Dairy Products Quality from a Consumer Point of View: Study among Polish Adults
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Data Collection Process
2.2. Description of Questionnaire
- (A)
- An open question: What, in your opinion, shows the quality of food? Please indicate one of the most important attributes;
- (B)
- Two questions related to the quality of animal origin food (I), including the dairy products (II):
- (I)
- Below are statements describing food of animal origin. For each statement, how much you agree are indicated on a 1–7 scale, where 1 is the lowest level of compliance and 7 is the highest level of compliance; High-quality animal food is food (1) with the right taste and traditional recipe; (2) preservative free and with a short shelf life, (3) having nutritional value and health benefits, (4) produced in an environmentally friendly area, including taking into account production ensuring welfare of farm animals, (5) of low processing level/derived from an organic production method, (6) which is easy to prepare and easily available in a wide range;
- (II)
- Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements. Please provide answers on a scale of 1–7, where 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”; (1) I buy dairy products because they have a positive effect on my figure, (2) I buy dairy products because they have a good effect on my children’s health, (3) Quality is important to me when choosing dairy products, (4) I buy dairy products for those members of my family who have health issues;
- (C)
- Questions referring to methods of increasing the quality of food of animal origin are formulated as follows: To what extent do you accept the following methods of increasing the quality of food of animal origin? Please provide answers on a scale of 1–7, where 1 means “definitely do not accept” and 7 “definitely accept”; (1) Adding health-promoting ingredients to livestock feed, (2) Production ensuring welfare of farm animals, (3) Enhancing food products with health-promoting ingredients at the processing stage;
- (D)
- Questions related to increasing the level of ingredients in dairy products are as follows: Please specify if you think the content of the ingredients listed below should be increased in dairy products? Where 1 definitely should not be increased, 7 definitely should be increased; (1) Minerals; (2) Fibre, (3) Cholesterol-lowering ingredients, (4) Omega-3 acid, (5) Live bacterial cultures, (6) Protein, (7) Coenzyme Q10;
- (E)
- Questions that allow the determination of projective image of buyers purchasing high-quality yoghurt are formulated as follows: Who do you think is the most willing to buy high-quality yoghurt? Please give your answer on a scale from 1–7, where: 1 means “Definitely no” and 7 “Definitely yes”, (1) professionally active individuals, (2) sport doers, (3) those looking for nutritional news, (4) the young, (5) the overworked, (6) people with abnormal intestinal motility, (7) cooking lovers, (8) those oriented on the convenience of preparing a meal, (9) bargain hunters, (10) people who are particularly health-conscious.
2.3. Data Analysis
- (1)
- “Convenience-oriented” consumers with a high level of compliance with the statement referring to convenience associated with the easy preparation and availability of high-quality food (9.12);
- (2)
- “Uninvolved” consumers with the lowest levels of compliance with most of the statements compared to other segments;
- (3)
- “Health-oriented” consumers with a significantly high level of compliance with the statement describing the acceptance of nutritional value and health values (10.53) compared to other segments;
- (4)
- “Particularly demanding in terms of quality”, consumers with a significantly high level of compliance for most statements referring to high-quality food;
- (5)
- “Neutral but valuing food quality”, consumers declaring relatively high rating levels for most statements but lower rating level for people classified in segment No. 4.
- -
- The acceptance of adding health-promoting ingredients to livestock feed;
- -
- The acceptance of production ensuring welfare of farm animals;
- -
- The acceptance of enhancing food products with health-promoting ingredients at the processing stage.
3. Results
3.1. Profile of the Total Sample and Perception of Food Quality
3.2. Methods of Improving Quality of Animal Origin among The Clusters of Consumers
3.3. Impact of Selected Attributes on Methods of Improving Quality of Animal Origin Food
4. Discussion
4.1. The Food Quality from a Consumer Point of View
4.2. The Acceptance of Production Ensuring Welfare of Farm Animals
4.3. The Acceptance of Adding Health-Promoting Ingredients to Livestock Feed
4.4. The Acceptance of Enhancing Food Products with Health-Promoting Ingredients at The Processing Stage
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Markovina, J.; Stewart-Knox, B.J.; Rankin, A.; Gibney, M.; de Almeida, M.D.V.; Fischer, A.; Kuznesof, S.A.; Poínhos, R.; Panzone, L.; Frewer, L.J. Food4Me study: Validity and reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 45, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Román, S.; Sánchez-Siles, L.M.; Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 67, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohjanheimo, T.; Sandell, M. Explaining the liking for drinking yoghurt: The role of sensory quality, food choice motives, health concern and product information. Int. Dairy J. 2009, 19, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saba, A.; Sinesio, F.; Moneta, E.; Dinnella, C.; Laureati, M.; Torri, L.; Peparaio, M.; Saggia Civitelli, E.; Endrizzi, I.; Gasperi, F.; et al. Measuring consumers attitudes towards health and taste and their association with food-related life-styles and preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albertsen, L.; Wiedmann, K.P.; Schmidt, S. The impact of innovation-related perception on consumer acceptance of food innovations—Development of an integrated framework of the consumer acceptance process. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G. Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2002, 13, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Bredahl, L. Three issues in consumer quality perception and acceptance of dairy products. Int. Dairy J. 2000, 10, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascarello, G.; Pinto, A.; Parise, N.; Crovato, S.; Ravarotto, L. The perception of food quality. Profiling Italian consumers. Appetite 2015, 89, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, A. Development of functional food with the participation of the consumer. Motivators for consumption of functional products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryła, P. The perception of EU quality signs for origin and organic food products among Polish consumers. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2017, 9, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G. European consumers’ acceptance of functional foods. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1190, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bimbo, F.; Bonanno, A.; Nocella, G.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G.; De Devitiis, B.; Carlucci, D. Consumers’ acceptance and preferences for nutrition-modified and functional dairy products: A systematic review. Appetite 2017, 113, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Huang, L.; Bai, L.; Gong, S. The effects of carrier, benefit, and perceived trust in information channel on functional food purchase intention among Chinese consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 81, 103854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, N.; Singh, D.P. Deciphering the consumer behaviour facets of functional foods: A literature review. Appetite 2017, 112, 167–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teratanavat, R.; Hooker, N.H. Consumer valuations and preference heterogeneity for a novel functional food. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toma, L.; Stott, A.W.; Revoredo-Giha, C.; Kupiec-Teahan, B. Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite 2012, 58, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurobarometer. Special Eurobarometer 442 Report Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; ISBN 9789279568787. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 2017, 68, 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, E.B.; Hooper, B.; Spiro, A.; Stanner, S. The contribution of yogurt to nutrient intakes across the life course. Nutr. Bull. 2015, 40, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, D.; Donovan, S.M.; Meydani, S.N. The role of Yogurt in improving the quality of the American diet and meeting dietary guidelines. Nutr. Rev. 2014, 72, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sfakianakis, P.; Tzia, C. Conventional and Innovative Processing of Milk for Yogurt Manufacture; Development of Texture and Flavor: A Review. Foods 2014, 3, 176–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, K.; Choudhary, R.; Thompson-Witrick, K.A. Effects of new technology on the current manufacturing process of yogurt-to increase the overall marketability of yogurt. LWT 2019, 108, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahnama, H.; Rajabpour, S. Factors for consumer choice of dairy products in Iran. Appetite 2017, 111, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hashemi Gahruie, H.; Eskandari, M.H.; Mesbahi, G.; Hanifpour, M.A. Scientific and technical aspects of yogurt fortification: A review. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2015, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rad, A.H.; Javadi, M.; Kafil, H.S.; Pirouzian, H.R.; Khaleghi, M. The safety perspective of probiotic and non-probiotic yoghurts: A review. Food Qual. Saf. 2019, 3, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazilah, N.F.; Ariff, A.B.; Khayat, M.E.; Rios-Solis, L.; Halim, M. Influence of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics and bioactive phytochemicals on the formulation of functional yogurt. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 48, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, J.J. Selection Errors of Random Route Samples. Sociol. Methods Res. 2014, 43, 519–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kent, R. Marketing Research in Action. Sampling Cases; Routledge: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Hosmer, D.W.; Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, GB, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C.; Troy, D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loebnitz, N.; Grunert, K.G. Impact of self-health awareness and perceived product benefits on purchase intentions for hedonic and utilitarian foods with nutrition claims. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorning, T.K.; Raben, A.; Tholstrup, T.; Soedamah-Muthu, S.S.; Givens, I.; Astrup, A. Milk and dairy products: Good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 60, 32527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Storhaug, C.L.; Fosse, S.K.; Fadnes, L.T. Country, regional, and global estimates for lactose malabsorption in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017, 2, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Loo, E.J.; Hoefkens, C.; Verbeke, W. Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy 2017, 69, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nowak, A.; Ślizewska, K.; Libudzisz, Z.; Socha, J. Probiotyki—Efekty zdrowotne. Zywn. Nauk. Technol. Jakosc/Food. Sci. Technol. Qual. 2010, 17, 20–36. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 455–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cornish, A.R.; Briley, D.; Wilson, B.J.; Raubenheimer, D.; Schlosberg, D.; McGreevy, P.D. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite 2020, 148, 104577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mceachern, M.G.; Schroder, M.J.A. The Role of Livestock Production Ethics in Consumer Values Towards Meat. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2002, 15, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröder, M.J.A.; McEachern, M.G. Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: A focus on animal welfare. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2004, 28, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Special Eurobarometer Wave EB91.3 Food Safety in the EU Report Fieldwork; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; ISBN 9789294990822. [Google Scholar]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W. Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jóźwik, A.; Strzałkowska, N.; Bagnicka, E.; Łagodziński, Z.; Pyzel, B.; Chyliński, W.; Czajkowska, A.; Grzybek, W.; Słoniewska, D.; Krzyzewski, J.; et al. The effect of feeding linseed cake on milk yield and milk fatty acid profile in goats. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2010, 28, 245–251. [Google Scholar]
- Pinotti, L.; Baldi, A.; Krogdahl, A.; Givens, I.; Knight, C.; Baeten, V.; Van Raamsdonk, L.; Woodgate, S.; Marin, D.P.; Luten, J. The role of animal nutrition in designing optimal foods of animal origin as reviewed by the COST action feed for health (FA0802). Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2014, 18, 471–479. [Google Scholar]
- Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Dillon, E.J.; Greehy, G.; McCarthy, S.N. Big issues for a small technology: Consumer trade-offs in acceptance of nanotechnology in food. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajdakowska, M.; Jankowski, P.; Gutkowska, K.; Guzek, D.; Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Ozimek, I. Consumer acceptance of innovations in food: A survey among Polish consumers. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Büyükkaragöz, A.; Bas, M.; Sağlam, D.; Cengiz, Ş.E. Consumers’ awareness, acceptance and attitudes towards functional foods in Turkey. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 628–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Kleef, E.; Van Trijp, H.C.M.; Luning, P. Functional foods: Health claim-food product compatibility and the impact of health claim framing on consumer evaluation. Appetite 2005, 44, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, P.; Ridges, L.; Batterham, M.; Ripper, B.; Hung, M.C. Australian consumer attitudes to health claim—Food product compatibility for functional foods. Food Policy 2008, 33, 640–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giordano, S.; Clodoveo, M.L.; De Gennaro, B.; Corbo, F. Factors determining neophobia and neophilia with regard to new technologies applied to the food sector: A systematic review. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2018, 11, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruhn, C.M. Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2007, 8, 555–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rollin, F.; Kennedy, J.; Wills, J. Consumers and new food technologies. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Mean | Convenience-Oriented 1 | Uninvolved 2 | Health-Oriented 3 | Particularly Demanding in Terms of Quality 4 | Neutral but Valuing Food Quality 5 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Easy preparation and availability | 6.79 | 9.12 a | 2.20 d | 6.79 c | 6.50 c | 8.30 b | <0.0001 |
Nutritional value and health benefits | 5.95 | 2.82 d | 2.37 e | 10.53 a | 7.84 b | 5.76 c | <0.0001 |
Processing, organic production | 4.51 | 2.73 d | 2.99 d | 3.66 c | 7.18 a | 6.23 b | <0.0001 |
Tradition and taste | 4.17 | 2.64 c | 2.71 c | 2.71 c | 8.84 a | 4.81 b | <0.0001 |
Lack of preservatives and shelf life | 4.12 | 2.72 c | 3.07 c | 3.01 c | 8.10 a | 4.47 b | <0.0001 |
Environment and animal rights | 3.92 | 2.60 d | 2.25 d | 2.98 c | 7.10 a | 5.06 b | <0.0001 |
Variables | Total Sample (%) | Convenience-Oriented N = 208; 21% 1 | Uninvolved N = 172; 18% 2 | Health-Oriented N = 218; 22% 3 | Particularly Demanding in Terms of Quality N = 159; 16% 4 | Neutral But Valuing Food Quality N = 226; 23% 5 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.7462 * | ||||||
Female | 51.41 | 54.85 | 52.07 | 51.15 | 51.01 | 48.15 | |
Male | 48.59 | 45.15 | 47.93 | 48.85 | 48.99 | 51.85 | |
Age | 0.5216 * | ||||||
21–27 | 16.30 | 15.05 | 15.98 | 13.36 | 19.46 | 18.52 | |
28–34 | 15.99 | 16.02 | 14.20 | 12.90 | 20.13 | 17.59 | |
35–44 | 18.18 | 17.48 | 15.98 | 17.97 | 19.46 | 19.91 | |
45–54 | 20.06 | 24.76 | 21.30 | 20.74 | 14.77 | 17.59 | |
55–64 | 18.81 | 18.45 | 21.30 | 21.66 | 17.45 | 15.28 | |
65–75 | 10.66 | 8.25 | 11.24 | 13.36 | 8.72 | 11.11 | |
Education | 0.0102 | ||||||
Primary, lower secondary, vocational | 47.75 | 41.26 | 55.03 | 43.78 | 54.36 | 47.69 | |
Secondary | 37.10 | 38.35 | 36.09 | 39.17 | 36.91 | 34.72 | |
Higher | 15.15 | 20.39 | 8.88 | 17.05 | 8.73 | 17.59 |
Attributes | Number of Indications | % | Convenience-Oriented N = 208; 21% 1 | Uninvolved N = 172; 18% 2 | Health-Oriented N = 218; 22% 3 | Particularly Demanding in Terms of Quality N = 159; 16% 4 | Neutral But Valuing Food Quality N = 226; 23% 5 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Freshness | 197 | 20.04 | 19.71 | 19.19 | 27.98 | 7.55 | 22.12 | <0.0001 |
Naturalness, production method | 162 | 16.48 | 20.19 | 15.70 | 18.35 | 7.55 | 18.14 | |
Appearance, taste, smell | 121 | 12.31 | 17.31 | 10.47 | 8.26 | 13.84 | 11.95 | |
Composition, nutritional values | 113 | 11.50 | 10.10 | 12.79 | 7.34 | 15.09 | 13.27 | |
Preservative-free | 100 | 10.17 | 7.69 | 10.47 | 12.84 | 8.81 | 10.62 | |
Price | 62 | 6.31 | 3.85 | 4.65 | 1.38 | 13.84 | 9.29 | |
Producer | 47 | 4.78 | 4.81 | 6.98 | 5.5 | 4.40 | 2.65 | |
Shelf life | 42 | 4.27 | 2.88 | 4.65 | 5.96 | 5.66 | 2.65 | |
Quality mark | 38 | 3.87 | 3.85 | 4.65 | 5.05 | 6.29 | 0.44 | |
Origin | 37 | 3.76 | 6.25 | 2.91 | 3.67 | 3.77 | 2.21 | |
No answer/I do not know | 64 | 6.51 | 3.37 | 7.56 | 3.67 | 13.21 | 6.64 |
Selected Methods of Increasing Food Quality | Mean | Convenience-OrientedN = 208; 21%1 | Uninvolved N = 172; 18% 2 | Health-Oriented N = 218; 22% 3 | Particularly Demanding in Terms of Quality N = 159; 16% 4 | Neutral But Valuing Food Quality N = 226; 23% 5 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animal production ensuring welfare of farm animals | 5.90 | 6.21 a | 6.32 a | 6.18 a | 5.13 c | 5.60 b | <0.0001 |
Adding health-promoting ingredients to livestock feed | 4.14 | 4.32 a | 4.35 a | 3.39 b | 4.43 a | 4.35 a | <0.0001 |
Enhancing food products with health-promoting ingredients at the processing stage | 3.85 | 3.89 b | 4.21 b | 2.84 c | 4.61 a | 4.00 b | <0.0001 |
Food Ingredients Whose Level Should Be Increased | Mean | Convenience-Oriented N = 208; 21% 1 | Uninvolved N = 172; 18% 2 | Health-Oriented N = 218; 22% 3 | Particularly Demanding in Terms of Quality N = 159; 16% 4 | Neutral But Valuing Food Quality N = 226; 23% 5 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Live bacterial cultures | 4.88 | 5.03 b | 5.51 a | 4.51 c | 4.78 bc | 4.76 bc | <0.0001 |
Cholesterol lowering ingredients | 4.84 | 4.97 ab | 5.27 a | 4.55 b | 4.67 b | 4.81 b | 0.0101 |
Minerals | 4.76 | 4.85 ab | 5.20 a | 4.37 c | 4.70 bc | 4.78 ab | 0.0024 |
Fiber | 4.69 | 4.85 ab | 5.07 a | 4.41 c | 4.49 bc | 4.69 abc | 0.0142 |
Omega-3 acid | 4.50 | 5.67 a | 5.00 ab | 4.01 c | 4.48 b | 4.51 b | 0.0006 |
Protein | 4.42 | 4.35 b | 4.93 a | 3.89 c | 4.75 ab | 4.40 b | <0.0001 |
Coenzyme Q10 | 4.32 | 4.41 b | 5.03 a | 3.73 c | 4.31 b | 4.35 b | <0.0001 |
High-Quality Yoghurts Are Purchased by | Mean | Convenience-Oriented N = 208; 21% 1 | Uninvolved N = 172; 18% 2 | Health-Oriented N = 218; 22% 3 | Particularly Demanding in Terms of Quality N = 159; 16% 4 | Neutral But Valuing Food Quality N = 226; 23% 5 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
those who are particularly health-conscious | 5.95 | 6.25 a | 6.30 a | 5.94 b | 5.21 c | 5.89 b | <0.0001 |
those with abnormal intestinal motility | 5.82 | 6.03 a | 6.07 a | 6.04 a | 5.15 c | 5.71 b | <0.0001 |
sport doers | 5.76 | 6.03 a | 5.89 a | 5.94 a | 5.18 c | 5.62 b | <0.0001 |
the young | 5.55 | 5.57 b | 5.86 a | 5.69 ab | 5.08 c | 5.45 b | <0.0001 |
professionally active | 5.53 | 5.68 a | 5.71 a | 5.10 b | 5.67 a | 5.44 a | 0.0005 |
those looking for nutritional novelties | 5.36 | 5.48 ab | 5.73 a | 5.17 bc | 5.09 c | 5.34 bc | 0.0019 |
those oriented on the convenience of preparing a meal | 5.33 | 5.55 a | 5.54 a | 5.30 a | 4.94 b | 5.24 ab | 0.0030 |
the overworked | 5.23 | 5.34 a | 5.28 ab | 5.33 a | 4.90 b | 5.20 ab | 0.1103 |
cooking lovers | 4.66 | 4.50 bc | 4.97 a | 4.33 c | 4.80 ab | 4.76 abc | 0.0156 |
bargain hunters | 4.53 | 4.11 c | 4.60 ab | 4.37 bc | 4.81 a | 4.78 ab | 0.0030 |
Variable | eβ | β | 95% Wald CI | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 0.142 | 0.8728 | |||
Independent variables (regressors): | |||||
Increasing the content of live bacterial cultures in dairy products | 1.47 | 0.390 | 1.14 | 1.90 | 0.0024 |
Basic vocational education vs. primary education | 2.32 | 0.839 | 0.56 | 9.51 | 0.2441 |
Secondary education vs. primary education | 4.06 | 1.400 | 1.82 | 12.93 | 0.0447 |
Higher education vs. primary education | 10.25 | 2.327 | 1.95 | 22.49 | 0.0250 |
Variable | eβ | β | 95% Wald CI | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 2.248 | 0.006 | |||
Independent variables (regressors): | |||||
Increasing the mineral content in dairy products | 1.21 | 0.187 | 1.06 | 1.37 | 0.004 |
Purchase of high-quality yoghurt by people involved in sport | 0.73 | −0.315 | 0.58 | 0.91 | 0.004 |
Purchase of high quality yoghurts by people seeking nutrition novelties | 1.19 | 0.177 | 1.02 | 1.40 | 0.031 |
Quality is important when choosing dairy products | 0.81 | −0.212 | 0.65 | 0.99 | 0.044 |
Variable | eβ | β | 95% Wald CI | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 0.115 | 0.8825 | |||
Independent variables (regressors): | |||||
Increasing the content of cholesterol-lowering ingredients in dairy products | 1.29 | 0.258 | 1.13 | 1.47 | 0.0001 |
Purchase of high-quality yoghurt by professionally active people | 0.70 | −0.355 | 0.56 | 0.86 | 0.0010 |
Purchase of high-quality yoghurt by people with abnormal intestinal motility | 1.31 | 0.267 | 1.06 | 1.60 | 0.0104 |
Purchase of high quality yoghurts by people looking for bargains | 1.24 | 0.212 | 1.08 | 1.41 | 0.0021 |
Quality is important when choosing dairy products | 0.74 | −0.304 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 0.0032 |
Purchase of high-quality dairy products for family members who have health issues | 1.17 | 0.162 | 1.04 | 1.33 | 0.0101 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sajdakowska, M.; Gębski, J.; Guzek, D.; Gutkowska, K.; Żakowska-Biemans, S. Dairy Products Quality from a Consumer Point of View: Study among Polish Adults. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1503. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12051503
Sajdakowska M, Gębski J, Guzek D, Gutkowska K, Żakowska-Biemans S. Dairy Products Quality from a Consumer Point of View: Study among Polish Adults. Nutrients. 2020; 12(5):1503. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12051503
Chicago/Turabian StyleSajdakowska, Marta, Jerzy Gębski, Dominika Guzek, Krystyna Gutkowska, and Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans. 2020. "Dairy Products Quality from a Consumer Point of View: Study among Polish Adults" Nutrients 12, no. 5: 1503. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12051503
APA StyleSajdakowska, M., Gębski, J., Guzek, D., Gutkowska, K., & Żakowska-Biemans, S. (2020). Dairy Products Quality from a Consumer Point of View: Study among Polish Adults. Nutrients, 12(5), 1503. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12051503