V.RMH.0009 - Consumer Acceptance of Beef Heart in Mince

Summary

The inclusion of beef heart into mince would transform a currently low value component into a much higher value, representing some $60M of incremental value to the Australian Red Meat Industry.

This could be done without compromising the taste, smell, and texture of beef mince, so would be un-noticeable to consumers. However, consumer perceptions and attitudes play a crucial role, making the classification of beef heart from ‘offal’ to ‘muscle meat’ advantageous in not needing to declare the change.

Qualitative consumer research was undertaken to assess perceptions towards beef heart, the role beef mince plays in consumers’ lives, their reaction to the inclusion of heart in beef mince and the potential for alternate rationales to reassure and justify the change.

Currently, consumers lack familiarity with beef heart, most often associating it with being offal and hence perceiving it to have poor taste and texture. Consequently, many see the inclusion of beef heart into mince as a potential compromise to the product's quality.

Interestingly, consumers exhibit a willingness to accept that various formulated meat products, such as sausages, likely contain less-than-desirable components. In these cases, they often humorously accept it as the way it has always been, and whilst not ideal, is not something to concern oneself with.

Objectives

This research aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of consumer perspectives and attitudes regarding the inclusion of beef heart in beef mince, enabling the 'Red Meat Industry' to make informed decisions on how to introduce this change and communicate it effectively to consumers.
1. Consumer acceptance: Understand how consumers react to the idea of including beef heart in mince and identify the underlying reasons for their reactions.
2. Consumer segmentation: Investigate whether consumer attitudes toward beef heart differ across various consumer segments, such as age, region, or dietary preferences.
3. Impact on existing attitudes: Assess how the potential change aligns with consumers' existing attitudes and perceptions about beef mince and the role it plays in their lives.
4. Persuasive rationales: Identify which rationales are most persuasive to consumers, providing reassurance and justification for the proposed change.
5. Addressing challenges: Determine the inherent challenges in implementing the change, specifically whether a transparent product launch, informing consumers about the inclusion of beef heart, is more advantageous compared to a non-disclosure approach.

Key findings

There would be a number of steps that would be required if a change of this nature was to be considered. These would include,

1. Reassure product performance: The first key to addressing consumer resistance is to reassure that the product will continue to perform to the same standard they expect. This includes delivering the same taste, texture, smell, and overall quality. It is essential to maintain the product's consistency, ensuring that it doesn't compromise on the attributes that consumers value.

2. Provide a positive reason for change: When introducing an undesired change, it is crucial to provide a clear and positive reason for why the change is happening. This justification should explain not only the benefits for the producer but also how consumers will benefit. By emphasizing the advantages, such as increased sustainability, improved nutritional value, or cost-effectiveness, you can help consumers understand why the change is necessary and how it aligns with their interests.

3. Leverage Social Endorsement: Utilizing social endorsement can be a powerful tool for overcoming emotive issues, especially the "yuck factor." If respected figures, influencers, or experts within the field endorse the change, it can help alleviate consumer concerns. Consumer trust and confidence can increase when they see others embracing the change and validating its merits.

In summary, addressing consumer resistance to change involves demonstrating that product performance has been maintained, offering compelling justifications as to why the change is taking place, and potentially using social endorsement to gain consumer acceptance. By addressing these key aspects, the transition to the new product, such as incorporating beef heart into beef mince, can be smoother and more readily accepted by consumers.

Benefits to industry

The inclusion of beef heart into mince would transform a currently low value component into a much higher value, representing some $60M of incremental value to the Australian Red Meat Industry. This could be done without compromising the taste, smell, and texture of beef mince, so would be un-noticeable to consumers. However, consumer perceptions and attitudes play a crucial role, making the classification of beef heart from ‘offal’ to ‘muscle meat’ advantageous in not needing to declare the change.

Future research

Share the findings with AMIC to consider the possibility of approaching the regulator, in this instance FSANZ (Food Safety Australia & New Zealand) to submit an application to have the Food Standards Code ammended to allow Beef Heart to be reclassified as muscle rather than offal.