Should Animal Welfare Regulations Be More Restrictive? A Case Study in Eight European Union Countries

Abstract

Increasingly, intensive livestock production systems have increased societal concern regarding the current animal welfare standards. We investigated whether individuals in their roles as consumers and citizens believe that the current European regulations regarding animal welfare should be more restrictive. Factors affecting this decision were assessed by analyzing respondents’ understanding of animal welfare-related issues, their subjective and objective knowledge levels, the credibility they assign to different information sources, their perceptions toward the current restrictiveness of animal welfare standards, and their socioeconomic characteristics. Data were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire distributed in eight European Union (EU) countries (Spain, the United Kingdom, Poland, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, Italy, and Sweden) with 3860 total responses. The results showed that consumers are more reluctant to adopt more restrictive regulations than respondents in the role of citizens. Respondents from northern European countries (Poland and Sweden) are more likely to support regulations that are more restrictive than the current minimum requirements than respondents from southern countries (Spain and Italy). Women were found to be more concerned with the welfare of pigs and laying hens—lending credibility to the Internet as an information source—and were more likely to support more restrictive animal welfare legislation.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Willingness to Consume Insect-Based Food Products in Catalonia

“…This could be explained since insects are considered as food consumed by primitive people and associated with poverty [ 40 , 41 ]. Additionally, meat consumption compared to other sources of protein increases with the increase of income [ 7 ]. Even in places where insects are traditionally consumed, this practice is in decline due to the Westernization of diets globally [ 15 ] and an increase in the demand for meat [ 7 ].…”

“…They are considered a sustainable source of protein compared to conventional animal protein sources such as beef, pork, and chicken. The worldwide growing demand for meat products [ 6 ] associated to an increase in the human population and income growth [ 7 ] is reducing the sustainability of the current animal production systems. In 2017, the global demand for meat was estimated at 323 million tons and is expected to increase by 15% in 2027 [ 8 ].…”

Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Cows in Extensive Beef Cow-Calf Systems in New Zealand. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures

“…Rather, dirtiness and diarrhoea probably reflect the degree of muddiness of the paddocks and/or the lushness of the pasture which, in turn, are largely dependent on the season of the year. A point may be reached when the level of dirt in a pasture-based system does represents a welfare compromise [ 26 ], so creating standards for interpretation of dirtiness is therefore difficult [ 9 , 27 ]. The interpretation of dirtiness as a measure of welfare might require the setting of seasonal thresholds, e.g., finding dirty cows in January (summer lush pasture) is different to finding dirty cows in July (winter muddy terrain).…”

Happy or healthy? How members of the public prioritise farm animal health and natural behaviours

“…Numerous social science studies have examined MOP perspectives on farm animal welfare [e.g. 1 , 7 – 10 ], predominantly in Western or developed countries where public concern for animal welfare continues to rise [ 6 , 11 , 12 ]. For the most part, research indicates that, although MOP consider a variety of factors, they differ from farmers and welfare scientists in the priority they give to ‘naturalness’ [ 1 , 8 , 13 , 14 ] (i.e.…”