via online journal., The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the nature of corporate positions on animal welfare available on the websites of five meat producing companies in the U.S. The results of the content analysis illustrated that there were common topics among the dialogs the companies were willing to open related to their animal welfare positions. The companies typically took a general approach to animal welfare topics, commonly focusing on their corporate policy and their commitment to animal welfare. While each company focused on a unique combination of topics, companies commonly avoided mentioning more specific and possibly controversial topics and instead chose to focus on big-picture topics such as a commitment to sound animal welfarepractices. Each company used a particular set of frames to couch individual animal welfare messages for consumers. The most common frame led was that the company is an industry leader in animal welfare. Eighteen thematic terms related to livestock production and handling emerged through the content analysis. Of those, animal handling and humane were clearly the most commonly used terms. Future research should include matching these content analysis results with the existing communication strategies of each company, conducting more content analyses on animal protein companies’ other media outlets, as well as further exploring the presence of frames, topics, and terminology in news coverage in comparison to the online messages of animal protein companies.
21 pages., Online via UI e-subscription, "This paper exposes the failure of government institutions to protect animals on factory farms while simultaneously silencing what is currently the only available mechanism for Americans to learn about abuse on factory farms. It also explores the Constitutional implications of Ag-Gag laws.
Online via https://newprairiepress.org/jac, Authors identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in USA grocery stores Results of a controlled online experiment among consumers showed that while most consumers lacked knowledge regarding meaning of the labels and certification standards, they relied on the labels with simplistic terms as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. The selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products.
Available online at www.centmapress.org, Results indicated that study participants had specific expectations regarding the husbandry conditions, but also regarding the product characteristics and the labelling of dual-purpose chickens.
20 pages, There has been increased public interest and concerns in issues such as farm animal welfare (FAW) on the island of Ireland, stoked in part by political and governance changes, such as Brexit and COVID-19. Front-of-pack food labelling represents a primary information channel for many people. In advance of considering formalised food labelling schemes, specifically relating to FAW, it is important to ensure an up-to-date understanding of current consumer perceptions of FAW. With this aim, the current study utilised a mixed methodology. Nine focus group discussions (n = 41) and an online survey (n = 972) with food consumers in Ireland and Northern Ireland explored perceptions of FAW. Results suggest that overall perceptions of FAW are high, and consumers perceive FAW to have improved in the last decade. Quantitative (ANOVA) and qualitative results show variations in perception of FAW between sectors. Results from the focus group discussions identified factors underlying consumers’ perception of FAW: the living conditions of the animal, size and intensity of the farm, national standards and schemes, and visibility. Information insufficiencies and knowledge gaps were identified. The findings are discussed in relation to policy implications for the role of public engagement, front-of-pack welfare labelling, and quality assurance schemes.
