19 pages, Previous scholarship suggests that elite media have tended to pay little attention to the adverse environmental impacts associated with meat consumption and production. Through content analysis of 116 articles from 2019, published on eight popular online news sites consumed by a wide range of demographics in the UK, including lower-income groups (the sector most likely to eat meat), we identify common anti-meat and pro-meat environmental narratives, solutions and recommendations, and the dominant sentiment towards both meat consumption and production. We observed a significantly greater presence of anti-meat consumption and/or production narratives than pro-meat. Over half the articles showed anti-meat consumption sentiment, with only 5% predominately in favour. 10% were against unspecified or industrial production practices, 28% were against industrial-scale farming but supported sustainable methods; and none were entirely in favour of the meat industry. These findings are reflected in the dominant recommendation, present in over 60% of articles, to eat less meat. Our results add substantially to previous media research, particularly showing the increased volume of coverage of the meat-environment nexus, varying levels of contestation around meat eating, and the division of responsibility between consumers and industry.
Myers, Lester H. (author / Food Marketing and Consumption Economics, Economics Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1989
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 100 Document Number: C08475
Notes:
In: Buse, Rueben C., ed., The Economics of Meat Demand. Proceedings of the Conference on the Economics of Meat Demand; 1986 October 20-21; Charleston, South Carolina.
Jukes, Thomas H. (author), Baker, Chester B. (author), Burns, Edward R. (author), Davis, Glenn (author), Hafs, Harold (author), and Jones, Hardin (author)
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
1976-09-15
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 191 Document Number: D03035
Notes:
Report No. 61, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), Ames, Iowa. 10 pages. Also, script for the National Broadcasting Company television program of the same title, produced for NBC News by Thomas Tomizawa. 47 pages., Response by a CAST task force to a telecast on September 8, 1976, featuring the use (and risks) of chemicals in the food system. Special emphasis on the use of diethylstilbestrol (a growth hormone used in beef production) and aspertame (sweetener).
Tomazic, Terry J. (author), Ohlendorf, George W. (author), and Jenkins, Quentin A.L. (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2002
Published:
USA: Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C37082
Notes:
See C37075 for original, Pages 87-101 in Ronald C. Wimberley, Craig K. Harris, Joseph J. Molnar and Terry J. Tomazic (eds.), The social risks of agriculture: Americans speak out on food, farming and the environment. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut. 163 pages.
This is part of an inserted supplement in Agri Marketing magazine. The supplement is entitled, "Food Systems Insider, July 2003, Volume 3, Number 3. A supplement to Food Systems Group publications and Meat&Poultry magazine."
2 pages., Via online., Editorial critical of the Los Angeles Times newspaper for championing the rise of plant-based burger alternatives without context, accuracy and logic.
5 pages., Reactions from researchers about consumer acceptance of cultured or in vitro meat. "Their goal is to develop an industrial version of the process in five years."
12pgs, In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon's attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.
