Changes in consumers interest on cheeses with health benefits and different manufacture types over the last decade

Figures & data

Table 1. General health interests multiple scale. Extracted from Roininen et al. (1999).

	Items
1. R^1	The healthiness of food has little impact on my food choices.
2.	I am very particular about the healthiness of food I eat.
3. R	I eat what I like and I do not worry much about the healthiness of food.
4.	It is important for me that my diet is low in fat.
5.	I always follow a healthy and balanced diet.
6.	It is important for me that my daily diet contains a lot of vitamins and minerals.
7. R	The healthiness of snacks makes no difference to me.
8. R	I do not avoid foods, even if they may raise my cholesterol.

¹Negative statements (marked with an “R” after the statement number) are recoded for the final score.

Table 2. Influence of information about health benefit and manufacture type on consumer interest on spreadable and Danbo cheeses in 2010 and 2018. Results of Analysis of Variance. F (4, 1, 4) ratio and probability (p) values.

		2010 Survey		2018 Survey
Type of cheese	Factor	F	p	F	p
Spreadable	Health benefit	21.7	.000	28.7	.000
	Manufacture type	2.5	.111	3.5	.063
	Health benefit × Manufacture type	0.4	.820	0.5	.744
Danbo	Health benefit	59.8	.000	47.5	.000
	Manufacture type	0.5	.460	9.2	.003
	Health benefit × Manufacture type	0.7	.617	1.0	.385

Table 3. Values of the parameters of the utility model for spreadable cheeses in relation with health benefits and processing type.

		Utility values
Factor	Level	2010	2018
Health benefit	Low-fat	0.61^a	0.56^a
	Fiber-enriched	−0.43^b,c	−0.44^b
	With Bifidus	−0.33^b	−0.41^b
	Salt-reduced	−0.50^c	−0.42^b
	None (regular)	0.66^a	0.70^a
Process	Industrial	0.07	−0.09
	Traditional	−0.07	0.09

Value of the constant in the model was 5.17 and 5.49 for spreadable cheese in 2010 and 2018 respectively.^a,bWithin each column and for each factor, mean values followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ .05).Parameters with * correspond to those with significant difference between years according t-student test.

Figure 1. Utility value for clusters in spreadable cheese in 2010 (a) and 2018 (b).

Table 4. Influence of information about health benefit and manufacture type on consumer interest on spreadable cheeses in 2010. Results of Analysis of Variance. F (4, 1, 4) ratio and probability (p) values.

Source	2010						2018
	Cluster 1 (20%)		Cluster 2 (58%)		Cluster 3 (28%)		Cluster 1 (20%)		Cluster 2 (51%		Cluster 3 (29%)
	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p
Health benefit	11.9	<.001	20.7	<.001	28.3	<.001	8.3	<.001	4.5	.001	5.6	<.001
Manufacture type	28.1	<.001	50.3	<.001	8.4	.004	1.1	.302	5.0	.026	1.0	.311
Health benefit × Manufacture type	0.9	.486	0.6	.663	3.1	.016	0.2	.944	0.1	.981	0.2	.960

Table 5. Values of the parameters of the utility model for Danbo cheeses in relation with health benefits and processing type.

		Utility values
Factor	Level	2010	2018
Health benefit	Low-fat	0.68^b,*	0.40^b,*
	Fiber-enriched	−0.46^c	−0.62^c
	With Bifidus	−0.67^c	−0.53^c
	Salt-reduced	−0.73^c	−0.48^c
	None (regular)	1.34^a,*	1.23^a,*
Process	Industrial	0.12^a,*	−0.20^a,*
	Traditional	−0.12^a,*	0.20^b,*

Value of the constant in the model was 5.22 and 5.47 for Danbo cheese in 2010 and 2018 respectively.Within each column and for each factor, mean values followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).Parameters with * correspond to those with significant difference between years according t-student test.

Figure 2. Utility value for clusters in Danbo cheese in 2010 (a) and 2018 (b).

Table 6. Influence of information about health benefit and manufacture type on consumer interest on Danbo cheeses in 2010 and 2018. Results of Analysis of Variance. F (4, 1, 4) ratio and probability (p) values.

Source	2010						2018
	Cluster 1 (42%)		Cluster 2 (38%)		Cluster 3 (20%)		Cluster 1 (42%)		Cluster 2 (39%)		Cluster 3 (19%)
	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p	F	p
Health benefit	20.2	<.001	32.6	<.001	51	<.001	7.1	<.001	9.1	<.001	8.4	<.001
Manufacture type	19.2	<.001	2.7	.102	0.0	.900	3.0	.049	0.9	.348	1.0	.328
Health benefit × Manufacture type	0.9	0.459	0.8	.502	2.6	.038	0.2	.933	0.7	.596	0.2	.953

Table 7. Distribution of consumers (%) on clusters for spreadable cheese in 2010 and 2018, according to gender, age, and interest on healthy diet. Difference among proportions test, χ² and probability (p) values.

		2010					2018
Characteristics	Level	C 1	C 2	C 3	χ^2	p	C 1	C 2	C 3	χ^2	p
Gender	M	28^a	37^ab	57^b	9.3	.011	8^a	39^b	55^b	50.1	.001
	F	72^b	63^ab	43^a			92^b	61^a	45^a
Age	18 to 40	66	78	55	5.9	.051	54	57	55	0.2	.910
	41 to 66	34	22	45			46	43	45
Interest in a healthy diet	High	47^b	22^a	30^ab	10.2	.006	50	46	36	4.2	.121
	Medium	41	41	36	0.3	.883	50	51	64	4.9	.085
	Low	12^a	37^b	34^b	10.8	.004	0^a	3^b	0^a	6.1	.048

^a-bWithin each row for each characteristic, percentage values followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ .05).

Table 8. Distribution of consumers (%) on clusters for Danbo cheese in 2010 and 2018, according to gender, age an interest on healthy diet. Difference among proportions test, χ² and probability (p) values.

		2010					2018
Characteristics	Level	C 1	C 2	C 3	χ^2	p	C 1	C 2	C 3	χ^2	p
Gender	Male	26^a	41^ab	58^b	9.1	.011	43^ab	31^a	52^b	9.1	.01
	Female	74^b	59^ab	42^a			57^ab	69^b	48^a
Age	18 to 40	77	63	55	5.4	.068	55	53	61	1.4	.499
	41 to 66	23	37	45			45	47	39
Interest in a healthy diet	High	44^b	31^ab	19^a	6	.049	49	33	43	5.4	.071
	Medium	41	40	32	0.7	.700	49^ab	65^b	48^a	7.3	.026
	Low	15^a	29^ab	49^b	11.9	.003	2^a	2^a	9^b	7.9	.019

^a–cPercentage values in rows followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ .05).

Roininen, K., Lähteenmäki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite, 33(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0232

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar