Appetite, 1996, 27, 114

Consumers Views on Food Quality. A Qualitative Interview

Study
LOTTE HOLM and HELLE KILDEVANG
Research Department of Human Nutrition, Royal Veterinary and
Agricultural University, Denmark
The study investigated the themes consumers discuss when describing their
everyday considerations about food quality. Twenty Copenhagen families with
youngchildenwereinterviewedopen-endedlyconcerningdailyfood-relatedprac-
tices and thoughts, making particular use of narrative descriptions of specic
meals. Respondentsexpressed both positiveand negativeopinionsabout abroad
variety of processed and unprocessedfoods. Positiveopinionsabout foodquality
relatedmainlytopersonal criteriasuchastasteor convenience. Negativecomments
mainly related to how foods were processed or distributed. The study suggests
that concerns about food safety are integrated in everyday concepts of food
quality, and that consumers individually develop strategies to deal with this.
However, feelings of uncertainty, helplessness and self reproach werefrequently
reported. The results suggest that choices of foods often reect compromises in
everyday liferather than theconsumers preferences.
1996 Academic Press Limited
I N1onic1ioN
Consumers perception of food quality, and their attitudes and practices related
to foods, arethemes of interest for food producers and retailers, public authorities
andhealtheducators. I nthescienticliteraturethisinterest isreectedindiscussions
about how food quality should bedened (Lassen, 1993), how consumers perceive
food quality (Steenkamp, 1986) and chose food (Wierenga, 1983), and about risk
perception and risk communication (Slovic, 1987).
Several authors have suggested that more elements should be included in a
modern food quality concept. Ecological concerns (Vogtmann, 1988) and political
values (Leitzmann & Sichert-Oevermann, 1988) havebeen put forward. I t has also
beensuggestedthat theconcept shouldhavedierent values(valueladen, positive
and neutral) (Trenkle, 1983). I n Denmark, where this study was conducted,
attempts to redenefood quality havebeen published by agricultural organizations,
(Sass, 1981), consumers organizations, trade unions (Forbrugerradet, NOAH &
Naerings- og Nydelsesmiddelarbejder Forbundet, 1988) and researchers (Lassen,
This project was supported by grant LMF-KVL-9 from the Ministry of Agriculture. Secretaries
Pia Freundlich, Birthe Hove, Winnie Steensen and Lene Biller are thanked for transcribing the tapes.
Roger Leys and Tina Cuthbertson arethanked for assisting with theEnglish translation.
Address correspondence to: Lotte Holm, Department of Human Nutrition, Rolighedsvej 30,
DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark.
01956663/96/040001+14 $18.00/0 1996 Academic Press Limited
2 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
1993). I t has been argued that technological and environmental problems with
modern food production need to be taken into consideration because they are of
vital importancefor societyandof increasinginterest for consumers. Thoughagreater
readinesstomeet consumer demandisanexpressedpurposeof thecontributions, they
draw only unsystematically on empirical evidence of consumers views on food
quality.
Steenkamps (1989) concept of perceived quality attempts to mediatebetween
objectiveproduct characteristicsandconsumer preferences. I t stressesthat perceived
quality may dier fromobjective quality, and that consumers use cues to evaluate
quality. Theconcept implies that individual assessments of quality arepersonal and
situational, and that they are often based on incomplete information. The studies
of Steenkamp and others generatedetailed proles of quality parameters for single
products as perceived by consumers. Studies using theattitudemodel of Ajzen and
Fisjbein(1980) to investigatedeterminantsof foodchoice(Shepherd, 1988; Shepherd
& Stockley, 1985; Tuorila, 1990; Tuorila & Pangborn, 1988) havetypically focused
on howattitudes and norms can predict consumption of specic foods. A modied
version of the model has been used to study consumers attitudes towards foods
produced by genetechnology (Sparks, Shepherd & Frewer, 1995).
Thestudiespresentedabovehavetendedto focusonspecicfoodsor production
methods. Thefoods areoften studied in isolation as singleproducts. Generally, the
studies have not examined the wider social framework and the cultural system in
which food products areconsumed.
I n the eld of risk perception, survey techniques have been used to investigate
whether consumers worry about the food they eat (Grunert & Kristensen, 1992;
Meier-Ploeger, 1988; Schafer et al., 1993a; Sellerberg, 1990; Sjoden, 1993; Wandel
& Bugge, 1994). The evidence fromthese surveys is inconsistent. I n all the studies
but one (Sellerberg, 1990), it is generally agreed that concern about food safety is
widespread and increasing. A methodological aspect is important here: a majority
of respondents conrmed their concern when asked about specic health hazards,
whereas a general question about whether respondents worried about thefood they
ateledamajoritytodenyfeelingsof anxiety(Sellerberg, 1991). Thesurveystherefore
raise the question of how deeply rooted concerns about food safety are among
consumers (Wandel, 1995).
Very little is known about how food risks aect peoples lives and their food
choices. Several studieshaverevealed littleassociation between consumers attitudes
to issues such as food additives or organically grown vegetables and their actual
buying behaviour (Bjerke, 1992; Grunert & Kristensen, 1992; Prattala, Tuorila-
Ollikainen & Lahteenmaki, 1985). This also indicates that food safety issues may
not be very important to consumers. There is, however, a lack of sociological
literature on how food quality is thought of in everyday life and how consumers
deal with thecomplex reality of technological developments in thefood-producing
sector (Mennel, Murcott & van Otterloo, 1992).
Deciding which foods to buy, serve and eat is not based on uniformprinciples
such asfood quality or health. Theprovidingand eatingof mealstakesplacewithin
thestreamof events that makeup ordinary daily life, and is enmeshed in acomplex
of social relations (Charles & Kerr, 1988; DeVault, 1991; Ekstrom, 1990; J ansson,
1988; Murcott, 1983). Furthermore, eating is guided by cultural concepts of meals,
dishesand foodswhich attach meaningand statusto theseelements(Douglas, 1975;
Goode, Curtis & Theophano 1984; Marshall, 1988; Murcott, 1982). I t is therefore
3 CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALI TY
important to study consumers views on foods in an everyday context. This is the
rationale of sociological and social anthropological research on food and eating
which particularly uses qualitative research methods (Mennel et al., 1992). The
present study stems fromthis research tradition.
Theaimwasto studythepracticesof everydaylifeinorder to reveal food-related
concernsinvolved in theplanningand eatingof meals. Thestudy investigated which
actions, thoughtsandconsiderationsconsumersreportedinrelationtospecicmeals.
Thepresent analysis addressed theissueof food quality, focussingon foods that
respondents wereconcerned about and on which criteria they used when describing
foods as good or not good, particularly issues related to food safety.
Mr1non
I nterviewees
TwentyCopenhagenfamilieswithchildrenunder 6yearsof agewereinterviewed.
Both working class and middle class families were represented. The families were
contacted through two kindergartens situated in a small neighbourhood in thecity.
Letters asking families to participatein thestudy werehanded out to parents, who
were anonymous to the researchers but known to the heads of the kindergartens.
Attempts weremadeto ensurethat thefamilies consisted of two adults (onefamily
was found to bea single-parent family most of thetime), and that wage-labour was
an important part of the familys life (i.e. at least one, but preferably both adults,
working outsidethehome). I n all thehouseholds at least oneparent was working,
and in 14of thefamilies both adults had paid work. Forty letters werehanded out,
anddistributionwasstoppedwhen20familieshadagreedtoparticipate. Eachfamily
decided which adult was to take part in the interview. I n onefamily only theman
was interviewed, in eight families both adults took part, and in 11families only the
woman participated. Nineteen interviews wereconducted in theinformants homes,
and onein a roomat thekindergarten. Thefamilies lived in an area of thecity with
a largevariety of supermarkets and shops.
Data Collection
Theinterviewsweresemi-structured, usinganopen-endedinterviewguideinviting
respondents to speak in their own words and in narrativestructures (Mishler, 1986)
(Table 1). The aimwas to obtain realistic reports of the families actual practices,
rather than the informants view on correct family life and meals, or what they
perceived to be the norms of the interviewers. The interviewers (the authors)
introduced themselves as sociologists with only a supercial knowledgeof food and
nutrition. Theinterviewsfocusedongatheringdetailedinformationonspecicevents,
starting with theevening meal of theday beforetheinterview. All issues, including
those that were brought up by the informants, were pursued through follow-up
questions until both interviewer and informant felt they had been dealt with ad-
equately. Theinterviews lasted for 12h. They weretape-recorded and transcribed
verbatim.
4 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
T:nir 1
Theinterviewguide
Meals Typical questions
Yesterday evening What happened?
Another ordinary evening What was themeal like?
Weekend meals Wherewereyou sitting?
Guests: Who was present?
a. Friends What was on thetable?
b. Relatives (grandparents) Who had madeit?
c. Parties Who liked it?
Why this food?
(e.g. carrots, peas, sauce, bread, pizza etc)
Lunch:
a. Everyday (lunch packs) Wheredid therawmaterials comefrom?
b. Weekends (Freezer, fridge, shop?)
When was it bought?
Wherewas it bought?
Why there?
What do you think of this shop?
Miscellaneous issues: Wheredid you learn to cook?
Cooking Useof cook books, magazines etc.
Experts What do you think of experts? Which experts do you
listen to?
Own background Wheredid you liveafter leaving your parents home?
Data Analysis
Theanalysiswasexploratory andfollowed theprocedureof reviewingissuesand
themes discussed in each interviewand developing fromthesea code-systemwhich
identied the most important themes in all interviews. Segments of the interview
texts were then identied and labelled by assignment of one or several descriptive
codes(Miles&Huberman, 1984) whichdidnot entail interpretations. Segment labels
included good quality (segments where food products were spoken of favourably)
and quality action (segments where respondents described their practices when
choosing food products on the market). The length of the coded segments varied
fromonestatement to several pages and thetotal material amounted to about 600
pages of text. The software programme Alpha for qualitative analysis of texts
(Kristensen&Sommerlund, 1987) wasusedinthecodingprocessandinthereviewing
of codes. Theprogrammefacilitates theorganization of notes and quotations, and
allows text to bedivided, sorted and reorganized in multipleways without changing
the original data. Computerized coding of interview transcripts involves a risk of
atomismandcontext stripping(Miles&Huberman, 1984). However, intheanalytical
process, summariesandfull-lengthtranscriptswerecheckedfor context of thecoded
segments. Summaries and transcripts were also used when individual respondents
werecharacterized or classied. Thecoding, thesummaries and classications were
done by each author separately, compared and adjusted after consensus had been
reached.
5 CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALI TY
Rrsii1s
Foods Discussed
Foods were discussed continuously and in dierent contexts throughout the
interviews: selection of foods, family members individual preferences for various
foods and dishes, cooking practices, etc.
Overall a broad variety of foods were commented on positively or negatively,
both unprocessed and processed foods. Meat was the single food most frequently
discussed. Twenty-ve percent of all positive descriptions of foods, and 40%of all
critical comments, were about meat. Subsequently, but much less frequently, com-
mentsweremadeabout meat productsandspreads(usedonDanishopen-sandwiches
smrrebrd), conveniencefoods (ready-mademeals), vegetables and bread.
The foods were frequently identied either by a particular brand name, or by
theshop wherethey werepurchased. Foods that earned favourablecomment were
identiedequallyfrequentlybybrandor shop, whereascriticizedfoodsweretypically
identiedonlybytheplaceof purchase. Moregeneral negativecommentsweremade
on foods which had undergone industrial processing, were products of modern
agricultureor convenienceproducts, and thesefoods werenot always identied by
brand name or shop. I n contrast, favourable comments mostly concerned specic
foods and only rarely dealt with moregeneral features, common to several types of
food product.
Quality Parameters
A number of dierent criteria were mentioned when describing food positively
or negatively. I n most cases several criteria were mentioned in concert. Two single
concepts, taste and price, had a special position. Taste was the most frequently
mentioned criterion, both in critical and in favourablecomments. I t was sometimes
mentioned as the single reason for deciding whether to buy a particular food, and
it was the criterion most frequently mentioned in connection with other criteria.
Price, on theother hand, was hardly ever mentioned as theonly reason for buying
or not buyingsomething. Nevertheless, evenininterviewswherepricewasnot openly
discussed, economic considerations werepresent as preconditions for a households
sphereof choice, becausethey wererelevant to theselection of shops and foods.
Some criteria were used in relation to both positive and negative comments,
others werenot. Thecriteria could beorganized into themes, which diered in the
ways food werespoken of, favourably (Table2) or unfavourably (Table3).
The rst two themes of favourable comments (Table 2) are related to the
respondents experiencewitheither tastingor usingtheproduct. Thenext twothemes
are related to what respondents knew about or thought of the product. When
speaking favourably of foods, criteria related to experience were most frequently
mentioned.
The negative criteria could be organized into three themes (Table 3). The rst
theme refers to respondents personal preferences, or those of their families. The
personal character of the preferences should be noted; no general judgements of
foodqualitywereimplied. Thesecondthemeisalso basedonexperiencebut includes
more generalized judgements about products. A critical attitude to producers or
retailerswasoften apparent. Thethird themerefersto what consumersknewabout,
6 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
T:nir 2
Examples of positivecriteria grouped under major themes
Welikeit I ts practical Liketheway it is Health
produced
N=43 N=21 N=16 N=15
Likeit Special oer No additives Good for allergy
Thefamily likes it Easy to use Not very industrialized Many vitamins
Good taste Has various uses Naturally raised Not fatty
Good smell Makes good dishes livestock Good for babies
Crisp Quick Bred with more
Tender Quick and cheap freedom
J ust right for me Easy and cheap With thebest possible
Well seasoned Easy to spread life
Extremely good Practical packing
Has a natural taste
Niceand shiny
Good
N refers to thenumber of times each themewas mentioned in thewholeinterviewmaterial.
T:nir 3
Examples of negativecriteria grouped under major themes
Contrary to own Poor quality Unwholesome/Unnatural
preferences
N=27 N=35 N=46
Dont likeit Looks stale Too long shelf life
Disgusting Looks good but is not tender Cant beright
Sickly Stinks Awful colour
Deadly dull They smell odd Dont knowwhats in it
Tastes of pork Ugly, bruised Full of salmonella
Looks disgusting Too much fat and gristle Plastic food
Tired of it Not good quality Theanimals arestressed
Not wild about it Near expiration date Full of penicillin
Rots beforeyou get it home Concentrated pollution
Dog food Too many E-numbers
A fraud Pigs lifeunhealthy
Too sterilefood
Light-products aredecadent
Unknown additives
They pour everything into it
They say its dangerous
Lost its nutrient value
Wasteof resources
May havelong-termeects
on thebody
Must havecolouring
Unnatural
Dead food
N refers to thenumber of times each themewas mentioned in thewholeinterviewmaterial.
7 CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALI TY
or thought of, the product. The criteria referred to products having undergone
industrial processing. Concerns often long-term about health, the environment,
ethical issues and wholesomeness were sometimes expressed elaborately and some-
times only implied.
Criteriarelatedtopersonal experiencefeaturedlessfrequentlyincritical comments
than criteria related to knowledgeor attitudes.
Criteria would sometimes becombined so that they reinforced each other, as in
thefollowingdiscussion of abrand of liver paste, which is themost commonly used
spread on Danish smrrebrd: I t is mostly Stryhns [a brand name]. I ts one of
thosethings whereI dont just go for thecheapest. I go for something that I know
thefamily likes. And I look for it on special oer, you know.
Criteria involving contesting qualities would also be combined, mostly when
expressing doubts and uncertainties: I like it lean, but the other is cheaper. I ts
easy to prepareand thechildren likeit, but it contains a lot of gluten and milk. I ts
fatty food.
Criteria mentioned together were not necessarily independent, but they were
sometimessubstantiallyintertwined. Tasteor palatabilityseemednot onlyto depend
on ingredients, spices and preparation of foods, but was sometimes inuenced by
what respondents knew and felt about the foods manufacture: I think it is a bit
disgusting with all theseE117 or 522 or whatever they arecalled. I think it is a bit
repulsive. I dont know the name of it . . . it was this nitrite . . . [I nterviewer:
Nitrite? Does it contain nitrite?] I dont know. I just think it has no taste. These
ready-madedinners havean articial taste.
Practices Related to Food Quality
As already mentioned, most foods wereidentied by theshops wherethey were
bought. Clear opinions were expressed about the shops and supermarkets in the
area. Somewereconsidered cheap, someexpensive. Respondents thought that most
supermarketssoldbothgoodandpoor qualityfood. Theytypicallypreferreddierent
groups of products fromdierent supermarkets, e.g. meat fromoneand vegetables
fromanother. With one exception, none of the respondents bought all their foods
from just one shop, but would switch between supermarkets from day to day.
However, only a few would go to more than one supermarket on one day as this
was considered too time consuming. Hence a major part of the choices between
dierent qualities of foods was doneon thespot in thesupermarket or shop, not
by choosing a particular supermarket.
Many foods werebought routinely, usually because the respondents knew they
liked them, or through habit. Shoppingfor theseroutine foods was not described
asaparticularlydemandingchore. Other foodsrequiredmorethoroughinvestigation.
Theclearest information about this camefromreports of howrespondents avoided
certain qualities of products.
The rst category of food criticism, Contrary to own preferences (Table
3), was easily and routinely dealt with. The theme represented a straightforward
relationship to thefood in question. Thisgenerally concerned awell-known product
which, for various reasons, did not suit the respondents family. So it was simply
not bought.
The second category Poor quality referred to quality dimensions which were
usuallywell known. Choosingtheright qualityoftenrequiredthoroughexamination
8 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
of the foodstu in question. The respondents described how they inspected the
foodstu: they turned it over and over, smelled it, squeezed it, studied the labels,
comparedmeat or fat content, checkedtheingredients, checkedthesell-by date, and
so on. Nearly all respondents reported using a wide range of quality assessment
strategies. Even so, several respondents felt that they could not always make sure
that they really got what they thought was the best. This would have taken time
and skills that were not always felt to be practicable: I f you are a pensioner you
can spend thewholeday checking themarket on that particular day. You can save
a lot of money, and get good quality. But if you havea job and children you cant
manage, because things change so fast. My mother remembers the price of half a
kilo of something in this shop and in that shop. Prices just dont register like that
for me, I cant remember [them]. Respondents felt it was sometimes dicult to
avoid foods that failed to meet reasonableexpectations and this was reported to be
irritating.
Thethird category Unwholesome/unnatural referred to quality criteria which
werenot part of therespondents own experiencewith eating or handling thefood.
Theywerebasedonknowledge, attitudes, feelingsandbeliefs. A varietyof individual
strategies werereported (Table4). Thestrategies aregrouped into seven categories,
ranging fromvery consistent sets of actions aimed at minimizing perceived risks to
denial of any problems related to industrial food production.
Respondentsrepresentedintherst sixcategorieswereconcernedabout problems
which they related to modern technological food production. Somehad clear views
that certain foods were detrimental to health or to the environment. Others were
uncertain whether thereactually wasahealth risk. A senseof uneasewasfrequently
mentioned: I amafraid of thelong-termeect on thechildren.
The actions in the rst three categories (Table 4) represented more persistent
concerns about industrial food production. Respondents who reported these kinds
of actions seemed to feel adequately informed about thecontents and composition
of foods. They made use of many dierent sources of information, including
specializedliterature. Theywouldexpressvariousdegreesof critical attitudestowards
food additivesand pollutantsin foods, and they seemed condent asto which foods
were best. They generally preferred products which were organically grown and
contained little or no additives. However, only one couple appeared to be able to
usetheavailableinformationadequately, i.e. inamanner whichtheythought assured
agreement between their attitudes and their practices (systematic investigation).
The others felt that they failed to do so. I n one group (compromises), living
conditions, especiallylack of timeafter havingchildren, wereseenasthemainreason
for this. I n the other group (inconsistency), the reason was seen as a lack of
personal consistency and strength. Self-reproach was frequent. About one third of
therespondents reported actions which fell into therst threecategories.
The actions described in the next three categories (Table 4) represented more
sporadic concerns about industrial food production. Respondents who reported
thesekind of actionsseemed to feel lesscondent about their own knowledge. Mass
media and rumours among friends and relatives were mentioned as sources of
information. The information referred to seemed fragmented. Apparently, re-
spondentsdid not apply information about onefood product or production method
to other, similar products. Reported practices were sporadic in that respondents
wouldavoidcertainfoodproducts(oftenjust afew), or focusonafewcharacteristics.
Generally the respondents saw their practices as sensible and reasonable, but they
9 CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALI TY
T:nir 4
Choosingfoods: Reportedstrategiesrelatedtoconsiderationsaboutindustrial production
Systematic investigation
Studying food groups one by one. Weighing all relevant criteria, deciding which product is
thebest. Wedont switch very often.
Compromises
Not doingwhat is right becauseof theworkload. I givein, but its much easier. Wehave
readthoselabelsfor somanyyears, nowwevestopped. All thedisgustingthingsfoodcontain!
But I dont bother to makeeverything myself either. Wont go searching for thosecarrots
with two screaming kids along.
Inconsistency
Failingto do what is right becauseof personal matters. I never buy it with nitriteor nitrate.
But I buy canned tuna sh. There is a lot of pollution and preservatives in it. So I amnot
consistent. You need to beconsistent or fanatic. And I amnot fanatic about anything. So
I wont buy only organic food.
Singlefoods
Only considering somefoods. Weonly buy freerangeeggs. Wesaw this TV programme
about howmeat is handled in theshop: rst it is a roast, then it gets chopped up, then made
into liver-pate, then into someother pateand nally it turns into animal food. I t looks like
that too. Thats why wedont buy it.
Signals
I nterpreting single characteristics. Some things look too bright. I f it will keep too long,
you know something is wrong. I like it when everything is on the label. Maybe I dont
knowwhat it means. But I can seewhat is in it.
Activerepression
Try not to think of it. I only read the labels when I get home. Then it is too late. I t says
E276andE36andI alwayshurryto throwawaythepaper andtrynot to think of it anymore.
Otherwiseyou would never bring anything home.
Noactions
Not interested. Leaveit to public authorities. Do not believethat thereis a problem. I just
buy it. I dont know anything about it. People are still alive. I t cant have been that
dangerous. I never speculateabout whether it is healthy or not. I can seeweall still exist.
would still discuss how consistent one ought to be, whether one should do more,
whether foods generally were all right, etc. Doubts and uncertainties seemed to be
widespread, and potential self-reproaches were frequently put aside with various
justications. I n about half of theinterviews, sporadic practices werereported.
Therespondents who described actions in thelast category (Table4) expressed
no concerns about industrial food production. They made references to the same
information sources as the second group, though one respondent also had a fairly
specialized knowledge of nutrition. Only one respondent seemed generally un-
informed. The others seemed to have decided that they were not interested in the
matter. I n four interviews, practices werereported which fell into this last category.
I ntheinterviewswithcouples, thestrategiesof manandwomanwouldsometimes
dier. Typicallythewomanwouldbemoreworriedabout industrial foodproduction
than theman. Thestrategies of both men and women aredecribed in Table4.
10 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
DiscissioN
Quality Criteria
One striking nding is the thematic dierence between positive and negative
comments on foods. Personal experience, either with eating or preparing foods,
dominatesamongpositivecomments, whereasknowledgeandattitudesabout modern
food processing and distribution dominates among critical comments. One in-
terpretationof thisisthat personal preferencesmayserveasalter throughwhich
moregeneral views on foods areformed. When foods areliked no further attention
to other quality parameters is needed. More general criticisms are only required
whenfoodsaredisliked. Thiswouldimplythat foodsafetyconcernsareusedmainly
to legitimizepersonal preferences. This interpretation is supported by thefact that
most respondents criticized some foods using criteria that could also have been
applied to other foods. Yet these criteria were not applied where the other food
product was liked by thefamily.
An alternative intrepretation is that consumers feel unable to avoid what they
see as the undesirable consequences of contemporary food production. They may
thereforeprefer not to discuss this with regard to thefoods they actually eat. There
are many reports in the interviews about feelings of helplessness, and respondents
often madejokes about their food practices using disparaging terms: I served the
salmonella chicken, ha ha, Wejust had thenitritesalami etc. Thesejokes can be
seen as a way of touching upon the unease concerning the food supply, without
entering into any serious discussion. This would imply that respondents were, in
fact, worried about the foods. This is supported by the fact that concerns about
food safety issues appeared frequently in the interviews without being solicited.
Concerns about additives, pollutants, nutrition, livestock welfare, food cultureand
ecologywereoftenveryfullydescribedandthetermsusedvariedamongrespondents.
This indicates that these concerns were not stereotypes presented to meet the
presumed expectations of the interviewers, but were in fact an expression of the
informants personal daily considerations. Thisstudy thereforesupportsthendings
of surveys on consumer attitudes towards food safety (Meier-Ploeger, 1988; Schafer
et al., 1993a; Sjoden, 1993; Wandel & Bugge, 1994). These worries and anxieties
would seemto be the respondents own, and not opinions solicited by the surveys
themselves.
The present study also shows that concerns about food are based on worries
not only about health but also about agriculture, ecology and food culture. The
respondents spontaneous readiness to relate food quality to wider political and
societal perspectivessupportstherelevanceof thesuggestionmadebyseveral authors
(Leitzmann & Sichert-Oevermann, 1988; Sass, 1981; Vogtmann, 1988) that such
broader issuesshouldbeincludedinarealisticcontemporaryconcept of foodquality.
Theresults of thepresent study suggest that, not only aresuch issues integrated in
many consumers everyday quality evaluations, but they arealso referred to directly
when morewidely accepted quality parameters such as tastearediscussed.
Someof theactions reported to beprompted by food quality concerns conrm
ndings fromstudies of perceived quality. Smelling and squeezing products and
inferring processing methods from the expiration date shows that consumers use
cues which are related sometimes to the physical product (intrinsic quality), and
sometimes to marketing policy (extrinsic quality), when evaluating food quality
11 CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALI TY
(Steenkamp, 1989). I t also conrms that quality evaluations may be based on
experience or on credence (Steenkamp, Wierenga & Meulenberg 1986). However,
positive criteria are more often based on intrinsic quality and experience than are
negative comments. Here credence is more often the basis. The results show, in
accordancewith Steenkamps (1989) ndings, that consumers combinequality cues
and make inferences when information is incomplete. This emphasizes also that
quality parameters arenot independent but often intertwined: consumers views on
taste or convenience seem to be inuenced by price or knowledge of processing
methods, and viceversa.
Practices
Theinterviews revealed that many felt uncertain about their own qualications
as food consumers. Only very fewfelt they had accurateknowledgeof food issues;
many moreexpressed vaguefeelings and suspicions, often based on rumours. Most
respondents made their own rules and guidelines for selecting foods, in what they
experienced as an impenetrablefood market. Thestudy showed a broad variety of
suchstrategies. Thestrategiesexceedwhat hasbeenstudiedasfoodsafetybehaviour
(Schafer, Bultena & Hoiberg, 1993b). They are understood by the respondents as
ways of dealing with thecomplex reality of thefood market.
The food choices that consumers make are not always reections of their
preferences. Thediscrepancy between preferenceand choice(Wierenga, 1983) often
seems to betheresult of thecompromises that most participants reported they had
to make. Many werepainfully awarethat their practices werenot in harmony with
their own beliefs and attitudes. I n many interviews this was seen as caused by lack
of time or money. However, many reproached themselves or satirized their own
inconsistent practice. Frequently, this was seen as a result of personal shortcomings
rather than of problems related to structural features. Reports on practical com-
promises demonstrate, however, that industrial food production is abasic condition
in modern life which cannot be evaded, unless with great eort. Therefore the
discrepancy between consumers attitudesand their actionswhich hasbeen reported
(Grunert & Kristensen, 1992; Bjerke, 1992) need not be interpreted as lack of
seriousness or interest on the part of the consumer, but may rather be seen as a
reectionof bewilderment andpowerlessness. I f practical andinformational barriers
wereremoved, moreconsumers would belikely to engagein what they seeas more
consistent practices.
Foods
The respondents frequently commented spontaneously on meat. This indicates
that meat holds an outstandingposition as an important food, thequality of which
is a complicated and delicate matter. This may be related to the traditionally high
price of meat, but may also reect the overall high status of meat in western food
culture (Fiddes, 1991; Twigg, 1984). Spreads, on Danish smrrebrd, were also
frequently mentioned, and smrrebrdholds a relatively high status in Danish food
cultureasan important and traditional element in everyday and festivelunches. The
high frequency of spontaneous comments on these foods indicates that cultural
signicanceinuences quality perceptions. Culturally signicant foods arelikely to
12 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
attract astronger andmoredetailedinterest fromconsumersthanarelessimportant
foods.
Evaluation of theResearch Approach
Theapproachof thepresent studywasnaturalisticinthat it focussedonqualitative
descriptions of ordinary, everyday life. The method seemed to be well suited for
gathering realistic information on actual practices as they areexperienced.
The openness of the method was important in avoiding the solicitation of
predened themes, such as health or food safety issues. The invitation to speak of
foodsinamanner anddetail of theparticipantsownchoiceisnot asuitablemethod
for studies seeking quality evaluations of single products, but is more suited to
bringing out overall priorities and concerns related to foods and meals.
Nevertheless, possible inuences of the research situation must be evaluated
(Kvale, 1987). Even if it is an aimto interviewin an entirely open way and not lead
the interviewee in predened directions, respondents will always be inuenced by
the interviewer, the interview situation, and what they perceive to be the object of
thestudy. I n thepresent study, theinterviewers presented themselves as havinglittle
or no knowledgeof food, nutritionandhealth. However, theycamefromaninstitute
with a name strongly associated with science, nutrition and health. They may
thereforehaverepresentedtheworldof foodandscienceintheeyesof therespondents.
I nformants may havereacted in accord with what they thought this world expected
of themas consumers, and focussed more on issues such as food safety or health
than they would otherwisehavedone. Parts of oneinterview werein fact coded as
biased as thewordingused and thethoughts expressed did not correspond to the
informants presentation of herself in the rest of the interview. I n all the other
interviews, however, therespondents seemed to express themselves naturally.
The participants were not representative of the Danish population. They rep-
resented city residents, families with young children and, in most cases, households
with two wage earners. Together these features only apply to a small group in the
Danish population (less than 10%: Danmarks Statistik, 1995). Nevertheless, each of
thefeatures applies to broader parts of theDanish population. Morethan 50%live
in cities; 76%of all women havepaid work (Danmarks Statistik, 1995) and so have
80%of women with small children (Holm& Keldborg, 1984). With a responserate
of 50%, it seems reasonable to assume that the informants in the study were not
exceptionally critical consumers but represented ordinary and widespread trends
among Danish consumers. I t may therefore be cautiously inferred that the con-
siderations and practices described in this study exist in other groups of consumers.
However, the informants in this study spoke of easy access to a wide variety of
shops and supermarkets, of an almost unlimited variety of foods, and timepressure
in everyday life. Consumers who, in contrast, feel they havethetimenecessary for
conscientioushouseholdwork mayexperiencethefoodmarket aslessoverwhelming,
and be less burdened by feelings of inconsistency and bad conscience. Consumers
in areas with access to a limited variety of foods may more readily blame the
supermarkets or producers for any shortcomings in their diet and thus be less
burdened by self-reproach. Still, theparticipantsrepresented livingconditionswhich
apply to important segments of consumers. Their reports indicated that choosing
foods is often a dicult task which involves feelings of ambivalence, helplessness
and personal shortcomings. How widespread such experiences are in the whole of
13 CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALI TY
thepopulation, andhowtheycanbeovercome, arethereforequestionswhichshould
beinvestigated further.
RrrrrNcrs
Ajzen, I . & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Clis: Prentice-Hall.
Bjerke, F. (1992). Forbrugernesinteressefor kologiskeprodukter [Consumersinterest inorganic
products]. I nstitut for Samfundskonomi og Planlgning. RoskildeUniversity.
Charles, N. & Kerr, M. (1988). Women, foodandfamilies. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Danmarks Statistik (1995). Oral communication.
DeVault, M. L. (1991). Feedingthefamily. Thesocial organizationof caringas genderedwork.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, M. (1975). Deciphering a meal. I n M. Douglas (Ed.), I mplicit meanings. Essays in
anthropology Pp. 24975. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Ekstrom, M. (1990). Kost, klass och lon [Food preparation, class and gender]. Umea Studies
in sociology no 98, Umea. Department of Sociology, Umea University.
Fiddes, N. (1991). Meat. A natural symbol. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Forbrugerradet, NOAH, & Nrings- og Nydelsesmiddelarbejder Forbundet (1988). Hand-
lingsplanfor endansk ernrings- oglevnedsmiddelpolitik [Planof actionfor aDanishfood
and nutrition policy]. Debatoplg, 122.
Goode, J . G., Curtis, K. & Theophano, J . (1984). Meal formats, meal cycles, and menu
negotiationinthemaintenanceof anI talianAmericancommunity. I nM. Douglas, (Ed.),
Food in thesocial order. Pp. 143219. NewYork: Russell SageFoundation.
Grunert, S. C. & Kristensen, K. (1992). Den danske forbrugger or kologiske fdevarer
[The Danish consumer and organic food products]. Aarhus: I nstitut for I n-
formationsbehandling. TheAarhus School of Business.
Holm, L. & Keldborg, J . (1984). Familier, hverdagsliv og mad [Families, everyday life and
food]. I n Tak for mad Pp. 408. Kbenhavn: Miljministeriet.
J ansson, S. (1988). Maten och myterna [Food and myths]. Var Foda, 40/suppl 2, 1203.
Kristensen, O. S. & Sommerlund, B. (1987). TextbaseAlpha a general softwareprogramme
for thehandling of texts. University of Arhus: Center of QualitativeResearch, I nstitute
of Psychology.
Kvale, S. (1987). Validity in thequalitativeresearch interview. I n J . Fog, K. B. J ensen, O. S.
Kristensen and S. Kvale (Eds.), I nterviewet somforskningsmetode [The interview as a
research method]. Pp. 68104. Aarhus: Psykologisk Skriftserie. Aarhus University.
Lassen, J . (1993). Foodqualityandtheconsumers. Aarhus: MAPP. AarhusSchool of Business.
Leitzmann, C. & Sichert-Oevermann, W. (1988). Lebensmittelqualitat und Lebensmittelwahl
nach Wertstufen. I n A. Meier-Ploeger & H. Vogtmann (Eds.), Lebensmittelqualitat
ganzheitlicheMethoden und Konzepte. Pp. 4566. Karlsruhe: C. F. Muller.
Marshall, D. W. (1988). Behavioural variables inuencing the consumption of sh and sh
products. I n D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.), Food acceptability Pp. 21931. London: Elsevier
Applied Science.
Meier-Ploeger, A. (1988). Welche Anforderungen stellen Verbraucher an die Qualitat von
Lebensmitteln? I n A. Meier-Ploeger & H. Vogtmann (Eds.), Lebensmittelqualitat
ganzheitlicheMethoden und Konzepte. Pp. 2944. Karlsruhe: C. F. Muller.
Mennel, S., Murcott, A. & van Otterloo, A. H. (1992). Thesociology of food: eating, diet and
culture. London: Sage.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. A sourcebook of new
methods. London: Sage.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Researchinterviewing. Context andnarrative. Cambridge, USA: Harvard
University Press.
Murcott, A. (1982). On thesocial signicanceof thecooked dinner in South Wales. Social
ScienceI nformation, 21, 67796.
Murcott, A. (1983). I ts a pleasureto cook for him: Food, Mealtimes and Gender in some
14 L. HOLM AND H. KI LDEVANG
South Wales Households. I n E. Gamarnikow, D. Morgan, J . Purvis & D. Taylorson
(Eds.). Thepublic and theprivate. Pp. 7890. London: Heinemann Educational.
Prattala, R., Tuorila-Ollikainen, H. & Lahteenmaki, L. (1985). Consumer opinions and
practicesrelated to food additivesin thepurchasesituation. J ournal of Consumer Studies
and HomeEconomics, 9, 23745.
Sass, H.-H. (1981). Kvalitet? [Quality?]. Copenhagen: Tommeliden.
Schafer, E., Schafer, R. B., Bultena, G. L. & Hoiberg, E. O. (1993a). Safety of theUS food
supply: consumer concerns and behaviour. J ournal of Consumer Studies and Home
Economics, 17, 13744.
Schafer, R. B., Schafer, E., Bultena, G. L. & Hoiberg, E. O. (1993b). Food safety: an
application on thehealth belief model. J ournal of Nutrition Education, 25, 1724.
Sellerberg, A.-M. (1990). Misstron mot maten [On thepopulations distrust of modern food in
Sweden]. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.
Sellerberg, A.-M. (1991). I n Food We Trust? Vitally necessary condence and unfamiliar
ways of attaining it. I n E. L. Furst, R. Prattala, M. Ekstrom, L. Holm, U. Kjrnes
(Eds.), Palatableworlds sociocultural food studies. Pp. 193202. Oslo: SolumForlag.
Shepherd, R. (1988). Consumer attitudes and food acceptance. I n D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.),
Food acceptability. Pp. 25366. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
Shepherd, R. & Stockley, L. (1985). Fat consumption and attitudes towards food with ahigh
fat content. Human Nutrition: Applied Nutrition, 39A, 43142.
Sjoden, P.-O. (1993). Oro och uppfattningar bland konsumenter [Worries and conceptions
among consumers]. Var Fda, 42/3, 17785.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science236, 2805.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. & Frewer, L. J . (1995). Assessing and structuring attitudes towards
theuseof genetechnology in food production: Theroleof perceived ethical obligation.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 26785.
Steenkamp, J .-B. E. M. (1986). Perceived quality of food products and its relationship to
consumer preferences: Theory and measurement. J ournal of Food Quality, 9, 37386.
Steenkamp, J .-B. E. M. (1989). Product quality. An investigation into the concept and howit
is perceived by consumers. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Steenkamp, J .-B. E. M., Wierenga, B. & Meulenberg, M. T. G. (1986). Analysis of food
quality perception processes. Netherlands J ournal of Agricultural Science, 34, 22730.
Trenkle, K. (1983). Lebensmittelqualitat und Verbraucherschutz. AI D-Verbraucherdienst, 28,
2117.
Tuorila, H. (1990). Theroleof attitudes and preferences in food choice. I n J . C. Somogyi &
E. H. Koskinen(Eds.), Nutritional adaptationtonewlife-styles. Pp. 10816. Basel: Karger.
Tuorila, H. & Pangborn, R. M. (1988). Behavioural models in theprediction of consumption
of selected sweet, salty and fatty foods. I n D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.), Foodacceptability.
Pp. 26779. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
Twigg, J . (1984). Vegetarianismand themeaningsof meat. I n A. Murcott (Ed.), Thesociology
of food and eating. Pp. 1830. Aldershot: Gower.
Vogtmann, H. (1988). Lebensmittelqualitat ein ganzheitliches Prinzip. I n A. Meier-Ploeger
& H. Vogtmann (Eds.), Lebensmittelqualitat ganzheitlicheMethoden und Konzepte. Pp.
928. Karlsruhe: C. F. Muller.
Wandel, M. (1995). Consumer perceptionsandstrategiesconcerningfoodrelatedhealth risks.
Ernahrungs-Umschau 42 (suppl.), 1636.
Wandel, M. & Bugge, A. (1994). Til bords med forbrukerne. [Consumers, food and the
market. Consumer valuations and priorities in the nineties]. Oslo: Statens I nstitutt for
Forbruksforskning.
Wierenga, B. (1983). Model and measurement methodology for the analysis of consumer
choiceof food products. Ernahrungs-Umschau, 30 (suppl.), 218.
Received 24 J anuary 1994, revision 29 November 1995