MUslim Consumer Trust in Halal Meat Status and Control in Belgium

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Meat Science 79 (2008) 113123

MEATSCIENCE

Muslim consumer trust in halal meat status and control in Belgium

Karijn Bonne a, Wim Verbeke b,*

a Hogeschool Gent, Department of Business Studies and Public Administration, Voskenslaan 270, B-9000 Gent, Belgiumb Ghent University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

Received 10 May 2007; received in revised form 8 August 2007; accepted 19 August 2007

Abstract

This paper focuses on public trust of Belgian Muslims in information sources of halal meat and their confidence in key actors andinstitutions for monitoring and controlling the halal meat chain. Cross-sectional consumer data were collected through a survey with367 Muslims during the summer of 2006 in Belgium. Findings reveal that Islamic institutions and especially the Islamic butcher receivein general most confidence for monitoring and controlling the halal status of meat, and for communicating about halal meat. However,based on Muslims confidence, four distinct market segments were identified: indifferent (29.1%), concerned (9.7%), confident (33.1%)and Islamic idealist (26.7%). These segments differ significantly with respect to trust in information sources and institutions, healthand safety perception of halal meat, perceived halal meat consumption barriers, behavioural variables (halal meat consumption fre-quency and place of purchase), and socio-cultural (acculturation and self-identity) and individual characteristics. Indifferent consumersare rather undecided about who should monitor the halal status of meat, and they are most open to purchasing halal meat in the super-market. Concerned Muslim consumers display higher confidence in Belgian than in Islamic institutions, which associates with perceivinga lack of information, poor hygiene and safety concern as barriers to purchasing halal meat. Confident consumers display a clear pref-erence for Islamic institutions to monitor and communicate about halal. Islamic idealists, who are typified by younger age, second gen-eration and high Muslim self-identity, differ from the confident consumers through their very low confidence in local Belgian sources andinstitutions. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumer; Food; Meat; Trust; Halal; Market segmentation; Quality; Religion

1. Introduction

1.1. Religious motives and meat consumption

Food choice and consumption behaviour are imbuedwith social rules and meaning. Meat in particular is a med-ium rich in social meaning because of its association withcultural habits and rituals, both religious and secular (Fid-des, 1992). Religion is one of the main factors determiningfood avoidance, taboos, and special regulation in particu-lar with respect to meat (Simoons, 1994). Several religionsimpose some food restrictions e.g. prohibition of pork and

0309-1740/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.08.007

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 9 264 6181; fax: +32 9 264 6246.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Bonne), wim.verbeke@

ugent.be (W. Verbeke).

not ritually slaughtered meat in Judaism and Islam, andpork and beef in Hinduism and Buddhism, except forChristianity which has no food taboos. The rejection ofspecific foods derives from human cultures, many of whichwere established for unknown reasons in the past, andgains further support until the present from religious sanc-tions. Religious food prescriptions are far easier to adoptthan to discard because once a ban is adopted it tends tobe reinforced by strong feelings of disgust for examplethe strong aversion of Jews and Muslims for pork in gen-eral (Simoons, 1994).

With respect to food prescriptions in Islam, Muslimshave to follow a set of dietary laws intended to advance theirwell-being, in addition to the five pillars of Islam. These die-tary laws or prescriptions determine which foods are halal(i.e. permitted) for Muslims. Prohibited is the consumption
mailto:[email protected]:wim.verbeke@

114 K. Bonne, W. Verbeke / Meat Science 79 (2008) 113123

of alcohol, pork, blood, dead meat and meat which has notbeen slaughtered according to Islamic rulings.

Although the dietary laws imposed by religion may berather strict, the amount of people following them is usu-ally quite substantial. It was estimated that 75% of Mus-lims in the US follow their religious dietary laws(Hussaini, 1993) meaning that even after having emigratedmost Muslims still eat halal. Assuming that this percentagecan be extrapolated to immigrated Muslims in Europe, thiswould yield a potential halal food market of about 10 mil-lion European consumers. For example, a recent studyrevealed that 84% of Muslims in France always eat halalmeat (Bergeaud-Blackler & Bonne, 2007). Factors explain-ing differences in adherence to religious dietary prescrip-tions pertain among others to social structures, e.g.origin, immigration, and generation differences (Ababou,2005; Bergeaud-Blacker, 2001; Bergeaud-Blackler &Bonne, 2007; Limage, 2000; Saint-Blancat, 2004). How-ever, not only religious motives determine halal meat con-sumption, but also health, respect for animal welfare andsocial issues, such as religious identity and degree of accul-turation (Bergeaud-Blackler & Bonne, 2007; Bonne & Ver-beke, 2006; Bonne, Vermeir, Bergeaud-Blackler, &Verbeke, 2007).

1.2. Scope and objectives

This study investigates public trust of Belgian Muslimsin the most relevant information sources related to halalmeat, as well as consumers confidence in key actorsinvolved with the halal meat chain. The objective is three-fold. First, to examine public trust in sources providinginformation on the halal status of meat. Second, to assessconsumer confidence in key sectors and institutions tomanage and monitor the halal meat chain. Third, to iden-tify and profile consumer segments within the Belgian Mus-lim population based on their institutional trust level. Thestudy also investigates whether perceived health and safetyof halal meat, and potential consumption barriers relatedto safety and behavioural variables differ among the iden-tified segments. It, furthermore, sought to determinewhether socio-cultural and individual characteristics asso-ciated with trust-based market segments. The remainingsections in this introduction provide the argument for ourfocus on the issue of trust among the minority Muslim pop-ulation facing halal quality uncertainty. The argumentrelates to the relevance of the halal food market, the spec-ification of what halal meat is and its specific credencecharacter, and the role and importance of trust and confi-dence in shaping consumers food choices. The researchmethod and empirical findings will be presented anddiscussed.

1.3. International halal food market

Investigating consumer decisions towards halal foods istopical, first, given the halal food market size and its evo-

lution, and second, given the policy relevance of the issuessurrounding halal foods. The Canadian International Mar-kets Bureau (2001) reported an international halal foodtrade of $150 billion a year. The total spending power ofMuslims in the US was estimated at $12 billion in 1999of which around $3 billion was spent on meat (Riaz,1999). Although to our knowledge, there is no estimateyet for the halal trade and market volume in the EU, thepotential market size expressed in terms of the Muslimpopulation is substantial, i.e. it was estimated between 13and 18 million individuals before the enlargement fromEU-15 to EU-25 (BBC News, 2005; Buijs & Rath, 2006).As mentioned before, 75% of Muslims follow their dietaryrules in the US. Applying this percentage to Muslims inEurope, yields a potential halal food market of about 10million consumers in Europe. In Belgium, which is thefocus of this study, there are approximately 400,000 Mus-lims, originating mainly from North Africa and Turkey,who account for 4% of the Belgian population (Bousetta& Marechal, 2004).

Until recently, the food industry has largely ignored thespecific Muslim market segment. In contrast with the well-developed kosher market (on average 3040% of the gro-cery items in US supermarkets are kosher) (Hunter,1997), halal food products on the shelves of the Europeansupermarkets in particular are scarce. In the past, Muslimminorities simply avoided foods that did not meet their die-tary standards or bought kosher foods. Nowadays, Mus-lims are making their presence felt socially and politicallyand are requesting halal certified food products (Riaz &Chaudry, 2004; Shafie & Othman, 2006). Leading retailerssuch as Carrefour in France and Belgium or Albert Heijnin the Netherlands are testing to include halal meat in theirproducts. Previous attempts in a retail environment wereoften unsuccessful because of lack of insights in food pur-chasing and consumption behaviour of Muslims (Ramda-ni, 2005), as well as uncertainty with respect to thespecification and labelling of halal (Bonne & Verbeke, inpress). Fundamental problems that arise are the differentdefinitions of halal meat and the different quality certifica-tion schemes. These problems are expected to soon becomeimportant food policy issues that are likely to make theirway to the regulatory and policy agendas in many Euro-pean countries (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2004). Given that halalfood and meat markets are emerging, offering both oppor-tunities as well as facing threats, gaining better insights inhalal food and meat consumer behaviour has become ofinterest to several stakeholders in the food chain, includingfood policy makers, the industry and retailers.

1.4. What makes meat halal?

Although the halal status with respect to meat is mostlybelieved to be equivalent to the application of the ritualIslamic slaughter method, additional conditions shouldbe taken into account for meat to become halal (Bonne& Verbeke, in press). First, the animal must be of an

K. Bonne, W. Verbeke / Meat Science 79 (2008) 113123 115

acceptable species and it must have been bred in a naturalway. Second, the animal must be alive at the time ofslaughter and must die of bleeding rather than as a conse-quence of stunning. Third, any sane, adult Muslim canslaughter the animal by cutting the front part of the neckwith a very sharp knife and evoking the name of Allah dur-ing the cut, preferably with the animal turned towardsMakkah. Slaughtering by hand is preferred, however, inWestern European countries mechanical or machineslaughter of birds is gaining acceptance among Muslims.Fourth, at any time during the slaughter process, Islamadvocates humane treatment of animals for example ani-mals should be well nourished, rested and not stressedbefore slaughter. Finally, distribution and retailing of halalmeat is critical to prevent cross-contamination with non-halal meat.

The meat chain conforming to all prescribed religiouscriteria is very complex and the risk for cross-contamina-tion is substantial, i.e. halal meat becomes haram (i.e.prohibited) for example when in contact with pork meat.Despite growing awareness of this risk, in most Europeancountries, current halal chain control on top of the stan-dard mandatory veterinary inspections issued by interna-tional and national legislation is limited or almostnon-existent. Moreover, Muslim consumers in countrieswith Muslim minorities, are increasingly attentive to thecontent of their foods especially since food chains arebecoming longer and more complex (Bergeaud-Blackler,2005). Furthermore, the conception of halal has becomesymbolic and emotional on top of religious (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2006), in particular among second and thirdgeneration Muslims in immigrant populations. The evolu-tion of the definition and symbolic meaning of halal,together with emerging shopping and eating habits amongyoung generations entail particular challenges for produc-ing, controlling and guaranteeing the credence qualityhalal.

1.5. Role of trust in halal credence quality

Credence characteristics of food have become veryimportant to consumers (Bruns, Fjord, & Grunert,2002; Grunert, 2006). Halal is a typical credence processattribute, i.e. a quality characteristic that can hardly beevaluated or ascertained by the individual consumer, evenupon or after consuming the food (Darby & Karni, 1973;Grunert, 2005). As a product characteristic, halal refersto the nature, origin and the processing method of thefood, which entails similarities with e.g. organic foods orfoods produced considering animal welfare or sustainabil-ity issues. These characteristics are not visible and cannotbe validated by the consumer even after experiencing theproduct, yielding potential quality uncertainty during the(pre-)purchasing stage. Therefore, consumers have to relyon the seller or outside observers, and put their trust inthe information source and information received (Ander-sen, 1994).

Credence characteristics are a matter of trust in sourcesproviding information and confidence in the key sectorsand institutions managing the risk. Trust can be definedas the extent to which one believes that others will notact to exploit ones vulnerability (Morrow, Hansen, &Person, 2004). However, it is difficult to provide a singledefinition of trust and its interpretation is often confusedwith confidence. In general, trust refers to interpersonalrelations, whereas confidence relates rather to institutionalrelations (Weber & Carter, 1998). Trust is mainly aboutwhether the information source is perceived to be convey-ing information in an open and transparent way whereasconfidence rather refers to the perceived competence ofthe information source or institution to perform a particu-lar task such as information provision, monitoring or con-trolling. Under certain circumstances, institutions manageand communicate about the hazard at the same time, how-ever some actors for example friends and family only serveas potential information sources.

In communication in general, and risk communicationin particular, source credibility emerges as an importantfactor. Furthermore, trust in information sources is unli-kely to be very influential for potential hazards where peo-ple already hold very extreme attitudes about the particularhazard (Frewer, Howard, & Sheperd, 1998), which isassumed to be the case for religiously driven consumptionof halal meat. In such circumstances, people are more likelyto assess the information, to see if it aligns with their atti-tudes, and if not, to change their opinion about the infor-mation source rather than change their attitudes. Withrespect to institutional confidence, this seems to be influ-enced by the perceptions of institutional characteristicssuch as knowledge, accuracy, concern with public welfare(Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996), compe-tence, honesty (Frewer, 2000) and trustworthiness (Meij-boom, Visak, & Brom, 2006). The way in which peoplerespond to different risks is socio-culturally and individu-ally constructed: what is acceptable for one demographicor cultural group may not be acceptable for another. Dif-ferent groups within a same society understand andrespond to risks differently (Shaw, 2003) depending onregional, ethnic, socio-economic or gender differences (Fre-wer, 2000). Furthermore, a persons religious upbringingcan play an important role in trust formation (Huffman,Rousu, Shogren, & Tegene, 2002).

For Muslim consumers, trust in halal meat relates to thecertainty about the process attributes (i.e. meat processingand handling leading to the halal status) and the safety interms of meat wholesomeness. Previous research showeda very strong link between slaughter method and healthand safety perception: the Islamic slaughter method isbelieved to lead to complete bleed out of the animalwhereby consumers believe less bacterial contaminationcan occur, hence resulting in healthier meat (Bonne & Ver-beke, 2006). Nevertheless, mass media and word-of-mouthcommunication about eventual frauds with halal meat aredetrimental for the general trust in halal meat. In addition,

Table 1Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (%, n = 350)

Gender Male 44.4Female 55.6

Age 625 years 36.22635 years 43.93645 years 13.44655 years 4.9>55 years 1.6

Family Single 41.4Married/living together 55.3Divorced/widow 3.3

Origin Moroccan 86.3Algerian 1.6Tunisian 1.4Other 10.7

Education Primary school 5.5High school 34.8Bachelor 33.4Master 22.9Master/PhD 3.3

Generation 1st generation 27.72nd or 3rd generation 72.3


lack of institutionalised trust can fuel consumers qualityuncertainty and increase the perceived risk to consumemeat that is not really halal and therefore prohibited forMuslims.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample and procedure

Cross-sectional data were collected through a survey inBelgium during summer 2006. Respondents were person-ally or electronically contacted. Recruitment was basedon a snowball sampling technique starting from friendsand increasing through friends and family of the initialcontact persons. Furthermore, owners of ethnic food shopsand their family, as well as workers of socio-cultural organ-isations and their members were asked to participate in thedistribution of the survey instrument. According to DePelsmacker and Van Kenhove (1994, p. 108) snowball sam-pling is recommended in cases where respondents are diffi-cult to reach, which is the case for Muslim consumers inBelgium due to socio-cultural and language barriers. Inparallel, a web survey using the same questionnaire wasdeveloped. In total, 367 questionnaires were completed ofwhich 175 were obtained as a result of the snowball sam-pling and 192 electronically. From this sample 350 caseswere valid for analysis. Most importantly, all question-naires were self-administered by the respondent, henceavoiding potential bias from an interviewer.

The characteristics of the sample show that slightlymore women (55.6%) than men (44.4%) completed the sur-vey. With respect to age, the sample consisted of mainlyyounger respondents (80.1% under 35 years) (meanage = 29.3 years; SD = 8.1). A small but significant differ-ence in mean age between the pen and paper sub sample(mean age = 30.6 years; SD = 9.43) and the internet subsample (mean age = 28.2 years; SD = 6.49) was found.Most likely, language and educational barriers amongelderly immigrants led to the relatively young sample.The majority of the sample was married or lived with apartner (55.3%). Most respondents originated from Mor-occo (86.3%), which is in line with the main Muslim popu-lation origin in Belgium. A majority of the respondents hadhigher education: 34.8% finished high school, of whom33.4% obtained a bachelor and 22.9% a masters degree.First generation Muslims (i.e. those born abroad) com-posed 16.8% of the sample and second generation (i.e.those born in Belgium or who migrated to Belgium at orbefore the age of six years) accounted for 83.2% of the sam-ple. The results are summarised in Table 1.

2.2. Measurement of constructs

The questionnaire measured trust in 20 potentialsources of information about halal meat and confidencein seven institutions that potentially could contribute tomonitoring and controlling the halal meat chain. Each

item was measured on a five-point interval scale rangingfrom very untrustworthy to very trustworthy. Next,perceived health and safety of halal meat was measuredon five attributes: safety, control, hygiene, health andnutrition using a five-point semantic differential scale.To assess potential consumption barriers for halal meat,three items related to safety (perceived lack of control,of hygiene and of information) were measured on afive-point interval scale ranging from definitely no reasonfor not eating halal meat to definitely a reason for noteating halal meat. Behavioural variables included halalmeat consumption frequency as well as purchasing fre-quency for the following potential places of purchase:Islamic North African butcher, abattoir, farm gate, super-market and Belgian butcher. Behavioural variables weremeasured through a six-point frequency scale rangingfrom never to every day.

Finally, the questionnaire measured individual andsocio-cultural characteristics of the respondents, includingacculturation and self-identity. To assess acculturation,11 items were used for assessing dietary acculturation(Bonne et al., 2007; Liou & Contento, 2001), ethnic socialrelations, language use and media use (Goetz, 2003; Verbe-ke & Lopez, 2005). A five-point interval scale ranging fromtotally Maghrebian (1) to totally Belgian (5) was used.Self-identity was measured using the statements I considermyself a Muslim (Bonne et al., 2007; Sparks & Shepherd,1992), I consider myself a good Muslim and I considermyself a practising Muslim on a five-point Likert scaleranging from totally disagree to totally agree. Individualcharacteristics such as age, gender, origin, generation, placeof residence, level of education, occupation, marital status,and number of children were also included.


2.3. Analyses procedures

Data were analysed using SPSS 12.0. First, exploratoryfactor analyses were performed. The reliability of theresulting factors was tested using Cronbachs alpha mea-sure of internal reliability consistency. Next, hierarchicaland K-means cluster analysis using the confidence in insti-tution factors was performed to identify consumer seg-ments. Cross-tabulation with v2 test and one-wayANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc tests were used to pro-file the clusters in terms of trust in information sources,health and safety perception, perceived barriers, consump-tion frequency, place of purchase, socio-cultural and indi-vidual characteristics.

3. Empirical findings

3.1. Exploratory factor solutions

With respect to trust in information sources about halalmeat, principal component analysis revealed four factors(Table 2) explaining 68.1% of the variance in the original

Table 2Principal components loadings for trust in information sources regardinghalal meat

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4Media andcommercial

Independent Muslim Commercial

Advertisements 0.85Television 0.85Radio 0.84Supermarket 0.76Farmers/breeders 0.65Consumer

organisations0.56

Scientists 0.84Doctors 0.84Government 0.61Public health

advice0.76

Dietician 0.67Friends and family 0.68Belgian Muslim

Executive0.79

Local mosque 0.84Islamic

Maghrebianbutcher

0.71

Mosque ofBrussels

0.76

Meat industry 0.68Newspapers 0.62Islamic Turkish

butcher0.52

Belgian butcher 0.63

% Varianceexplained

21.2 19.1 15.9 15.9

Cronbachs a 0.91 0.92 0.83 0.83

data. The first factor emphasised trust in mass media andcommercial sources (a = 0.91); the second referred to inde-pendent information sources (a = 0.92); the third includedMuslim sources (a = 0.83); and the fourth can be labelledspecifically as distrusted commercial sources (a = 0.83).All factors had sufficient internal reliability consistency.

Next, factor analysis yielded a two-factor solutionexplaining 57.7% of the variance (Table 3) for confidencein institutions that can potentially intervene in monitoringand controlling the halal meat chain. The first confidencefactor captures all items related to Islamic institutions,while the second factor is referred to as confidence in Bel-gian institutions including the Belgian food standardsagency and the Belgian butcher. Only the Muslim confi-dence factor had sufficient internal reliability consistency(a = 0.80), while the alpha coefficient for confidence inthe Belgian institutions was only 0.51.

Factor analysis with the five health and safety percep-tion items yielded a one factor solution explaining 61.5%of the variance in the original data (Table 4). This factorwill be referred to as health and safety perception ofhalal meat (a = 0.84). Finally, one factor is also extractedrepresenting consumption barriers related to safety issuessuch as perceived lack of control, lack of information

Table 3Principal components loadings for confidence in institutions for monitor-ing and controlling the halal meat chain

Factor 1 Factor 2Musliminstitutions

Belgianinstitutions

Belgian Muslim Executive 0.73Local mosque 0.83Islamic North African butcher 0.74Islamic Turkish butcher 0.63Mosque of Brussels 0.80Belgian Food Standards

Agency0.80

Belgian butcher 0.70

% Variance explained 35.3 22.4Cronbachs a 0.80 0.51

Table 4Principal components loadings for perceived health and safety of halalmeat and potential barriers for consuming halal meat

Factor 1 Factor 1Health and safetyperception

Consumptionbarriers

Hygiene 0.81 Lack ofcontrol

0.93

Safety 0.85 Poor hygiene 0.88Control 0.75 Lack of

information0.85

Health 0.75Nutritious 0.73

% Varianceexplained

61.5 41.5

Cronbachs a 0.84 0.76

Table 6Profile of the confidence-based consumer segments in terms of health andsafety perception, consumption barriers, halal meat consumption fre-quency and place of purchase, comparison of mean scores (n = 350)

Indifferent Concerned Confident Islamicidealists

n = 102(29.1%)

n = 34(9.7%)

n = 116(33.1%)

n = 98(26.7%)

Health and safetyperception

3.82a 4.18ab 4.72b 4.39b

Consumptionbarriers

2.52b 2.58ab 1.99a 2.14ab

Halal meatconsumption

2.53a 2.76a 2.84a 2.78a

Place of purchase

Islamic NorthAfrican butcher

4.16a 4.06a 4.39a 4.56a

Slaughter house 0.58a 0.88a 1.13b 0.89aFarm 0.61a 0.65a 1.11b 0.82aSupermarket 0.46b 0.44b 0.06a 0.00a

Different letters (a, b, c and d) indicate significantly different averagescores on five-point scaling using ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc test.

Table 7Profile of the confidence-based consumer segments in terms of individualand socio-cultural characteristics (n = 350)


n = 102(29.1%)

n = 34(9.7%)

n = 116(33.1%)

n = 98(26.7%)

Individual characteristics (%)

Lower education(primary, secondaryschool)

24.5 32.4 48.3 45.3

Higher education(bachelor, master,PhD)

75.5 67.6 51.7 54.7

Age 635 years 73.6 73.5 80.1 89.8Age >35 years 26.4 26.5 19.9 10.2First generation 18.2 27.3 17.4 9.5Second generation 81.8 72.7 82.6 90.5


and poor hygiene and is therefore called consumptionbarriers (a = 0.76).

3.2. Market segmentation

In order to reveal market segments, first, hierarchicalclustering was performed using the factors obtained forconfidence in Islamic institutions and confidence in Belgianinstitutions. Next, a K-means cluster analysis using Wardsmethod was performed with initial cluster centres resultingfrom the hierarchical clustering procedure. The respectivesizes and scores on the segmentation variables are reportedin Table 5 together with a comparison of the clusters interms of trust in information sources. Next, differencesbetween the segments in terms of behavioural variables(consumption frequency and place of purchase), perceivedhealth and safety of halal meat and consumption barriersare reported (Table 6). Finally, the segments are profiledusing socio-cultural and individual variables (Table 7).

The cluster analysis reveals four types of consumers.Segment 1 (29.1% of the sample) can be typified as Indif-ferent. These consumers have as much confidence in Isla-mic as in Belgian institutions; however, both institutionsreceive only a rather low confidence score. They also reportmean scores around the mid point of the scale for all infor-mation source factors.

The smallest segment (9.7% of the sample) consists ofconsumers who have more confidence in Belgian than inIslamic institutions for managing and controlling the halalmeat chain. Islamic information sources are, however,most trusted followed by all other sources receiving anequal, slightly positive evaluation. This segment is calledConcerned.

The third and largest segment (33.1% of the sample)reports the highest confidence in Islamic institutionstogether with some low confidence in Belgian institutions.They especially trust Islamic information sources. This seg-ment will be typified as Confident.

Table 5Profile of the confidence-based consumer segments in terms of trust ininformation sources, comparison of mean scores (n = 350)


n = 102(29.1%)

n = 34(9.7%)

n = 116(33.1%)

n = 98(26.7%)

Confidence in institutions for monitoring and controlling

Islamic 2.79a 3.79b 4.13c 4.02bcBelgian 2.76c 4.20d 2.46b 1.18a

Trust in information sources

Islamic 3.37a 4.09b 4.31b 4.34bIndependent 3.21b 3.38b 2.95b 2.07aMedia and

commercial3.13b 3.41b 3.04b 2.03a

Commercialsources

2.69b 3.20c 2.75b 2.20a

Different letters (a, b, c and d) indicate significantly different averagescores on five-point scaling using ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc test.

Socio-cultural characteristics (mean score)A

Self-identity 3.98a 4.32ab 4.38b 4.48bAcculturation 3.26a 2.93a 3.13a 2.99a

A Different subscripts (a, b, c and d) indicate significantly differentaverage scores on five-point scaling using ANOVA and Tukey HSD posthoc test.

Segment 4 (26.7% of the sample) consists of Islamicidealists: they claim a high confidence in Islamic institu-tions but have completely no confidence in Belgian institu-tions. For these consumers, only information coming fromIslamic sources is trustworthy.

3.3. Profiling of the clusters

3.3.1. Trust in information sources and institutionsWith respect to obtaining information about halal meat

in general, Muslim consumers most trust family and friends


(M = 4.25, SD = 0.97) followed by the Islamic North Afri-can butcher (M = 4.09, SD = 0.90) and the Belgian Mus-lim executive (M = 4.00, SD = 1.09) as informationsources. The Belgian butcher, however, is very much dis-trusted (M = 1.81, SD = 1.10). Hence, when consideringthe identified factors, Muslim sources are most trusted(M = 4.03, SD = 0.78). Mass media and commercial sec-tors (M = 2.82, SD = 1.20), independent sources(M = 2.82, SD = 1.04) and distrusted sectors (M = 2.63,SD = 0.78) obtained a neutral to low trust score.

Similarly, Muslims reported highest confidence in Isla-mic institutions to take on the supervisory role of the halalmeat chain. The Islamic butcher (M = 3.96, SD = 1.00) andthe Belgian Muslim Executive (M = 3.72, SD = 1.16), beinga representative institution for Islamic religion since 1996,received most confidence from Muslim consumers. The lat-ter has been charged by the Belgian government to super-vise the halal meat chain and to introduce a label,however, up to now, control is almost non-existent andno halal label has been established. In contrast, Muslimshave very little confidence in the Belgian butcher for con-trolling and labelling halal meat (M = 1.71, SD = 1.05).The Belgian Food Standards Agency, which is the primarysource responsible for controlling the meat chain, scoresneutral on average (M = 3.06, SD = 1.35).

From all segments, confident consumers and Islamicidealists display the strongest trust in Islamic informationsources (F = 45.25, p < 0.01) and confidence in Islamicinstitutions (F = 104.31, p < 0.01) with the latter displayingthe lowest confidence in Belgian control and independentmedia and commercial sources. The indifferent consum-ers are rather undecided and have as much confidencein Islamic as in Belgian institutions whereas concernedconsumers in segment 2 have more confidence in Belgianthan in Islamic control. The Concerned consumers dis-play the highest trust in independent, media and commer-cial sources although they do trust Islamic sources too.

These findings were further substantiated by correlationanalysis showing that the more Muslims favour a Belgianinstitution for managing the halal meat chain, the morethey trust independent experts (r = 0.474, p < 0.01), com-mercial (r = 0.415, p < 0.01) and media and commercialsources (r = 0.430, p < 0.01) for information provision onhalal meat. In contrast, the more a Muslim relies on Isla-mic information sources, the more s/he has confidence inIslamic institutions (r = 0.702, p < 0.01). Nevertheless,Muslim consumers who perceive a lack of safety, hygieneand information as a potential barrier for eating halalmeat, are less in favour of Islamic supervision(r = 0.175, p < 0.01) and Muslim information sources(r = 0.161, p < 0.01), though rely more on independentexperts (r = 0.161, p < 0.01) for information on halal meat.More favourable beliefs with respect to the health andsafety of halal meat correlate with higher trust in Islamicinformation sources (r = 0.319, p < 0.01) and higher confi-dence in Islamic supervision institutions (r = 0.359,p < 0.01).

3.3.2. Health and safety perception and consumption barriers

In general, Muslim consumers had a positive perceptionof the wholesomeness and safety of halal meat (M = 4.25,SD = 0.75). ANOVA shows a significantly different percep-tion between the segments (F = 13.36, p < 0.01) with theconfident consumers displaying the most positive per-ception of the health and safety of halal meat and indiffer-ent consumers reporting the lowest score (Table 6).Consumers with a more positive perception report lowerperceived barriers related to safety issues (r = 0.214,p < 0.01) which could prevent them from eating halal meat(r = 0.118, p < 0.01). While being more sensitive to safetyissues, they tend to buy halal meat at the supermarket(r = 0.231, p < 0.01) perhaps because this retail type pro-vides them with more information and reassurance on thesafety of meat. It can be assumed that for these consumers,lack of trust in halal meat might cause them to eat non-halal meat since correlation analysis revealed a positiverelation between perceived consumption barriers relatedto safety issues and eating non-halal meat (r = 0.195,p < 0.01); and a strong positive relation between the latterand purchasing meat at the supermarket (r = 0.562,p < 0.01). Hence, for Indifferent and Concerned con-sumers, safety issues such as lack of information, hygieneand control are potential reasons for not eating halal meat(F = 3.30, p < 0.05).

3.3.3. Consumption frequency and place of purchase

With respect to halal meat consumption, 46.2% of therespondents claimed to eat halal meat on a daily or almostdaily basis whereas 29.9% ate halal meat 23 times a weekand 15.9% 12 times a week. Trust levels do not associatesignificantly with halal meat consumption frequency (Table6). All segments report an average (segment 1) or slightlymore than average consumption frequency score with theConfident consumers displaying the highest halal meatconsumption.

The Islamic North African butcher is the most fre-quented place of purchase for all Muslim respondents ofwhom 67.2% saying they always buy their meat there. Nosignificant differences were found between the segments.The use of short market channels for halal meat, such asthe abattoir or farm gate are relevant as well, and receivehigher frequenting than supermarkets for the provision ofhalal meat: 40.1% and 42.9% of the respondents seldombought meat at the abattoir or farm gate. An overrepresen-tation of second generation Muslims who are less familiarwith buying at the slaughterhouse or at the farm gate mayexplain the low score for these places of purchase. Never-theless, Confident consumers bought more at the abat-toir (F = 3.31, p < 0.05) and farm gate (F = 3.80,p < 0.01) than the other segments. Although 90.6% of therespondents claim never to buy halal meat at the supermar-ket (especially Confident and Islamic idealist consum-ers), Indifferent and Concerned consumers reportprovision of halal meat through supermarkets (F = 11.54,p < 0.01). In Belgium, halal meat has only recently been


available in a few supermarkets which could explain thelow score for this outlet.

3.3.4. Socio-cultural and individual characteristics

Table 7 presents the socio-cultural and individual char-acteristics of the four segments. With respect to educationlevel, Indifferent consumers consisted of significantly morehigher educated respondents whereas less educated respon-dents tended to belong to the Confident or Islamic idealistsegments (v2 = 31.31, p < 0.010). Significantly younger con-sumers were found among the Islamic idealists whilerespondents older than 35 years tended to belong to theIndifferent and Concerned consumers (v2 = 26.40,p < 0.010). Generation level differs only marginally bet-ween the four segments, with a tendency that first genera-tion Muslims belonged to the Concerned consumer, whilesecond generation Muslims tended to belong to the Islamicidealist segment (v2 = 6.48, p = 0.090). No significant differ-ences between the segments were found relating to genderand presence of children in the family.

Furthermore, with respect to socio-cultural characteris-tics, the findings indicate that self-identity differs signifi-cantly between the segments (F = 9.85, p < 0.001). Muslimswith a high self-identity tended to belong to the Islamicidealists and those with relatively low identification withIslam tended to be classified as Indifferent consumers.Level of acculturation did not differ significantly betweenthe segments.

4. Discussion and conclusion

Four consumer segments based on their confidence ininstitutions that could monitor and control the halal meatchain were identified. The clusters differed in terms of trustin information sources on halal meat, health and safetyperception, consumption barriers, consumption frequencyand place of purchase. Furthermore, it was found thatsocio-cultural and individual characteristics differed amongthe consumer segments. The typical profiles and ideas heldby the different segments are summarised and illustratedwith verbatim statements obtained through previous qual-itative research.

The Indifferent consumers (segment 1) are undecidedon who should control the halal meat chain and have asmuch, although only moderate, confidence in Islamic asin Belgian institutions. All sources are somewhat trustedwith Islamic sources being most trusted; however, theseconsumers display the lowest trust in Islamic sources. Theyalso have the lowest perception of health and safety ofhalal meat and take safety issues into account when eatinghalal meat. Being aware about safety problems, theyappear to eat less halal meat and buy relatively more atthe supermarket. Nevertheless, the Islamic butcher remainstheir main place of purchase for halal meat.

Concerned consumers (segment 2) are most worriedabout safety issues in terms of hygiene, control and infor-

mation related to halal meat and possibly therefore theytend to trust rather Belgian than Islamic institutions formonitoring and controlling the halal meat chain. Previousexploratory research showed that Muslim consumers whodoubt about the safety of halal meat in terms of hygieneand control regularly buy (non-halal) meat at the super-market in order to obtain impersonal quality reassurance;the labelling information satisfies their interest in informa-tion on safety. A typical verbatim statement as obtainedfrom the participants of this qualitative study (Bonne &Verbeke, 2006), illustrating this behaviour under uncer-tainty reads:

I lack information when buying meat from an Islamicbutcher: where does it come from, when has it beenslaughtered . . .? So I buy (non-halal) meat from thesupermarket where I can find this information on thelabel of fresh meat.

Concerned consumers also report the highest trust inindependent, media and commercial sources. However,their halal meat consumption is not negatively influencedby their concern. Although these consumers tend to trustBelgian institutions and have more trust in non-Islamicsources as compared to other segments, they display a rel-atively high Muslim identity and are relatively low accul-turated. The fact that this segment has the highest shareof first generation Muslims (i.e. born abroad) possiblyaccounts for this specific profile.

Consumers in segments 3 and 4 have most confidence inIslamic institutions with Islamic idealists displaying avery low confidence in Belgian institutions. Only Islamicsources are trusted to provide them with information abouthalal meat. They feel positive about the wholesomenessand safety of halal meat and perceive relatively little barri-ers for eating halal meat resulting in the highest meat con-sumption. Together, these consumers form 60% of thehalal meat market. Both segments buy halal meat almostexclusively at the Islamic butcher, however, Confidentconsumers reveal the relatively highest purchasing fre-quency at the abattoir and farm. Price could be drivingthese consumers towards short distribution channels, how-ever earlier research revealed other motivations on top ofprice such as information about safety and, even moreimportant, personal reassurance about the halal status ofthe meat:

The problem when buying at an Islamic butcher is thelack of quality and halal guarantee. Hence, many Mus-lims buy sheep or chickens to slaughter themselves to besure it has been ritually slaughtered (verbatim from:Bonne & Verbeke, 2006).

Finally, the Islamic idealists are the youngest andhave the highest Muslim identity. They display the mostextreme responses towards trust in institutions and infor-mation sources: they feel extremely positive about Islamicinstitutions and sources and extremely bad about Belgian


institutions and non-Islamic sources. These findings con-firm the conclusion that the conception of halal has becomesymbolic and emotional on top of religious, particularlyamong young Muslims (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2006). Theyform an important market segment, since they representa substantial part of the future generation purchasing halalmeat.

Next to distinguishing different segments, the main con-clusion is that Islamic institutions and especially the Isla-mic butcher are best placed in Muslim consumersopinions for managing the control of and communicationabout halal meat. Exploratory research with Muslim con-sumers in Belgium has already concluded that the Islamicbutcher is most trusted for information about the halal sta-tus, whereas halal-labelled meat in supermarkets is oftendistrusted. One female respondent of the second generationproposed to establish a halal corner in the supermarket(Bonne & Verbeke, 2006):

Even if halal meat was offered in the supermarket, Iwould not trust it. I have heard from people workingin meat factories that it is not really halal meat. Theywould really have to convince me that the meat is halal,perhaps by putting a Muslim butcher behind the halalmeat counter in the supermarket.

Social capital theory indeed states that individuals whoare closer in social status or who have similar personal cap-ital are more likely to trust one another (Glaeser, Laibson,Scheinkman, & Soutter, 2000). For example, individualswho were raised with a particular religious tradition placemore trust in others raised within the same religious tradi-tion. These findings result in the Islamic butcher being themost important place of purchase for halal meat. Buying atthe Islamic butcher is exemplary for behaviour where prod-uct authenticity and trust are mediated through personalinteraction, which was defined as relational trust by Kjaer-nes and Dulsrud (1998). Our results also confirm the con-clusions from Becker, Benner, and Glitsch (2000) thatfamiliar butchers, with whom consumers have personalcontact, are by far the most trusted source for informationon the credence characteristics of meat. These results alsocorroborate findings from Krystallis, Chryssochoidis, andScholderer (2007) that the choice of traditional channelsresulting in a personal relation with the butcher togetherwith the use of intrinsic quality cues by Greek consumerscan be understood as efforts to decrease risk related tothe purchasing decision. Furthermore, our findings are inline with Kjaernes, Warde, Lavik, and Harvey (2005) sug-gestion that when institutional trust fails social networksbecome very important within certain cultural settings.Finally, Gellynck, Verbeke, and Vermeire (2006) concludedthat private or voluntary initiatives of meat chain partici-pants are the most appropriate with respect to monitoringprocess attributes.

In general, Muslims relate positively to the safety andwholesomeness of halal meat. However, Indifferent and

Concerned consumers are slightly worried about lackof control, information and hygiene. They could be assuredby information which is available at the point of purchasefor example, which is reflected by the fact that they mostlybuy meat at the Islamic butcher. According to Shaw (2003),the public does not always make food-related decisionsthat are safe. In some cases, other factors such as tradition,habit, pleasure or financial constraints, may be more sali-ent features of decision-making besides risk. Exploratoryresearch showed that although some consumers do nothave a solid confidence in their butcher with respect tohygiene and safety, they feel not to have any valuable alter-native (Bonne & Verbeke, 2006). A female respondentdeclared that:

. . . during summer when the butcher goes on holiday,halal meat availability is a problem. I am then obligedto buy meat at that one butcher who is open, even if Iknow the meat is not fresh and the hygienic conditionsare unacceptable.

In the case of halal meat, meat offered by a Muslim isalways to be trusted even when information about the halalstatus is not directly available (Benkheira, 2002). It is aMuslims responsibility to ensure procuring only halalmeat, and, if the meat appears to be haram this is thebutchers responsibility towards God. Furthermore, withrespect to the wholesomeness of halal meat, previousresearch has shown that intrinsic quality attributes suchas colour, freshness and smell are used as quality evalua-tion cues before making the purchase decision (Bonne &Verbeke, 2006).

Nevertheless, Muslims are increasingly requesting ahalal label informing and assuring them about the statusand the wholesomeness of halal meat:

There should be a halal label controlled by an officialinstitution in order to prevent fraud which is probablythe case now said a young male respondent of the sec-ond generation during the previous qualitative research(verbatim from: Bonne & Verbeke, 2006).

Especially second or third generation Muslims arebreaking with the shopping habits of their parents basedon an established personal relationship with the Islamicbutcher. In accordance with non-Muslims, they look afterconvenience shopping and want to be guided by labellinginformation (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2006). A female respon-dent of the second generation in Belgium said to desireboth: tradition and convenience in shopping, herewithreferring to the desire of having availability of halallabelled meat in supermarkets (Bonne & Verbeke, 2006).Research has shown that demand for more informationand use of labels is especially true for consumers concernedwith safety and nutrition or health issues (Bernues, Olaizo-la, & Corcoran, 2003). Once a label has gained consumerconfidence, it can also become the basis for inference mak-ing i.e. other quality dimensions, in addition to what the


label stands for, can be inferred based on the label. Muslimconsumers already perceive halal meat as being healthierand tastier (Bonne & Verbeke, 2006), hence, a trusted halalquality label could signal experience and credence attri-butes of halal meat and become a search attribute whenpurchasing halal meat at the butcher shop or in thesupermarket.

This study faces some limitations with respect to the sam-pling procedure and sample characteristics and thereforegeneralisation to the entire Muslim population in Belgiumand abroad remains speculative. Nevertheless, these insightsprovided in the market structure with relation to trust andconfidence, could be beneficiary for policy makers or privatecertifying organisations whose aim might be to establish asupervisory mechanism for the halal meat chain. Further-more, communication strategies for halal meat may con-sider using the most trusted sources to target particularMuslim consumer segments. Further research is recom-mended to investigate Muslims risk perception towardshalal meat consumption and also their need, acceptanceand willingness to pay for a halal label, as well as to assess(the reasons for) differences and similarities between Mus-lim and non-Muslim meat consumers. Finally, more quali-tative research is recommended to provide specific insightsin halal meat consumption which are difficult to assess usingquantitative research methods for example the role of socialpressure on halal meat consumption, or on the degree ofpersonal responsibility of Muslim consumers towards fol-lowing religious dietary prescriptions.

References

Ababou, M. (2005). The impact of age, generation and sex variables onreligious beliefs and practices in Morocco. Social Compass, 52(1),3144.

Andersen, E. S. (1994). The evolution of credence goods: A transactionapproach to product specification and quality control. MAPP workingpaper No. 21. Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business.

BBC News. (2005). Muslims in Europe: Country guide. Accessed 16October 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm.

Becker, T., Benner, E., & Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perception of freshmeat quality in Germany. British Food Journal, 102(3), 246266.

Benkheira, M. H. (2002). Le rite a la lettre. Regime carne et normesreligieuses. In P. Bonte, A.-M. Brisebarre, & A. Gokalp (Eds.),Sacrifices en islam. Espaces et temps dun rituel (pp. 6393). Paris:CNRS Editions.

Bergeaud-Blacker, F. (2001). Les marches de viande halal en Aquitaine.Bordeaux: Aquibev, Ministere de lAgriculture DGAL.

Bergeaud-Blackler, F. (2004). Le chevillard et le sacrificateur: la viandehalal entre logiques economiques, legales et religieuses. In S. Taussig &C. Fleury (Eds.), Lislam en France (pp. 537545). Paris: PressesUniversitaires de France.

Bergeaud-Blackler, F. (2005). De viande halal a halal food: comment lehalal sest developpe en France. Revue Europeenne de MigrationsInternationales, 21(3), 125147.

Bergeaud-Blackler, F. (2006). Halal: dune norme communautaire a unenorme institutionnelle. Journal des Anthropologues: Des Normes aBoire et a Manger(106/107), 77103.

Bergeaud-Blackler, F., & Bonne, K. (2007). Dune consommationoccasionnelle a un regime halal: quelles consequences sur la sante.Migrations Sante, 129(1).

Bernues, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003). Labelling informationdemanded by European consumers and relationships with purchasingmotives, quality and safety of meat. Meat Science, 65, 10951106.

Bonne, K., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Muslim consumers attitude towardsmeat consumption in Belgium: insights from a means-end chainapproach. Anthropology of Food, 5, 124.

Bonne, K., Vermeir, I., Bergeaud-Blackler, F., & Verbeke, W. (2007).Determinants of halal meat consumption in France. British FoodJournal, 109(5), 367386.

Bonne, K. & Verbeke, W. (in press). Religious values informing halal meatproduction and the control and delivery of halal credence quality.Agriculture and Human Values, doi:10.1007/s104600-007-9076-y.

Bousetta, H., & Marechal, B. (2004). Lislam et les musulmans en Belgique.Enjeux locaux & cadres de reflexion globaux. Brussels: KoningBoudewijnstichting.

Bruns, K., Fjord, T. A., & Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers foodchoice and quality perception. MAPP working paper No. 77. Aarhus:The Aarhus School of Business.

Buijs, F. J. & Rath, J. (2006). Muslims in Europe. The state of research.IMISCOE working paper. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Canadian International Markets Bureau. (2001). Rapport sur le marchedes produits alimentaires halal. Montreal: Bureau des marchesinternationaux, Direction generale des services a lindustrie et auxmarches, Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada.

Darby, M., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amountof fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 6788.

De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Kenhove, P. (1994). Marktonderzoek. Methodenen toepassingen. Garant Leuven: Apeldoorn.

Fiddes, N. (1992). Meat: A natural symbol. London/New York:Routledge.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). Whatdetermines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlyingpsychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473486.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Sheperd, R. (1998). The importance of initialattitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering infood production. Agriculture and Human Values, 15, 1530.

Frewer, L. J. (2000). Risk perception and risk communication about foodsafety issues. Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 3133.

Gellynck, X., Verbeke, W., & Vermeire, B. (2006). Pathways to increaseconsumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food. Meat Science,74, 161171.

Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000).Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 811846.

Goetz, M. (2003). Dietary acculturation, physical activity, and body imagein limited Resource Latino women in Northern Virginia. PhD thesis.Accessed 26 January 2006: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08062003-134752/unrestricted/thesis.pdf.

Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception anddemand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 369391.

Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regardto meat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149160.

Huffman, W., Rousu, M., Shogren, J., & Tegene, A. (2002). Who doconsumers trust for information: The case of genetically modifiedfoods? Working paper # 02015 IOWA State University Department ofEconomics. Ames: IOWA State University.

Hunter, B. T. (1997). More consumers ask: Is it kosher? ConsumersResearch Magazine, 80(4), 1015.

Hussaini, M. M. (1993). Halal Haram lists. Why they do not work?Accessed 23 August 2004: http://www.soundvision.com/info/halal-healthy/halal.list.asp.

Kjaernes, U. & Dulsrud, A. (1998). Consumption and mechanisms oftrust. Paper to the ESA subgroup. The sociology of consumption, 1617 September 1998, Milan, Italy.

Kjaernes, U., Warde, A., Lavik, R., & Harvey, M. (2005). Trust and theinstitutionalisation of food consumption. Paper presented at thebiannual meeting of the European Sociological Association, WorkingGroup of the Sociology of Consumption, 912 September 2005,Torun, Poland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s104600-007-9076-yhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08062003-134752/unrestricted/thesis.pdfhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08062003-134752/unrestricted/thesis.pdfhttp://www.soundvision.com/info/halalhealthy/halal.list.asphttp://www.soundvision.com/info/halalhealthy/halal.list.asp


Krystallis, A., Chryssochoidis, G., & Scholderer, J. (2007). Consumer-perceived quality in traditional food chains: The case of Greek meatsupply chain. Appetite, 48, 5468.

Limage, L. J. (2000). Education and Muslim identity: The case of France.Comparative Education, 36(1), 7394.

Liou, D., & Contento, I. R. (2001). Usefulness of psychosocial theoryvariables in explaining fat-related dietary behaviour in ChineseAmericans: Association with degree of acculturation. Journal ofNutrition Education, 33(6), 322331.

Meijboom, F. L. B., Visak, T., & Brom, F. W. A. (2006). From trust totrustworthiness: Why information is not enough in the food sector.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 427442.

Morrow, J. L., Hansen, M. H., & Person, A. W. (2004). The cognitive andaffective antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations.Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(1), 4864.

Ramdani, L. (2005). Supermarkten in Nederland en de halalmarkt; deontwikkelingen, de knelpunten en het perspectief [Supermarkets in theNetherlands: Developments, threats and perspectives]. Presentation atHalal Food Conference, December 2, 2005, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Riaz, M. N. (1999). Examining the halal market. Prepared Foods, 68(10),8185.

Riaz, M. N., & Chaudry, M. M. (2004). Halal food production. Florida:CRC Press.

Saint-Blancat, C. (2004). La transmission de lislam aupres des nouvellesgenerations de la diaspora. Social Compass, 51(2), 235247.

Shafie, S. & Othman, N. (2006). Halal certification: Internationalmarketing issues and challenges. Paper presented at IFSAM VIIIWorld Congress 2006, September 2830, Berlin, Germany.

Shaw, A. (2003). Public understanding of food risks: expert and lay views.FoodInfo Online. Accessed 29 January 2007: http://www.foodscience-central.com/fsc/ixid11831.

Simoons, F. J. (1994). Eat not this flesh. Food avoidances from prehistory tothe present. Madison/London: The University Wisconsin Press.

Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-Identity and the theory of plannedbehaviour: Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism.Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388399.

Verbeke, W., & Lopez, G. P. (2005). Ethnic food attitudes and behaviouramong Belgians and Hispanics living in Belgium. British Food Journal,107(11), 823840.

Weber, L., & Carter, A. (1998). On constructing trust: temporality, self-disclosure, and perspective-taking. International Journal of Sociologyand Social Policy, 18(1), 726.
http://www.foodsciencecentral.com/fsc/ixid11831http://www.foodsciencecentral.com/fsc/ixid11831Muslim consumer trust in halal meat status and control in BelgiumIntroductionReligious motives and meat consumptionScope and objectivesInternational halal food marketWhat makes meat halal?Role of trust in halal credence qualityMaterials and methodsSample and procedureMeasurement of constructsAnalyses proceduresEmpirical findingsExploratory factor solutionsMarket segmentationProfiling of the clustersTrust in information sources and institutionsHealth and safety perception and consumption barriersConsumption frequency and place of purchaseSocio-cultural and individual characteristicsDiscussion and conclusionReferences

Documents

MUslim Consumer Trust in Halal Meat Status and Control in Belgium