Appetite, 1996, 27, 1–14
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
young childen were interviewed open-endedly concerning daily food-related practices and thoughts, making particular use of narrative descriptions of specific
meals. Respondents expressed both positive and negative opinions about a broad
variety of processed and unprocessed foods. Positive opinions about food quality
related mainly to personal criteria such as taste or convenience. Negative comments
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 were frequently
reported. The results suggest that choices of foods often reflect compromises in
everyday life rather than the consumers’ preferences.
 1996 Academic Press Limited
I
Consumers’ perception of food quality, and their attitudes and practices related
to foods, are themes of interest for food producers and retailers, public authorities
and health educators. In the scientific literature this interest is reflected in discussions
about how food quality should be defined (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) have been put forward. It has also
been suggested that the concept should have different values (“value laden”, “positive”
and “neutral”) (Trenkle, 1983). In Denmark, where this study was conducted,
attempts to redefine food quality have been published by agricultural organizations,
(Sass, 1981), consumers organizations, trade unions (Forbrugerrådet, 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 Steffensen and Lene Biller are thanked for transcribing the tapes.
Roger Leys and Tina Cuthbertson are thanked for assisting with the English translation.
Address correspondence to: Lotte Holm, Department of Human Nutrition, Rolighedsvej 30,
DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark.
0195–6663/96/040001+14 $18.00/0
 1996 Academic Press Limited
2
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
1993). It has been argued that technological and environmental problems with
modern food production need to be taken into consideration because they are of
vital importance for society and of increasing interest for consumers. Though a greater
readiness to meet consumer demand is an expressed purpose of the contributions, they
draw only unsystematically on empirical evidence of consumers’ views on food
quality.
Steenkamp’s (1989) concept of “perceived quality” attempts to mediate between
objective product characteristics and consumer preferences. It stresses that perceived
quality may differ from objective quality, and that consumers use cues to evaluate
quality. The concept implies that individual assessments of quality are personal and
situational, and that they are often based on incomplete information. The studies
of Steenkamp and others generate detailed profiles of quality parameters for single
products as perceived by consumers. Studies using the attitude model of Ajzen and
Fisjbein (1980) to investigate determinants of food choice (Shepherd, 1988; Shepherd
& Stockley, 1985; Tuorila, 1990; Tuorila & Pangborn, 1988) have typically focused
on how attitudes and norms can predict consumption of specific foods. A modified
version of the model has been used to study consumers’ attitudes towards foods
produced by gene technology (Sparks, Shepherd & Frewer, 1995).
The studies presented above have tended to focus on specific foods or production
methods. The foods are often studied in isolation as single products. Generally, the
studies have not examined the wider social framework and the cultural system in
which food products are consumed.
In the field 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; Sjödén, 1993; Wandel
& Bugge, 1994). The evidence from these surveys is inconsistent. In 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 confirmed their concern when asked about specific health hazards,
whereas a general question about whether respondents worried about the food they
ate led a majority to deny feelings of anxiety (Sellerberg, 1991). The surveys therefore
raise the question of how deeply rooted concerns about food safety are among
consumers (Wandel, 1995).
Very little is known about how food risks affect people’s lives and their food
choices. Several studies have revealed little association between consumers’ attitudes
to issues such as food additives or organically grown vegetables and their actual
buying behaviour (Bjerke, 1992; Grunert & Kristensen, 1992; Prättälä, TuorilaOllikainen & Lähteenmäki, 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 the complex reality of technological developments in the food-producing
sector (Mennel, Murcott & van Otterloo, 1992).
Deciding which foods to buy, serve and eat is not based on uniform principles
such as food quality or health. The providing and eating of meals takes place within
the stream of events that make up ordinary daily life, and is enmeshed in a complex
of social relations (Charles & Kerr, 1988; DeVault, 1991; Ekström, 1990; Jansson,
1988; Murcott, 1983). Furthermore, eating is guided by cultural concepts of meals,
dishes and foods which attach meaning and status to these elements (Douglas, 1975;
Goode, Curtis & Theophano 1984; Marshall, 1988; Murcott, 1982). It is therefore
CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALITY
3
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 from this research tradition.
The aim was to study the practices of everyday life in order to reveal food-related
concerns involved in the planning and eating of meals. The study investigated which
actions, thoughts and considerations consumers reported in relation to specific meals.
The present analysis addressed the issue of food quality, focussing on foods that
respondents were concerned about and on which criteria they used when describing
foods as good or not good, particularly issues related to food safety.
M
Interviewees
Twenty Copenhagen families with children under 6 years of age were interviewed.
Both working class and middle class families were represented. The families were
contacted through two kindergartens situated in a small neighbourhood in the city.
Letters asking families to participate in the study were handed out to parents, who
were anonymous to the researchers but known to the heads of the kindergartens.
Attempts were made to ensure that the families consisted of two adults (one family
was found to be a single-parent family most of the time), and that wage-labour was
an important part of the family’s life (i.e. at least one, but preferably both adults,
working outside the home). In all the households at least one parent was working,
and in 14 of the families both adults had paid work. Forty letters were handed out,
and distribution was stopped when 20 families had agreed to participate. Each family
decided which adult was to take part in the interview. In one family only the man
was interviewed, in eight families both adults took part, and in 11 families only the
woman participated. Nineteen interviews were conducted in the informants’ homes,
and one in a room at the kindergarten. The families lived in an area of the city with
a large variety of supermarkets and shops.
Data Collection
The interviews were semi-structured, using an open-ended interview guide inviting
respondents to speak in their own words and in narrative structures (Mishler, 1986)
(Table 1). The aim was 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 superficial knowledge of food and
nutrition. The interviews focused on gathering detailed information on specific events,
starting with the evening meal of the day before the interview. 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 adequately. The interviews lasted for 1–2 h. They were tape-recorded and transcribed
verbatim.
4
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
T 1
The interview guide
Meals
Typical questions
Yesterday evening
Another ordinary evening
Weekend meals
What happened?
What was the meal like?
Where were you sitting?
Guests:
a. Friends
b. Relatives (grandparents)
c. Parties
Who was present?
What was on the table?
Who had made it?
Who liked it?
Why this food?
(e.g. carrots, peas, sauce, bread, pizza etc)
Lunch:
a. Everyday (lunch packs)
b. Weekends
Miscellaneous issues:
Cooking
Experts
Own background
Where did the raw materials come from?
(Freezer, fridge, shop?)
When was it bought?
Where was it bought?
Why there?
What do you think of this shop?
Where did you learn to cook?
Use of cook books, magazines etc.
What do you think of experts? Which experts do you
listen to?
Where did you live after leaving your parents home?
Data Analysis
The analysis was exploratory and followed the procedure of reviewing issues and
themes discussed in each interview and developing from these a code-system which
identified the most important themes in all interviews. Segments of the interview
texts were then identified and labelled by assignment of one or several descriptive
codes (Miles & Huberman, 1984) which did not 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
from one statement to several pages and the total material amounted to about 600
pages of text. The software programme Alpha for qualitative analysis of texts
(Kristensen & Sommerlund, 1987) was used in the coding process and in the reviewing
of codes. The programme facilitates the organization of notes and quotations, and
allows text to be divided, sorted and reorganized in multiple ways without changing
the original data. Computerized coding of interview transcripts involves a risk of
atomism and context stripping (Miles & Huberman, 1984). However, in the analytical
process, summaries and full-length transcripts were checked for context of the coded
segments. Summaries and transcripts were also used when individual respondents
were characterized or classified. The coding, the summaries and classifications were
done by each author separately, compared and adjusted after consensus had been
reached.
CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALITY
5
R
Foods Discussed
Foods were discussed continuously and in different 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-five percent of all positive descriptions of foods, and 40% of all
critical comments, were about meat. Subsequently, but much less frequently, comments were made about meat products and spreads (used on Danish open-sandwiches
smørrebrød), convenience foods (ready-made meals), vegetables and bread.
The foods were frequently identified either by a particular brand name, or by
the shop where they were purchased. Foods that earned favourable comment were
identified equally frequently by brand or shop, whereas criticized foods were typically
identified only by the place of purchase. More general negative comments were made
on foods which had undergone industrial processing, were products of modern
agriculture or convenience products, and these foods were not always identified by
brand name or shop. In contrast, favourable comments mostly concerned specific
foods and only rarely dealt with more general features, common to several types of
food product.
Quality Parameters
A number of different criteria were mentioned when describing food positively
or negatively. In 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 favourable comments. It 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 the other hand, was hardly ever mentioned as the only reason for buying
or not buying something. Nevertheless, even in interviews where price was not openly
discussed, economic considerations were present as preconditions for a household’s
sphere of choice, because they were relevant to the selection of shops and foods.
Some criteria were used in relation to both positive and negative comments,
others were not. The criteria could be organized into themes, which differed in the
ways food were spoken of, favourably (Table 2) or unfavourably (Table 3).
The first two themes of favourable comments (Table 2) are related to the
respondents’ experience with either tasting or using the product. The next two themes
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 first
theme refers to respondents’ personal preferences, or those of their families. The
personal character of the preferences should be noted; no general judgements of
food quality were implied. The second theme is also based on experience but includes
more generalized judgements about products. A critical attitude to producers or
retailers was often apparent. The third theme refers to what consumers knew about,
6
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
T 2
Examples of positive criteria grouped under major themes
We like it
It’s practical
N∗=43
N=21
Like it
The family likes it
Good taste
Good smell
Crisp
Tender
Just right for me
Well seasoned
Extremely good
Has a natural taste
Nice and shiny
Good
Special offer
Easy to use
Has various uses
Makes good dishes
Quick
Quick and cheap
Easy and cheap
Easy to spread
Practical packing
Like the way it is
produced
N=16
Health
No additives
Not very industrialized
Naturally raised
livestock
Bred with more
freedom
With the best possible
life
Good for allergy
Many vitamins
Not fatty
Good for babies
N=15
∗N refers to the number of times each theme was mentioned in the whole interview material.
T 3
Examples of negative criteria grouped under major themes
Contrary to own
preferences
N∗=27
Don’t like it
Disgusting
Sickly
Deadly dull
Tastes of pork
Looks disgusting
Tired of it
Not wild about it
Poor quality
Unwholesome/Unnatural
N=35
N=46
Looks stale
Looks good but is not tender
Stinks
They smell odd
Ugly, bruised
Too much fat and gristle
Not good quality
Near expiration date
Rots before you get it home
Dog food
A fraud
Too long shelf life
Can’t be right
Awful colour
Don’t know what’s in it
Full of salmonella
Plastic food
The animals are stressed
Full of penicillin
Concentrated pollution
Too many E-numbers
Pigs’ life unhealthy
Too sterile food
Light-products are decadent
Unknown additives
They pour everything into it
They say it’s dangerous
Lost its nutrient value
Waste of resources
May have long-term effects
on the body
Must have colouring
Unnatural
Dead food
∗N refers to the number of times each theme was mentioned in the whole interview material.
CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALITY
7
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 sometimes only implied.
Criteria related to personal experience featured less frequently in critical comments
than criteria related to knowledge or attitudes.
Criteria would sometimes be combined so that they reinforced each other, as in
the following discussion of a brand of liver paste, which is the most commonly used
spread on Danish smørrebrød: “It is mostly ‘Stryhn’s’ [a brand name]. It’s one of
those things where I don’t just go for the cheapest. I go for something that I know
the family likes. And I look for it on special offer, 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”. “It’s
easy to prepare and the children like it, but it contains a lot of gluten and milk. It’s
fatty food”.
Criteria mentioned together were not necessarily independent, but they were
sometimes substantially intertwined. Taste or palatability seemed not only to depend
on ingredients, spices and preparation of foods, but was sometimes influenced by
what respondents knew and felt about the foods’ manufacture: “I think it is a bit
disgusting with all these E117 or 522 or whatever they are called. I think it is a bit
repulsive”. “I don’t know the name of it . . . it was this nitrite . . . [Interviewer:
Nitrite? Does it contain nitrite?]—I don’t know. I just think it has no taste”. ”These
ready-made dinners have an artificial taste”.
Practices Related to Food Quality
As already mentioned, most foods were identified by the shops where they were
bought. Clear opinions were expressed about the shops and supermarkets in the
area. Some were considered cheap, some expensive. Respondents thought that most
supermarkets sold both good and poor quality food. They typically preferred different
groups of products from different supermarkets, e.g. meat from one and vegetables
from another. 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
different qualities of foods was done “on the spot” in the supermarket or shop, not
by choosing a particular supermarket.
Many foods were bought routinely, usually because the respondents knew they
liked them, or through habit. Shopping for these “routine” foods was not described
as a particularly demanding chore. Other foods required more thorough investigation.
The clearest information about this came from reports of how respondents avoided
certain qualities of products.
The first category of food criticism, “Contrary to own preferences” (Table
3), was easily and routinely dealt with. The theme represented a straightforward
relationship to the food in question. This generally concerned a well-known product
which, for various reasons, did not suit the respondent’s family. So it was simply
not bought.
The second category “Poor quality” referred to quality dimensions which were
usually well known. Choosing the right quality often required thorough examination
8
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
of the foodstuff in question. The respondents described how they inspected the
foodstuff: they turned it over and over, smelled it, squeezed it, studied the labels,
compared meat or fat content, checked the ingredients, checked the sell-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: “If you are a pensioner you
can spend the whole day checking the market on that particular day. You can save
a lot of money, and get good quality. But if you have a job and children you can’t
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 don’t register like that
for me, I can’t remember [them]”. Respondents felt it was sometimes difficult to
avoid foods that failed to meet reasonable expectations and this was reported to be
irritating.
The third category “Unwholesome/unnatural” referred to quality criteria which
were not part of the respondents own experience with eating or handling the food.
They were based on knowledge, attitudes, feelings and beliefs. A variety of individual
strategies were reported (Table 4). The strategies are grouped into seven categories,
ranging from very consistent sets of actions aimed at minimizing perceived risks to
denial of any problems related to industrial food production.
Respondents represented in the first six categories were concerned about problems
which they related to modern technological food production. Some had clear views
that certain foods were detrimental to health or to the environment. Others were
uncertain whether there actually was a health risk. A sense of unease was frequently
mentioned: “I am afraid of the long-term effect on the children”.
The actions in the first 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 the contents and composition
of foods. They made use of many different sources of information, including
specialized literature. They would express various degrees of critical attitudes towards
food additives and pollutants in foods, and they seemed confident as to 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
use the available information adequately, i.e. in a manner which they thought assured
agreement between their attitudes and their practices (“systematic investigation”).
The others felt that they failed to do so. In one group (“compromises”), living
conditions, especially lack of time after having children, were seen as the main reason
for this. In the other group (“inconsistency”), the reason was seen as a lack of
personal consistency and strength. Self-reproach was frequent. About one third of
the respondents reported actions which fell into the first three categories.
The actions described in the next three categories (Table 4) represented more
sporadic concerns about industrial food production. Respondents who reported
these kind of actions seemed to feel less confident 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, respondents did not apply information about one food product or production method
to other, similar products. Reported practices were sporadic in that respondents
would avoid certain food products (often just a few), or focus on a few characteristics.
Generally the respondents saw their practices as sensible and reasonable, but they
CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALITY
9
T 4
Choosing foods: Reported strategies related to considerations about industrial production
Systematic investigation
Studying food groups one by one. Weighing all relevant criteria, deciding which product is
the best. “We don’t switch very often”.
Compromises
Not doing what is right because of the workload. “I give in, but it’s much easier”. “We have
read those labels for so many years, now we’ve stopped. All the disgusting things food contain!
But I don’t bother to make everything myself either”. “Won’t go searching for those carrots
with two screaming kids along”.
Inconsistency
Failing to do what is right because of personal matters. “I never buy it with nitrite or nitrate.
But I buy canned tuna fish. There is a lot of pollution and preservatives in it. So I am not
consistent”. “You need to be consistent or fanatic. And I am not fanatic about anything. So
I won’t buy only organic food”.
Single foods
Only considering some foods. “We only buy free range eggs”. “We saw this TV programme
about how meat is handled in the shop: first it is a roast, then it gets chopped up, then made
into liver-paté, then into some other paté and finally it turns into animal food. It looks like
that too. That’s why we don’t buy it”.
Signals
Interpreting single characteristics. “Some things look too bright”. “If it will keep too long,
you know something is wrong”. “I like it when everything is on the label. Maybe I don’t
know what it means. But I can see what is in it”.
Active repression
Try not to think of it. “I only read the labels when I get home. Then it is too late. It says
E276 and E36 and I always hurry to throw away the paper and try not to think of it anymore.
Otherwise you would never bring anything home”.
No actions
Not interested. Leave it to public authorities. Do not believe that there is a problem. “I just
buy it. I don’t know anything about it”. “People are still alive. It can’t have been that
dangerous. I never speculate about whether it is healthy or not. I can see we all 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
justifications. In about half of the interviews, sporadic practices were reported.
The respondents who described actions in the last category (Table 4) 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 uninformed. The others seemed to have decided that they were not interested in the
matter. In four interviews, practices were reported which fell into this last category.
In the interviews with couples, the strategies of man and woman would sometimes
differ. Typically the woman would be more worried about industrial food production
than the man. The strategies of both men and women are decribed in Table 4.
10
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
D
Quality Criteria
One striking finding is the thematic difference between positive and negative
comments on foods. Personal experience, either with eating or preparing foods,
dominates among positive comments, whereas knowledge and attitudes about modern
food processing and distribution dominates among critical comments. One interpretation of this is that personal preferences may serve as a “filter” through which
more general views on foods are formed. When foods are liked no further attention
to other quality parameters is needed. More general criticisms are only required
when foods are disliked. This would imply that food safety concerns are used mainly
to legitimize personal preferences. This interpretation is supported by the fact 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 the family.
An alternative intrepretation is that consumers feel unable to avoid what they
see as the undesirable consequences of contemporary food production. They may
therefore prefer not to discuss this with regard to the foods they actually eat. There
are many reports in the interviews about feelings of helplessness, and respondents
often made jokes about their food practices using disparaging terms: “I served the
salmonella chicken, ha ha”, “We just had the nitrite salami” etc. These jokes 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 culture and
ecology were often very fully described and the terms used varied among respondents.
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. This study therefore supports the findings
of surveys on consumer attitudes towards food safety (Meier-Ploeger, 1988; Schafer
et al., 1993a; Sjödén, 1993; Wandel & Bugge, 1994). These worries and anxieties
would seem to 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 perspectives supports the relevance of the suggestion made by several authors
(Leitzmann & Sichert-Oevermann, 1988; Sass, 1981; Vogtmann, 1988) that such
broader issues should be included in a realistic contemporary concept of food quality.
The results of the present study suggest that, not only are such issues integrated in
many consumers everyday quality evaluations, but they are also referred to directly
when more widely accepted quality parameters such as taste are discussed.
Some of the actions reported to be prompted by food quality concerns confirm
findings from studies 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
CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALITY
11
(Steenkamp, 1989). It also confirms 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
accordance with Steenkamp’s (1989) findings, that consumers combine quality cues
and make inferences when information is incomplete. This emphasizes also that
quality parameters are not independent but often intertwined: consumers’ views on
taste or convenience seem to be influenced by price or knowledge of processing
methods, and vice versa.
Practices
The interviews revealed that many felt uncertain about their own qualifications
as food consumers. Only very few felt they had accurate knowledge of food issues;
many more expressed vague feelings and suspicions, often based on rumours. Most
respondents made their own rules and guidelines for selecting foods, in what they
experienced as an impenetrable food market. The study showed a broad variety of
such strategies. The strategies exceed what has been studied as “food safety behaviour”
(Schafer, Bultena & Hoiberg, 1993b). They are understood by the respondents as
ways of dealing with the complex reality of the food market.
The food choices that consumers make are not always reflections of their
preferences. The discrepancy between preference and choice (Wierenga, 1983) often
seems to be the result of the compromises that most participants reported they had
to make. Many were painfully aware that their practices were not in harmony with
their own beliefs and attitudes. In 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 compromises demonstrate, however, that industrial food production is a basic condition
in modern life which cannot be evaded, unless with great effort. Therefore the
discrepancy between consumers’ attitudes and their actions which has been 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
reflection of bewilderment and powerlessness. If practical and informational barriers
were removed, more consumers would be likely to engage in what they see as more
consistent practices.
Foods
The respondents frequently commented spontaneously on meat. This indicates
that meat holds an outstanding position as an important food, the quality of which
is a complicated and delicate matter. This may be related to the traditionally high
price of meat, but may also reflect the overall high status of meat in western food
culture (Fiddes, 1991; Twigg, 1984). Spreads, on Danish smørrebrød, were also
frequently mentioned, and smørrebrød holds a relatively high status in Danish food
culture as an important and traditional element in everyday and festive lunches. The
high frequency of spontaneous comments on these foods indicates that cultural
significance influences quality perceptions. Culturally significant foods are likely to
12
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
attract a stronger and more detailed interest from consumers than are less important
foods.
Evaluation of the Research Approach
The approach of the present study was naturalistic in that it focussed on qualitative
descriptions of ordinary, everyday life. The method seemed to be well suited for
gathering realistic information on actual practices as they are experienced.
The openness of the method was important in avoiding the solicitation of
predefined themes, such as health or food safety issues. The invitation to speak of
foods in a manner and detail of the participant’s own choice is not a suitable method
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 influences of the research situation must be evaluated
(Kvale, 1987). Even if it is an aim to interview in an entirely open way and not lead
the interviewee in predefined directions, respondents will always be influenced by
the interviewer, the interview situation, and what they perceive to be the object of
the study. In the present study, the interviewers presented themselves as having little
or no knowledge of food, nutrition and health. However, they came from an institute
with a name strongly associated with science, nutrition and health. They may
therefore have represented the world of food and science in the eyes of the respondents.
Informants may have reacted in accord with what they thought this world expected
of them as consumers, and focussed more on issues such as food safety or health
than they would otherwise have done. Parts of one interview were in fact coded as
“biased” as the wording used and the thoughts expressed did not correspond to the
informant’s presentation of herself in the rest of the interview. In all the other
interviews, however, the respondents seemed to express themselves naturally.
The participants were not representative of the Danish population. They represented 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
the features applies to broader parts of the Danish population. More than 50% live
in cities; 76% of all women have paid work (Danmarks Statistik, 1995) and so have
80% of women with small children (Holm & Keldborg, 1984). With a response rate
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. It may therefore be cautiously inferred that the considerations 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 time pressure
in everyday life. Consumers who, in contrast, feel they have the time necessary for
conscientious household work may experience the food market as less overwhelming,
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, the participants represented living conditions which
apply to important segments of consumers. Their reports indicated that choosing
foods is often a difficult task which involves feelings of ambivalence, helplessness
and personal shortcomings. How widespread such experiences are in the whole of
CONSUMERS AND FOOD QUALITY
13
the population, and how they can be overcome, are therefore questions which should
be investigated further.
R
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bjerke, F. (1992). Forbrugernes interesse for økologiske produkter [Consumers interest in organic
products]. Institut for Samfundsøkonomi og Planlægning. Roskilde University.
Charles, N. & Kerr, M. (1988). Women, food and families. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Danmarks Statistik (1995). Oral communication.
DeVault, M. L. (1991). Feeding the family. The social organization of caring as gendered work.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, M. (1975). Deciphering a meal. In M. Douglas (Ed.), Implicit meanings. Essays in
anthropology Pp. 249–75. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ekström, M. (1990). Kost, klass och lön [Food preparation, class and gender]. Umeå Studies
in sociology no 98, Umeå. Department of Sociology, Umeå University.
Fiddes, N. (1991). Meat. A natural symbol. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Forbrugerrådet, NOAH, & Nærings- og Nydelsesmiddelarbejder Forbundet (1988). Handlingsplan for en dansk ernœrings- og levnedsmiddelpolitik [Plan of action for a Danish food
and nutrition policy]. Debatoplæg, 1–22.
Goode, J. G., Curtis, K. & Theophano, J. (1984). Meal formats, meal cycles, and menu
negotiation in the maintenance of an Italian–American community. In M. Douglas, (Ed.),
Food in the social order. Pp. 143–219. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Grunert, S. C. & Kristensen, K. (1992). Den danske forbrugger or økologiske fødevarer
[The Danish consumer and organic food products]. Aarhus: Institut for Informationsbehandling. The Aarhus School of Business.
Holm, L. & Keldborg, J. (1984). Familier, hverdagsliv og mad [Families, everyday life and
food]. In Tak for mad Pp. 40–8. København: Miljøministeriet.
Jansson, S. (1988). Maten och myterna [Food and myths]. Vår Föda, 40/suppl 2, 1–203.
Kristensen, O. S. & Sommerlund, B. (1987). Textbase Alpha—a general software programme
for the handling of texts. University of Arhus: Center of Qualitative Research, Institute
of Psychology.
Kvale, S. (1987). Validity in the qualitative research interview. In J. Fog, K. B. Jensen, O. S.
Kristensen and S. Kvale (Eds.), Interviewet som forskningsmetode [The interview as a
research method]. Pp. 68–104. Aarhus: Psykologisk Skriftserie. Aarhus University.
Lassen, J. (1993). Food quality and the consumers. Aarhus: MAPP. Aarhus School of Business.
Leitzmann, C. & Sichert-Oevermann, W. (1988). Lebensmittelqualität und Lebensmittelwahl
nach Wertstufen. In A. Meier-Ploeger & H. Vogtmann (Eds.), Lebensmittelqualität—
ganzheitliche Methoden und Konzepte. Pp. 45–66. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller.
Marshall, D. W. (1988). Behavioural variables influencing the consumption of fish and fish
products. In D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.), Food acceptability Pp. 219–31. London: Elsevier
Applied Science.
Meier-Ploeger, A. (1988). Welche Anforderungen stellen Verbraucher an die Qualität von
Lebensmitteln? In A. Meier-Ploeger & H. Vogtmann (Eds.), Lebensmittelqualität—
ganzheitliche Methoden und Konzepte. Pp. 29–44. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller.
Mennel, S., Murcott, A. & van Otterloo, A. H. (1992). The sociology 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). Research interviewing. Context and narrative. Cambridge, USA: Harvard
University Press.
Murcott, A. (1982). On the social significance of the “cooked dinner” in South Wales. Social
Science Information, 21, 677–96.
Murcott, A. (1983). “It’s a pleasure to cook for him”: Food, Mealtimes and Gender in some
14
L. HOLM AND H. KILDEVANG
South Wales Households. In E. Gamarnikow, D. Morgan, J. Purvis & D. Taylorson
(Eds.). The public and the private. Pp. 78–90. London: Heinemann Educational.
Prättälä, R., Tuorila-Ollikainen, H. & Lähteenmäki, L. (1985). Consumer opinions and
practices related to food additives in the purchase situation. Journal of Consumer Studies
and Home Economics, 9, 237–45.
Sass, H.-H. (1981). Kvalitet? [Quality?]. Copenhagen: Tommeliden.
Schafer, E., Schafer, R. B., Bultena, G. L. & Hoiberg, E. O. (1993a). Safety of the US food
supply: consumer concerns and behaviour. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home
Economics, 17, 137–44.
Schafer, R. B., Schafer, E., Bultena, G. L. & Hoiberg, E. O. (1993b). Food safety: an
application on the health belief model. Journal of Nutrition Education, 25, 17–24.
Sellerberg, A.-M. (1990). Misstron mot maten [On the population’s distrust of modern food in
Sweden]. Lund: Department of Sociology, Lund University.
Sellerberg, A.-M. (1991). In Food We Trust? Vitally necessary confidence—and unfamiliar
ways of attaining it. In E. L. Fürst, R. Prättälä, M. Ekström, L. Holm, U. Kjærnes
(Eds.), Palatable worlds—sociocultural food studies. Pp. 193–202. Oslo: Solum Forlag.
Shepherd, R. (1988). Consumer attitudes and food acceptance. In D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.),
Food acceptability. Pp. 253–66. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
Shepherd, R. & Stockley, L. (1985). Fat consumption and attitudes towards food with a high
fat content. Human Nutrition: Applied Nutrition, 39A, 431–42.
Sjödén, P.-O. (1993). Oro och uppfattningar bland konsumenter [Worries and conceptions
among consumers]. Vär Føda, 42/3, 177–85.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–5.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. & Frewer, L. J. (1995). Assessing and structuring attitudes towards
the use of gene technology in food production: The role of perceived ethical obligation.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 267–85.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1986). Perceived quality of food products and its relationship to
consumer preferences: Theory and measurement. Journal of Food Quality, 9, 373–86.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1989). Product quality. An investigation into the concept and how it
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 Journal of Agricultural Science, 34, 227–30.
Trenkle, K. (1983). Lebensmittelqualität und Verbraucherschutz. AID-Verbraucherdienst, 28,
211–7.
Tuorila, H. (1990). The role of attitudes and preferences in food choice. In J. C. Somogyi &
E. H. Koskinen (Eds.), Nutritional adaptation to new life-styles. Pp. 108–16. Basel: Karger.
Tuorila, H. & Pangborn, R. M. (1988). Behavioural models in the prediction of consumption
of selected sweet, salty and fatty foods. In D. M. H. Thomson (Ed.), Food acceptability.
Pp. 267–79. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
Twigg, J. (1984). Vegetarianism and the meanings of meat. In A. Murcott (Ed.), The sociology
of food and eating. Pp. 18–30. Aldershot: Gower.
Vogtmann, H. (1988). Lebensmittelqualität—ein ganzheitliches Prinzip. In A. Meier-Ploeger
& H. Vogtmann (Eds.), Lebensmittelqualität—ganzheitliche Methoden und Konzepte. Pp.
9–28. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller.
Wandel, M. (1995). Consumer perceptions and strategies concerning food related health risks.
Ernährungs-Umschau 42 (suppl.), 163–6.
Wandel, M. & Bugge, A. (1994). Til bords med forbrukerne. [Consumers, food and the
market. Consumer valuations and priorities in the nineties]. Oslo: Statens Institutt for
Forbruksforskning.
Wierenga, B. (1983). Model and measurement methodology for the analysis of consumer
choice of food products. Ernährungs-Umschau, 30 (suppl.), 21–8.
Received 24 January 1994, revision 29 November 1995