6 pages, Social change is slow and difficult. Social change for animals is formidably slow and difficult. Advocates and scholars alike have long tried to change attitudes and convince the public that eating animals is wrong. The topic of norms and social change for animals has been neglected, which explains in part the relative failure of the animal protection movement to secure robust support reflected in social and legal norms. Moreover, animal ethics has suffered from a disproportionate focus on individual attitudes and behavior at the expense of collective behavior, social change, and empirical psychology. If what we want to change is behavior on a large scale, norms are important tools. This article reviews an account of social norms that provides insights into the possibility and limitations of social change for animals, approaching animal protection as a problem of reverse social engineering. It highlights avenues for future work from this neglected perspective.
"More than a year after an undercover video campaign revealed animal welfare issues at Fair Oaks Farms, experts say there are important lessons to be learned." Article describes the event and includes sections about principles of crisis communication, tracking animal activists, and tips for hiring employees.
International: Center for Food Integrity, Gladstone, Missouri.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 166 Document Number: D11681
Notes:
3 pages., News release via online., News release covering a meeting panelist's remarks during a webinar about shifting sustainability priorities related to the food system.
Morris, Carol (author) and Andrews, Charlotte (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
1997
Published:
UK
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D02282
Notes:
Pages 87-99 in Brian Ilbery, Quentin Chiotti and Timothy Rickard (eds.) Agricultural restructuring and sustainability: a geographical perspective. CAB International, Oxon, UK. 348 pages.
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
6 pages., Evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that we need to drastically reduce our consumption of animal products for reasons related to the environment and public health, while moral concerns about the treatment of animals in agriculture are becoming ever more common. As governments increasingly recognize the need to change our food production and alternative protein products become more appealing to consumers, agriculture finds itself in a unique period of transition. How do farmers respond to the changing atmosphere? We present secondary analyses of qualitative and quantitative data to highlight some of the uncertainty and ambivalence about meat production felt throughout the farming community. Survey data from France and Germany reveals that in both countries, those who work in the meat industry have significantly higher rates of meat avoidance than those who do not work in the industry. While non-meat-industry workers are more likely to cite concerns for animals or the environment, meat industry workers more often cite concerns about the healthiness or safety of the products. Concurrently, interviews with people who raise animals for a living suggest that moral concerns among farmers are growing but largely remain hidden; talking about them openly was felt as a form of betrayal. We discuss these findings in the context of the ongoing agricultural transition, observe how tension has manifested as polarization among Dutch farmers, and offer some thoughts about the role of farmers in a new world of alternative proteins.
USA: Center for Food Integrity, Gladstone, Missouri.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 202 Document Number: D11946
Notes:
Online from CFI. 29 pages., The Center "examines the most important emerging trends in animal protein, the latest digital ethnography research on consumer mindset and traditional and social media chatter, and provide specific insight to guide strategy going forward."
26 pages, In the United States, there is a growing disconnect between consumers and their food source, leading to a lack of knowledge and trust in the agricultural food system. Urbanization has moved people away from farms, ranches, and food production; and the information consumers seek about their food is filtered through mass and social media. Portrayals of information about food production, specifically beef, from outside the agriculture industry often present polarizing and conflicting information about beef production and its implications for the health and well-being of humans, livestock, and the environment. This adds to consumer confusion and influences purchasing behaviors. Using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest 2x2 factorial design, we sought to explore consumer (n = 60) perceptions, consumption, and purchasing behaviors of grass-fed beef and determine the effects of four information treatments on overall perception. Descriptive results showed consumers do not have a shared definition pertaining to grass- and grain-fed beef, citing the internet as their most referenced source for information about food and grass-fed beef. Results from a t-test indicated that exposing consumers to an information treatment had a significant effect on environmental impacts, cost, quality/nutrition, and overall perception of grass-fed beef. A between-subjects factorial ANOVA revealed there was no significant difference in perception based on treatment type. Efforts to raise awareness about beef production, on-farm practices, and links between food and grower could be warranted to help enhance the trust and credibility of the industry and bridge the gap between producers and consumers.
6 pages, The quality of beef cattle stockmanship typically is evaluated through quantitative and qualitative measurements of animal behavior. The Stockman's Scorecard is an observation instrument that has been developed to directly measure the actions of beef cattle stockmen. This article documents a pilot project for determining the content validity, internal consistency, and intrarater reliability of the scorecard as an evaluation instrument. Our results show that the scorecard is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the actions of stockmen. The instrument can be a valuable tool for Extension educators in evaluating their stockmanship programming impacts.
