19 pages., via online journal., The agricultural sector continues to be challenged by the public with respect to how it deals with a wide range of issues. These issues may be viewed as component parts of an implied “new contract” between society and agriculture. The “old contract” with society obligated agriculture to provide safe, wholesome, abundant food at affordable prices. The new contract includes several additional components including a heightened focus on food safety and quality, consideration of environmental impacts of agricultural production, and increased consideration for the well-being of animals. If production agriculture effectively deals with these new components, society will likely continue supporting the use of public sector resources for agricultural research, education, and commodity programs. Recent surveys indicate the agricultural sector faces a formidable challenge in dealing with issues involving the risks and benefits of agricultural production practices. This is due to a decline in consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply, the relative level of scientific literacy, and a growing mistrust of new technologies within some demographic groups. Surveys indicate scientists and extension professionals are trusted by the public and thus can play a key role in public education.
Administrators and peers must actively support and reward scientists and extension professionals for their contributions to public education. Educating the public requires an understanding that the public, in general, does not view risk from a quantitative standpoint but rather from a qualitative one. Effective public education activities should be based upon proven public policy education methodology. This approach encourages the educators to refrain from assuming an advocacy position and allows maximum opportunity for the public to be in control of the decision-making process as required in the democratic system.
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.
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.
8 pages., Via online journal., Increasing concerns about farm animal welfare have led to an increase in the availability of welfare-friendly-products (WFP), but little is known about how much more consumers are willing-to-pay (WTP) for WFP or about their buying trends in Latin America. In this study, a survey was given to 843 meat consumers in the city of Toluca, Mexico. The results show that consumers were interested in farm animal welfare issues and their ethical, sociological and economic implications, as in Europe. The people surveyed also conveyed a high level of empathy with animal feelings and emotions, however they clearly demanded more information and regulations related to farm animal welfare. The majority of respondents expressed that they were WTP more for properly certified WFP, but mostly based on the benefits in terms of product quality and human health. If the demand for WFP begins to increase in Mexico, the supply chain should consider a certification system to guarantee product origin based on current conditions.