Content uploaded by Richard Tranter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Tranter on Jul 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
ISSN: 0798-1759 This journal is blind refereed.
CONSUMPTION OF WELFARE-FRIENDLY FOOD PRODUCTS IN
GREAT BRITAIN, ITALY AND SWEDEN, AND HOW IT MAY BE
INFLUENCED BY CONSUMER ATTITUDES TO, AND BEHAVIOUR
TOWARDS, ANIMAL WELFARE ATTRIBUTES
L. E. MAYFIELD
R. M. BENNETT
R. B. TRANTER*
M. J. WOOLDRIDGE
University of Reading
Introduction
here is increasing concern amongst consumers regarding the quality and safety
of the food that they buy. Some of this is the result of food scares such as
bovine spongiform encephalopathy/variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (BSE),
foot and mouth disease, salmonella and, more recently, avian influenza. These
phenomena, together with ethical concerns, cause consumers to reflect upon the
welfare of the farm animals from which the food they consume is produced.
The issue of animal welfare is increasingly being seen as important throughout
the developed world, not least within the European Union (EU). Concern about the
welfare of farm animals within the EU, shown by various surveys (e.g. European
Commission 2007; Kjaernes et al. 2007), has been reflected by the increasing amount
of farm animal welfare legislation and policy initiatives (see, for example, CEC,
2006).
The ethical debate concerning the interrelationships between man and animals,
the use of animals, and the obligations that man may have towards them, has been
ongoing since at least the writings of philosophers such as Aristotle, through those
such as Jeremy Bentham (1789) to those more recently in the 20th and 21st centuries
such as Peter Carruthers (1992), Tom Regan (1985), Bernard Rollin (1992), Peter
Singer (1975) and others. Degrazia (1999) provides a useful review of the recent
debate, whilst Bennett et al. (2002) provides a very brief history within an
introductory page. The debate has focused on the moral standing of animals, whether
and to what extent they might have (or be accorded) rights, and whether their
suffering should be taken into account within a societal value framework. A pluralistic
approach, incorporating a wide range of considerations from different perspectives
has emerged, including reference to animal welfare science and questions concerning
animal cognition and sentience (Fraser 2000).
The principles of utilitarianism are of particular relevance in this regard.
Utilitarianism comes in many forms and not just ‘the greatest good to the greatest
number’. It forms a basis for ethical argument used by many writers, at least since
Bentham (1789) and, indeed, underpins some social science disciplines, notably
economics. The famous ‘equal consideration of interests’ (Singer 1989) is based on
* School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AR, United
Kingdom. r.b.tranter@reading.ac.uk
T
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
60
the utilitarian ethic strengthened by the scientific work on sentience by scientists such
as Rollin (1995) and Dawkins (1980 &1998) amongst others.
Here, the utilitarian principle is considered further in relation to consumer
information on animal welfare. In understanding consumer behaviour, economists
have put forward a simple model whereby consumers can be thought of as trying to
maximise their utility from consumption. They choose to consume food and other
products on the basis of the utility that they derive (or expect to derive) from that
consumption, balanced against the ‘disutility’ of parting with their money in order to
obtain those products through the market system (e.g. Lancaster 1966; Bennett 1997).
Within this model, animal welfare can be seen as an unsought ‘externality’ of the
production and consumption of animal products (meat, milk, eggs etc.) (Bennett
1995). The form that this externality takes depends on the perceptions of consumers.
Many may experience a cognitive dissonance (Reber 1984) that their consumption of
animal products is associated with animal suffering, which for them may be a source
of disutility and may reduce the satisfaction (net utility) that they derive from
consuming animal products. Thus, their welfare is reduced. For many, this provides
sufficient disincentive to the consumption of animal products that they cease such
consumption altogether and become vegetarian or vegan - 5-7% of adults in the UK,
3-4% of adults in Sweden and some 8% in Italy (Vegetarian Society 2006; Szatek
2003; Miele et al. 2004).
The utilitarian argument brings into question the merits of providing greater
information to consumers about animal production methods, a policy suggested by
many policy makers within the EU as a means of generating ‘demand pull’ to improve
the welfare of animals. Consumers may be blissfully unaware of the suffering of
animals associated with the products they consume and derive high levels of utility
from their consumption. Information on production methods may reduce consumers’
utility (for the reasons discussed above) and thus their overall welfare. From a human
utilitarian position this is not desirable, at least in the short run. In the longer term, the
argument is that with appropriate information on animal welfare, consumers can then
demand the products with the animal welfare attributes that they want and so better
satisfy their preferences and improve their welfare. In addition, if animal utility also
becomes part of the equation (either in its own right or as a function of human utility),
this further strengthens the argument for improved consumer information on animal
welfare and improved consumer choice (see Bennett 1995 for a more detailed
theoretical exposition).
However, this argument assumes that (i) appropriate information on animal
welfare is provided to consumers and (ii) the market mechanism works satisfactorily
to service consumer preferences for animal welfare. Transaction costs theory (Coase,
1984) suggests that if the costs of sourcing animal welfare friendly food products are
high (i.e. the time and travel costs involved in searching for and finding such products
in food stores), then consumers will be less likely to buy them, since these costs are in
addition to the cost of the products themselves.
This paper uses data collected in a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview
survey of approximately 1500 consumers to further explore the above questions in
each of seven European countries as part of the EU-funded Welfare Quality research
project to ascertain consumer attitudes to, and behaviour regarding, the animal welfare
attributes of food in three of these countries: Italy, Great Britain (GB) and Sweden
(Kjaernes et al. 2007). The survey interviews, which lasted some 20 minutes, were
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
61
ISSN: 0798-1759
carried out by TNS Global between 12-27 September 2005 using Random Digit
Dialling. The interviewees were selected at random from people aged 18-80 using the
‘first birthday rule’ for the household. For each country, the data obtained were
weighted by region, sex, age, household and population size according to official
national census statistics. The questionnaire, which contained no open-ended
questions, was drawn up following a series of focus groups and then trialled in a pilot
survey. Telephone interviews were chosen for cost and time reasons over face-to-face
interviews. However, the disadvantage of telephone interviews is that they have to be
fairly short and that there is little chance of spontaneity in answering (Kjaernes et al.
2007). As the response rate varied only marginally from country to country, and
question to question, and the variation was too small to affect the overall results, the
responses to each question are expressed in this paper on a percentage basis for
comparative purposes.
To test for the statistical significance of differences between the results for the
different countries, log linear models were created using the statistical package SAS,
and Chi-squared tests performed, the significance of which are shown alongside the
results tables, where appropriate, later in the paper. These not only tested the
difference between the different countries for each question but, also, for the
questions where the answers were on a sliding scale, a proportional odds version of
the model was used to examine if there was any difference between the countries
along the whole trend of the scale. As is usual in scientific practice, *** are listed
where the difference is likely not to be by chance is less than 0.1%, ** where this
difference is likely to be between 0.1%and 1%, and * where this difference is likely to
be between 1% and 5%.
Current Consumption of Livestock Products
In order to compare and discuss the results of the survey, it is useful to examine the
actual differences in consumption of livestock products across the three study
countries at around the time of the survey. Table 1 illustrates these levels and changes
in consumption of livestock products per capita. The first thing of note is the high
overall consumption of meat in Italy with an average consumption per person per year
of over 73 kg. Average consumption is next highest in the UK with 65.4 kg, followed
by Sweden with 39.2 kg. However, the average consumption in Sweden has been
rising considerably, thought to be due to an increase in cheaper imported meats
(Pettersson and Bergman 2004). The three countries also show very different trends.
In the UK, it is the consumption of poultry that is very high and this has increased
substantially over the last 8 years. In Sweden, beef consumption has doubled, as a
result of cheap beef imports. Consumption of meat in Italy has remained much more
constant, although a slight increase in pork, and a reduction in beef is shown. Egg
consumption in Italy is higher than the other two countries but, in all countries, it has
been fairly static. Milk consumption has decreased in all three countries, although
average per capita consumption is much higher in Sweden and the UK than in Italy.
The figures in Table 1 reflect the results from our survey, which show that the
British eat poultry the most frequently (82% more than weekly) followed by the
Italians (76%) and then the Swedes (51%). On the other hand, the Italians and
Swedes eat pork more frequently than the British and many more Italians eat beef at
least once a week compared to the other consumers.
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
62
Table 1. Meat and livestock product consumption per capita in Sweden, Italy and GB, 1994-2002
Beef
kg/cap
Pork
kg/cap
Poultry
kg/cap
Milk
l/cap
Eggs
kg/cap
Sweden
1994
6.8
12.0
7.7
146.0
10.8
1996
8.2
13.3
8.1
144.3
10.9
1998
9.0
15.7
8.9
142.0
11.0
2000
10.8
15.5
11.8
138.7
10.4
2002
11.0
14.4
13.8
141.5
9.1
Italy
1994
25.9
27.3
18.8
74.4
na
1996
23.6
28.1
19.3
76.8
13.9
1998
24.4
28.5
19.3
na
14.0
2000
24.5
30.1
18.5
64.5
13.8
2002
24.0
na
19.1
na
14.0
UK
1994
16.7
19.9
25.2
124.7
10.9
1996
12.7
19.5
27.2
123.0
10.8
1998
15.0
20.1
28.2
120.3
10.6
2000
16.0
19.8
29.0
118.7
10.6
2002
16.7
20.0
28.7
na
12.5
Source: Bennett and Yee (2004); The Dairy Council (2002); Miele et al. (2004); Petersson and
Bergman (2004).
In all study countries, figures on how much welfare-friendly produce is
purchased are difficult to source, as few products are labeled specifically with animal
welfare standards. In GB, there is really only one specific animal welfare label, which
is the RSPCA Freedom Foods but it does not appear to be widely recognized or
available, and accounts for a very small proportion of animal product sales. The
Freedom Foods Scheme supplies around 2% of the livestock product market in the
UK and free-range eggs account for 15% or so of egg consumption in the UK, whilst
barn/perchery eggs constitute around a further 5% (Bennett and Yee 2004; Mayfield
et al. 2005). In Sweden, the main ‘ecological’ labels, Krav and Swedish Seal, have
animal welfare components but are mainly about the environment and healthiness of
the food. Similarly, in Italy, there has been an increase in the range of food with
animal welfare labels but the labels do not refer specifically to animal welfare but
type of production system (i.e. outdoor or extensive methods of production) (Miele et
al. 2004). However, in all three countries, there has been an increase in the
consumption of organic livestock products, for which animal welfare concerns may
have a part to play. In Sweden, this is particularly so in the sales of organic beef,
organic pork and organic eggs. In GB, it is organic eggs, organic poultry and organic
dairy products and, in Italy, organic eggs, organic dairy and organic beef products. In
GB, although the size of the market for organic food products is quite small, at some
1.3% of all food products sold (Soil Association 2006) there has, nevertheless, been
significant growth in the aggregate value of the organic market in recent years. Within
the EU, the largest current market for organic food is Germany followed by Italy and
the UK (Soil Association 2006). However, these are all increases from very low
levels and still only account for a few percent of the total meat and livestock produce
consumed. Evidence from academic research indicates that animal welfare is only
one of the reasons why people purchase organic food. For example, in Sweden, the
reasons given for buying organic food rank animal welfare behind health and
environmental concerns (Pettersson and Bergman 2004).
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
63
ISSN: 0798-1759
Results
In the rest of this paper, we examine the results from our survey which looked at the
attitudes and behaviour of consumers towards animal welfare.
The importance of farm animal welfare to consumers
Table 2 shows that most consumers in each study country stated that animal welfare is
very important to them. Taking those who responded with a 4 or 5 to this question
together, we can see an overwhelming majority of consumers stated their belief of the
importance of animal welfare.
Table 2. How important to you in general is farm animal welfare?
Rank
1
(Not at all)
2
3
4
5
(Very)
%
%
%
%
%
χ2
Italy
2
2
9
10
77
88.05***
Great Britain
4
3
20
23
50
23.33***
Sweden
1
3
13
27
56
The chi-squared tests results indicate the level of significant difference (i.e. to
what probability level there is likely to be a difference between the trends in the three
countries) where one country (in this case Sweden) is taken as the benchmark. They
show that the difference between Sweden and the other two countries is very
significant at the *** level. Given the previous results, it is then interesting to see
(Table 3), that only about one half of those who think animal welfare very important,
would actually always think about farm animal welfare when they are buying meat.
This provides some support to the theory mentioned above that consumers who care
about animal welfare suffer cognitive dissonance from livestock product consumption
and so may prefer not to think about welfare when they are buying meat.
Table 3. How often do you think of farm animal welfare when buying meat?
Rank
1
(Never)
2
3
4
5
(Always)
%
%
%
%
%
χ2
Italy
16
12
18
13
41
5.36*
Great Britain
20
13
28
16
23
42.12**
Sweden
10
11
27
28
25
A series of questions regarding how much public benefit will be provided by
improved animal welfare showed that consumers overwhelmingly believed that good
animal welfare will improve the taste of meat, increase cows’ milk yield, benefit the
reputation of the consumers’ country, improve human health and not cost more to
apply than existing standards and so not put farmers out of business. Italian
consumers were shown to be considerably more positive about the public benefits of
good animal welfare than those in either Sweden or GB. This result provides
important confirmation that animal welfare friendly products have a number of
attributes (Lancaster 1966) in the minds of consumers with benefits beyond merely
increasing the utility (in the utilitarian sense) of animals.
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
64
Attitudes of consumers to animals in general
The questionnaire enabled the exploration of the general attitude of consumers to
animals through questions regarding issues such as whether animals feel pain, and
whether it is acceptable to kill animals for food. The answers show significant
national differences in such attitudes, particularly with regard to hunting.
In response to the question ‘Can animals feel pain?’, almost all the
respondents agreed. Most respondents also agreed that it was acceptable to kill farm
animals for food, the largest majority coming from Sweden. Those who disagreed
with the proposition were 6% in Italy, 6% in GB and 3% in Sweden which correlates
well with the number of vegetarians and vegans in these countries. However,
regarding the acceptability of hunting game animals for food, in Italy, 54% of
consumers believed that this was not acceptable, and only 14% believed that it was
acceptable. In GB, the result was more evenly balanced with 28% believing that the
proposition was unacceptable and 26% believing the opposite. However, in Sweden,
most consumers were strongly in favour of the proposition that hunting of game
animals for food is acceptable (63%) with only a few (4%) opposed. This may be
because in Sweden the hunting of game animals is not only a sport but is essential for
food acquisition purposes. This is not the case in GB or Italy, where hunting is almost
entirely carried out for sport or public health reasons. Furthermore, Sweden has large
wild game animals such as elk (Alces alces) of which up to 100,000 are hunted and
killed each year (Government Offices of Sweden 2006). These are not present in GB
or Italy.
There was general agreement amongst consumers in the study countries that it
is wrong to eat food from animals that have not had a ‘good life’. (What constitutes a
good life for animals was not explored in any detail, but there are clear links here to
utilitarian ethics.) This view found particular favour with consumers in Italy (57%)
but rather less so in GB (42%) and Sweden (37%). These results, while lower in all
three countries than the number of respondents answering a similar question on how
important, in general, animal welfare is to consumers (Table 2), nonetheless can be
seen as lending support to the underlying hypothesis that good standards of farm
animal welfare are important to consumers.
Consumers were then asked whether, when eating meat, they did not like to
think of it coming from a live animal. Not surprisingly perhaps, as implied by
comments made elsewhere, many Swedes appeared to be not at all concerned by this
factor (71%). British consumers were rather ambivalent with 40% neither strongly
agreeing nor disagreeing although a significant proportion (21%) said that they did
agree and disliked thinking of the meat they were eating coming from a living animal.
Italian consumers were rather more polarised in their views with sizeable groups
appearing to have little problem with thinking of meat as deriving from a living
animal (45%) but with a large minority (28%) who were concerned. Again, this
question lends a level of support to the theory that (some) consumers experience
cognitive dissonance from meat consumption due to their concerns about animal
welfare.
Consumers’ attitudes to different farming methods.
Consumers were asked how they felt about different farming methods. The survey
shows empirical evidence that consumers do distinguish between different farming
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
65
ISSN: 0798-1759
systems. One such example shows in the stated preference for free-range hen eggs.
When consumers were asked about their preferred type of hen egg, most of those in
GB (71%) and Sweden (65%) said that they usually chose free-range while 47% of
Italian consumers stated that free-range was their first choice. These results could
also be interpreted as evidence that consumer preference is for hens to spend at least
part of the year outdoors or, at the least, to be able to roam free from constraint.
However, it is interesting that the high proportion of those who state they usually buy
free-range eggs is not reflected in the national statistics of any of these three countries
of the proportion of free-range eggs actually purchased. In some cases, this may be
more a reflection of what consumers feel they ‘ought’ to be buying although, prior to
compulsory labelling of cage eggs within the EU, it was clear that many consumers
thought they were buying free-range eggs when they were not and, since this
labelling, the actual consumption of free-range eggs has increased substantially in the
UK (by around 100% since 1998 (Defra 2007).
The treatment of hens (Table 4) was regarded as very important by the
majority of consumers in all countries, with the highest majority being in Italy (77%),
followed by GB (64%) and Sweden (59%); these national differences were significant
at the ** level.
Table 4. How important is the treatment of hens and beef cattle?
Hens
Beef cattle
Very
Fairly
Not
Very
Fairly
Not
%
%
%
χ2
%
%
%
χ2
Italy
77
19
4
9.63**
79
17
4
12.51**
Great Britain
64
27
9
2.68
69
24
7
3.65
Sweden
59
34
7
71
26
3
The treatment of the animal (see Table 4) with regards to beef cattle, was
considered very important by 79% of the Italian respondents, 69% of the GB
respondents and 71% of the Swedish respondents and these national differences were
significant at the ** level. The slaughtering methods were also considered to be very
important by the majority although these majorities were smaller than those
considering general treatment i.e. Italians 62%, British 59% and Swedish 51%. The
question as to whether it is important to raise the animals outdoors for part of the year
was seen by more in Italy to be very important (78%), but less in GB (57%) and
Sweden (47%).
We also asked consumers how good they considered welfare conditions to be
in their own country for chickens, dairy cows and pigs (Table 5) and consumers in all
three countries considered the welfare conditions of hens to be the poorest. Swedish
consumers were the least negative which may be a reflection of the overall general
belief and trust they have in the standards existing in their country across all farming
systems. British consumers were the least positive about welfare conditions for hens.
However, the results are reversed for pigs, where British consumers were more
positive about pig welfare than consumers in the other countries. These results may
reflect the negative influence on public opinion of animal protection campaigners
(such as Compassion in World Farming) in the instance of both battery and broiler
chickens and the positive influence of the sight increasingly seen of pigs raised
outdoors. Italian consumers were the most negative about welfare conditions for
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
66
dairy cows and pigs. When these results were subjected to Chi-squared tests, only the
opinions on the welfare of dairy cows showed any statistically significant differences
between countries, with Italian and British consumers shown to be significantly more
negative in their response at the ** level.
Table 5. How good do you think welfare conditions are for chickens, dairy cows and pigs?
Chickens
Dairy cows
Pigs
2
(Poor)
3
4
(Good)
2
(Poor)
3
4
(Good)
2
(Poor)
3
4
(Good)
%
%
%
%
%
5
%
%
%
Italy
49
29
22
16
34
50
32
41
28
Great
Britain
56
27
18
12
36
52
22
41
37
Sweden
40
40
20
5
23
72
15
45
41
Most consumers surveyed in Italy, GB and Sweden believed standards of
animal welfare had improved in the previous 10 years, particularly Swedish
consumers. As Table 6 shows, only a small percentage believed that standards had
fallen during this period.
Table 6. Do you think that farm animal welfare has improved, is about the same or got worse over
the last 10 years?
Improved
Same
Worse
%
%
%
Italy
59
26
15
Great Britain
55
31
14
Sweden
68
18
13
In terms of the quality of animal transport and the treatment of animals at
slaughter, Swedish consumers were much more positive than those in GB and Italy.
The Italians were the most negative, with 41% of responses saying they thought the
methods of transportation very poor, and 33% of them thinking the treatment of
animals at the slaughterhouses very poor. This compares to 21% (GB) and 6%
(Sweden) for slaughtering conditions and 24% (GB) and 12% (Sweden) for transport
methods. This latter result is statistically significant at the *** level (Table 7).
Table 7. What do you think of the methods of transportation used in your country?
Poor
2
3
4
Good
%
%
%
%
%
χ2
Italy
41
23
24
7
4
23.3***
Great Britain
24
23
31
14
8
3.00
Sweden
12
22
41
21
5
Consumers’ attitude to farm animal welfare-friendly products
Having established in a previous section that most consumers do not think about farm
animal welfare when shopping, we shall now consider where consumers actually
purchase their meat and livestock products. There were some big contrasts between
the different countries. While most consumers in Italy and GB purchased meat from
large supermarkets, more Swedish consumers split their purchases between large
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
67
ISSN: 0798-1759
supermarkets and small supermarkets or convenience stores. Very little meat in
Sweden was bought from the butcher, but sizeable minorities of Italians and British
did buy meat from the butcher, especially beef (48% and 25% respectively).
Consumers were asked whether it was too time consuming a task to look for animal
welfare-friendly products when food shopping. Opinion was fairly evenly divided
with slightly more agreeing, or tending to agree, that it was too time consuming in
Italy and Sweden, and with GB responding in the opposite fashion with slightly more
disagreeing or tending to disagree.
Lastly in this set of questions, consumers were asked if they could easily find
animal welfare-friendly products where they usually shop. Results were remarkably
consistent across the three countries with almost equal numbers in each country
saying they either could find animal welfare-friendly products where they shop or that
they could not. However, it is clear from these responses that a substantial proportion
of consumers do have trouble finding animal welfare friendly food products and do
face relatively high transaction costs in sourcing them.
Sources of information about animal welfare used by consumers
Many consumers do not feel that they are yet as well informed about animal welfare
issues as they would wish to be, with marginally more disagreeing with the statement
that they feel sufficiently informed than agreeing (Table 8).
Table 8. I feel sufficiently well-informed about animal welfare.
This leads to consideration of what sources or channels of information
consumers might most readily use with respect to the animal welfare attributes of the
food that they purchase.? The data collected from the survey showed that in each of
Italy, GB and Sweden, the vast majority of consumers would use product labels as a
primary source of information (over 90% in each country) if information were made
available to them in that way, and that more than 80% of consumers would make use
of in-store display information (Table 9). In addition, more than some 70% of
consumers would use information in the mass media of newspapers, magazines or
television.
Survey results suggested that rather fewer consumers would use the modern
medium of the internet and website information, in a range between 32% (Sweden)
and 42% (GB). It would appear that shoppers are more likely to seek product
information at the point of sale at the retail outlet, or from the visual mass media
rather than undertaking what might become a protracted electronic search for a
particular product or products. But, with the perceived continuing growth in on-line
shopping, it might be anticipated that there will, in future, be increasing use made of
electronic media by consumers actively seeking information on specific animal
welfare-friendly products, producers and retailers. There is some empirical evidence
for this from the parallel series of focus groups conducted in Sweden, where
2
(Disagree)
3
4
(Agree)
%
%
%
Italy
44
24
31
Great Britain
39
26
35
Sweden
45
26
29
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
68
comments pertaining to product research as a determinant of subsequent purchasing
behaviour, were made in the groups of consumers that included vegetarians or the
more politically active.
Table 9. What source of information might you ordinarily use to discover animal welfare
information?
Product
label
In-store
information
Internet or
website
Mass
media
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Italy
96
4
89
11
36
64
75
25
Great Britain
92
8
85
15
42
58
77
23
Sweden
91
9
84
16
32
68
69
31
The conclusion, therefore, is that an increasing number of consumers might be
inclined to use product information on the welfare-friendliness of food products
should such information be made freely available to them. However, the survey
found that many consumers believe that their voice counts for very little as a
consumer in seeking behavioural change (such as welfare labelling of food products)
in producers or retailers (Table 10), and particularly so in Italy.
Table 10. How much do you think your voice counts as a consumer?
Little
2
3
4
Greatly
%
%
%
%
%
χ2
Italy
41
19
22
7
11
6.13**
Great Britain
34
20
26
11
9
2.32
Sweden
18
26
35
17
4
What type of information would consumers find most useful?
If the hypothesis is accepted that consumers would use product information regarding
welfare attributes of food products if it were provided, the next issues to be considered
are likely to be what type of information consumers would find most useful and the
quantity and quality of such information. Survey respondents were asked to rank in
importance a number of possible types of information that might usefully be included
on product labels. This information had to be ranked as either: ‘very important’;
‘fairly important’; or ‘not important’. The types of information were: a simple
welfare assurance mark; a welfare grading system; information on where the animal
was kept and information on what the animal was given to eat.
Information on specific farming methods
Consumers were questioned as to whether they considered it important to include
information on where animals are kept. Most respondents, particularly those in Italy
(80%), stated that it was very important and, in GB and Sweden where the majority
was smaller (55% and 50%), a significant number of respondents considered it fairly
important (32% and 39%). The number of respondents who thought it not important
was consequently low. Similar results were seen in response to the question regarding
the importance of what farm animals are fed except, perhaps, for Sweden where the
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
69
ISSN: 0798-1759
number of very important responses was lower and the not important responses
slightly higher. The Swedish result can be explained, perhaps, by reference again to
the previously discussed comments regarding the confidence Swedish consumers have
in the welfare-friendly systems already employed by their farmers generally.
Welfare grading systems and food assurance marks
The confidence of Swedish consumers in the quality and safety of food produced in
their own country appears to be given further credence if the responses of surveyed
consumers to questions regarding the inclusion of a simple welfare assurance mark
and/or a welfare grading system on the product label, are considered (Table 11).
Table 11. Consumer desire for welfare marks and grading systems.
Assurance mark
Grading system
Importance (%)
Importance (%)
Very
Fairly
Not
χ2
Very
Fairly
Not
χ2
Italy
72
21
7
21.59***
72
22
5
22.83***
Great Britain
63
28
9
11.71***
55
35
11
4.93*
Sweden
36
46
15
39
44
17
Only 36% of Swedish respondents considered an assurance mark to be ‘very
important’ with a further 39% believing a grading system to be ‘very important’. The
number who stated that they believed these devices to be ‘not important’ were
relatively large at 15% and 17% when compared to consumers in GB (9% and 11%)
and particularly so when compared to Italian consumers (7% and 5%). Both the
Italian and British consumers responses are significantly different to those from
Sweden (at the *** level for both for the assurance mark, and the *** level for Italy
and * level for GB for the grading system). It would seem that consumers in Italy
would prefer more assurance in the animal welfare-friendliness of the products they
purchase through the adoption of welfare assurance and grading schemes than do
either Swedish or British consumers. On the other hand, the Swedish results might
be described as revealing a degree of complacency on the part of consumers or, at
best, an over reliance and over confidence in the efficacy of existing production
methods in Sweden.
Consumers and opinion influencing factors
The survey discussed above sought to determine the factors that may influence
consumers in forming or shaping their opinions and views on animal welfare issues.
It might be anticipated that, with increasing urbanisation and its corollary of people’s
decreasing direct involvement with farming and food production, consumers may be
increasingly influenced by specific animal protectionist campaigns and interest
groups. The survey presented the sample of consumers with a series of dichotomous
choice questions to establish whether in recent years their views had been modified or
influenced by the opinions and views expounded by: the mass media; friends and
family; animal protectionist campaigners; farmers themselves (by way of farm
visiting); product labelling and information; and government advertising or
information campaigns. The responses received to the six questions are shown
graphically in Figure 1.
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
70
Figure 1. Animal welfare and consumer influencing factors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mass media Friends and
family
Campaigns Farm visits Product
labelling
Government
advertising
Influe ncing factor (Ye s)
Per Cent
Italy
Great Britain
Sw eden
The results may be interpreted overall as a measure of how trusting, or
otherwise, consumers in the three countries were of the various influencing
information sources. It can be seen that Italian and British consumers are, perhaps,
marginally more trusting of the arguments of animal protectionist campaigners and of
their governments than are Swedish consumers. Additionally, British and Italian
consumers appear to be slightly more amenable and positively influenced by the
evidence presented to them by farmers when making farm visits. In contrast, Italian
and British consumers are less trusting of the opinions broadcast by the mass media,
by product labelling and, surprisingly, by their family and friends than are Swedish
consumers.
There was general agreement amongst consumers in the three countries that
consumers should be prepared to pay higher prices for food if that is necessary to
ensure the improved standards of animal welfare in farming. A number of recent
studies have found that most consumers have a willingness to pay for higher welfare
friendly food products (e.g. Bennett & Blaney 2003).
Discussion and Conclusions
The findings of the survey show that nearly all consumers in GB, Italy and Sweden
are concerned about animal welfare. These relate to specific concerns such as where
animals are kept and what they are fed, how they are transported and how they are
treated at slaughter. Hen welfare was considered of particular importance.
Many consumers do not think about animal welfare when going food shopping
and do not like to think that meat came from a live animal. This finding is consistent
with the theory of cognitive dissonance and its effect on consumer utility applied to
consumers purchasing livestock products and their concerns about animal welfare. A
substantial proportion of consumers tried to buy welfare-friendly food products but
many found sourcing such products difficult and felt they lacked appropriate
information. This suggests that there is a variable, but generally low, availability of
products in food stores that have clear animal welfare attributes and that associated
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
71
ISSN: 0798-1759
high transaction costs are a deterrent to the purchase of such products in the three
study countries.
Consumers are generally in favour of welfare product labelling with an
assurance scheme to signify the animal welfare provenance of meat and other animal
products. Swedish consumers do not feel that this was as important as their GB and
Italian counterparts, probably because they appeared to have more trust in their own
farming systems. A significant proportion of consumers is also in favour of a welfare
grading scheme. Most consumers had a positive willingness to pay for higher welfare
friendly food products. These findings are generally consistent with those of a recent
Eurobarometer survey of attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare (European
Commission 2007).
The policy implications of these findings are clear. First, the market is failing
to provide the choice of products that consumers want in terms of animal welfare
attributes. Second, consumers do not have adequate information on which they can
base their purchasing decisions to satisfy their preferences concerning the animal
welfare provenance of the food they eat. There is a strong case, therefore, to be made
in support of an animal welfare labelling scheme for food products within the EU (and
possibly applied to third countries - although this could be challenged under current
trade agreements through the World Trade Organisation). Such a scheme could
greatly reduce the transaction costs associated with sourcing welfare-friendly products
and allow consumers to better satisfy their preferences for food, not only increasing
consumer welfare by thus doing, but also potentially improving producer returns
(since consumers are willing to pay more for such products). This would enable the
market to exert a demand pull that improves the welfare of farmed animals throughout
the EU and in third countries (since informed consumers will seek out products with
the relevant welfare labelling that they require). Policy makers within the EU are
currently considering a unified animal welfare labelling scheme for the EU (CEC,
2006). It is important that such a scheme is appropriately designed and that social
science-based studies, such as the one presented here, are used to inform it.
Acknowledgement
This paper uses data from part of the Welfare Quality research project which has been
co-financed by the European Commission, within the 6th Framework Programme,
Contract No. FOOD-CT-2004-506508. The text represents the authors’ views and
does not necessarily represent a position of the Commission who will not be liable for
the use made of such information.
International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture
ISSN: 0798-1759
72
References
Bennett, Richard. 1995. “The value of farm animal welfare.” Journal of Agricultural
Economics 46:46-59.
Bennett, Richard. 1997. “Economics.” In: Michael C. Appleby and Barry O. Hughes
(eds). Animal Welfare. Wallingford: CAB International 235-248.
Bennett, Richard, Johann Anderson and Ralph Blaney. 2002. “Moral intensity and
willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications
for agricultural policy.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
15:187-202.
Bennett, Richard. and Ralph Blaney. 2003. “Estimating the benefits of farm animal
welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method.” Agricultural
Economics 29:85-98.
Bennett, Richard and Wallace Yee. 2004. UK Literature Review on Consumer Food
Animal Welfare Concerns and Requirements for Animal Welfare and Welfare
Friendly Products. Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.1
EU Food CT-2004-506508.
Bentham, Jeremy. 1789. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
1996 imprint. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Carruthers, Peter. 1992. The Animal Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Coase, Ronald H. 1984. “The new institutional economics.” Journal of Institutional
and Theoretical Economics 140:229-231.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Commission Working Document
on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-
2010. SEC(2006)65. Brussels.
Dawkins, Marion S. 1980. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare.
London: Chapman and Hall.
Dawkins, Marion S. 1998. Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal
Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Defra. 2007. Egg statistics for the UK. Available at
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/index/list.asp?i_id=015.
Degrazia, David. 1999. “Animal ethics around the turn of the twenty-first century.”
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11: 111-129.
European Commission. 2007. Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare.
Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1. Brussels: European Commision.
Mayfield et al. – Vol. 15(3), December 2007
73 ISSN: 0798-1759
Fraser, David. 2000. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two
cultures. The D.G.M. Wood-Gush Memorial Lecture. Vancouver: University
of British Colombia.
Government Offices of Sweden. 2006. Hunting and Game Management. Available
from: http://www.sweden.gov.se [Accessed 23 August 2006].
Kjaernes, Unni, Mara Miele and Joek Roex. 2007. Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers
and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Report No. 2.
Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Lancaster, Kelvin. 1966. “A new approach to consumer theory.” Journal of Political
Economy 74:132-157.
Mayfield, Lucy, Richard Bennett and Richard Tranter. 2005. UK consumers’ views
on farm animal welfare - a report on the UK consumer focus groups. Report
to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.3 EU Food CT-2004-
506508.
Miele, Mara, Antonella Ara and Francesco Vanni. 2004. Italian Country Review.
Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.1 EU Food CT-2004-
506508.
Petterson, Lucas and Hanna Bergmann. 2004. Swedish Consumers and Animal
Welfare: A Literature Review. Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1
subtask 1.1.1.1 EU Food CT-2004-506508.
Reber, Arthur S. 1984. Dictionary of Psychology. London: Penguin Books.
Regan, Tom. 1985. The case for animal rights. In: Peter Singer (ed). In Defense of
Animals. 13-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rollin, Bernard E. 1992. Animal Rights and Human Morality, revised edition. New
York: Prometheus Books.
Rollin, Bernard E. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research
Issues. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation. London: Cape.
Singer, Peter. 1989. All animals are equal. In: Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds.)
Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Second Edition. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ pp. 73-86.
Soil Association. 2006. Organic Market Report 2006. Bristol: Soil Association.
Szatek, Andreas. 2003. Den Svenska modellen. Stockholm: LUI
Marknadsinformation.
The Dairy Council. 2002. Dairy Facts and Figures, Statistical Yearbook. London:
The Dairy Council.
Vegetarian Society (2006) General Statistics Information Sheet. Available from:
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/statveg.html [Accessed 4 August 2006].
