Deceptive packaging and missing ingredients: on the effect of qualifying packaging information - ernährungs umschau
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Copyright!
Reproduction and dissemination – also partial – applicable to all media only
Science & Research | Original Contribution with written permission of Umschau Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.
Peer-Reviewed | Manuscript received: September 11, 2017 | Revision accepted: April 05, 2018
Deceptive packaging and missing
ingredients: on the effect of qualifying
packaging information
Ramona Weinrich, Christina Overbeck, Anke Zühlsdorf, Achim Spiller
and to avoid disappointment over
Abstract an unexpectedly low quantity. The
experiences of consumer advice cen-
In order to prevent false impressions given by visual packaging elements and to
tres indicate that consumers do nev-
provide legal protection, many manufacturers label food with qualifying verbal
ertheless make false estimations [3].
information, e.g. serving suggestion (“Serviervorschlag”) or fill quantity techni-
This article examines for the first
cally limited (“Füllhöhe technisch bedingt”). The precise wording of these desig-
time the influence of these two
nations is not stipulated by law. Scientific research on how this information is
common designations on consumer
understood and whether it changes product perception has not been available
perception and asks whether this
to date. This article examines consumer expectations from the perspective of con-
information provides meaningful
sumer research on perception psychology, based on an approximately represent-
guidance. In the subsequent section,
ative consumer survey. The study results show that consumer perception is not
the article provides a general classi-
significantly influenced by either of these verbal qualifications. They are therefore
fication of the relationship between
rather empty phrases providing legal protection than meaningful guidance for
visual and verbal presentation ele-
consumers. In light of the plethora of information and labels on food packaging,
ments from a market research per-
the benefit of these designations is therefore open to question.
spective. Finally, the article consid-
Keywords: food labelling, ingredient illustrations, serving suggestion, fill ers the two designations – “serving
quantity technically limited, consumer research suggestion” and “fill quantity tech-
nically limited” – and illustrates our
empirical findings.
Introduction and objective Consumer understanding
of packaging labels
Consumers often make food pur-
chasing decisions only in front of the Habitual purchasing behavior and
supermarket shelf [1]. Verbal and spontaneous purchasing decisions
visual packaging elements thereby are widespread in the food indus-
deliver important information about try. In the context of an extremely
the product [2]. To prevent false differentiated range of products,
product expectations arising from with approx. 170,000 items [4], the
Citation: visual impressions and to provide visual presentation of a product is a
Weinrich R, Overbeck C, Zühls- legal protection, food packaging is core marketing tool to trigger im-
dorf A, Spiller A (2018) Deceptive often presented with qualifying ver- pulse purchases. The design of the
packaging and missing ingre- bal specifications. The phrase “serv- front-of-package is seen as decisive,
dients: on the effect of qualifying ing suggestion” aims to e.g. indicate as it grabs attention in displays of
packaging information. that an ingredient is not contained goods on the shelf [5]. However,
Ernahrungs Umschau 65(7): in the form pictured. “Fill quantity perception times for packaging el-
120–125 technically limited” (UK close equiv- ements are extremely short. Con-
The English version of this alent = “this product is packaged sumers focus on the information
article is available online: to weight not volume”) aims to call on the product’s front-of-package
DOI: 10.4455/eu.2018.028 attention to a high proportion of on average no longer than 29–351
empty space within the packaging msec [6].
120 Ernaehrungs Umschau international | 7/2018
Copyright!
Reproduction and dissemination – also partial – applicable to all media only
with written permission of Umschau Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.
Images attract more attention, are In recent years, public criticism of sion is important for marketing
retained in consumers’ memories for unrealistic product presentations purposes, alongside color and de-
longer and convey more informa- has increased and food providers sign [24, 25]. A large packaging
tion than text during the same pe- have faced accusations of deception surface is more readily perceived
riod of observation [7]. They arouse [20, 21]. Not least in light of the by consumers, particularly if it is
emotions and associations [8] and food law banning deception (Regu- surrounded by small product pack-
thus make products appear more lation EU 1169/2011, art. 7, para. ages [23]. Even though fill quantity
attractive [9]. Visual perception is 1, LFGB § 11 [1]), the question must information is included on the food
dominant [10] and the influence of be asked as to what extent verbal packaging in kg, g, L or mL as part
visual appeal on purchasing behav- clarifications restrict the interpretive of mandatory information, con-
ior is amply documented by exist- possibilities of the visual appeal of sumers extrapolate the fill quantity
ing research [11]. When asked about packaging and qualify any poten- from the packaging size [26], and
the most important information on tial false impressions given by the less filled packaging is sometimes
the display side of food packaging, visual perception of packaging. The criticized [27].
consumers rate the product image consumer survey discussed below According to the German Weights
as crucial [12]. It is therefore to be delivers the first empirical findings and Measures Act, packaging must
expected that images, as well as the in response to this question, based “be designed and filled in such a
size of packaging, play an impor- on two relevant yet to date not re- way that it does not feign larger fill
tant role in the purchasing process. searched case groups. quantities than is contained within
Studies in the English-speaking it” (§7 para. 2 German Weights and
world above all illustrated the rel- Measures Act). Packaging which is
evance of attention-grabbing core “generally recognizably excessively
Consumer perception of
information placed on the front-of- elaborate in relation to content” is
qualifying verbal informa-
package, so consumers could grasp regarded as “deceptive packaging”
the nature of a food in a short time.
tion on food packaging [28]. A benchmark 30% limit is ap-
This information should therefore Case studies plied to the empty proportion in
be particularly reliable. Nutrition Consumers draw conclusions based accordance with an administrative
information [13], health-related in- on product images, including those guideline [29]. However, this reg-
formation [14], the food traffic light on processed ingredients, and are ulation does not affect packaging
system [15] and the impact of im- thereby also liable to draw the which includes an empty proportion
ages and brand names [9] should be wrong conclusions [22]. In order to as a result of technical necessity or
highlighted in particular. clarify which food is contained in for reasons of product quality [28].
Although the prominent influence the packaging, the product is often Against this backdrop, this survey
of visual packaging elements in shown in the context of use [23]. investigated the extent to which the
attracting attention can be consid- Other foods which are usually as- “fill quantity technically limited”
ered as established, the interaction sociated with consumption of the designation contributed to a realis-
between visual and verbal elements product are often pictured alongside tic estimation of the packaging con-
on food packaging is not much re- the product contained in the pack- tent in the event of a relatively high
searched. Broadly speaking, it is aging. empty proportion.
possible to narrow and direct the The “serving suggestion” desig-
recipient’s analysis of the image nation aims to indicate that the
by means of text [16]. In the field product/ingredient contained in the
Study design and
of product advertising, we often packaging is not in the form pic-
methodology
find dependencies between text and tured. In practice, this causes prob-
image, which provide reciprocal lems when it is unclear which of the The survey was a standardized,
substantiation, restriction, modi- pictured raw materials are included computer-assisted personal inter-
fication and extension of meaning and which could be prepared or con- view (CAPI) carried out with the
[17]. However, understanding the sumed alongside the food. help of a leading market research
correlation between text and image This study gathered ingredient ex- company in April/May 2014. 750
always requires interpretation by pectations for three sample prod- German consumers aged 16 and
consumers [18], which may differ ucts, on which the “serving sugges- above took part in the survey. Based
from that of the manufacturer. It tion” information was varied. on quotas for age, gender, income,
should be noted that the visual ap- The second product example focused place of residence and education, the
peal of text largely attracts the pri- on the designation “fill quantity sample approximately corresponded
mary attention of the observer [19]. technically limited”. The dimen- to the composition of the German
Ernaehrungs Umschau international | 7/2018 121
Copyright!
Reproduction and dissemination – also partial – applicable to all media only
Science & Research | Original Contribution with written permission of Umschau Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.
population.
Fictional examples were tested.
However, the dummy packaging
with conspicuous
illustrated was inspired by real ex- information
amples, about which consumers had
complained on the internet portal
www.lebensmittelklarheit.de.
“Serving suggestion”: influence
on ingredient expectation
The test subjects were asked to in-
dicate which of the illustrated in- with inconspicuous
information
gredients they expected to find in
Serviervorschlag
the product (list template) for three
sample products (pork stew, tofu
fricassee, fresh cheese with herbs),
Serviervorschlag
based on a five-level Likert scale (+2
= “yes, definitely” to -2 = “no, defi-
nitely not”).
The characteristics of the “serving
suggestion” designation were varied
in all examples (see • Figure 1 for
pork stew as an example). To this
end, the sample group was divided without serving
suggestion information
into three similar-sized subgroups
and each was faced with experi-
mentally modified dummy prod-
ucts (front-of-package); the “serv-
ing suggestion” designation was
displayed on the product packaging
either as clearly visible information
or as inconspicuous information. A
third variant presented packaging Fig. 1: Dummy products for the pork stew example product
without this information (• Fig- [study illustration]
Illustrations smaller than in original
ure 1).
These modified characteristics were
randomized, so that each subgroup
I think that the following ingredients are contained in this product:
was faced with three different va- Ich denke, dass folgende Zutaten in dem Produkt enthalten sind:
(yes, defijeden
(ja, auf nitely/yes)
Fall/ja)
riants. The series of examples were
also randomly questioned. withauffälligem
mit conspicuous information
Hinweis
22,2
Kartoffelpüree
mashed potatoes 19,6 mit
withunauffälligem
inconspicuousHinweis
information
19,8
ohne Hinweis
without Serviervorschlag
serving suggestion
“Fill quantity technically 38,2
information
Dem hier anonymisiert dargestellten
parsley
Petersilie 38,8
limited”: influence on consumer 36,1 The liegt
Fall ein konkretes
anonymized case Produkt zu-
illustrated
grunde, bei dem Pfifferlinge nicht
acceptance of voluminous here is based on an actual product
enthalten waren.
49,6 which did not include chanterelles.
packaging Pfifferlinge
chanterelles 50,2
55,4
The test subjects were shown an 63,5
image featuring a biscuit packet, as Champignons
white mushrooms 68,0
69,4
found on the supermarket shelf, and
98,8
adjacent to this the barely half-filled Schweinefleisch
pork in sauce 99,2
in Soße 99,2
inner bag. A split sample design was
0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %
also selected in this instance. Half of
the test subjects were presented with Fig. 2: Ingredient expectations for the pork stew example product
the “fill quantity technically limited” [study survey]
Data in % of all valid answers; five-level scale from “yes, definitely” to “no,
definitely not”.
122 Ernaehrungs Umschau international | 7/2018
Copyright!
Reproduction and dissemination – also partial – applicable to all media only
with written permission of Umschau Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.
information on the packaging (var-
iant A). The information was miss- I think product content in relation to packaging size is inappropriate/
entirely inappropriate
ing (variant B) for the second group.
All test subjects were asked to indi-
cate the extent to which the rela- Variante A
tionship between product content with “fill quantity technically limited”
and packaging size seemed appro- information
priate according to a five-level scale
(+2 = “entirely appropriate” to -2 83,6%
= “entirely inappropriate”).
Study results 20 40 60 80 100
“Serving suggestion”: influence
on ingredient expectation
85,2%
The results for “Hunter’s Pork Stew”
are illustrated below as an example
(• Figure 2). This sample is based on Variante B
a real product which did not con- without “fill quantity technically limited”
tain chanterelles, mashed potatoes information
or parsley. As a result of inspection
of the front-of-package alone, be- Fig. 3: C
omparison of consumer perception of fill quantity with and
tween 49.6% and 55.4% (• Figure 2; without the “fill quantity technically limited” information
[study survey]
μ1 = 0.5, μ2 = 0.6, μ3 = 0.7)1 falsely Data in % of all valid answers, five-level scale from “entirely appropriate” to
estimated that chanterelles were an “entirely inappropriate”
ingredient contained in the product;
the “serving suggestion” informa-
tion corrected this false estimation enced by the “serving suggestion” Discussion
only slightly and not significantly. information, and expectations of
In the case of parsley, many re- the presence of the food pictured Although there are many studies on
spondents were “unsure” whether were not significantly altered. The labels and health information, other
parsley was included (μ1 = 0.1, μ2 = prominence of the placing of the in- food packaging designations are
0.2, μ3 = 0.1). Most assumed that formation did not significantly alter much less researched. The “serving
mashed potatoes were not included the test subjects’ estimation. suggestion” and “fill quantity tech-
(μ1 = -0.8, μ2 = -0.7, μ3 = -0.7). nically limited” references are not
In these cases, the ingredient expec- regulated by food legislation, but
“Fill quantity technically
tations of the subgroups did not are widely implemented in practice,
limited”: influence on consumer
significantly differentiate (post-hoc in order to comply with the fraud
acceptance of voluminous
tests). prevention inscribed in food legis-
packaging
lation. There has been no investiga-
Overall, the three sample products The dummy products and results are tion to date on whether the potential
used show that side dishes (mashed shown in • Figure 3. The respondents for deception in food packaging can
potatoes, rice, bread) tend not to be felt that the large empty space in the be lessened through the inclusion of
expected in products. In contrast, if biscuit packaging was inappropriate. such information. This representa-
ingredients are pictured whose use The “fill quantity technically limited” tive consumer survey has found no
is commonly associated with the information did not significantly alter significant differences in perception
product, a significant proportion consumer acceptance. In comparison, among consumers. The proportion
of consumers expect these to be in- both groups made an almost identi- of false expectations relating to in-
cluded. cal estimation of the relationship be- gredients included and the percep-
The results barely differ between tween the packaging size and content tion of a gap between packaging
the sample subgroups in all the ex- (A: μ = -1.2; B: μ = -1.3). Mean com-
amples. The perception of product parisons (t-tests) show no significant
images was not significantly influ- differences between the groups. µ = mean value
1
Ernaehrungs Umschau international | 7/2018 123
Copyright!
Reproduction and dissemination – also partial – applicable to all media only
Science & Research | Original Contribution with written permission of Umschau Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.
size and content remained almost tions relating to included ingredi- References
constant for the tested variants with ents or fill quantity, hold conflict
and without printed information. potential. The customer satisfaction 1. W artella EA, Lichtenstein AY, Nathan R.
These results indicate that the over- survey stresses fairness as a core Front-of-package nutrition rating systems
all impression of packaging is dom- factor [32]. In this respect, it is in and symbols: promoting healthier choices.
inated by visually prominent design the interests of manufacturers to be Washington (2011)
features, such as product images or careful not to give rise to unfulfilled 2. B rassington F, Pettitt S. Principles of mar-
dimensions. The correction of mis- expectations as a result of packag- keting. 4. Aufl., Pearson Education Limited,
taken impressions by the inclusion ing design. Even if the information Harlow (1997)
of this verbal qualification seems tested may provide successful legal 3. H örmann G. Aktivitäten und Erfahrungen
questionable. protection for the manufacturer, der Verbraucherverbände. In: BMELV (Hg).
Basically, larger information on which must remain unanswered as Fachtagung Täuschungsschutz bei Lebens-
packaging grabs more attention, as to our knowledge there have been mitteln. Erfahrungen. Herausforderungen.
it is perceived as more important no related judgements, it does not Lösungsansätze vom 27. und 28. November
[23, 30]. 60% of German consum- contribute to customer satisfaction. 2012 in Berlin: 58–61. URL: www.bmel.de/
ers also complain of too small writ- SharedDocs/Downloads/Ernaehrung/Kenn
ing on packaging [31]. At the same zeichnung/Tagungsband-Taeuschungs
Limitations
time, in our study, the more prom- schutz-bei-Lebensmitteln.pdf?__blob=publi
inent variants with larger text, bold The study is an initial investigation cationFile Zugriff 12.06.18
type and high-contrast placing in on these two subjects. The explora- 4. B MEL. Initiative Klarheit und Wahrheit
the field of vision did not lead to sig- tive nature of the study must thus bei der Kennzeichnung und Aufmachung
nificant differences in ingredient ex- be regarded as a limitation; hence, von Lebensmitteln. Handlungsbedarf, Ziele
pectation in relation to the “serving for example, questions sometimes und Maßnahmen. Stand: Juni 2015. URL:
suggestion” information. Whether a referred to expectations, and some- www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Er-
further increase in the prominence times to the fulfilment of expecta- naehrung/KlarheitUndWahrheitInitiative
of the lettering would have pro- tions. Further examples should also Zusammenstellung.pdf?__blob=publication
duced different results must remain be investigated where applicable. A File Zugriff 12.06.18
unanswered at this point. In prac- further study could also carry out 5. H arith ZT, Ting CH, Zakaria NNA (2014)
tice, however, there are limits to the target group analysis to find out Coffee packaging: consumer perception on
attention-grabbing highlighting of more about differences among pop- appearance, branding and pricing. Int Food
such information from a marketing ulation groups. Res J 21: 849–853
perspective. 6. G röppel-Klein A, Königstorfer J (2013) Nu-
In addition to perceptibility, under- trition information and consumer behaviour
standing of the information is im- Dr. Ramona Weinrich1, 2 at the point-of-sale. In: Scholderer J, Brunsø
Christina Overbeck3
portant. Both of these widespread K (Hg). Marketing, food and the consumer.
Dr. Anke Zühlsdorf4
and standardized formulations may Prof. Dr. Achim Spiller3
Festschrift für Klaus Grunert: 173–188
be unclear, e.g. because it remains 1
Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale 7. N öth W. Der Zusammenhang von Text und
open as to which of the pictured Entwicklung, Lehrstuhl Betriebswirtschaftslehre Bild. In: Brinker K, Antos G, Heinemann W,
ingredients are referred to or what des Agribusiness, Zentrum für Biodiversität Sager S (Hg). Text- und Gesprächslinguistik.
und Nachhaltige Landnutzung
is actually indicated by a technical- De Gruyter, Berlin (2000), S. 489–496
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
ly-limited fill quantity. However, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen
8. Kroeber-Riel W, Esch FR. Strategie und Tech-
manufacturers have also adopted 2
ramona.weinrich@uni-goettingen.de nik der Werbung. 7. Aufl., Kohlhammer,
innovative approaches which pres- 3
Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Stuttgart (2011)
ent a graphic image of the actual fill Entwicklung, Lehrstuhl für Marketing für Le- 9. Underwood RL, Klein NM (2002) Packaging
bensmittel und Agrarprodukte
quantity. as brand communication: effects of product
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Irrespective of the question as to Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen
pictures on consumer responses to the pack-
whether packaging is misleading 4
Zühlsdorf + Partner age and brand. Journal of Marketing Theory
in the legal sense, providers should Philipp-Oldenbürger-Weg 27, 37083 Göttingen and Practice 10: 58–68
examine their approach to packag- 10. Esch FR, Gawlowski D, Rühl V (2012) Er-
ing design. The overall impression lebnisorientierte Kommunikation sinnvoll
of packaging is decisively shaped gestalten und managen. In: Brauer H, Hein-
by visual elements; there are strict Conflict of Interest rich D, Samak M (Hg). Erlebniskommunika-
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
limits to verbal corrections. Disap- tion: Erfolgsfaktoren für die Marketingpra-
pointed customers, who, in light of xis. Springer, Berlin (2012), S. 13–30
the packaging, make false associa- 11. G aile-Sarkane E, Andersone I (2008) Con-
124 Ernaehrungs Umschau international | 7/2018Copyright!
Reproduction and dissemination – also partial – applicable to all media only
with written permission of Umschau Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden.
sumer behavior changing: methods of evalu- (1971)
ation. Trends of economics and management 24. D raskovic N, Temperley J, Pavicic J (2009)
III: 63–71 Comparative perception(s) of consumer
12. Z ühlsdorf A, Spiller A. Verbraucherwahr- goods packaging: Croatian consumers´ per-
nehmung von Lebensmittelverpackungen. spective(s). IJMC (10): 154–163
Ergebnisbericht des Projekts „Repräsentative 25. H ansen U, Hennig-Thurau T, Schrader
Verbraucherbefragungen im Rahmen des U. Produktpolitik ein kunden- und ge-
Projektes ‚Lebensmittelklarheit 2.0‘“. Göt- sellschaftsorientierter Ansatz. Schäffer-
tingen (2015) Poeschel, Stuttgart (2001)
13. H ersey JC, Wohlgenant KC, Arsenault JE et 26. G arber LL, Hyatt EM, Boya ÜÖ (2009) The
al. (2013) Effects of front-of-package and effect of package shape on apparent volume:
shelf nutrition labeling systems on consum- an exploratory study with implications for
ers. Nutr Rev 71: 1–14 package design. Journal of Marketing The-
14. W ansink B, Sonka ST, Hasler CM (2004) ory and Practice 17: 215–234
Front-label health claims: when less is 27. V erbraucherzentrale Hamburg (2015) Rönt-
more. Food Policy 29: 659–667 genbilder enthüllen Luft in Verpackungen.
15. R oberto CA, Bragg MA, Schwartz MB et al. Stichprobe der Verbraucherzentrale Ham-
(2012) Facts up front versus traffic light burg auf Basis von Verbraucherbeschwerden.
food labels. Am J Prev Med 43: 134–141 URL: www.vzhh.de/ernaehrung/403541/
16. M c Quarrie EF, Mick DG (1999) Visual vzhh_Luftpackungen_Roentgen_Juni
rhetoric in advertising: text-interpretive, 2015aktualisiert.pdf Zugriff 31.08.15
experimental, and reader-response analyses. 28. S trecker A, Ernst T, Liebegall A et al. Kom-
J Consumer Res 26: 37–54 mentar Fertigpackungsrecht. IV Eingesetzt –
17. S töckl H. Textstilistische und semiotische Kommentar (zum Bereich Fertigpackungen).
Untersuchungen zu ausgesuchten Wer- § 7 Abs. 1 EichG. 119. Aktualisierungsliefe-
be-Text/Bildkommunikaten unter besonderer rung. Behr‘s Verlag, Hamburg (2014)
Berücksichtigung der Bild/Textverknüpfung. 29. Z ipfel W, Rathke KD, Sosnitza O. Lebens-
Dissertation, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität mittelrecht. EichG § 7. Rn. 35-43. Richtli-
Jena, Jena (1995) nien und Empfehlungen für die Beurteilung
18. Sokolowski A (2002) Zusammenhang von von Fertigpackungen als Mogelpackung.
Schrift und Bild in der Anzeigenwerbung 140. Ergänzungslieferung. Verlag C.H.Beck,
von LEE-Jeans. In: Linguistik-Server Essen. München (2014)
URL: www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/esel/pdf/ 30. D eutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (Hg).
lee.pdf Zugriff 12.06.18 Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte: Kom-
19. Baumgarten D (2011) Zur Semiotik von Bild binierte Warnhinweise aus Bild und Text auf
und Text in Werbeanzeigen: Wo genau liegt Tabakprodukten. Heidelberg (2009). URL:
der Werbetext? Wiener Linguistische Gazette www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/down
(76) A/2012: 153–167 load/Publikationen/RoteReihe/Kombi
20. B MELV (Hg). Fachtagung Täuschungs- nierte_Warnhinweise_Band_10.pdf Zugriff
schutz bei Lebensmitteln. Erfahrungen. 12.06.18
Herausforderungen. Lösungsansätze. Berlin 31. S GS Germany GmbH. SGS-Verbraucherstu-
(2013) die 2014. Vertrauen und Skepsis: Was leitet
21. S piller A, Zühlsdorf A, Nitzko S (2014) die Deutschen beim Lebensmitteleinkauf?
Lebensmittelkennzeichnung und Verbrau- Hamburg (2014)
chervertrauen. Zugleich eine Erwiderung auf 32. S zymanski DM, Henard DH (2001) Cus-
den Beitrag von Dr. Almut Pflüger in ZLR tomer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the
3/2014. ZLR (5/2014): 523–539 empirical evidence. J Acad Mark Sci 29:
22. N eumayer W (2012) Irreführung durch 16–35
Produktabbildungen und hervorhebende
Bezeichnungen. Ernährung/Nutrition 36:
34–39
DOI: 10.4455/eu.2018.028
23. K oppelmann U (1971) Grundlagen der Ver-
packungsgestaltung – Ein Beitrag zur mar-
ketingorientierten Produktforschung. Neue
Wirtschafts-Briefe GmbH, Herne/Berlin
Ernaehrungs Umschau international | 7/2018 125You can also read
