Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare

Abstract

Ethical attitudes in relation to meat purchases were studied among urban and rural consumers in Scotland. All subjects perceived at least some ethical issues in relation to animal production systems, in particular, systems keeping animals in close confinement. Welfare‐friendly production systems were viewed as adding value to a food, but this value was not necessarily realizable to producers if purchases occurred only when foods were on special offer. Statements made by individuals were often contradictory, revealing ambivalence, unresolved value conflicts and a general lack of involvement in the nature of meat production. A number of barriers to the establishment of stable attitudes and behaviours in relation to the ethical treatment of food animals were also identified. A key finding of the study is that individuals can hold two views on animal welfare. On the one hand, they may think as citizens influencing societal standards, and on the other, as consumers at the point of purchase. As citizens, they support the notion of animals being entitled to a good life; as meat consumers, they avoid the cognitive connection with the live animal. This paper explores both the citizen–consumer relationship and purchase strategies used by consumers to resolve value conflicts. Lessons for public and commercial policy are highlighted in the context of the Curry Report (2002) which advocates more effective market segmentation where markets are finely attuned to their customers, with the development of a number of assurance schemes discussed in the article.

Does group size have an impact on welfare indicators in fattening pigs?

“…In Germany, pigs under conventional production conditions, are generally fattened indoors and barns are generally characterized by fully slatted floors, forced ventilation and automatic feeding systems (Hoy et al, 2006). Recently, these production systems, particularly under conditions of large farms and group sizes, have been under serious discussion mainly due to animal welfare concerns (Schröder and McEachern, 2004;Kayser et al, 2012;Velarde et al, 2015). Studies using various welfare-related measures indicate negative impacts when groups sizes exceed those found in the wild, which are usually comprised of two to four sows with their most recent litters and juvenile offspring of previous litters (Gonyou, 2001).…”

Moral Values and Attitudes Toward Dutch Sow Husbandry

“…In the last decades, societal concerns about animal husbandry systems have increased and became more prominent (Barnett et al 2001;Bergstra et al 2013;De Barcellos et al 2012;Krystallis et al 2009;María 2006;Mench 2008;Meuwissen and van der Lans 2005;Ngapo et al 2003;Schröder and McEachern 2004). One of the husbandry systems that has been confronted with societal concerns is sow husbandry.…”

Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hens: radio-frequency identification of impacts on range use

“…Consumer concern for animal welfare is driving changes in the laying hen (Gallus gallus domesticus) industry both within Australia and globally leading to growth in alternative housing to the conventional cage such as free-range production systems which are viewed as more natural and ethical (Schröder and McEachern, 2004). Free-range systems provide hens with the choice between indoor and outdoor areas and, thus, the opportunity to access fresh air, variable weather and exhibit behaviour such as foraging, sun bathing and eating insects (Fanatico, 2006;Knierim, 2006).…”