Changes in the Current Patterns of Beef Consumption and Consumer Behavior Trends—Cross-Cultural Study Brazil-Spain-Turkey
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample—Consumers and Study Location
- Has your beef purchasing pattern changed due to economic reasons in the last two years?
- Have you started using other sources of protein in your diet with the intention of replacing beef in the last two years?
- Which protein sources below have you consumed to replace beef in your diet in the last two years?
- Have any of these factors (credence) affected your level of credence and, as a consequence, the beef purchase intention?
- Has your beef consumption changed because of those health-related factors? (The factors were described below the question).
- Due to the following (lifestyle) factors: Have you increased, decreased, or not changed your beef consumption?
2.2. Data Analysis
2.3. Experimental Overview
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Influence of Economic Factors in Purchasing Decisions
3.2. Replacing Beef with Other Sources of Protein
3.3. Importance of Credence in the Purchase Process
3.4. Changes in Beef Consumption due to Health Reasons
3.5. Lifestyles as a Factor for Changes in Beef Consumption Habits
3.6. Limitations
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- OECD. Meat Consumption (Indicator). 2022. Available online: https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm (accessed on 10 November 2022).
- Kang, J.; Jun, J.; Arendt, S.W. Understanding customers’ healthy food choices at casual dining restaurants: Using the Value-Attitude-Behavior model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 48, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buitrago-Vera, J.; Escribá-Pérez, C.; Baviera-Puig, A.; Montero-Vicente, L. Consumer segmentation based on food-related lifestyles and analysis of rabbit meat consumption. World Rabbit Sci. 2016, 24, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pohjolainen, P.; Tapio, P.; Vinnari, M.; Jokinen, P.; Rasanen, P. Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment—Exploring differences. Appetite 2016, 101, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verbeke, W.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Krystallis, A.; Grunert, K.G. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sans, P.; Combris, P. World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961-2011). Meat Sci. 2016, 114, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magalhaes, D.R.; Maza, M.T.; Prado, I.N.d.; Fiorentini, G.; Kirinus, J.K.; Campo, M.d.M. An Exploratory study of the purchase and consumption of beef: Geographical and cultural differences between Spain and Brazil. Foods 2022, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, J.; Schosler, H.; Aiking, H. “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 2014, 76, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Henchion, M.M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C. Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci. 2017, 128, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Boito, B.; Lisbinski, E.; Campo, M.D.; Guerrero, A.; Resconi, V.; de Oliveira, T.E.; Barcellos, J.O.J. Perception of beef quality for Spanish and Brazilian consumers. Meat Sci. 2021, 172, 108312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magalhaes, D.R.; Campo, M.D.; Maza, M.T. Knowledge, utility, and preferences for beef label traceability information: A cross-cultural market analysis comparing Spain and Brazil. Foods 2021, 10, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, Q.; Anders, S.; Henry, A. Measuring consumer resistance to a new food technology: A choice experiment in meat packaging. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaspar, R.; Luis, S.; Seibt, B.; Lima, M.L.; Marcu, A.; Rutsaert, P.; Fletcher, D.; Verbeke, W.; Barnett, J. Consumers’ avoidance of information on red meat risks: Information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge. J. Risk Res. 2016, 19, 533–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Charlebois, S.; McCormick, M.; Juhasz, M. Meat consumption and higher prices Discrete determinants affecting meat reduction or avoidance amidst retail price volatility. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 2251–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alabi, M.O.; Ngwenyama, O. Food security and disruptions of the global food supply chains during COVID-19: Building smarter food supply chains for post COVID-19 era. Br. Food J. 2022, 125, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorcheh, F.R.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Rahbari, M.; Jafari-Sadeghi, V.; Mahdiraji, H.A. Identification, analysis and improvement of red meat supply chain strategies considering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic: A hybrid SWOT-QSPM approach in an emerging economy. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 4194–4223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attwood, S.; Hajat, C. How will the COVID-19 pandemic shape the future of meat consumption? Public Health Nutr. 2020, 23, 3116–3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britwum, K.; Bernard, J.C.; Albrecht, S.E. Does importance influence confidence in organic food attributes? Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiske, S.T.; Cuddy, A.J.C.; Glick, P. Universal dimension of social cognition: Warmth and Competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2007, 11, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnet, C.; Bouamra-Mechemache, Z.; Requillart, V.; Treich, N. Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare. Food Policy 2020, 97, 101847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banovic, M.; Grunert, K.G.; Barreira, M.M.; Fontes, M.A. Consumers’ quality perception of national branded, national store branded, and imported store branded beef. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hersleth, M.; Naes, T.; Rodbotten, M.; Lind, V.; Monteleone, E. Lamb meat—Importance of origin and grazing system for Italian and Norwegian consumers. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 899–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carfora, V.; Conner, M.; Caso, D.; Catellani, P. Rational and moral motives to reduce red and processed meat consumption. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 50, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barcellos, J.O.J.; Abicht, A.D.; Brandao, F.S.; Canozzi, M.E.A.; Collares, F.C. Consumer perception of Brazilian traced beef. Rev. Bras. De Zootec. -Braz. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 41, 771–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gonzalez, N.; Marques, M.; Nadal, M.; Domingo, J.L. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010-2020) evidences. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnier, P.C.; Guerra, D.D.; Spers, E.E. Measuring consumer perceptions over beef good practices and sustainable production process. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 1362–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Carvalho, A.M.; Selem, S.; Miranda, A.M.; Marchioni, D.M. Excessive red and processed meat intake: Relations with health and environment in Brazil. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 2011–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Li, X.G.; Jensen, K.L.; Clark, C.D.; Lambert, D.M. Consumer willingness to pay for, beef grown using climate friendly production practices. Food Policy 2016, 64, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Leroy, F.; Barnard, N.D. Children and adults should avoid consuming animal products to reduce risk for chronic disease: NO. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 112, 931–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnard, N.D.; Leroy, F. Children and adults should avoid consuming animal products to reduce risk for chronic disease: YES. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 112, 926–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pethick, D.W.; Ball, A.J.; Banks, R.G.; Hocquette, J.F. Current and future issues facing red meat quality in a competitive market and how to manage continuous improvement. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacroix, K.; Gifford, R. Reducing meat consumption: Identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis. Appetite 2019, 138, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Graca, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Situating moral disengagement: Motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 90, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Sonntag, W.I.; Glanz-Chanos, V.; Forum, S. Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koch, F.; Heuer, T.; Krems, C.; Claupein, E. Meat consumers and non-meat consumers in Germany: A characterisation based on results of the German National Nutrition Survey II. J. Nutr. Sci. 2019, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J. Distinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: A comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 88, 104081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirbis, A.; Lamot, M.; Javornik, M. The Role of Education in Sustainable Dietary Patterns in Slovenia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgogno, M.; Cardello, A.V.; Favotto, S.; Piasentier, E. An emotional approach to beef evaluation. Meat Sci. 2017, 127, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henchion, M.; Zimmermann, J. Animal food products: Policy, market and social issues and their influence on demand and supply of meat. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2021, 80, 252–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, D.; Langen, N. The bunch of sustainability labels—Do consumers differentiate? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 1233–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grande Esteban, I.; Abascal Fernández, E. Fundamentos y Técnicas de Investigación Comercial, 12th ed.; ESIC: Madrid, Spain, 2014; ISBN 978-84-15986-02-7.
- Coutinho, C.P. Metodologia de Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Humanas: Teoria e Prática, 2nd ed.; Edições Almedina, S.A.: Coimbra, Portugal, 2014; ISBN 978-972-40-5610-4. [Google Scholar]
- ABIEC-Associação Brasileira das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carnes. BEEF REPORT 2022—Perfil da Pecuária no Brasil. Available online: https://www.abiec.com.br/publicacoes/beef-report-2022/ (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- MAPAMA—Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. El Sector de la Carne de Vacuno en Cifras: Principales Indicadores Económicos. 2018. Available online: ganaderos/cortoindicadoreseconomicoscarnedevacuno2018_tcm30-381390.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- INE—Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Cifras de Población Residente en España (2018). Available online: http://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736176951&menu=ultiDatos&idp=1254735572981 (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- MAPA—Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación. Informe de Consumo Alimentario en España 2021. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/consumo-tendencias/informe-consumo-alimentario-2021-baja-res_tcm30-624017.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- OCDE/FAO—OCDE/FAO perspectivas agrícolas 2018–2027, Publicaciones de la OCDE, París/Organizaciones de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/ocde-fao-perspectivas-agricolas-2018-2027_agr_outlook-2018-es (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- USDA—United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Foreign Agricultural Service: Turkey Livestock Annual Report 2018. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/turkey-livestock-and-products-annual-1 (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- IPEA Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. Mercados e Preços Agropecuários (2021). Available online: https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/conjuntura/210819_cc_52_nota_14_mercados_e_precos_agro.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- TURKSTAT—Turkish Statistical Institute. Prices and Values in Livestock and Animal Products. 2021. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Prices-and-Values-in-Livestock-and-Animal-Products-2021-45507&dil=2 (accessed on 26 November 2022).
- USDA—United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Annual and Cumulative Year-to-Date U.S. Livestock and Meat Trade by Country. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-and-meat-international-trade-data/livestock-and-meat-international-trade-data/#Annual%20and%20Cumulative%20Year-to-Date%20U.S.%20Livestock%20and%20Meat%20Trade%20by%20Country (accessed on 11 November 2022).
- Dias, L.; Isernhagen, L.; Brumatti, R.C.; Faria, F.; Franco, G.L.; Kiefer, C.; Ítavo, C. Study of the beef consumption pattern in the city of Campo Grande, MS, Brazil. Bol. De Indústria Anim. 2015, 72, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco-Murcia, L.; Ramos-Mejia, M. Sustainable diets and meat consumption reduction in emerging economies: Evidence from Colombia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Scozzafava, G.; Corsi, A.M.; Casini, L.; Contini, C.; Loose, S.M. Using the animal to the last bit: Consumer preferences for different beef cuts. Appetite 2016, 96, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin-Calvo, N.; Bes-Rastrollo, M.; Gomez-Donoso, C.; Rodriguez-Artalejo, F.; Vioque, J.; Royo-Bordonada, M.A.; Bueno-Cavanillas, A.; Ruiz-Canela, M.; MartinezGonzalez, M.A. Reduction of red and processed meats in the Spanish population: What is its impact on total and cardiovascular mortality? Aten. Primaria 2021, 53, 101950. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Malek, L.; Umberger, W.; Goddard, E. Is anti-consumption driving meat consumption changes in Australia? Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harwatt, H.; Sabat, J.; Eshel, G.; Soret, S.; Ripple, W. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Clim. Chang. 2017, 143, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allievi, F.; Vinnari, M.; Luukkanen, J. Meat consumption and production—Analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, J.A.; Desjardins, R.L.; Worth, D.E.; Verge, X.P.C. Potential role for consumers to reduce Canadian agricultural GHG emissions by diversifying animal protein sources. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longo-Silva, G.; da Silveira, J.A.C.; de Menezes, R.C.E.; Marinho, P.M.; Epifanio, S.B.O.; Brebal, K.M.D.; Toloni, M.H.D. Temporal trend and factors associated with consumption of fatty meats by the Brazilian population between 2007 and 2014. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2019, 24, 1175–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholderer, J.; Brunso, K.; Bredahl, L.; Grunert, K.G. Cross-cultural validity of the food-related lifestyles instrument (FRL) within Western Europe. Appetite 2004, 42, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, J.Q.; Scalco, A.; Craig, T. Social Influence and Meat-Eating Behaviour. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rieger, J.; Kuhlgatz, C.; Anders, S. Food scandals, media attention and habit persistence among desensitised meat consumers. Food Policy 2016, 64, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, H.; Shin, K. How does adolescents’ usage of social media affect their dietary satisfaction? Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sidani, J.E.; Shensa, A.; Hoffman, B.; Hanmer, J.; Primack, B.A. The Association between social media use and eating concerns among US young adults. J. Acad Nutr. Diet 2016, 116, 1465–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dönmez, G.A.; Güneş, H. Household consumption expenditures in turkey: A comparative quantile regression analysis. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Derg. 2021, 43, 179–196. [Google Scholar]
Frequency | Country | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
Twice a week or more | 72.6 a | 27.3 b | 30.2 b | ≤0.001 |
Once a week | 15.3 b | 42.8 a | 43.4 a | |
Once every 15 days | 3.6 c | 20.1 a | 9.7 b | |
Once monthly or less | 8.5 b | 9.8 b | 16.7 a |
Socioeconomic Data | Country | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
Gender | Man | 41.3 | 32.4 | 67.2 |
Woman | 58.7 | 67.6 | 32.8 | |
Age | 18 to 34 years old | 40.7 | 31.5 | 38.2 |
35 to 44 years old | 16.5 | 19.7 | 28.1 | |
45 to 54 years old | 29.5 | 25.3 | 20.8 | |
Over 55 years of age | 13.3 | 19.9 | 13.0 | |
Educational Stage | Primary | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.5 |
Secondary | 9.0 | 4.7 | 5.2 | |
Technician course | 6.2 | 11.5 | 12.3 | |
University | 82.2 | 82.8 | 82.0 | |
Monthly Income * | Up to two minimum salaries | 19.6 | 60.7 | 14.3 |
Between 2 to 4 salaries | 22.8 | 14.5 | 32.8 | |
Between 4 to 6 salaries | 17.7 | 8.6 | 28.5 | |
Between 6 to 9 salaries | 11.9 | 1.0 | 10.4 | |
More than 9 salaries | 19.2 | 15.2 | 7.1 | |
Not informed | 8.7 | 0.0 | 5.9 | |
Household members | Alone | 8.7 | 9.8 | 3.0 |
2 people | 25.0 | 21.4 | 17.7 | |
More than 3 people | 66.3 | 68.8 | 79.3 |
Changes in Beef Purchase Pattern due to Economic Aspects | Country | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
Reduced due to the high price of beef | 64.6 a | 11.1 c | 55.0 b | ≤0.001 |
Increased due to increased family income | 1.9 a | 1.5 a | 1.7 a | |
No change due to economic reasons | 33.5 c | 87.5 a | 43.4 b |
Change in Beef Consumption by the Introduction of Other Protein Sources | Country | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
There was no introduction of other protein sources intended to replace beef | 35.9 b | 61.5 a | 17.1 c | ≤0.001 |
Less beef is consumed due to the introduction of other protein sources | 53.2 a | 26.8 c | 38.7 b | |
More beef is consumed even with the introduction of other protein sources | 11.0 b | 11.7 b | 24.2 a |
Introduction of Other Dietary Protein Sources in Recent Two Years | Country | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
Pork | 49.6 a | 17.0 b | -* | ≤ 0.001 |
Chicken | 46.4 a | 26.9 b | 26.7 b | ≤ 0.001 |
Lamb/goat meat | 19.9 c | 33.1 b | 47.0 a | ≤ 0.001 |
Plant-based | 30.4 a | 35.5 a | 34.1 a | 0.193 |
Factors Affecting the Level of Credence in the Beef Production System | Country | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
Animal welfare requirements not fulfilled | 52.9 a | 21.6 b | 25.5 b | ≤0.001 |
Environment impact caused by animal production | 57.5 a | 9.7 c | 32.8 b | ≤0.001 |
Indiscriminate use of agricultural products | 55.4 a | 23.6 b | 21.0 b | ≤0.001 |
Adulteration/contamination of the product | 49.6 a | 17.5 c | 32.9 b | ≤0.001 |
Uncertainties created by the COVID-19 pandemic | 77.7 a | 12.1 b | 10.2 b | ≤0.001 |
Changes in Beef Consumption due to Health Factors | Country | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | ||
The beef consumption was not affected by health problems | 82.0 a | 78.6 a | 82.3 a | 0.111 |
Increased consumption—maintain health | 8.3 a | 7.1 a | 5.0 a | |
Decreased consumption—disease prevention | 9.7 a | 14.3 a | 12.7 a |
Everyday Factors that Can Modify Beef Consumption | Country | p | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | Spain | Turkey | |||
Number of people in the household | Increase | 17.2 a | 12.8 a | 12.7 a | ≤0.001 |
Decrease | 25.7 a | 19.7 a,b | 15.6 b | ||
No changes | 57.0 b | 67.6 a | 71.7 a | ||
Presence of children and elderly people in the family environment | Increase | 15.3 b | 16.7 b | 21.2 a | 0.004 |
Decrease | 13.6 a | 7.1 b | 9.2 a,b | ||
No changes | 71.1 a | 76.2 a | 69.6 b | ||
Convenience/ease of buying beef | Increase | 25.0 a | 13.5 b | 11.6 b | ≤0.001 |
Decrease | 18.9 b | 9.3 c | 26,7 a | ||
No changes | 56.1 b | 77.1 a | 61.8 b | ||
Available time to cook | Increase | 7.5 a,b | 8.1 a | 4.0 b | ≤0.001 |
Decrease | 32.3 a | 17.0 b | 13.7 b | ||
No changes | 60.2 c | 74.9 b | 82.3 a | ||
Consumption of out-of-home meals | Increase | 25.2 a,b | 21.1 b | 31.1 a | ≤0.001 |
Decrease | 12.4 a | 12.0 a | 14.2 a | ||
No changes | 62.4 a,b | 66.8 a | 54.7 b | ||
Gourmetization | Increase | 29.1 a | 11.3 b | 25.0 a | ≤0.001 |
Decrease | 7.5 a | 11.3 a | 9.4 a | ||
No changes | 63.3 b | 77.4 a | 65.6 b | ||
Due to physical activities | Increase | 22.8 a | 14.5 b | 18.2 a,b | ≤0.001 |
Decrease | 12.9 a | 7.1 b | 8.5 a,b | ||
No changes | 64.3 b | 78.4 a | 73.3 a,b |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Magalhaes, D.R.; Çakmakçı, C.; Campo, M.d.M.; Çakmakçı, Y.; Makishi, F.; Silva, V.L.d.S.; Trindade, M.A. Changes in the Current Patterns of Beef Consumption and Consumer Behavior Trends—Cross-Cultural Study Brazil-Spain-Turkey. Foods 2023, 12, 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12030475
Magalhaes DR, Çakmakçı C, Campo MdM, Çakmakçı Y, Makishi F, Silva VLdS, Trindade MA. Changes in the Current Patterns of Beef Consumption and Consumer Behavior Trends—Cross-Cultural Study Brazil-Spain-Turkey. Foods. 2023; 12(3):475. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12030475
Chicago/Turabian StyleMagalhaes, Danielle Rodrigues, Cihan Çakmakçı, María del Mar Campo, Yusuf Çakmakçı, Fausto Makishi, Vivian Lara dos Santos Silva, and Marco Antonio Trindade. 2023. "Changes in the Current Patterns of Beef Consumption and Consumer Behavior Trends—Cross-Cultural Study Brazil-Spain-Turkey" Foods 12, no. 3: 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12030475