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.
This paper examines the media coverage of the 2013 London cultured meat tasting event, particularly in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Using major news outlets, prominent magazines covering food and science issues, and advocacy websites concerning meat consumption, the paper characterizes the overall emphases of the coverage, the tenor of the coverage, and compares the media portrayal of the important issues to the demographic and psychological realities of the actual consumer market into which cultured meat will compete. In particular, the paper argues that Western media gives a distorted picture of what obstacles are in the path of cultured meat acceptance, especially by overemphasizing and overrepresenting the importance of the reception of cultured meat among vegetarians. Promoters of cultured meat should recognize the skewed impression that this media coverage provides and pay attention to the demographic data that suggests strict vegetarians are a demographically negligible group. Resources for promoting cultured meat should focus on the empirical demographics of the consumer market and the empirical psychology of mainstream consumers.
USA: Center for Food Integrity, Gladstone, Missouri.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 201 Document Number: D11707
Notes:
2 pages., Online from publisher., Examines a period of meat shortages in stores - and headlines about pork and poultry farmers having to euthanize entire barns of animals. "Helping consumers understand the supply chain disruption and impacts may seem daunting, but the key is to keep it simple and engage on the shared values of safe food and a commitment to the highest standards of animal care."
Available online at www.centmapress.org, Four factors and three farmer groups were identified which significantly differed regarding their attitudes towards animal welfare programs and willingness to participate in them. Authors cited evidence of need to design tailor-made strategies for communicating with farmers about this subject.
Available online at www.centmapress.org, Results showed that depending on expressed meta-values, respondents had different specific information sources and needs. Online sources were rarely mentioned, the majority of consumers referred to brochures, flyers and interpersonal contacts.
16 pages., Animals, Justice and the Law Part 2., Author offered information and perspectives about development of "Ag-Gag" laws in some states involving the reporting of production and slaughter practices in the meat industry, their effect on society, and limitations of self-regulation.
The demographics of incoming university animal science majors have shifted from students with a farm background to urban students with no history of direct livestock contact. Research completed before the Internet was a central source of information indicated that incoming urban students tend to express no opinion or a neutral opinion regarding livestock agriculture issues. Due to the changing background of incoming students enrolled in introductory university-level animal science classes, we sought to determine 1) if livestock background (self-identified as raised in a farm or urban setting), sex, or animal science career interest influenced the opinions of incoming students regarding critical issues involving livestock farming practices and 2) if 15 wk of introductory animal science instruction changed student opinions. A total of 224 students were given 2 identical anonymous surveys (start and end of 15 wk) with 5 demographic questions and 9 animal issue statements. For each statement, students marked their opinion by placing a vertical line on a continuous 130 mm horizontal line, where a vertical line placed at 0 mm = strongly agree and 130 mm = strongly disagree. Data were analyzed by ANOVA to determine any significant effects of instruction, background, sex, and future career preference on survey responses. Before instruction, urban students were less agreeable than farm students that animal farming was moral and humane and that farmers are concerned about animal welfare and livestock are of value to society (P ≤ 0.05). Urban students were more likely than farm students to purchase organic foods or food based on environmental/welfare standards (P ≤ 0.05). Introductory animal science instruction resulted in students becoming more agreeable that animal farming was humane, farmers are concerned about animal welfare, and animal agriculture is a value to society (P ≤ 0.05). Postinstruction, students were more likely to buy food products based on price (P ≤ 0.05). Males found farm practices more humane than females (P ≤ 0.05), but sex differences were not evident for other questions. Future professional career plans did not affect student opinions. Data showed that incoming urban students tend to be more neutral with regards to animal farming issues, and introductory animal science instruction fosters a more agreeable attitude towards animal farming practices, especially in students with urban backgrounds.
7 pages., via online journal., The aim of this work is to explore the relation between morality and diet choice by investigating how animal and
human welfare attitudes and donation behaviors can predict a meat eating versus flexitarian versus vegetarian
diet. The results of a survey study (N=299) show that animal health concerns (measured by the Animal
Attitude Scale) can predict diet choice. Vegetarians are most concerned, while full-time meat eaters are least
concerned, and the contrast between flexitarians and vegetarians is greater than the contrast between
flexitarians and full-time meat eaters.
With regards to human welfare (measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire), results show that attitudes
towards human suffering set flexitarians apart from vegetarians and attitudes towards authority and respect
distinguish between flexitarians and meat eaters. To conclude, results show that vegetarians donate more
often to animal oriented charities than flexitarians and meat eaters, while no differences between the three
diet groups occur for donations to human oriented charities.
