درک و نگرش مصرف کنندگان نسبت به فرآورده‌های گوشتی در شهر تهران

نویسندگان
مرجان باژن 1
مجید امین زارع 2
فرنام شفیعی ثابت 3
زهره ادب 4
هدایت حسینی 5
1 گروه تغذیه جامعه، دانشکده علوم تغذیه و صنایع غذایی، انستیتو تحقیقات تغذیه‌ای و صنایع غذایی کشور، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 گروه بهداشت و ایمنی مواد غذایی، دانشکده بهداشت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی زنجان، زنجان، ایران
3 دانشکده علوم تغذیه و صنایع غذایی، انستیتو تحقیقات تغذیه ای و صنایع غذایی کشور، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
4 شبکه بهداشت شمیرانات، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
5 گروه علوم و صنایع غذایی، دانشکده علوم تغذیه و صنایع غذایی، انستیتو تحقیقات تغذیه‌ای و صنایع غذایی کشور، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی تهران، ایران
10.22034/FSCT.22.162.137
چکیده
در سال‌های اخیر، مصرف سوسیس و کالباس، به‌ویژه در میان نسل جوان، افزایش چشمگیری داشته است. با این حال، اطلاعات دقیقی از درک و نگرش مصرف‌کنندگان نسبت به این محصولات در کشور وجود ندارد. این مطالعه با هدف بررسی این موضوع در بین مصرف‌کنندگان تهرانی انجام شد. پژوهش حاضر به روش کیفی انجام گرفت. جامعه آماری مورد مطالعه، بزرگسالان با محدوده سنی 18 تا 60 سال ساکن شهر تهران بودند. داده­ها با روش مصاحبه چهره به چهره از نوع نیمه‌ساختارمند جمع­آوری شد. تعداد 43 نفر (25 زن و 18 مرد) در این مطالعه مشارکت داشتند. روش انتخاب مشارکت­کنندگان، نمونه‌گیری هدفمند و با حداکثر تنوع بود. اطلاعات به روش تماتیک یا درونمایه‌ای تحلیل شد. نرم افزار مورد استفاده MAXQDA2020 بود. مشارکت‌کنندگان در مطالعه حاضر، حتی آنهایی که از سوسیس و کالباس استفاده می‌کردند، این محصولات را به دلایلی چون مواد اولیه نامرغوب، تقلب در تولید محصول، دارا بودن افزودنی‌های مضر مثل نیترات، و میزان بالای چربی و نمک به عنوان محصولات سالم و ایمن درک نکرده بودند. آنها سوسیس و کالباس را با خطر بروز انواع بیماری‌ها مثل بیماری‌های قلبی، فشار خون بالا و انواع سرطان مرتبط می‌دانستند، به همین دلیل نگرش مطلوبی نسبت به این محصولات نداشتند. بی‌اعتمادی به اطلاعات روی برچسب، به ویژه ترکیبات تشکیل‌دهنده محصول، از مهم‌ترین دلایل عدم توجه مشارکت‌کنندگان به برچسب غذایی بود. علاوه بر بی‌اعتمادی به تولیدکنندگان، مشارکت‌کنندگان در مطالعه حاضر به نهادهای نظارتی و عملکرد آنها نیز بی‌اعتماد بودند. این پژوهش با واکاوی عمیق درک و نگرش مصرف‌کنندگان نسبت به سوسیس و کالباس، نقشی محوری در ارتقای کیفی این فرآورده‌ها در سطح کشور ایفا می‌کند. یافته‌های این مطالعه ضرورت اهتمام تولیدکنندگان فرآورده‌های گوشتی به ارتقای کیفیت مواد اولیه، به‌کارگیری روش‌های تولید سالم‌تر، شفافیت در برچسب‌گذاری و تقویت اعتماد به برند را به منظور رفع دغدغه‌ها و جلب رضایت مصرف‌کنندگان به وضوح نشان می‌دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
درک
نگرش
مصرف‌کنندگان
فرآورده‌های گوشتی
مطالعه کیفی

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Perception and attitude towards meat products among consumers in Tehran

نویسندگان English

Marjan Bazhan 1
Majid Aminzare 2
Farnam Shafiei Sabet 3
Zohreh Adab 4
Hedayat Hosseini 5
1 Department of Community Nutrition, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition, and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Food Safety and Hygiene, School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran
3 Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Shemiranat Health Network, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Nutrition and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the consumption of sausages, particularly among younger individuals. However, the perception and attitude of consumers towards these products in the country remain poorly documented. This study was designed to investigate this issue among consumers in Tehran.The research was carried out using a qualitative approach. The study examined adults aged 18 to 60 years who lived in Tehran. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were used to collect qualitative data. A total of 43 individuals (25 women and 18 men) participated in the study. Participants were selected using a purposeful sampling technique to ensure maximum diversity. Qualitative content analysis of the data was conducted using MAXQDA2020 software. The participants, including those who consumed sausages, perceived sausages as unhealthy and unsafe due to several factors. These factors include poor quality raw materials, fraudulent production, harmful additives such as nitrates, and high levels of fat and salt. Furthermore, sausages are believed to have the potential to cause a range of diseases, including heart disease, high blood pressure, and cancer. This contributes to a negative attitude towards these products. Participants' lack of trust in the information provided on food labels, particularly regarding product ingredients, caused them to disregard it. In this study, participants expressed distrust not only towards manufacturers but also towards regulatory institutions and their performance. This research plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of these products at the national level by in-depth examination of the understanding and attitude of consumers towards sausages. The findings of this study demonstrate the necessity for meat product producers to enhance the quality of their raw materials, adopt healthier production methods, provide transparent labelling and reinforce consumer trust in order to address concerns and meet consumer expectations.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

perception
Attitude
Consumers
Meat products
Qualitative Study
1. Desmond E: Reducing salt: A challenge for the meat industry. Meat science 2006, 74(1):188-196.
2. Grunert KG, Verbeke W, Kügler JO, Saeed F, Scholderer J: Use of consumer insight in the new product development process in the meat sector. Meat Science 2011, 89(3):251-258.
3. Shan LC, De Brún A, Henchion M, Li C, Murrin C, Wall PG, Monahan FJ: Consumer evaluations of processed meat products reformulated to be healthier–A conjoint analysis study. Meat science 2017, 131:82-89.
4. Shan LC, Henchion M, De Brún A, Murrin C, Wall PG, Monahan FJ: Factors that predict consumer acceptance of enriched processed meats. Meat Science 2017, 133:185-193.
5. Decker EA, Park Y: Healthier meat products as functional foods. Meat science 2010, 86(1):49-55.
6. Tobin BD, O'Sullivan MG, Hamill R, Kerry JP: European consumer attitudes on the associated health benefits of neutraceutical-containing processed meats using Co-enzyme Q10 as a sample functional ingredient. Meat Science 2014, 97(2):207-213.
7. De Smet S, Vossen E: Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Science 2016, 120:145-156.
8. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. [https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf (Accessed 21.06.25) .]
9. Cancer IAfRo: IARC monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. Press release 2015, 240.
10. Verbeke W, Pérez-Cueto FJ, de Barcellos MD, Krystallis A, Grunert KG: European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat science 2010, 84(2):284-292.
11. Bolger Z, Brunton NP, Lyng JG, Monahan FJ: Comminuted meat products—consumption, composition, and approaches to healthier formulations. Food Reviews International 2017, 33(2):143-166.
12. Grunert KG: Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat science 2006, 74(1):149-160.
13. Font-i-Furnols M, Guerrero L: Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat science 2014, 98(3):361-371.
14. Danijela Š, Slobodan L, Vesna Đ, Dragan M, Danijela V, Brankica L, Milan M: The role of consumers’ perception and attitude in purchasing of meat and meat products. Meat Technology 2011, 52(2):283-290.
15. Kotler P, Armstrong G, Harris L, Piercy N: Principles of marketing. 6th European edition: Harlow: Pearson Education; 2013.
16. Petty RE, Krosnick JA: Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences: Psychology Press; 2014.
17. De Barcellos MD, Kügler JO, Grunert KG, Van Wezemael L, Pérez-Cueto FJ, Ueland Ø, Verbeke W: European consumers' acceptance of beef processing technologies: A focus group study. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 2010, 11(4):721-732.
18. Shim S-M, Seo SH, Lee Y, Moon G-I, Kim M-S, Park J-H: Consumers’ knowledge and safety perceptions of food additives: Evaluation on the effectiveness of transmitting information on preservatives. Food Control 2011, 22(7):1054-1060.
19. Koyratty BNS, Aumjaud B, Neeliah SA: Food additive control: a survey among selected consumers and manufacturers. British Food Journal 2014.
20. Hung Y, de Kok TM, Verbeke W: Consumer attitude and purchase intention towards processed meat products with natural compounds and a reduced level of nitrite. Meat science 2016, 121:119-126.
21. Brunsø K, Bredahl L, Grunert KG, Scholderer J: Consumer perception of the quality of beef resulting from various fattening regimes. Livestock production science 2005, 94(1-2):83-93.
22. Grunert KG: Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European review of agricultural economics 2005, 32(3):369-391.
23. Zohoor A, Moonaghi H: Data Analysis in Qualitative Studies. Journal of Fundamentals of Mental Health 2003, 6(20):107-113. [In persian].
24. Ranjbar H, Haghdoost A, Salsali M, Khoshdel A, Soleimani M, Bahrami N: Sampling in qualitative research: A Guide for beginning. Journal of Army University 2012, 10(3):238-250 [In persian].
25. Polit DF, Beck CT: Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization, vol. 6: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
26. Rourke L, Anderson T, Garrison DR, Archer W: Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International journal of artificial intelligence in education (IJAIED) 2001, 12:8-22.
27. Haugaard P, Hansen F, Jensen M, Grunert KG: Consumer attitudes toward new technique for preserving organic meat using herbs and berries. Meat science 2014, 96(1):126-135.
28. Dickson-Spillmann M, Siegrist M, Keller C: Attitudes toward chemicals are associated with preference for natural food. Food quality and preference 2011, 22(1):149-156.
29. Magalhaes DR, Maza MT, Prado INd, Fiorentini G, Kirinus JK, Campo MdM: An exploratory study of the purchase and consumption of beef: Geographical and cultural differences between Spain and Brazil. Foods 2022, 11(1):129.
30. Barone AM, Aschemann-Witzel J: Food handling practices and expiration dates: Consumers’ perception of smart labels. Food Control 2022, 133:108615.
31. Imtiyaz H, Soni P, Yukongdi V: Understanding Consumer's purchase intention and consumption of convenience food in an emerging economy: Role of marketing and commercial determinants. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 2022, 10:100399.
32. Golob U, Tuškej U, Podnar K: The role of consumer brand-identification in building relationships. Journal of Business Research 2013, 66(1):53-59.
33. Oh H, Prado PHM, Korelo JC, Frizzo F: The effect of brand authenticity on consumer–brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management 2019, 28(2):231-241.
34. Greve G: The moderating effect of customer engagement on the brand image–brand loyalty relationship. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2014, 148:203-210.
35. Lassoued R, Hobbs JE: Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy 2015, 52:99-107.
36. Annaraud K, Berezina K: Predicting satisfaction and intentions to use online food delivery: what really makes a difference? Journal of Foodservice Business Research 2020, 23(4):305-323.
37. Ha J, Jang SS: Effects of service quality and food quality: The moderating role of atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment. International journal of hospitality management 2010, 29(3):520-529.
38. Wang ES: The influence of visual packaging design on perceived food product quality, value, and brand preference. International journal of retail & distribution management 2013, 41(10):805-816.
39. Wang ES-T: Different effects of utilitarian and hedonic benefits of retail food packaging on perceived product quality and purchase intention. Journal of food products marketing 2017, 23(3):239-250.
40. Nilssen R, Bick G, Abratt R: Comparing the relative importance of sustainability as a consumer purchase criterion of food and clothing in the retail sector. Journal of Brand Management 2019, 26:71-83.
41. de Araújo PD, Araújo WMC, Patarata L, Fraqueza MJ: Understanding the main factors that influence consumer quality perception and attitude towards meat and processed meat products. Meat science 2022:108952.
42. Díaz-Caro C, García-Torres S, Elghannam A, Tejerina D, Mesias F, Ortiz A: Is production system a relevant attribute in consumers' food preferences? The case of Iberian dry-cured ham in Spain. Meat science 2019, 158:107908.
43. Hung Y, Verbeke W, de Kok TM: Stakeholder and consumer reactions towards innovative processed meat products: Insights from a qualitative study about nitrite reduction and phytochemical addition. Food Control 2016, 60:690-698.
44. Dadras A: Impact of shapes in packaging design on consumer behaviour in the lens of Kano’s attractive quality theory. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management Studies 2016, 2(1):78-86.
45. Teixeira A, Rodrigues S: Consumer perceptions towards healthier meat products. Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 38:147-154.
46. Carrieri V, Principe F: WHO and for how long? An empirical analysis of the consumers’ response to red meat warning. Food Policy 2022, 108:102231.
47. Bernardo P, Patarata L, Lorenzo JM, Fraqueza MJ: Nitrate is nitrate: The status quo of using nitrate through vegetable extracts in meat products. Foods 2021, 10(12):3019.
48. Antoniak MA, Szymkowiak A, Pepliński B: The source of protein or its value? Consumer perception regarding the importance of meat (-like) product attributes. Applied Sciences 2022, 12(9):4128.
49. Munekata PES, Rocchetti G, Pateiro M, Lucini L, Domínguez R, Lorenzo JM: Addition of plant extracts to meat and meat products to extend shelf-life and health-promoting attributes: An overview. Current Opinion in Food Science 2020, 31:81-87.
50. O'Flaherty M, Flores-Mateo G, Nnoaham K, Lloyd-Williams F, Capewell S: Potential cardiovascular mortality reductions with stricter food policies in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2012, 90:522-531.
51. Organization WH: Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020: World Health Organization; 2013.
52. Brown IJ, Tzoulaki I, Candeias V, Elliott P: Salt intakes around the world: implications for public health. International journal of epidemiology 2009, 38(3):791-813.
53. Rezaei S, Mahmoudi Z, Sheidaei A, Aryan Z, Mahmoudi N, Gohari K, Yoosefi M, Hajipour MJ, Dilmaghani-Marand A, Soleimanzadehkhayat M: Salt intake among Iranian population: the first national report on salt intake in Iran. Journal of hypertension 2018, 36(12):2380-2389.
54. Rafieifar S, Pouraram H, Djazayery A, Siassi F, Abdollahi Z, Dorosty AR, Abtahi M, Kazemeini H, Farzadfar F: Strategies and opportunities ahead to reduce salt intake. Archives of Iranian Medicine 2016, 19(10):0-0.
55. Fraqueza MJ, Laranjo M, Elias M, Patarata L: Microbiological hazards associated with salt and nitrite reduction in cured meat products: Control strategies based on antimicrobial effect of natural ingredients and protective microbiota. Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 38:32-39.
56. Humans IWGotEoCRt: Red meat and processed meat. 2018.
57. Siegrist M, Sütterlin B: Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 2017, 113:320-326.
58. Sokolić D, Kravar K, Sermek B, Barić C: Razumijevanje informacija o hrani i stav potrošača o bacanju hrane. Hrvatska agencija za hranu. Osijek. In.; 2015.
59. Sousa LMLd, Stangarlin-Fiori L, Costa EHS, Furtado F, Medeiros CO: Use of nutritional food labels and consumers’ confidence in label information. Revista de Nutrição 2020, 33.
60. Marotta G, Simeone M, Nazzaro C: Product reformulation in the food system to improve food safety. Evaluation of policy interventions. Appetite 2014, 74:107-115.
61. Marins BR, Jacob SdC, Peres F: Qualitative evaluation of the reading habit and understanding: reception of the information contained in labels of food products. Food Science and Technology 2008, 28:579-585.
62. Tonkin E, Webb T, Coveney J, Meyer SB, Wilson AM: Consumer trust in the Australian food system–the everyday erosive impact of food labelling. Appetite 2016, 103:118-127.
63. Lang B, Conroy DM: Are trust and consumption values important for buyers of organic food? A comparison of regular buyers, occasional buyers, and non-buyers. Appetite 2021, 161:105123.
64. Konuk FA: The moderating impact of taste award on the interplay between perceived taste, perceived quality and brand trust. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2021, 63:102698.
65. Montanari F, Varallo C, Pisanello D: Food Fraud in the EU. European Journal of Risk Regulation 2016, 7(1):197-205.
66. Moreira MJ, García-Díez J, de Almeida JM, Saraiva C: Consumer knowledge about food labeling and fraud. Foods 2021, 10(5):1095.
67. Meixner O, Katt F: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on consumer food safety perceptions—A choice-based willingness to pay study. Sustainability 2020, 12(18):7270.
68. Wang ES-T, Lin H-C, Tsai M-C: Effect of institutional trust on consumers’ health and safety perceptions and repurchase intention for traceable fresh food. Foods 2021, 10(12):2898.
69. Li PP: Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust. Management and Organization Review 2008, 4(3):413-439.
70. Omari R, Ruivenkamp GT, Tetteh EK: Consumers' trust in government institutions and their perception and concern about safety and healthiness of fast food. Journal of Trust Research 2017, 7(2):170-186.
71. Plano Clark V, Creswell J, O'Neil Green D, Shope R: Mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches: An introduction to emergent mixed methods research. In: Handbook of emergent methods. edn. Edited by HesseBiber S, Leavy P. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008.