**3. Results of the Study**

The first hypothesis assumed there would be a relationship between the identified consumer groups and the food producers they chose for their market coverage. An analysis performed with a Chi-squared test of cross tabulations revealed the presence of a strong relationship between the identified groups and their preferred producers. Details of the study results in this respect are presented in Table 2.

The second hypothesis assumed there would be significant differences in the ranking of the validity of aspects, which the representatives of the four identified groups of consumers took into account when buying food. Analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that differences in the ranking of validity occurred in three (brand, best before date, and product ingredients) out of six analyzed aspects, which included brand, quality guarantee, price, best before date, origin, and ingredients. Details of the study results in this respect are presented in Table 3.


**Table 2.** First hypothesis results.

Source: data developed based on our own study.

### **Table 3.** Second hypothesis results.


Source: data developed based on our own study. N, number of observations; MR, mean range; M, arithmetic range; Mdn, mean; SD, standard deviation.

The third hypothesis assumed there would be significant differences in the ranks assigned by the representatives of the identified consumer groups to the validity of information given on food packaging. A quantitative analysis revealed that the assumed differences did not actually occur. Details of the study results in this respect are presented in Table 4.

In the last (fourth) research hypothesis, it was assumed that significant differences existed in the ranks that the identified groups of consumers assigned to food product origin. The variables included the place of food purchase (Table 5) and the frequency of shopping (Table 6). The results of the performed analysis did not confirm the hypothesis.


**Table 4.** Third hypothesis results.

Source: data developed based on our own study.



Source: data developed based on our own study.

**Table 6.** Product origin vs. frequency of doing shopping.


Source: data developed based on our own study.

### **4. Analysis of Results and Discussion**

In reference to the four hypotheses made at the beginning of the study, only two were confirmed; there are relationships between the identified groups of consumers and the kind of producer they chose as regards market coverage (H1), and there are significant differences in the ranking of the validity of aspects taken into account when representatives of the four identified groups of consumers buy food (H2).

As for the first hypothesis, women of all ages (no age diversification), with secondary education and medium income, were the ones who chose products from "global market leaders" least often (group 3). Global brand products were most often chosen by people aged 31–60, with higher education and medium income (group 2), and by younger people (aged 20–30) with higher education and medium or higher income (group 4). Consumers from group 2 tended to buy products from domestic producers as often as products from global market leaders, while regional producers were the least popular in the group. This can be justified by the maturity of this group of consumers, as exemplified by their age and education, and hence greater confidence in a producer operating on a global market and having a more extended control system of the food produced.

Confirmation of the second hypothesis reveals that males of any age, medium income, and secondary education (group 1) ranked the significance of a brand much lower than younger people (aged 20–30) with higher education, and medium and higher income (group 4). Additionally, the same men ranked the significance of the product ingredients lower than any other identified group. They considered the best before date as a much more important factor than people from group 3 (women of any age, secondary education, and medium income) and group 4 (younger people aged 20–30, higher education, of medium and higher income). From the point of view of the aim of the study, product ingredients form the most important aspect for food traceability. The study revealed that this mattered to all consumers participating in the study, but it was least important for men with secondary education and medium income. Such a result can be justified by the fact that medium income does not always give consumers the freedom to choose food with the ingredients they would prefer, and secondary education may be indicative of a lack of knowledge on how to analyze the ingredients of a food product correctly. In addition to the above, men typically pay less attention to more pragmatic issues, such as best before dates or prices, than the product's composition/ingredients. The reasons for this behavior could form the subject of a sociological or psychological enquiry.

Two hypotheses were not confirmed in the course of the study. They included H3: there are important di fferences in the rank assigned by representatives of the identified consumer groups to the validity of information given on food packaging, and H4: there are significant di fferences in the rank assigned by the identified groups of consumers to the aspect of food product origin. Referring to H3, it should be pointed out that the identified groups of consumers were quite unanimous about the significance of information on the raw materials that the product is made of (which is a positive result from the point of view of the importance of traceability for consumers). The greatest discrepancies in answers were observed in relation to information about the product composition/ingredients (the greatest di fferences were observed between groups 3 and 4). It can be concluded that all studied information on food packaging, including identification of the producer, energy value of the product, best before date, raw materials used for production, and composition/ingredients are of equal importance for men and women, regardless of age, education, or income.

In reference to H4, assuming significant di fferences in the assessment of the validity of food origin, it turned out that di fferences in the answers given by di fferent consumers were so small that they could be considered unanimous as for the significance of product origin vs. the following two variables: place of doing shopping and frequency of doing shopping. This suggests that food traceability is important for all study participants, regardless of the frequency or location of doing shopping.

Referring to the research question posed, the results of the study showed that the origin of food products mattered to consumers, regardless of the analyzed conditions. Di fferences in relation to the identified groups of consumers were noticeable in the following respect: some aspects of traceability were approached in a di fferent way and have a di fferent significance priority assigned to them. Perhaps it would be worth analyzing the issue of specific information that should—in the consumers' opinion—be placed on food products and reviewing if the scope of data complies with the

current legal requirements. Identification of how far back the process of backward traceability of food should reach from the point of view of consumers could form an interesting focus for further studies.
