Labeling Terms and Production Claims Influence Consumers’ Palatability Perceptions of Ground Beef

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate consumers’ palatability ratings of ground beef from the same source when provided information about the labeling prior to evaluation. Chubs (n=15) from the same production lot and day of 80% lean/20% fat ground beef were procured and fabricated into 151.2 g patties. Pairs of patties from each chub were randomly assigned to one consumer panel session and to 1 of 8 different labeling terms: all natural, animal raised without added antibiotics (WA), animal raised without added hormones (WH), fresh never frozen (FNF), grass-fed, locally sourced, premium quality, USDA organic (ORG), and a blank sample (NONE). Consumers (N=105) evaluated each sample on 0-to-100-point line scales for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, texture liking, overall liking, and purchasing intent and also evaluated each palatability trait as either acceptable or unacceptable. Prior to sample evaluation, the consumers were provided additional labeling information about the ground beef. Consumers found no differences (P>0.05) among the samples with the different labeling terms for tenderness, juiciness, texture liking, overall liking, tenderness acceptability, flavor acceptability, and texture acceptability for all the treatments evaluated. For flavor liking, there was a larger increase (P<0.05) in ratings for samples labeled as grass-fed in comparison with WA, WH, and premium quality–labeled samples. There was a large increase (P<0.05) in the consumer ratings for overall liking when product was labeled as all natural, WA,WH, FNF, locally sourced, premium quality, and ORG. Additionally, there was a larger decrease (P<0.05) in the per-centage of samples rated as acceptable overall when labeled as WA in comparison with all other treatments. These results indicate that adding production claims that consumers are familiar with can improve their palatability perception.