Citizens' Views on Farm Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium [Book Review]

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (6):551-569 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The results of two independent empirical studies with Flemish citizens were combined to address the problem of a short fall of information provision about higher welfare products. The research objectives were (1) to improve our understanding of how citizens conceptualize farm animal welfare, (2) to analyze the variety in the claimed personal relevance of animal welfare in the food purchasing decision process, and (3) to find out people’s needs in relation to product information about animal welfare and the extent to which the current information caters to these needs. The first study consisted of a survey conducted in three consecutive years (2000–2002, n = 521) and was complemented with more recent qualitative data from four focus group discussions (2006, n = 29). Citizens’ conceptualization of farm animal welfare matched reasonably well with those in the scientific literature, although it is clearly influenced by a lower level of practical experience and a higher weight of empathy. In general, respondents indicated that animal welfare was an important product attribute, although it was less important than primary product attributes such as quality, health, and safety. Moral issues, rather than a perception of higher quality, were the main influence on preferences for higher welfare products. At present, higher standards of animal welfare are mostly guaranteed within more general quality assurance schemes. Yet people’s decisions to not choose higher welfare products seems to be related to the perceptual disconnection between eating animal food products and the living producing animals. Respondents generally thought better information provision was required and the present level of provision was strongly criticized. In combination, the findings of both studies help inform the discussion about how citizens can be informed about animal welfare and the preferred content, source, and medium of such information. The paper also provides insights into citizens’ semantic interpretation of the concept of animal welfare (what wordings they use) and the range of relevance that animal welfare has for different groups that, in turn is useful in identifying which segments can be targeted. This can contribute to a more effective valorization of animal welfare as a product attribute

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethics and farm animal welfare.J. F. Hurnik & Hugh Lehman - 1988 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (4):305-318.
A New Format for Learning about Farm Animal Welfare.Edmond A. Pajor - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):367-379.
The sciences of animal welfare.David J. Mellor - 2009 - Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by Emily Patterson-Kane & Kevin J. Stafford.
Animal welfare.C. R. W. Spedding - 2000 - Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-01-27

Downloads
42 (#370,986)

6 months
8 (#342,364)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

A theory of human motivation.A. H. Maslow - 1943 - Psychological Review 50 (4):370-396.
Animal Rights and Human Obligations.Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.) - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
Animal Rights and Human Obligations.Tom Regan & Peter Singer - 1978 - Philosophy 53 (206):576-577.

View all 10 references / Add more references