Consumption of Welfare-friendly Food Products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and How It May Be Influenced by Consumer Attitudes to, and Behaviour towards, Animal Welfare Attributes
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The interest in animal welfare and welfare-friendly food products has been increasing in Europe over the last 10 years. The media, highlighting traditional farming methods and food scares such as those related to salmonella, bovine spongiform encephalopathy/variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (BSE) and avian influenza, have brought the methods of animal farming to public attention. Concerns about farm animal welfare are reflected in the increase in the number of vegetarians and vegans and an increase in consumers wishing to purchase food which is more animal welfare-friendly. This paper considers consumers’ attitudes to animal welfare and to marketing practices, such as product labelling, welfare grading systems and food assurance marks using comparative data collected in a survey of around 1500 consumers in each of Great Britain, Italy and Sweden as part of the EU-funded Welfare Quality research project. The findings suggest a need for the provision of improved consumer information on the welfare provenance of food using appropriate product labelling and other methods.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Bennett, Richard. 1997. “Economics.” In: Michael C. Appleby and Barry O. Hughes (eds). Animal Welfare. Wallingford: CAB International 235-248.
Bennett, Richard, Johann Anderson and Ralph Blaney. 2002. “Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15:187-202.
Bennett, Richard. and Ralph Blaney. 2003. “Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method.” Agricultural Economics 29:85-98.
Bennett, Richard and Wallace Yee. 2004. UK Literature Review on Consumer Food Animal Welfare Concerns and Requirements for Animal Welfare and Welfare Friendly Products. Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.1
EU Food CT-2004-506508.
Bentham, Jeremy. 1789. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1996 imprint. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Carruthers, Peter. 1992. The Animal Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coase, Ronald H. 1984. “The new institutional economics.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 140:229-231.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Commission Working Document on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. SEC(2006)65. Brussels.
Dawkins, Marion S. 1980. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall.
Dawkins, Marion S. 1998. Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Defra. 2007. Egg statistics for the UK. Available at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/index/list.asp?i_id=015.
Degrazia, David. 1999. “Animal ethics around the turn of the twenty-first century.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11: 111-129.
European Commission. 2007. Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1. Brussels: European Commision.
Fraser, David. 2000. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. The D.G.M. Wood-Gush Memorial Lecture. Vancouver: University of British Colombia.
Government Offices of Sweden. 2006. Hunting and Game Management. Available from: http://www.sweden.gov.se [Accessed 23 August 2006].
Kjaernes, Unni, Mara Miele and Joek Roex. 2007. Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Report No. 2. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Lancaster, Kelvin. 1966. “A new approach to consumer theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74:132-157.
Mayfield, Lucy, Richard Bennett and Richard Tranter. 2005. UK consumers’ views on farm animal welfare - a report on the UK consumer focus groups. Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.3 EU Food CT-2004-506508.
Miele, Mara, Antonella Ara and Francesco Vanni. 2004. Italian Country Review. Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.1 EU Food CT-2004-506508.
Petterson, Lucas and Hanna Bergmann. 2004. Swedish Consumers and Animal Welfare: A Literature Review. Report to Welfare Quality Project WP1.1 subtask 1.1.1.1 EU Food CT-2004-506508.
Reber, Arthur S. 1984. Dictionary of Psychology. London: Penguin Books.
Regan, Tom. 1985. The case for animal rights. In: Peter Singer (ed). In Defense of Animals. 13-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rollin, Bernard E. 1992. Animal Rights and Human Morality, revised edition. New York: Prometheus Books.
Rollin, Bernard E. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation. London: Cape.
Singer, Peter. 1989. All animals are equal. In: Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds.) Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Second Edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ pp. 73-86.
Soil Association. 2006. Organic Market Report 2006. Bristol: Soil Association.
Szatek, Andreas. 2003. Den Svenska modellen. Stockholm: LUI Marknadsinformation.
The Dairy Council. 2002. Dairy Facts and Figures, Statistical Yearbook. London: The Dairy Council.
Vegetarian Society (2006) General Statistics Information Sheet. Available from: http://www.vegsoc.org/info/statveg.html [Accessed 4 August 2006].
CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.