1. International Livestock Research Institute
Assessing consumer preferences for quality and safety attributes of food in the absence of official standards: the case of beef in Ethiopia
Mohammad A. Jabbar
Samuel Amare Admassu
International Livestock Research Institute
Nairobi, Kenya

2. Background
Demand for livestock products increasing in developing countries propelled by income, urban and population growth
Demand for quality and safety of products also increasing but documented evidence scanty. Literature on food quality and safety based on developed countries
Official quality and safety standards for meat and milk absent or defined by western norms with poor relevance and enforcement

3. Background 2
Consumers and market actors follow local informal standards to differentiate quality and safety
Knowledge is poor about local quality and safety attributes and who prefers what attribute and if they are willing to pay for such attributes
Such knowledge essential for producers and market actors to respond to consumer demand

4. Objectives
To identify quality and safety attributes consumers in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia, use in differentiating quality and safety of beef
To assess the relative importance of the identified attributes and their price differences in consumers’ purchase decisions

5. Methodology Conjoint analysis
derived from Lancaster’s theory of demand : utility a function of product attributes
extensively used by marketing firms to evaluate potential attributes of new products and to determine the optimal mixture of multilevel attributes included in those products
application requires creation of product profiles composed of selected attributes and attribute levels, and ask respondents to rate, rank or evaluate those product profiles

6. Methodology Rapid appraisal to identify beef attributes
No official standards to define beef quality and safety except slaughter certificate for disease freeness
PRA to establish quality and safety attributes
Definition of quality and safety
Objective dimension : physical characteristics e.g. fat content
Subjective dimension: holistic vs excellence approach
No definition provided, no distinction made between objective and subjective dimensions, left to respondents to perceive meaning and mention criteria and preferred indicators

7. Methodology Rapid appraisal results
Quality attributes: fat content (high, low and purpose) and freshness (shelf life of chilled meat)
Safety attributes: stamp of abattoir (disease/tape worm free?) and hygiene of sales outlet and staff
Quality and safety not always separated – e.g. freshness may represent quality as well as safety
Price: mixture of quality and safety, not high score
Most willing to pay 10-15% more on prevailing price for desired quality and safety attributes

8. Methodology Detailed survey in Addis Ababa city
Beef profiles defined by five attributes
Fat content (low, high)
Freshness (fresh, not fresh)
Stamp of abattoir (present, absent)
Hygiene of premise and staff (clean, unclean)
Price (three levels)
Orthogonal design to choose 12 profiles
Stratified sample survey of 300 households

9. Results: estimated part worth
Attribute
Preferred level
Income effect
Fat content
Low fat
High income more sensitive, fat from many sources
Freshness
Fresh
Low income more sensitive, frequently buy from butchers
Abattoir stamp
Present
High income more sensitive, more concerned about tape worm
Hygiene
Clean
High income very sensitive, more buy from super markets
Price
High (not sig)
High income more sensitive (ns),
Price weak indicator of quality

10. Frequency of purchasing food items (% respondents)
Frequency of purchase
All sample
Low income
Medium income
High income
Daily 2 3 1
3-4 times a week 4 6
Twice a week 13 10 14 12
Once weekly 26 28 38
As necessary 55 69 53 42
Total
100

11. Beef purchase from super market
% respondents bought from super marker last month
Low income
Medium income 11
High income
All sample

12. Relative importance values of attributes (% weight) in buying decisions
All sample
Low income
Medium income
High income
Freshness
23.5
26.0
23.1
21.1
Hygiene
23.4
20.1
23.8
27.5
Stamp
18.9
18.1
18.8
20.2
Price
17.6
17.5
16.0
Fat content
16.6
16.7
16.9
15.2
All
100

13. Perception on quality and safety of recent purchases and WTP for enhancements
All
sample
Low income
Medium income
High income
Recently purchased beef
% hh
%hh
Good quality 48 42 49 58
safe 45 39 44 54
Willing to pay for improvements
Quality 64 53 63 81
Safety 51 83

14. Summary and conclusions
Food quality and safety a major topic for public policy
Avoid defining standards based on western norms which can’t be enforced and are not relevant for the current level of economic development
Formulate quality and safety standards based on consumer preferences expressed in the informal market
Given heterogeneous consumer choices, provide education, information and transparency and encourage consumers to make their own choices
This will help producers and market actors to respond to consumer demand and help stimulate growth in the sector
More systematic studies needed to formalise and gradually improve definition of standards based on consumer preferences
PRA a useful tool when time and resource are constraints