This article criticises the notion that critical/political/ethical consumerism can solve issues related to sustainability and food production. It does this by analysing the complexity of the concept of sustainability as related to food choices. The current trend of pursuing a sustainable food production through critical purchase decisions rather than through regulation is shown to be problematic, as shopping for a more sustainable food system might be much harder than initially believed due to the conflicting values and inherent trade-offs entailed in (...) the different notions of sustainability. Thus, critical consumerism may give way to false expectations as the complexity of choices transpires. One obvious way out is to let decisions regarding food choices be made earlier in the food production chain as well as through new modes of governance engaging members of civil society in their capacity as citizens rather than consumers. This entails complementing society’s reliance on critical consumerism with a citizen-oriented and political process in support of making more sustainable food choices. (shrink)

There is widespread and growing concern among U.S. consumers about the treatment of farmed animals, and consumers are consequently paying attention to food product labels that indicate humane production practices. However, labels vary in their standards for animal welfare, and prior research suggests that consumers are confused by welfare-related labels: many shoppers cannot differentiate between labels that indicate changes in the way animals are raised and those that do not. We administered a survey to 1,000 American grocery shoppers to better (...) understand the extent to which consumers purchase and pay more for food with certain labels based on an assumption of welfare improvement. Results showed that 86% of shoppers reported purchasing at least one product with the following labels in the last year: “cage or crate-free”, “free-range”, “pasture-raised”, “natural”, “organic”, “no hormone”, “no antibiotic”, “no rBST”, “humane”, “vegetarian-fed”, “grass-fed”, “farm-raised”. Of those who purchased one of the aforementioned labels, 89% did so because they thought the label indicated higher-welfare production practices, and 79% consciously paid more for the product with the label because they thought that the label indicated better-than-standard animal welfare. However, many of these labels lack uniform standards for the production practices they represent, and some labels represent production practices that do not influence animal welfare, thus the degree of the animal welfare impact of a given label is highly variable. These results indicate that labels need to clearly and accurately specify their animal welfare benefits to improve the consumers’ ability to purchase products that align with their expectations. (shrink)

Certification schemes and labels such as the Forest Stewardship Council, Fairtrade, and Rainforest Alliance are market-based mechanisms designed to harness consumer power in economically developed countries to influence companies to improve the economic, social and environmental welfare of producers, workers and communities in economically developing countries. However, consumers are largely not convinced that certification schemes are acting in the interests of developing countries, because consumers have different understandings of the ethics of global trade. Drawing on the results of six semi-structured (...) focus groups comprising 58 consumers and an online panel-based survey of 1014 respondents, this study tests the central assumption underlying these schemes that consumers are motivated to hold companies responsible for unethical behaviour. Most consumers hold sceptical, and at times, conflicting views in terms of how they perceive the root causes of the problems, possible solutions and ethical trade beneficiaries. This study contributes to the nascent literature on political consumerism, by highlighting an under-theorised and contradictory challenge for certification schemes. Political consumers are required to recognise the complexities of ethical trade while believing that the simple act of purchasing their labelled products is effective. Consumers also envisage a role for government regulation. (shrink)