4.7 Article

Knowledge, Utility, and Preferences for Beef Label Traceability Information: A Cross-Cultural Market Analysis Comparing Spain and Brazil

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10020232

关键词

beef; traceability system; marketing; consumer; safety food; cross cultural study; questionnaire

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-Brazil) [249957/2013-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The consumer environment plays a crucial role in determining consumers' buying behavior and product preferences. This cross-cultural study compared the differences in beef consumption and traceability systems between Spain and Brazil, finding that consumers value traceability information as a credibility attribute. However, more incentives are needed to clarify the advantages of purchasing food with certified traceability.
The consumer environment determines consumers' buying behavior and product preferences, and understanding these factors allows businesses in the industry to identify market demands. In view of the different contexts, Spain and Brazil, there are differences in the consumption of beef, in the production and the regulatory process concerning beef, and in particular the traceability system. The traceability system is mandatory in Spain and voluntary in Brazil. From these prerogatives, this cross-cultural study carried out through a self-administered questionnaire with 2132 Spanish and Brazilian beef buyers/consumers, aimed at comparing and understanding the familiarity with the bovine traceability system and traceability information of the label as a food security indicator. It is concluded that traceability information is well received by consumers as an attribute of credibility, and consumers are interested in ensuring that the item they buy is of known and reliable origin. But more incentives may help clarify the advantages of purchasing food with certified traceability, making it more effective for consumers to use this knowledge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据