Croney, C.C. (author), Apley, M. (author), Capper, J.L. (author), Mench, J.A. (author), Priest, S. (author), and Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman 99164
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616
Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2015-01-20
Published:
USA: American Society of Animal Science
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 164 Document Number: D08306
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.
16 pages., Via online journal, Communicating the process quality of ethically produced food effectively is of highest interest to policy makers, organizations, retailers and producers in order to enhance ethical food production and increase ethical label use. The objective of this paper is to unveil the effectiveness of different communication treatments in regard to changing purchase behavior of different consumer groups. Different communication material for beef produced according to consumer expectations was compiled and applied in a consumer survey—incorporating a choice experiment and a questionnaire—with 676 respondents in three cities of Germany. A Latent Class Mixed Logit Model was basis to identify different consumer segments and their response to the different communication treatments. The effects of different communication treatments unveil the importance to address information in an objective manner. Target groups could be enlarged through the assessment of clear, objective information. Moreover, most consumers were more likely to refrain from choosing a cheap beef product from conventional, barn-based rearing. Hence, consumers might be interested in reducing their overall consumption of beef and prefer the consumption of high value ethical beef with less frequency. Producers, market actors and policy makers should realize that a high share of consumers, not only smaller target groups, value ethical food and may be ready to change their consumption habits, if they are adequately informed.
Risius, Antje (author), Hamm, Ulrich (author), and University of Kassel, Faculty of Organic Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Marketing, Steinstr.19, Witzenhausen, Germany
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2017-02
Published:
Germany: Elsevier Ltd.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 162 Document Number: D08138
