Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems

Recent policy developments in the area of livestock husbandry have suggested that, from the perspective of optimizing animal welfare, new animal husbandry systems should be developed that provide opportunities for livestock animals to be raised in environments where they are permitted to engage in “natural behavior.” It is not known whether consumers regard animal husbandry issues as important, and whether they differentiate between animal husbandry and other animal welfare issues. The responsibility for the development of such systems is allocated jointly between farmers, regulators, different actors in the food chain, and consumers. This research focuses on understanding consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the development and introduction of such systems, to ensure that they are acceptable to consumers as well as producers, regulators, and scientists. Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and animal husbandry practices were evaluated using quantitative consumer survey, which focused on two animal husbandry issues – farmed pigs and farmed fish. Following pilot work, 1000 representative Dutch consumers were sampled about their attitudes to either pig or fish husbandry. The results indicated that consumers think about animal welfare in terms of two broad categories related to their health and living environment, but do not think about welfare issues at a more detailed level. Greater concern was expressed about the welfare of pigs compared to fish. Consumer trust in labeling also emerged as an important issue, since consumers need to trust different food chain actors with responsibility for promoting animal welfare, and are reluctant to consider the details of animal husbandry systems. As a consequence, a transparent, enforceable, and traceable monitoring system for animal welfare friendly products is likely to be important for consumers.

[1]  J. Scholderer,et al.  The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy , 2003 .

[2]  J. Steenkamp Dynamics in consumer behavior with respect to agricultural and food products , 1996 .

[3]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. Effects of different information strategies , 2000 .

[4]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1993 .

[5]  Craig W. Trumbo,et al.  The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  R. Bennett,et al.  Moral Intensity and Willingness to Pay Concerning Farm Animal Welfare Issues and the Implications for Agricultural Policy , 2002 .

[7]  G. Rowe,et al.  Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda , 2004 .

[8]  M. Holbrook,et al.  The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty , 2001 .

[9]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Consumer perception, facts and possibilities to improve acceptability of health and sensory characteristics of pork. , 1999, Meat science.

[10]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey , 1999 .

[11]  W. Verbeke Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis , 2001 .

[12]  Richard Bennett,et al.  Farm animal welfare and food policy , 1997 .

[13]  L. Bredahl,et al.  Consumers» Cognitions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods. Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries , 1999, Appetite.

[14]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Credibility and trust in risk communication , 1991 .

[15]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[16]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Understanding public attitudes to technology , 1998 .

[17]  R Shepherd,et al.  What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  Richard Shepherd,et al.  Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics , 1997, Science, technology & human values.

[19]  Brian Salter,et al.  Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: The case of BSE , 2002 .

[20]  E. Kanis,et al.  Societal Concerns about Pork and Pork Production and Their Relationships to the Production System , 2003 .

[21]  J. Lassen,et al.  Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. , 2004, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[22]  J. Guy,et al.  Impact of Animal Welfare on Costs and Viability of Pig Production in the UK , 2003 .

[23]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[24]  Monika J.A. Schröder,et al.  The Role of Livestock Production Ethics in Consumer Values Towards Meat , 2002 .

[25]  Craig W. Trumbo,et al.  Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  M. Siegrist The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  Matthew T.G. Meulenberg,et al.  A Note on Modeling Consumer Reactions to a Crisis: The Case of the Mad Cow Disease , 2002 .

[28]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[29]  P. Sandøe,et al.  Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks , 2003, Appetite.

[30]  R. Fawaz,et al.  Swiss Market for Meat from Animal-Friendly Production – Responses of Public and Private Actors in Switzerland , 2003 .

[31]  J. Lassen,et al.  Ethics and genetic engineering – lessons to be learned from GM foods , 2002 .