Consumer views on “healthier” processed meat

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer attitudes towards and interest in enriching processed meat with healthy ingredients (“functional processed meat”).

Design/methodology/approach

Seven focus groups across age and gender were conducted. Discussions were analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

Findings

Strategies that participants felt as important for improving the healthiness of processed meat mainly included the use of better quality meat and less salt, fat, preservatives and other additives. “Functional processed meat” was a new concept for participants. Four themes were constructed to reflect participants’ attitudes towards functional processed meat: opposing views on processed meat as a carrier of healthy ingredients; belief in the health benefits of functional processed meat; perceived value of functional processed meat for different consumer groups; and trust and perceived risk surrounding the functional food concept. A large proportion of the participants were unconvinced about the concept of functional processed meat; however many of the participants expressed an openness to purchase this food product if taste and price remained uncompromised.

Research limitations/implications

The sample size of the current study is small. Complementary quantitative research with a more representative sample should be implemented. Adopting a quantitative approach, the findings from this study should be explored further to investigate their application in a representative sample of the population.

Originality/value

This study represents a first exploratory investigation of consumer views on functional processed meat. It can inform further consumer and market research in relation to the development of “healthier” processed meat.

Citation

Shan, L.C., Regan, A., Monahan, F.J., Li, C., Murrin, C., Lalor, F., Wall, P.G. and McConnon, A. (2016), "Consumer views on “healthier” processed meat", British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 7, pp. 1712-1730. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2015-0447