Perception of the Health Threats Related to the Consumption of Wild Animal Meat—Is Eating Game Risky?

Abstract

Consumer interest in game meat has increased in recent years. Consumers appreciate its nutritional value but still have many concerns. Based on data from a quantitative study conducted in the group of 450 purposively selected Polish respondents declaring to consume the game meat, consumers were segmented concerning the perception of health risks associated with its consumption. Three separate clusters were identified using hierarchical cluster analysis: Indifferent (42%), Fearful (30%), and Selective (28%). The clusters differed significantly in the perception of the role of game in their lives and taking actions to mitigate the health risks associated with its consumption. In addition, their socioeconomic profiles were significantly different. The Indifferent segment—significantly more often than the other segments—believes that game has a positive impact on health, and the way to counteract the health risks is to not eat raw meat. The Selective segment attaches great importance to the choice of consumption place as a warranty of access to safe meat. The Fearful segment is willing to pay more for good quality meat and search for information. The results proved that the game consumers are not a homogenous group. Recognizing the differences can indicate a path for the traders to efficiently meet the consumers’ expectations and needs.

Consumers’ Perception and Preference for the Consumption of Wild Game Meat among Adults in Poland

“…Our research also shows that the traditions of eating game in Poland are not properly cultivated. The consumer clusters identified in this study are similar to the results of Niewiadomska et al [ 57 ], in which three groups of consumers were identified as selective, indifferent, and fearful. Differences between groups of game consumers may result from the consumers’ own experiences, habits from the family home, and factors such as the influence of the environment [ 57 ], as well as the desire to reduce the consumption of animal products in favor of plant products and sustainable development [ 3 ].…”

“…The increase in the share of game in the consumer’s diet due to its health properties, environmentally sustainable production [ 5 ], as well as high quality of meat [ 77 ], as in this study, is also indicated by other authors [ 4 , 59 , 60 , 63 , 71 , 84 , 85 ]. The safety of game meat consumption is an important issue that determines respondent interest, which is confirmed by many authors [ 57 , 71 , 82 , 86 , 87 ].…”

“…The questionnaire was designed based on previous studies of consumer eating habits regarding wild game meat consumption [ 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 63 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. The questionnaire was checked by means of a pilot study with 20 people, and any problems were identified, and the questionnaire amended.…”

“…In many respects, game is a decidedly safer meat than livestock meat, especially in countries where restrictive veterinary regulations are in force, and levels of harmful compounds do not exceed acceptable limits and do not constitute a risk to consumers. Barriers to wild game consumption also include: high price, difficulty of access to the product [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], limited supply [ 27 , 54 ], health safety concerns [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], specific taste and smell, lack of the habit of consuming it, as well as an inability to prepare dishes properly [ 27 , 54 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ].…”

Meat Fatty Acid Composition of Wild Boars Hunted in Romania in Relationship to Gender and Age-Class

“…Consumers’ choice for game meat derives from a series of factors that include availability, price, and quality. The quality concept from the consumer’s point of view includes microbiological safety, nutritional value, and the sensory profile in terms of color, aroma, flavor, taste, texture, and tenderness [ 14 ].…”