken meat while Q4 preferred it the most.

pg. 41

Table 9. Socio-demographic profiling of Quartiles

Socio-structural Location Gender (%) Male Groups of age (%) Age<30 30-40 41-50 51-60 >60 Meat consumer profile (%) Vegetarian Mostly Vegetarian Mostly meat Almost always meat Frequency of chicken meat consumption Household members Living environment Province (%) Brussels Capital Region Flemish Brabant Antwerp Limburg West Flanders East Flanders Nationality of parents (%) Both parents Belgians At least one foreigner parent Financial Situation (%) Below average Average Better than average Educational Level(%) Basic Education Higher Education Responsible for food Purchase (%) Main responsible for food purchase Shared responsibility In food purchase Other person does the food purchase BR vs. BE preference Sample Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value 0.03 53.7 12.0 14.6 23.5 30.9 18.9 5.2 12.0 58.9 24.0 Mean 3.79(+0.96) Mean 2.92(+1.37) Mean 3.92(+2.1) Sample(%) 3.7 15.8 31.5 8.9 16.2 23.8 Sample 92.8 7.2 Sample 7.8 32.2 60.0 Sample 27.0 73.0 Sample 44.3 42.8 12.9 Mean 63.8 14.7 18.6 22.5 36.4 7.8 4.6 5.4 61.5 28.5
a

47.0 16.4 11.2 22.4 26.1 23.9 3.7 9.0 67.2 20.1
b

55.5 6.5 15.2 22.5 36.2 19.6 3.6 10.8 59.0 26.6
c

48.9 0.01 10.8 13.7 26.6 25.2 23.7 0.00 8.6 22.3 48.2 20.9
c

4.03 (+0.93) 3.87 (+0.93) 3.72 (+0.85) 3.54 (+1.06) 0.00

2.99(+1.33) 3.87(+1.97) 3.1 20.3 29.7 8.6 15.6 22.7 86.9 13.1

2.99(+1.44) 4.14(+2.16) 2.3 16.5 39.8 4.5 12.0 24.8 91.8 8.2

2.91(+1.43) 3.93(+1.99) 1.5 12.4 32.8 9.5 18.2 25.5 92.1 7.9

2.79(+1.27) 3.75(+2.27) 7.9 14.4 23.7 12.9 18.7 22.3 90.6 9.4

0.58 0.47 1 Census(%) 10 10 16 8 11 13 0.46

0.45 6.2 31.5 62.3 23.1 76.9 9.8 27.1 63.2 26.1 73.9 7.2 39.1 53.6 32.6 67.4 8.0 30.7 61.3 0.34 25.9 74.1 0.09 34.6 46.9 18.5 46.3 40.3 13.4 44.6 43.2 12.2 51.1 41.0 7.9

pg. 42

Preference BR vs. BE Chicken meat

a-b-c

5.64(+1.23)

4.97 (+1.09) 5.33 (+1.15) 6.05 (+1.13) 6.17 (+1.15) 0.00

Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05 (1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test). 1 Source: FOD Economie. Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Structuur van de bevolking. As summary from socio-demographic profiling we found that Q4 correspond the group that give the highest score when evaluating RICOO, presenting a bigger percentage in the 2 older age categories, as well as main responsibility for food purchase and higher education, which has been found to be relevant to COO preferences. While evaluating consumers preferences several researchers have found that in order to establish a more specific link is important to identify groups with similar characteristics, because these similarities may explain favoritism towards products. For example, in their review Bilkey and Nes (1982) found that there were differences between groups (eg, students versus nonstudents, end-consumers versus industrial buyers) towards products of a specific country, as well as differences among groups when methodological settings vary (eg, single vs. multiple cue studies). Baughn and Yaprak (1993) reported that age is often associated with foreign product acceptance, with younger consumers demonstrating more positive attitudes towards foreign products. In our findings the group that score higher for preference of BE over BR chicken meat was composed mostly for people older than 41 years old. This could be explained by the fact that people from these ages categories are mostly in control of the type of food they purchase, they may have bigger concerns about food safety and might be less world minded than younger consumers who display a lower level of prejudice towards foreign products (Rawwas, Rajendran, & Wuehrer, 2002). It has been also discussed that consumers with a better financial situation and level of education seek for further information when selecting food products, and that COO could be a positive or negative determinant when purchasing products (Han & Terpstra, 1998; Ahmed & dAstous, 2002). The same quartile also correlate to these findings, the level of their preference for BE vs. BR chicken meat could be explained by the fact that these consumers rather to consume a local product already known (assuming quality standards of BE) than an imported product that they may consider unknown, and from which is difficult to evaluate due the lack of information about the product, relaying in made in BE. The previous findings support pg. 43

our Hypothesis 1: Segments with a different level of importance attached to COO differ in terms of socio-demographics characteristics, meat consumption type and frequency of meat consumption Attributes were evaluated according to their absolute scores and listed in descendent way. Means were compared among quartiles and differences of perception of importance for each attribute were obtained. We noticed that there is a higher similarity in the perception of the importance of these attributes among Q3 and Q4, which may be also correlated to the similarity in their socio-demographics (Table 10). Our findings are a reflection of previous results that confirm that attitudes toward COO are influenced by cultural and areal proximity (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Bolliger & Rviron, 2008). Table 10. Comparison among quartiles of RI scores of food attributes of BE vs. BR chicken meat Food product attributes Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 at P < 0.05 (1-

Quality 5,85a 6,12a 6,23b 6,32b Taste 5,88a 6,10a 6,16b 6,25b Price 4,12a 4,63b 4,72b 5,11c a a b Appearance 5,35 5,56 5,81 5,91b Environmental friendliness 4,10a 5,09b 5,56c 5,90c Animal Welfare 4,35a 5,20b 5,48b 5,58b a b b Facility to make 4,41 4,93 4,94 4,98b a-b-c-d Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test). 4.3 COO and Country image 4.3.1 Product perception BE vs. BR

In order to evaluate perception of the product, eight (8) different food attributes from BR vs. BE chicken meat were evaluated, finding that the attributes that received the highest scores were price, nutrition value, value for money and taste. This means that respondents perceived Belgian chicken meat to be better on these attributes as compared to Brazilian chicken meat, being evaluated to be worse in terms of food safety and freshness (Fig 5). These results are pg. 44

supported by previous findings that affirm that as an extrinsic attribute, COO has an influence on consumers perceptions of a products quality and of its attributes, providing a heuristic basis for inferring the quality of the product without (sometimes) considering other attributes information. It appears that subjects transfer the product's COO to its specific attributes increasing the influence of COO on product evaluations (Schooler, 1971; Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Hong & Wyer Jr., 1989; Wall, Liefeld, & Heslop, 1991; Ahmed & dAstous, 2002).
much worse BR
1 Nutrition Safety Quality 2.96 3.37 3.64 4.37 3.66 3 3.38 2 3 3.68

worse

bit worse

equal

bit better

better

much better BE

Values
4 5 6

Quality attributes

Taste Price Value/money Freshness Availability

Figure 5. Evaluation of product attributes of Brazilian versus Belgian meat 4.3.2 Production methods perception BE vs. BR

Respondents were asked about their perception of chicken meat production conditions in Brazil compared to Belgium. Results show that all attributes evaluated scored lower for Brazilian than the average for chicken meat production within this scale, being the lowest (perceived as worse) working conditions (mean = 2.4 + 1.17) (table 4).

pg. 45

Much worst 1 in BR
Welfare

Much better in BR

2.76

Working conditions

2.4

Production Conditions

Hygiene

2.67

Quality Std.

2.84

Enviromental Friendly

2.71

Use of Hormones/Antib.

2.91

Values

Figure 6. Evaluation of Brazilian Chicken Meat Production (means)

Appears to be that consumers evaluate attributes based on the country image, but this evaluation is also related to the country image perception depending of product categories. Pouta et al. (2010) studied COO and production methods for meat, finding that although production methods were significant, compared to COO was minor since consumers prefered domestic or neighbour countries products, denoting a bigger influence from COO, which correspond to same findings that we have (Pouta, Heikkil, Forsman-Hugg, Isoniemi, & Mkel, 2010). Respect to product categories, for example, Nagashima (1970) and Narayana (1981) found differences in country image perception between Japanese and USA consumers, which positioned USA products always in the first place. It is possible that Brazilian meat does not belong to a category well known by Belgian consumers, and that stereotyping categories could explain how consumers react to COO information and to the evaluation of products from foreign countries affecting the cognitive processing of other product-related cues. (Nagashima, 1970; Narayana, 1981; Roth & Romeo, 1992; Knight & Calantone, 2000; Ahmed & dAstous, 2002). It has been discussed that COO seems to have an effect in the perception of the risk and perceived value of the product (Ahmed & dAstous, 2002). Our findings correlate positively with pg. 46

the findings that affirm that consumers tend to evaluate attributes based on the country image, relating the degree of development where this product has been produced/manufactured, and that when a product comes from a less developed than their own, they may evaluate these products with lower scores (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984) (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984). The previous findings support our Hypothesis 2: Differences exist between consumers' evaluation of Belgian and Brazilian chicken meat and chicken meat production.

4.3.3 Perception of broiler chicken farms size BE vs. BR

Perception of broiler chicken farm size was assessed obtaining a mean of 5.03 (SD+ 1.6) for the whole sample, indicating that respondents believed Brazilian chicken farms to be bigger It is possible that consumers beliefs are related to the high score given by respondents to BR broiler chicken farms. It has been discussed that beliefs can be descriptive (direct experience with the product, physical characteristics with product perceptions), informational (influenced by outside sources of information such as advertising, friends, relatives), and/or inferential (what consumers inferred, whether correctly or not) (Erickson, Johansson, & Chao, 1984) and this may explain why consumers perceive that BR broiler farms are bigger, possibly because they have information about geographical extension compared to BE, because they have received information through friends, media, etc., or because they infer that due the proportion compared to BE, BR farms are bigger. No significant difference was found among quartiles (pvalue = 0.34).

4.4 COO and Ethnocentrism

Preference for chicken meat from BR vs. BE origin was assessed obtaining a mean of 5,64 (+1,23) for the full sample, denoting with this a strong preference for BE over BR chicken meat. Regarding assessment of preference for BR vs. BE chicken meat among quartiles, we found that quartiles Q1, Q2 and Q3 appeared to have different preference for BR chicken meat pg. 47

going from more to less. On the other hand no significant difference was encountered between Q3 and Q4, presenting the higher preference for BE chicken meat (Table 11). None of the quartiles score higher for BR chicken meat, corresponding on a positive way to COO theory that propose that consumers prefer domestic to imported products. Different works have stated that ethnocentric consumers tend to reject people, symbols, values and products that are culturally dissimilar, while those of ones own culture may become objects of attachment and pride. Therefore, it is possible that members of a subculture would tend to evaluate more favorably products from foreign countries with which they have cultural ties. These preferences may be explained by similar traditions, lifestyles, customs, language and even law systems (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003). For example Heslop et al. (1989), found that English Canadian preferred British products more than French Canadian, confirming their hypothesis over ethnically affiliated origins, meaning this that ethnocentrism may have a significant role in the purchase of foreign products compared to domestic ones. Schooler (1971) postulated that with some consumers the negative predisposition against a foreign product was of sufficient intensity to make the product totally unacceptable, and that with other consumers the bias simply resulted in a lowering of perceived quality, in which case a compensating price concession might reestablish the value comparable to that offered by the domestic good. (Schooler, 1971; Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Papadopoulus & Heslop, 1990; Juric & Worsley, 1998). Klein et al. (1998), exposed that although Chinese citizens have a perception of high quality of Japanese products, civilians from an specific geographic region may not purchase Japanese products due cultural reasons (Japanese occupation). Han (1989), in the other hand suggested that country image behave as a halo effect and affects beliefs about tangible product attributes, which in turn affect positively or negatively the overall product evaluation. Several studies have found that COO has a significant effect when consumers evaluate domestic versus other countries products, and that this evaluation is not always objective, but influenced by beliefs, patriotism and inferences of quality, but it has been also discussed that the effect of COO in consumers evaluation can be product and country specific (Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999; Juric & Worsley, 1998; Becker, 1999; Roosen, Lusk, & Fox, 2003; Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004; Dransfield, et al., 2005; Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & pg. 48

Perreas, 2007). For example Schnettler et al. (2009), found that origin was the most important factor in the decision-making process when purchasing beef, and that there was a marked consumer preference for domestic beef and a rejection of imported. Yeh et al. (2010), found that Japanese and USA groups preferred own country beer and fruits rather than others countries. Ehmke et al. (2008) found that on average, subjects in each location (China, France, Niger, USA) preferred onions from their country to onions produced anywhere else. These findings correlate positively with our findings, supporting our Hypothesis 3: Importance

attached to COO is positively related to consumer preference for domestic chicken and Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between importance attached to COO and level of ethnocentrism. Table 11. Difference among quartiles for preference of BR vs. BE chicken meat Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value a b c c Preference for BE vs. BR 4.97 5.33 6.05 6.17 0.00 Chicken meat a-b-c Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05 (1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test). In order to verify which variables influenced most strongly the overall preference for chicken meat of BR vs. BE origin, variables regarding to attributes (nutrition value, safety, quality, taste, price, value for money, freshness, availability) and to production methods were taken into account (animal welfare, working conditions, hygiene, quality standard, environmental friendly production, use of hormones/antibiotics), perception of scale of broiler and perception of chicken farms size in BR vs. BE were also used to perform a linear regression. A linear regression analysis was applied, as result the following equation: Y = cst -0.282*X1 -0.194*X2 -0.132*X3 Y = Preference for chicken meat BR vs. BE X1= Freshness X2= use of hormones/antibiotics X3= working conditions This results mean that if the value of freshness increase in 1 unit, then preference for BR chicken meat versus Belgian chicken meat decrease 0.282 units, under the assumption that all pg. 49

other variables remain the same, in other words, as higher the importance given to freshness as less preferred BR chicken meat would be, followed in the same way by use of hormones/antibiotics and working conditions. A survey conducted by Verbeke and Ward (2003) explored the importance of traceability, COO, and several beef quality cues in Belgium. They found that survey participants expressed more interest in labeling cues denoting quality and quality standards than in labeling cues related to traceability and origin (Verbeke & Ward, 2003). Ehmke (2008) found that COO information was not as important as genetically modified content information (France, USA, and Niger) or organic production (China). Becker (2000) found that on average, COO, alongside colour and place of purchase, were regarded as most helpful in assessing both eating quality and food safety concerns of meat. In Germany and Sweden COO was the most important factor determining both eating quality and safety aspects. In the UK, however, colour, leanness, or place of purchase was regarded as most important. Roosen et al., (2003) using data from Germany, France and UK in their analysis, found that consumers (mostly from France and Germany) place more importance on labels of origin than any other product attribute such as brand, price, marbling or fat content; more than 90% of surveyed consumers wanted a mandatory labeling program for beef produced from cattle fed genetically modified crops. Thus, appears to be that for individuals with quality and food safety information needs, COO information is relatively less important, yet when extrinsic cues are used as extra information by consumers, COO has an effect in their final purchase decision. 4.5 COO and Willingness to Pay

To evaluate perception of economic development a new variable was created by substracting values given to BE-BR economic development as results the values given by consumers mean that as negative the value as better development perceived for BR and worse perceived development for BE (from -6 to 6 . The mean value was 1.47 (+2.02), meaning that the perception of economic development was higher for BE, although not with the highest score (Table 12).

pg. 50

Table 12. Difference among quartiles for perception of economic development scores BE-BR Variable Mean(SD) Perception of economic development between BE-BR Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 p-value 1.67(2.42) 1.50(2.16) 1.59(1.79) 2.01(1.90) 0.25

To evaluate willingess to pay for chicken meat comparing perceived similar countries we found that consumers evaluate more favorably France and Sweden, than Brazil, USA and China (Table 13). Several findings suggest that the familiarity with products made in a country can be a good predictor of COO perceptions (Ahmed & dAstous, 2002). Consumers positive evaluation for similar neighboring countries might be regarded to concerns about countries that are geographically located far away, and that due the time of transport can become a risk for food safety, as well as concerns for quality standards in less developed countries. Previous researchers have affirmed the same, for example Juric and Worsley (1989) found that food from neighbouring countries are perceived as being superior to food from more distant countries due to similar cultural beliefs and areal proximity. Alfnes (2004) showed, that on average, Norwegian consumers preferred domestic or Swedish beef to beef from more distant countries, in addition, beef from developed countries was preferred to beef from less developed countries such as Botswana (Alfnes, 2004). Roth and Romeo (1992) found that consumers were willing to buy autos and watches from Japan, Germany, and the U.S. appearing this to be related to these countries' high overall image. Likewise, respondents' unwillingness to buy these products from Mexico and Hungary appears due to the poor overall image of these countries. These results are similar to other studies that found that automobiles manufactured in Japan, West Germany, and the U.S. were preferred over those from England, France, Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Korea. Subcultural biases in preferences might lead consumers to favour products from countries with a similar ethnical and economic situation, especially if there are intra-national variations in culture (Laroche M. , Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Bergeron, 2003).

pg. 51

Table 13. Willingness to pay for chicken meat of developed and developing countries COO BE FR SWE BR USA CHINA (%) Not willing 4.3 12.7 19.5 58.5 65.0 85.8 Willing 8.9 15.0 18.8 22.1 19.6 9.1 Well prepared 86.8 72.3 61.7 19.4 15.3 5.0

Respondents were asked about their perception of similarity from political ideas, economic situation and culture between BE and BR. An exploratory factor analysis and reliability test was performed on the pooled sample. A new variable was computed as average of the political, economic and cultural knowledge. The findings concerning similarity index (political, economical and cultural similarities between Brazil and Belgium) confirm that groups that have similar knowledge about a country, would have a bigger influence in assessing COO than groups that differ in these ideas. Several studies have found that when evaluating information of COO as attribute, categories of products play an important role (Han & Terpstra, 1998; Tseng & Balabanis, 2011). In our results we found that the majority of respondents were ready to pay more for a European country (France, Sweden) than for a non-European country (Brazil, USA or China) and this may have sense if we take into account that freshness, quality and taste were the attributes with a higher scores. This supports our Hypothesis 5: Consumers are willing to pay more for domestic products/developed country products than for foreigner/developing country products. 4.6 Interest in foreign cultures

Respondents were asked about if they read and have friends of other cultures, travel a lot and keep updated about international news. An exploratory factor analysis and reliability test was performed in the pooled sample, and new grouping variable as average of the 4 considered was created and oneway-ANOVA applied to compare means from quartiles, no differences among quartiles were found (Table 14).

pg. 52

Different researchers have investigated the interest in foreign cultures and the relationship with products evaluation. For example, Papadopoulos and Heslop (1986) compared Canadian consumers who had visited a country with those who had not, and found that visiting a country reduces the gap between the more global, prevailing public image of its products and its actual capabilities. Balabanis et al. (2002), affirmed that a greater level of direct contact with a country or its products lead to more objective consumer product perceptions. Our findings show that Q4 had the highest score for interest in foreign cultures, however the higher preference for BE over BR chicken meat, which could be explained by socio-demographic that support that older individuals tend to score less favorable foreign products, and as well that people with a higher level of education and financial situation tend to evaluate foreigner products less positively than those with lower educational level and financial situation.

Table 14. Difference among quartiles for interest in foreigner cultures Variable Mean(SD) Q1 4.60 Q2 4.59 Q3 4.50 Q4 4.85 p-value 0.10

Interest in foreign cultures

Awareness of BR chicken in BE market was assessed by the question do you think that BR chicken meat is present in BE market, a majority of the respondents of the sample with 70.3% had no idea, 3.5% said no and 26.2% said yes. These results support the COO labeling theory, that affirm that when consumers have no access to extrinsic information the evaluation of the perceived quality is based in intrinsic attributes, and could be explained that due their lack of knowledge about the presence of Brazilian chicken meat in the Belgian market, they may relay in what they know about quality standards of domestic products and use their beliefs when it comes to perception of quality standards of BR, evaluating its products in a less positive way.

pg. 53

4.6.1 COO and familiarity

To evaluate the familiarity and its relationship with the aversion of the respondents with BR among the quartiles one way-ANOVA was applied. It was expected that as greater the exposure of consumers to BR as less aversion, no differences were found among the quartiles. Table 15. Difference among quartiles regarding familiarity to BR Variable Mean Familiarity with BR Q1 2.25 Q2 2.27 Q3 2.39 Q4 2.41 p-value 0.72

It has been proposed that attitudes are influenced by both, subjective familiarity (the subjects think they are familiar with the stimulus, COO) and objective familiarity (actual exposure to the stimulus, COO objective knowledge), and this could partially explain why the respondents evaluation for preference of BE over BR chicken meat was high. It has been described that country image is the overall perception a consumer form of products from a particular country, based on their prior perceptions of the country's production and marketing strengths and weaknesses. This definition brings country image closer to the means consumers use in assessing products. What consumers know (or think they know) about a country's manufacturing ability, flair for style and design, and technological innovativeness, seems much more congruent with their product perception formation than do other, less production and marketing-oriented factors. There is also a possible a link between COO labeling and preference. Consumers products evaluation is based on the information given by governments/marketers, and by not knowing the COO of a product they may prefer this product based in other attributes evaluation or based in the country image and belief that they have towards that country.

pg. 54

4.7 Influence of level of processing

To evaluate correlation between willingness to pay for chicken meat products different options were given to the consumers. Negative correlation among the willingness to pay for BR chicken filet and for processed chicken products from BR over BE was found (p-value=0.00). Respect to labeling of chicken filet with a brand made in BE was negatively associated with willingness to pay for chicken meat products from BR instead BE, meaning this that consumers that prefer BE labeled chicken products are less willing to pay for BR chicken meat products. A negative correlation between readiness to pay for processed meat products from BR over BE was found in relationship with chicken meat labeled as made in BE, meaning this that consumers whom prefer made in BE chicken filet are less willing to pay for chicken meat products of BR.

Table 16. Difference among quartiles for willingness to pay for BR vs. BE chicken products Variable Mean Willingness to pay for chicken filet from BR over BE Willingness to pay for Processed chicken products Willingness to pay for a made in BE label instead none Q1 3.25a 3.13a 4.32a Q2 3.08b 2.79b 4.74b Q3 2.96b 2.79b 4.83b Q4 2.46b 2.39b 5.14c p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00

During the review of literature we found that Belgian consumption of chicken meat have increased along the years, due a shift of dietetic patterns, financial reasons, health concerns, etc., and also that imports of BR chicken meat have significantly increased, most of all, for the frozen and processed type. It could be a link between these findings and the current absence of a mandatory labeling of COO when food is processed, meaning this that although consumers purchase BR chicken meat through their habitual consumption, they are not aware of it, and when performing evaluation of preference they relay in COO and domestic products, assuming that the standards of quality are good if domestic processed although the original food COO is other than BE. This correlate positively with our findings that suggest that Q4 which gave the pg. 55

highest score preferring BE chicken meat over BR, is less willing to pay for chicken filet and processed chicken products from BR, but willing to pay more for a made in Belgium label, instead no label. During the review of the statistics of type of chicken meat products we found that chicken filet is the favorite cut preferred by Belgian consumers, which seems to correlate to our findings and COO, denoting that the segment that preferred the most BE over BR chicken meat, Q4, gave even less score when it was an evaluation between filet and processed chicken meat products, giving more importance to chicken filet over processed chicken meat, and therefore scoring even lower for this type of chicken cut.

pg. 56

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The first objective of this study was to verify the importance of different food product attributes in food purchasing decisions of chicken meat (and the ranking of COO in that list). The results show that COO as food attribute is less important than other food attributes when an overall evaluation of the product is done, yet a significant effect in consumers preference when evaluating BR vs. BE chicken meat, being the last one significantly preferred among Belgian consumers. Food origin is an important product characteristic for many consumers. It affects the significance of how consumers distinct foods. The second objective of our master thesis was to profile groups with different levels of interest in COO in terms of socio-demographics, responsibility for food purchase, meat consumer profile, and consumption frequency, in order to compare groups with similar profiles and to establish a relationship among these profiles and their level of preference or not for domestic vs. imported products. Different authors affirm that world-minded consumers tend to be younger, better educated and more affluent (Hett, 1993). Consumers with more income and education accept foreign products more readily (Niss, 1996). Several authors found that younger, wealthier and more educated consumers evaluate foreign products more favourably. Our findings support the previous through the segmentation of quartiles and the comparison of evaluation of these quartiles with significant higher preference for Belgian over Brazilian chicken meat. The groups that evaluated highest this preference was composed for older, main responsible for food purchase and highly educated respondents. Yet these findings contradict those obtained by Niss (1996), this could be explained as well as the relatively significant low familiarity with Brazil (and its products) and due the country image that they have over Brazil as producer and developing economy. Our third, and last objective was to verify whether theory of COO is also applicable in food product preference for the case study of Belgian versus Brazilian chicken meat in the context of: pg. 57

Country Image Ethnocentrism Interest for foreign cultures Perceived similarity

The results of the present research lead us to affirm that there is an influence of countryof-origin on these variables, and based on our sample we could conclude that Belgian consumers prefer BE chicken meat, and that if they would have to choose, they would be able to pay for a product that originate from a country with similar beliefs, to which they are more familiar with and possess a similar level of economic development. It is possible that Belgian consumers evaluate products based in countries stereotypes (negative or positive), therefore the management of a products national image is an important element in the strategic marketing decision when related to consumers preference . With the expanding global economy, aspects concerning country-of-origin (COO) and its communication are gaining in importance especially in the agro-food sector. Our findings corroborate that for many consumers, country-of-origin is a determining purchase criterion in food consumption. Consumers make decisions about the quality of products based on a systematic process of acquisition, evaluation and integration of product information or cues. For this reason it becomes apparent why extrinsic product cues have gained importance within food products evaluation. However, COO has been identified as well as a credence attribute, affecting evaluation of products differently. Appears to be that concerns over quality standards were related as well as a variable than influenced our results, from which we concluded that origin can be considered as an important attribute or cue in consumers evaluating process for food quality a nd safety aspects because some consumers considered own country products more trustable because of better food safety and production quality standards, and that is the probable reason why some consumers are willing to pay more for domestic or labeled own country-of-origin products. For agribusiness and marketers these insights open up positioning potentials and are relevant for strategic marketing and communication purposes. If subjects transfer product's pg. 58

COO to its specific attributes increasing the influence of COO on product evaluations, how could countries change their image, improving their chance to penetrate foreign markets and gain confidence from consumers. This means that managers would benefit by having a better understanding of a product's COO, as well as identifying the dimensions along which country image should be improved. One possible strategy when an unfavorable mismatch exists was proposed by Roth and Romeo (1992), they suggested to consider a joint venture within a favorable match country; e.g. a Hungarian car manufacturer may benefit from manufacturing and/or marketing its cars with a German partner. This type of strategies should be considered by countries that differ in strengths and weaknesses across products and that could benefit from having a partner with a better country image, or with a more trustable known experience in the market. Evaluation country of origin as an attribute is not an easy task, and we also got to the conclusion that international marketers should analyse subcultural differences before expanding into targeted countries and evaluate own country image. Then the producer may need to deemphasise or perhaps even disguise or hide the products origin in order to make it more acceptable. Finding subcultural differences would allow managers to improve the development and implementation of marketing strategies, and could lead them to bussiness success and to understand better which are the possible market niches to be filled. Little consumer research was found specifically with respect to perception of country of origin labeling from Belgian consumers and chicken meat products from domestic versus imported origin. From theory it can be expected that consumers would have a higher preference and a better image from countries with a similar (higher) level of development and production specialization, however this may be cross linked to product-specific and country-specific. The limitations of this work was that the survey was the self reported and subjective nature of the measure by respondents. The biggest part of the sample was composed by respondents that live in Flanders, therefore Flemish speaking. This could represent a bias when evaluating this sample as representative for Belgian consumers without including consumers from Wallonia, which may present different socio-demographic profile

pg. 59

Further research is needed to strength knowledge about COO perception of Belgian consumers among other food attributes and among countries.

pg. 60

Bibliography ABEF. (2010). The World Eats Better witn Brazilian Chicken. Brazilian Chicken Producers and Exporters Association. Retrieved from

http://www.brazilianchicken.com.br/publicacoes/br-chicken-03.pdf Ahmed, S., & dAstous, A. (2002). South East Asian consumer perceptions of countries of origin. Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, 1(1), 19-41. Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 19-37. doi:10.1093/erae/31.1.19 Alfnes, F., & Rickertsen, K. (2003, May). European Consumers Acceptance of US Hormone Treated Beef. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 85(No. 2), 396-405. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128 Anderson, W., & Cunningham, W. (1972). Gauging foreign product promotion. Journal of Advertising Research, 12(1), 29-34. Aveworld. (2011, 10 21). Aveworld. Retrieved from Nmero de avirios cresce 7,9% em um ano no Paran: http://www.aveworld.com.br/artigos/post/numero-de-aviarios-cresce-79em-um-ano-no-parana Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects, and consumer ethnocentrism: A multidimensional unfolding approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80-95. doi:10.1177/0092070303257644 Balabanis, G., Rene, M., & T.C., M. (2002). The human values lenses of country of origin images. International Marketing Review, 19(6), 582-610. doi:10.1108/02651330210451935 Baughn, C. C., & Yaprak, A. (1993). Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments and Emerging Avenues. In N. G. Papadopoulos, & L. A. Heslop Binghamton, ProductCountry Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing (pp. 89-115). International Bussines Press. Retrieved from

http://books.google.be/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z8PE4zEFSGkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA89&dq=Bau ghn,+C.+C.+and+Yaprak,+A.+%281993%29+%E2%80%98Mapping+country+of+origin+res

pg. 61

earch:+Recent+developments+and+emerging+avenues%E2%80%99&ots=9AKWErn7Ka& sig=kNEgnWHTysA-jtMT6ilFGkx8Uok& Becker, T. (1999). Country of origin as a cue for quality and safety of fresh meat. Institute for Agricultural Policies and Markets. Le Mance, France: University of Hohenheim. Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework. British Food Journal, 102(3), 158-176. doi:10.1108/00070700010371707 Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. British Food Journal, 102(3), 158-176. Belgium, S. (2012). Statistieken & Cijfers . Retrieved May 09, 2012, from

http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/bevolking/structuur/leeftijdgeslacht/pyrami de/ Bernaerts, E., & Demuynck, E. (2009). Pluimvee. Flemish Ministery of Agriculture and Fishing. Retrieved from

http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/data/docattachments/LARA_Sectoren_H3_Pluimvee.pdf Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. 13(1), 89-99. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/154256 Bolliger, C., & Rviron, S. (2008). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Swiss Chicken Meat: An Instore Survey to Link Stated and Revealed Buying Behaviour. 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists . EAAE . Bredahl, L. (2004). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality and Preference, 15(1), 65-75. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00024-7 Buhr, B. L. (2003). Traceability and Information Technology in the Meat Supply Chain: Implications for Firm Organization and Market Structure. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 12-26. Bureau, J.-C., & Valceschini, E. (2003). European Food-Labeling Policy: Successes and Limitations. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 70-76. Retrieved from

http://purl.umn.edu/27048 Cai, H., Fang, X., & Yang, Z. (2012). Implicit Consumer Animosity: A Primary Validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00911.x pg. 62

Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2005). Consumer Preferences for Food Product Quality Attributes from Swedish Agriculture. Ambio, 34(4/5), 366-370. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/207673611?accountid=11077 Chryssochoidis, G., Krystallis, A., & Perreas, P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of-origin (COO) effect: Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers' evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11-12), 1518-1544. doi:10.1108/03090560710821288 Cowburn, G., & Stockley, L. (2004). Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 8(1), 21-28. doi:10.1079/PHN2004666 Dichter, E. (1962). The world customer. Harvard Business Review, 40(4), 113-122. doi:10.1002/tie.5060040415 Dornoff, R., Tankersley, C., & White, G. (1974). Consumers perceptions of imports. Akron Business and Economic Review, 5(2), 26-29. Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T., Nielsen, N., Bredahl, L., Sjdn, P., Magnusson, M., . . . Nute, G. (2005). Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science, 69(1), 6170. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.006 Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. Wadsworth. EC. (n.d.). Eurostat. Retrieved from

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Carcass_weig ht Ehmke, M. D., Lusk, J. L., & Tyner, W. (2008). Measuring the relative importance of preferences for country of origin in China, France, Niger, and the United States. Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 277-285. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00299.x EMBRAPA. (2003, January). Sistemas de Produo de Frangos de Corte. Retrieved from Instalaes: http://sistemasdeproducao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/Ave/ProducaodeFrangodeC orte/Pe-direito.html

pg. 63

Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 694-699. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488975 EU. (1978). Council Directive 79/112/EEC. EU. EU. (2011). Food: from farm to fork statistics. EUROSTAT, 170. doi:10.2785/13787 EU. (No 543/2008). COMMISSION REGULATION. EU. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:157:0046:0087:EN:PDF EU. (No. 1169/2011). REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. 25 October 2011: EU. FAO. (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture. Livestock in the balance. Food and Agriculture Organization from the United Nations, Rome. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf FAO. (2010). Agribussines Handbook: Poultry, meat and eggs. Rome, Italy: FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al175e/al175e.pdf FOD Economie, K.M.O. (n.d.). Middenstand en Energie Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie. . Foxall, G., Oliveira-Castro, J., James, V., & Schrezenmaier, T. (2011). Consumer behaviour analysis and the behavioural perspective mode. Durham Research Online, 1-10. Fulginiti, L. E. (1996). The Change from Red to White Meat: The Role of Technology. University of Nebraska Lincoln, Agricultural Economics Department. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ageconfacpub/7 Graham Sumner, W. (1906). Fundamental Notions of the Folkways and of the Mores. In W. Graham Sumner, Folways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Ginn. Grebitus, C. (2008). Food Quality from the Consumers Perspective: An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Pork Quality. Cuvillier Verlag Gttingen. Retrieved from

http://books.google.be/books?id=lSZ3zH0fsjEC&pg=PA31&dq=steenkamp+1989&hl=en &sa=X&ei=Ypa_T6aELc_oOdf96OwJ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=steenkamp%201989&f =false pg. 64

Grunert, K. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369-391. Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385-399. doi:10.1007/s10389-007-0101-9 Haley, M. m. (2001). Changing Consumer Demand for Meat: The U.S Example, 1970 - 2000. In A. Regmi (Ed.), Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report. WRS-01-1. (pp. 41-48). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service/USDA. Retrieved from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs011/ Han, M., & Terpstra, V. (1998). Country-of-Origin Effects for Uni-National and Bi-National Products. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2), 235-255. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/155024 . Hett, E. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure global-mindedness. Dissertation Abstracts International. Hong, S.-T., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1989). Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product-Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 175-187. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489316 Hong, S.-T., & Wyer, J. R. (1990). Determinants of Product Evaluation: Effects of the Time Interval between Knowledge of a Product's Country of Origin and Information about Its Specific Attributes. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 277-288. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626795 Issanchau, S. (1996). Consumer Expectations and Perceptions of Meat and Meat Product Quality. Meat Science, 43(1), 5-19. doi:10.1016/0309-1740(96)00051-4, Jacoby, J., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Consumer reaction to price: An attitudinal, information processing perspective. In Y. Wim, & M. Greenberg, Moving Ahead With Attitude Research. American Marketing Association.

pg. 65

Juric, B., & Worsley, A. (1998). Consumers' attitudes towards imported food products. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 431-441. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00027-5 Kim, K., & O'Cass, A. (2001). Consumer brand classifications: an assessment of culture-of-origin versus country-of-origin. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(2), 120-136. doi:10.1108/10610420110388672 Knight, G. A., & Calantone, R. J. (2000). A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin perceptions: A cross-cultural investigation. International Marketing Review, 17(2), 127145. doi:10.1108/02651330010322615 Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2007). Country-of-origin and choice of food imports: an in-depth study of European distribution channel gatekeepers. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 107-125. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400250 Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. (2008). GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 88(5), 739744. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3168 Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on Willingness to Pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19-41. Kubberd, E., Ueland, ., Rdbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13(5), 285-294. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00041-1 Lagerkvist, C. J., Carlsson, F., & Viske, D. (2006). Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment. AgBioForum, 9(1), 51-58. Lantz, G., & Loeb, S. (1996). Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism: An Analysis of Canadian and American Preferences Using Social Identity Theory. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.23(Issue 1), 374-378. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=62b79842-615f-42aa-bbff31db8b7667a4%40sessionmgr14&vid=11&hid=126

pg. 66

Laroche, M., & Brisoux, J. (1989). Incorporating competition into consumer behaviour models: the case of the attitude-intention relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(3), 343-362. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90029-9 Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The influence of country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International Marketing Review, 22(1), 96-115. doi:10.1108/02651330510581190 Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., & Bergeron, J. (2003). Effects of subcultural differences on country and product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2(3), 232-247. doi:10.1002/cb.104 Li, W.-K., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1994). The role of country of origin in product evaluations: Informational and standard-of-comparison effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2), 187-212. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80004-6 Liefield, J. P. (1993). Experiments of Country-of-Origin-Effects: Review of Meta Analysis of Effect Size. In N. Papadopoulus, & L. A. Heslop, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing (pp. 117-156). The Haworth Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.be/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=z8PE4zEFSGkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA117&dq=liefi eld+1993+Experiments+on+country+of+origin+effects:+Review+and+metaanalysis&ots=9ALYIoi2G7&sig=nz5QeLz3mUuBN-hwu8DXLSMqG4#v=snippet&q=Experiments%20on%20country%20of%20origin% Lone, B. (2003). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 65-75. Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2005). Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-ofOrigin Labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(1), 49-63. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/43712 Loureiro, M. L., & Umberger, W. J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496-514. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006 Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. A. (2001). Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, pg. 67

Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 16-29. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00100 Lusk, J., & Anderson, J. D. (2004). Effects of Country-of-Origin Labeling on Meat Producers and Consumers. Journal ofAgricultura1 and Resource Economics 29(2): 185-205, 29(2), 185205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40987215 MacKenzie B., S. (1986). The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on Attribute Importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489225 Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength onProduct Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 354-365. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489826 Mangen, M., & Burrel, A. (2001). Decomposing Preference Shift for Meat and Fish in the Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(2), 16-28. doi:10.1111/j.14779552.2001.tb00922.x Moynagh, J. (2000). EU Regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Agriculture BioForum, 3(2 & 3), 107-114. Nagashima, A. (1970). A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes towards foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 34(1), 68-74. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250298 Narayana, C. L. (1981). Aggregate images of American and Japanese products: Implications on international marketing. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 31-35. Niss, H. (1996). Country of origin marketing over the product life cycle: A Danish case study. European Journal of Marketing, 30(3), 6-22. doi:10.1108/03090569610107409 Orth, U. R., & Firbasov, Z. (2003). The role of consumer ethnocentrism in food product evaluation. Agribusiness, 19(2), 137-153. doi:10.1002/agr.10051 Papadopoulos, N. (1993). What Product and Country Images Are and Are Not. In N. G. Papadopoulos, & L. Heslop, Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in International Marketing (pp. 3-38). International Business Press.

pg. 68

Papadopoulus, N., & Heslop, L. A. (1990). A comparative image analysis of domestic versus imported products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7(4), 283-294. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(90)90005-8 Pereira, A., Hsu, C.-C., & Kundub, S. K. (2005). Country-of-origin image: measurement and crossnational testing. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 103-106. doi:10.1016/S01482963(02)00479-4 Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. (1995). A Meta-Analysis of Country-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 883-900. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/155303 . Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105120. doi:10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W Pouta, E., Heikkil, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., & Mkel, J. (2010). Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 539-546. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.004 Rawwas, M. Y., Rajendran, K., & Wuehrer, G. A. (2002). The influence of worldmindedness and nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products. International Marketing Review, 13(2), 20-38. doi:10.1108/02651339610115746 Roosen, J., Lusk, J. L., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Consumer Demand for and Attitudes Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK. Agribusiness, 19(1), 77-90. doi:10.1002/agr.10041 Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching Product Catgeory and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-Of-Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3), 477-497. Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to Food and the Role of Food in Life in the U.S.A.,Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible Implications for the DietHealth Debate. Appetite, 33(2), 163-180.

doi:10.1006/appe.1999.0244, Rural, R. (2009, Junho). Avicultura - Criao de Primero Mundo. Rev 136. Retrieved from http://www.revistarural.com.br/Edicoes/2009/Artigos/rev136_%20frango.htm pg. 69

Schnettler, B., Ruiz, D. R., Seplveda, O., & Nstor, S. (2008). Importance of the country of origin in food consumption in a developing country. Food Quality and Preference, 19(4), 372 382. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.005 Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Vallejos, L., & Seplveda, N. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 156165. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.07.006 Schooler, R. (1965, Nov.). Product Bias in the Central American Common Market. Journal of Marketing Research, 2(4), 394-397 . Schooler, R. (1971). Bias Phenomena Attendant to the Marketing of Foreign Goods in the U. S. Journal of International Business Studies, 2(1), 71-80. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/154727 Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 26-37.

doi:10.1007/BF02894609 Shimp, T., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24(3), 280-289. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151638 Stafleu, A., de Graaf, C., & van Staveren, W. A. (1994). Attitudes Towards High-Fat foods and Their Low-Fat Alternatives: Reliability and Relationship with Fat Intake. Appetite, 22(2), 183-196. doi:10.1006/appe.1994.1018 Steenkamp, J.-B. E., ter Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness. American Marketing Association, 63(2), 55-69. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251945 TACD. (2008). Recommendation Report and European Commission Service's Responses. Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue.

pg. 70

Tseng, T.-H., & Balabanis, G. (2011). Explaining the product-specificity of country-of-origin effects. International Marketing Review, 28(6), 581-600.

doi:10.1108/02651331111181420 Turner, A. (1995). Prepacked food labelling: past, present and future. British Food Journal, 97(5), 23-31. doi:10.1108/00070709510091047 USDA. (2011). Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fas.usda.gov/livestock_arc.asp USDA, D. o. (January 15 2009). Department of Agricultural Marketing Service. 7 CFR Parts 60 and 65. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Chicken, Goat Meat, Wild and Farm-Raised Fish and Shellfish, Perishable Agricultural Commodities, Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia, Nuts, Department of Agriculture, Federal Register. Usunier, J.-C., & Cestre, G. (2007). Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match Between Products and Countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3), 32-72. doi:10.1509/jimk.15.3.32 Valceschini, E., & Bureau, J.-C. (2003). European Food Policy: Successes and Limitations. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 69-76. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/27048 Valsta, L., Tapanainen, H., & Mnnist, H. (2005). Meat fats in nutrition. 70(3), 525-530. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.12.016 van der Lans, I. A., van Ittersum, K., De Cicco, A., & Loseby, M. (2001). The role of the region of origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 451-477. doi:10.1093/erae/28.4.451 Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens Views on Farm Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23 (6), 551-569.

doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9 Verbeke, W. (2008, May 23). Impact of communication on consumers food choices. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 67, 281288. doi:10.1017/S0029665108007179 Verbeke, W., & Jacques, V. (2000). Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production: Meeting Consumer Concerns About Meat Safety and Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141-151. doi:10.1023/A:1009538613588 pg. 71

Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference, 10(6), 437-445. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2 Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2003). Importance of EU Label Requirements: An Application of Ordered Probit Models to Belgium Beef Labeling. Montreal, Canada: Paper Presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual. Retrieved from

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/22077/1/sp03ve02.pdf Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453-467. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.010 Verbeke, W., Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & De Brabander, H. F. (2007). Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta, 586(1-2), 2-7. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2006.07.065 Verbeke, W., Viaene, J., & Guiot, O. (1999). Health Communication and Consumer Behavior on Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin. Journal of Health Communication, 4(4), 345-357. doi:10.1080/108107399126869 Verlegh, P. W., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521-546. doi:10.1016/S01674870(99)00023-9 Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects in consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(2), 127-139. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.05.003 VLAM. (1999-2009). Belgische netto productie* van gevogelte- en konijnenvlees (in ton karkasgewicht). Retrieved from

http://www.vlam.be/marketinformationdocument/files/productie1999-2009.pdf VLAM. (2012). De categorie gevogelte, konijn en wild verstevigt haar positie. Marketingdienst. Vukasovi, T. (2009, March). Consumer perception of poultry meat and the importance of country of origin in a purchase making process. World's Poultry Science Journal, 65, 6574. doi:10.1017/S0043933909000005 pg. 72

Wall, M., Liefeld, J., & Heslop, L. A. (1991). Impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer judgments in multi-cue situations: a covariance analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(2), 105-113. doi:10.1007/BF02726002 Wang, C. (1978). The effect of foreign economic, political and cultural environment on consumers willingness to buy foreign products. Texas A&M University. PhD dissertation. Warren, B. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin Effects on Product Evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(1), 89-99. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/154256 Watson, J. J., & Wright, K. (2000). Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 34(9), 1149-1166.

doi:10.1108/03090560010342520 Yeh, C.-H., Chen, C.-I., & Sher, P. J. (2010). Investigation on perceived countryimage of imported food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 849-856. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.005

pg. 73