Elsevier

Appetite

Volume 52, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 345-354
Appetite

Research report
Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.008 Get rights and content

Abstract

Traditional food products (TFP) are an important part of European culture, identity, and heritage. In order to maintain and expand the market share of TFP, further improvement in safety, health, or convenience is needed by means of different innovations. The aim of this study was to obtain a consumer-driven definition for the concept of TFP and innovation and to compare these across six European countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, Poland and Spain) by means of semantic and textual statistical analyses. Twelve focus groups were performed, two per country, under similar conditions. The transcriptions obtained were submitted to an ordinary semantic analysis and to a textual statistical analysis using the software ALCESTE. Four main dimensions were identified for the concept of TFP: habit-natural, origin-locality, processing-elaboration and sensory properties. Five dimensions emerged around the concept of innovation: novelty-change, variety, processing-technology, origin-ethnicity and convenience. TFP were similarly perceived in the countries analysed, while some differences were detected for the concept of innovation. Semantic and statistical analyses of the focus groups led to similar results for both concepts. In some cases and according to the consumers’ point of view the application of innovations may damage the traditional character of TFP.

Introduction

Traditional food products (TFP) constitute an important element of European culture, identity, and heritage (Committee of the Regions, 1996; Ilbery & Kneafsey, 1999) contributing to the development and sustainability of rural areas, protecting them from depopulation, entailing substantial product differentiation potential for producers and processors (Avermaete et al., 2004) and providing ample variety in food choice for consumers. TFP are often recognised by consumers with characteristics linked to regional identity and sensory quality. An important part of TFP is sold under different collective trademarks such as quality labels and, in general, consumers show a favourable attitude towards such products (Guerrero, 2001). However, producers of TFP still face the challenge to further improve the safety, healthiness, and convenience of their products by means of different innovations, which will enable them to maintain and expand their market share in a highly competitive and increasingly global food market. It is, however, important to get an insight into consumers’ perceptions, expectations, and attitudes towards traditional food products and consumers’ attitudes to innovations related to TFP. A basis for exploring these dimensions is a need for definition of the concept of traditional products and innovation related to TFP.

There are a few definitions in the literature of the concept of traditional foods. According to Bertozzi (1998) a traditional food product is a “representation of a group, it belongs to a defined space, and it is part of a culture that implies the cooperation of the individuals operating in that territory”. Jordana (2000) derived from this sociological definition the following: “In order to be traditional, a product must be linked to a territory and it must also be part of a set of traditions, which will necessarily ensure its continuity over time”. In 2006, the European Commission gave the following definition of “traditional” related to foods: “Traditional means proven usage in the community market for a time period showing transmission between generations; this time period should be the one generally ascribed as one human generation, at least 25 years” (EU, 2006). Recently a definition of traditional food has been developed through the work of the EuroFIR FP6 Network of Excellence. This is an elaborative definition, which includes statements about traditional ingredients, traditional composition, and traditional type of production and/or processing (EuroFIR, 2007; Trichopoulou, Soukara, & Vasilopoulou, 2007). In Europe, the only formal definition found for traditional food products comes from the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, that defines TFP as “Agrifood products whose methods of processing, storage and ripening are consolidated with time according to uniform and constant local use” (Ministero Agricoltura, 1999). Although these definitions try to capture the different dimensions of the concept of traditional food products, there is still one perspective that is missing, namely a definition of this concept seen from the consumers’ point of view.

Fagerberg (2004) stated that the concept of innovation depends on the context, thus requiring a wide range of different definitions. However, a common meaning may be identified according to this author: innovation is typically understood as the successful introduction of something new and useful. Moskowitz, Reisner, Itty, Katz, and Krieger (2006) add the idea of “recombination of components into new blends” to the definition of innovation in food and drinks. For Carayannis, González, and Wetter (2003) innovations are “the new products and services that emerge from technology”. It is, however, important to note that once again, the consumer perspective is missing in the case of the concept of innovation.

Proper understanding of consumers’ feelings and needs is dependent upon clear communication through a common language (Sokolow, 1988). Therefore, definitions for TFP and innovation in TFP derived from the consumers’ perspective are needed in order to understand consumers’ attitudes to innovations in TFP. Normally, these feelings and needs are related to socio-cultural aspects, which in turn may be influenced by the country or place of origin of consumers. In the food domain, culture may be one of the most powerful determinants of attitudes and behaviours (Rozin, 1990). In general, cross-cultural studies show important differences in food-related aspects even in relatively homogenous countries such as those belonging to the EU (Boer, Helms, & Aiking, 2006; Olsen, Scholderer, Brunso, & Verbeke, 2007). These differences are expressed both in terms of food choice and consumption patterns, as well as in beliefs, attitudes or lifestyles. According to Askegaard and Madsen (1998) Europe cannot be regarded as a homogeneous food culture, because noticeable differences exist not only at a national level but also at a more regional/local level in terms of food preferences, habits, food-related behaviour, and attitudes. The existence of cultural variation in food choices throughout Europe has been demonstrated at different levels: the composition of protein diets (Boer, Helms, & Aiking, 2006), importance of food risk communication strategies (van Dijk et al., 2008), attitudes to food, nutrition and health (Lappalainen, Kearney, & Gibney, 1998) or food behaviour and attitudes (Askegaard & Madsen, 1998). This variability is even greater when dealing with traditional food products and traditional cuisine that are based mainly on the natural resources available in the area.

According to Jordana (2000) southern European countries have a more traditional food character due to a greater market share of small companies and a better climate, which supports a more widespread availability of traditional food products. Therefore, it seems reasonable to observe and compare the definition for both TFP and innovation across countries that differ in cultural background. Thus, the meanings of both TFP and TFP-related innovation may diverge depending on the place of residence of the consumers. Urban consumers might be more prone to reconnect with rural roots (Montanari, 1994), while according to Weatherell, Tregear, and Allinson (2003), rural-based consumers tend to give a higher priority to “civic” issues in food choice, exhibit higher levels of concern over food provisioning issues, and show greater interest in local foods.

One of the most efficient ways to get preliminary insights into the concept underlying traditional food products, as well as innovation from a consumer's point of view is by means of qualitative research techniques, especially by using focus group discussions (Krueger, 1988). Focus group discussion is a method by which a small number of individuals are selected in order to obtain information about their reaction to products and/or concepts (Resurreccion, 1998). However, one of the main disadvantages of this qualitative technique is the subjective interpretation of the results obtained. This caveat requires a careful interpretation made by an expert analyst (Chambers & Smith, 1991; Krueger, 1988). It is not always easy to avoid the tendency of the analyst to only see or hear those comments that fit in with his/her personal expectations and ideas (Dransfield, Morrot, Martin, & Ngapo, 2004). Several alternatives to the analyst's subjective interpretation have been proposed in order to make the analysis of qualitative information more objective. Guerrero, Colomer, Guàrdia, Xicola, and Clotet (2000) analysed the frequency of use of different key words by each participant by means of correspondence analysis. However, this approach only takes into account a reduced number of words previously selected by the analyst. Reiner (1986) developed a software called ALCESTE in order to overcome some of the aforementioned limits. ALCESTE permits the detection of relationships between lexical worlds, through the analysis of word associations that repeat within sentences, given that it relies upon co-occurrence analysis, which would be difficult to find using other methods of content analysis (Alba, 2004), such as contingency tables and correspondence analysis. More simply, it could be described as a combination of textual and statistical analysis. In ALCESTE the different word categories are generated automatically by the software, not by the researcher, thus increasing the objectivity of the process and avoiding human influence.

The main objective of present research is to obtain a consumer-driven definition for the concept of “traditional food products” (TFP) and “innovations in TFP” and to compare these across six different European countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, Poland and Spain. In order to make this qualitative approach more objective, textual statistical analysis, using the software ALCESTE, was applied, allowing comparison of the results obtained with those derived from the usual semantic analysis of focus group discussions. The research was carried out within the European Sixth Framework Programme, Integrated Project TRUEFOOD.

Section snippets

Focus groups

Twelve focus groups (7 ± 2 consumers in each) were carried out, two in each of the six selected countries, namely Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, Poland and Spain. In each country, one group discussion was held with rural consumers and the other with urban consumers (living in places with a number of inhabitants lower or higher than 10,000, respectively, as defined by the British Countryside Agency (BCA, 2006)). All selected participants were involved in deciding what food to buy and its

Tradition in general

Most consumers found it difficult to define “traditional”. They found the concept ambiguous and confusing. According to Prabhu (1987), working with concepts is more difficult than working with the names of objects or actions, suggesting that the degree of abstractness can make activities more difficult.

The product that emerged most spontaneously, hence being the most suitable for explaining the concept of tradition was food or something related to food (cooking, cuisine, eating…). Food has been

Conclusions

It is challenging to communicate with consumers about concepts like traditional and innovation because they are abstract concepts. Four main different dimensions were identified that seem to express what European consumers perceive when thinking of TFP: habit and natural, origin and locality, processing and elaboration, and sensory properties. Five main dimensions appear to explain the concept of innovation in the consumers’ mind: novelty/change, variety, processing and technology, origin and

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the TRUEFOOD – “Traditional United Europe Food” – an Integrated Project financed by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme (Contract no. FOOD-CT-2006-016264).

The information in this document reflects only the authors’ views and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

References (59)

  • S.R. Jaeger et al.

    Perceptions of meal convenience: the case of at-home evening meals

    Appetite

    (2004)
  • M.F. Ji et al.

    Purchase and consumption habits: not necessarily what you intend

    Journal of Consumer Psychology

    (2007)
  • J. Jordana

    Traditional foods: challenges facing the European food industry

    Food Research International

    (2000)
  • B. Juric et al.

    Consumers’ attitudes towards imported food products

    Food Quality and Preference

    (1998)
  • E.P. Köster

    The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2003)
  • D. Lairon et al.

    Alimentation méditerranéenne et maladies cardiovasculaires: analyse des études d’intervention

    Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique

    (2006)
  • R. Lappalainen et al.

    A pan EU survey of consumer attitudes to food. Nutrition and health: an overview

    Food Quality and Preference

    (1998)
  • H. Moskowitz et al.

    Steps towards a consumer-driven “concept innovation machine” for food and drink

    Food Quality and Preference

    (2006)
  • S.O. Olsen et al.

    Exploring the relationship between convenience and fish consumption: a cross-cultural study

    Appetite

    (2007)
  • P. Rozin et al.

    Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible implications for the diet–health debate

    Appetite

    (1999)
  • A. Trichopoulou et al.

    Traditional foods: a science and society perspective

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2007)
  • A. Trichopoulou et al.

    Traditional foods: why and how to sustain them

    Trends in Food Science & Technology

    (2006)
  • H. van Dijk et al.

    Consumer responses to communication about food risk management

    Appetite

    (2008)
  • C. Weatherell et al.

    In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local

    Journal of Rural Studies

    (2003)
  • Alba, M. (2004). El método ALCESTE y su aplicación al studio de las representaciones sociales del espacio urbano: el...
  • Bailey, A., & Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2006). Is the Fed Held Accountable? An empirical investigation of congressional...
  • BCA. (2006). Countryside Agency Archive. Website:...
  • L. Bertozzi

    Tipicidad alimentaria y dieta mediterránea

  • J. Boer et al.

    Protein consumption and sustainability: diet diversity in EU-15

    Ecological Economics

    (2006)
  • Cited by (456)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text