15 pages, via online journal article, Okja is a fictional Netflix original film that was released in 2017. Okja features a “super pig” that is owned by the large, agricultural company Mirando Corporation. Okja is raised by a young girl, Mija, and her grandfather in the South Korean mountains. The film climaxes when Mija and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) narrowly save Okja and a smuggled piglet from the slaughter process. The purpose of this study was to understand how college students responded to the film. The viewers of this film included students who were majoring in a field within the agricultural college (COA) at Texas Tech University as well as students who were majoring in a field outside of agriculture (NCOA). Emergent themes from this focus group study identified the film as overdramatized and that the film misrepresented food production. Previous knowledge and experiences impacted how viewers perceived the film with COA students indicating that Okja was portrayed more like a pet than as a food animal. Both COA and NCOA students indicated that their food purchasing decisions would not be affected by viewing the film. Findings suggested that entertainment films may not be an effective method for changing public opinion of agriculture and food production. Transparency in agriculture through real-life and real-time activities in a documentary style may serve a greater role in improving public opinion of food and agricultural production practices and industries.Findings from this study serve as an indicator of the role entertainment films play in swaying public opinion of food and agriculture.
14 pages, via online journal, Social judgement theory was utilized to determine if men and women showed different acceptance of messages about genetically modified (GM) foods. The primary objective was to determine if females and males had a different latitude of acceptance toward statements about GM foods. Researchers found significant differences between males and females with more males accepting messages about GM foods than females. Additionally, there were several statements with wide latitudes of acceptance across genders. These statements represent a common ground and are a good starting point for conversations about GM food.
12 pages., via online journal, Animal welfare and environmental impacts have been emphasized in the sustainable production of livestock. Labels are useful tools for clearly providing such attribute information to consumers. The aim of this study was to evaluate how human values influence consumer segments for beef with information on animal welfare and environmentally friendly production. Using a choice experiment, we examined whether animal welfare and environmentally friendly labels, country of origin and price impact consumer choice. As results, five heterogeneous consumer classes were identified using a latent class model: label conscious, domestic beef preferring, price conscious, animal welfare preferring and not interested in production method. Almost 90% of consumers were interested in and willing to pay for beef with animal welfare or environmentally friendly label. The classes with significant preferences for such labeled beef were affected by “openness to change”, “self-enhancement” and “security”. Improving consumer attitudes and strengthening consumer perception towards labeled beef by marketers and policy makers will be required.
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.
7 pages., Via online journal., Policy makers in the European Union are envisioning the introduction of a community farm animal welfare label which would allow consumers to align their consumption habits with their farm animal welfare preferences. For welfare labeling to be viable the market for livestock products produced to higher welfare standards has to be sufficiently segmented with consumers having sufficiently distinct and behaviourally consistent preferences. The present study investigates consumers’ preferences for meat produced to different welfare standards using a hypothetical welfare score. Data is obtained from a contingent valuation study carried out in Britain. The ordered prohbit model was estimated using Bayesian inference to obtain mean willingness to pay. We find decreasing marginal WTP as animal welfare levels increase and that people’s preferences for different levels of farm animal welfare are sufficiently differentiated making the introduction of a la belling scheme in the form of a certified rating system appear feasible.
