318 pages., Book in the University of Illinois online collection. Search other sources or contact ACDC., Pages 37-51 in Ferguson, D.; Lee, Caroline; and Fisher, Andrew. 2017. Advances in sheep welfare. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, United Kingdom.
Clark, Beth (author), Panzone, Luca A. (author), Stewart, Gavin B. (author), Kyriazakis, Ilias (author), Niemi, Jarkko K. (author), Latvala, Terhi (author), Tranter, Richard (author), Jones, Philip (author), and Frewer, Lynn J. (author)
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2019-01-10
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10240
Many members of the public and important stakeholders operating at the upper end of the food chain, may be unfamiliar with how food is produced, including within modern animal production systems. The intensification of production is becoming increasingly common in modern farming. However, intensive systems are particularly susceptible to production diseases, with potentially negative consequences for farm animal welfare (FAW). Previous research has demonstrated that the public are concerned about FAW, yet there has been little research into attitudes towards production diseases, and their approval of interventions to reduce these. This research explores the public’s attitudes towards, and preferences for, FAW interventions in five European countries (Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK). An online survey was conducted for broilers (n = 789), layers (n = 790) and pigs (n = 751). Data were analysed by means of Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The results suggest that the public have concerns regarding intensive production systems, in relation to FAW, naturalness and the use of antibiotics. The most preferred interventions were the most “proactive” interventions, namely improved housing and hygiene measures. The least preferred interventions were medicine-based, which raised humane animal care and food safety concerns amongst respondents. The results highlighted the influence of the identified concerns, perceived risks and benefits on attitudes and subsequent behavioural intention, and the importance of supply chain stakeholders addressing these concerns in the subsequent communications with the public.
Holt, Jessica (author) and Cartmell, Dwayne (author)
Format:
Paper
Publication Date:
2012-02
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 188 Document Number: D01526
Notes:
Paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists annual meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, February 5-6, 2012. 24 pages.
Lusk, Jayson L. (author / Oklahoma State University), Norwood, F. Bailey (author / Oklahoma State University), and Prickett, Robert W. (author / Oklahoma State University)
Format:
Research report
Publication Date:
2007-08-17
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 85 Document Number: D10852
Notes:
Working paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 33 pages.
690 German survey recipients were given one of four different fictitious "newspaper articles" describing negative effects of meat consumption - either in terms of adverse effects on human health, on climate change, on animal welfare or on personal image. Findings showed that animal welfare and health arguments had the strongest effects at reducing meat consumption in both men and women.
10 pages., Via online journal, 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.
18 pages., via online journal, As the public has expressed increasing concerns regarding the humane raising and handling of farm animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry organizations have developed a series of standards enforcing animal welfare in the poultry industry. Labels and value-added claims were created and defined to differentiate products and to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions. This study identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in the U.S. grocery stores, including both the mandatory labels and third-party, voluntary labels. Using a controlled online experiment (N=249), we examined the labels’ effects on consumers’ perception of humane treatment and purchasing tendencies toward egg products. Results showed that while most consumers lack knowledge regarding the labels’ meaning and certification standards, they rely on the labels with simplistic terms (e.g., "certified humane," "cage free") as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. However, the selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products. We discussed the implications for regulators, food marketers, and agricultural communicators.
