Department of Agricultural Economics University of Pisa Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and Food Choice Italian Survey Report Mara Miele and Vittoria Parisi Copyright This online paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also download it for your own personal use. This paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author's explicit permission. But please note that • if you copy this paper you must include this copyright note • this paper must not be used for commercial purposes or gain in any way, • you should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form: Mara Miele, Consumer Concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice-Italian Survey Report, published by University of Pisa.
41
Embed
Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and …...Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice Italian Survey Report February 2001 Mara Miele and Vittoria Parisi
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Department of Agricultural Economics University of Pisa
Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare
and Food Choice Italian Survey Report
Mara Miele and Vittoria Parisi
Copyright This online paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also download it for your own personal use. This paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author's explicit permission. But please note that
• if you copy this paper you must include this copyright note • this paper must not be used for commercial purposes or gain in any way, • you should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form:
Mara Miele, Consumer Concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice-Italian SurveyReport, published by University of Pisa.
FAIR CT98 3678
Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice
Italian Survey Report February 2001
Mara Miele and Vittoria Parisi
Dipartimento di Economia dell’Agricoltura, Telephone: +39-050-571553
dell’Ambiente Agro-Forestale e del Territorio Fax: +39-050-571344
Production methods acceptability ..................................................................................................................... 18
Attributes of animal welfare .............................................................................................................................. 18
Decreased consumption due to animal welfare concerns.................................................................................. 19
Total model factors............................................................................................................................................ 34
PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 38
This national report deals with the analysis of the representative sample survey (task 4 of the
project).The main objectives are:
• To assess consumer concerns about animal welfare amongst a representative sample of
consumers in each study country.
• To identify segments of consumers with similar concerns about animal welfare both within
and across the study countries.
• Relate concerns about animal welfare and changes in the methods applied in animal
production to the potential choice of animal-based food products.
• To assess the trade-off consumers make between animal welfare, price and other product
characteristics.
Both from literature review and from focus groups discussion it emerged that Italian consumers
spontaneously very seldom put animal welfare among their concerns about food. When asked
about animal welfare, consumers refer to animal welfare as an indicator of healthier and tastier
products. Animal welfare, as a concern, is legitimised through association with human health and
safety. Consumers expressed particular concern about calves and hens, more precisely for the
crate system for veal production and battery cage for hens. This hierarchy seemed to be affected
by the type of information to which most participant in the focus groups have been exposed like
TV programs, media campaigns and especially Animal Rights movements. Among the most
interesting factors affecting concern there were pet ownership and “country of origin” as
indicator of other quality attributes. Italian consumers are concerned about animal welfare
primarily when animal welfare acts as an indicator of other, more important, attributes. This
relationship needed to be explored further in order to understand the links between products
attributes and the personal consequences that the consumer associated with them and,
furthermore, the relevance that these last have in the value system of the consumer.
The ladder interviews have been used to investigate those factors which determine specific
hierarchy of concerns, and the beliefs associated with the equation of ‘good / bad animal welfare
implies...”.
When consumers are prompted to think about this issue, and they are asked to connect it to self–
relevant consequences and values, as it happens in the ladder interviews, animal welfare is
perceived as affecting some of the most basic values like “Ethics”.
3
There is an acknowledgement that animals have right to “Respect” and that they should not
suffer. Widely shared is the also the opinion that a low level of animal welfare will have an
Italian Survey Report
impact on consumers’ health. That’s why the concern for animal welfare is expressed in
connection with other food attributes (safety and quality).
Italian consumers are not very knowledgeable about modern rearing systems but in general they
are very suspicious. The lack of information about animal farming system by farmers and the
food industry is perceived as instrumental for avoiding consumers’ criticism.
The present report is based on the results of a consumers survey that has been carried out
between November 30th and December 21st, 2000, shortly after some new cases of BSE had been
identified in France. The last year has been devastating for the Italian beef industry which had
just begun to recover from the drop in consumption caused by the initial discovery of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom. However, consumption again fell
dramatically in November 2000, following reports from France of new cases of the disease and
revelations of potentially infected meat entering the human food chain: according to a survey by
ISMEA during the week between November 20th and 26th beef sales dropped 6% compared with
the previous week, while it had already decreased 31% in the first half of the month. At the
beginning of January 2001 the overall decrease of beef consumption in Italy was 39%, while
chicken and pork consumption increased 20% (Source: AIAB,
http://www.aiab.it/novità.php3?id=191).
The market fell again, when, following EU guidelines, Italy began testing all cattle over 30
months for BSE prior to slaughter and discovered its first domestic case of BSE (14th of
January). As a result, beef consumption immediately dropped 60-70 % (F. Regini, 2001): Fiesa
(Confesercenti’s butchers association) reported a drop of 70% in red meat sales between Monday
15th of January and Friday 19th of January, and even picks of 90% (source: AIAB
http://www.aiab.it/novità.php3?id=243). Red meat sales drop has been followed by price drop,
while alternative meats prices have sharply increased as shown in the following table.
Price increase for different types of meat due to information on the first case off BSE in Italy Prices per Kg (October 2000, IL) Prices per Kg (January 2001 IL) Pork 15,000 20-22,000 Rabbit 10-11,000 15-16,000 Chicken legs 3,500 5,500 Chicken breasts 12,000 15,500 Horse meat 13-15,000 22-25,000 Source: la Repubblica 1/02/ 2001, by Federconsumatori
Changes in meats sales from October 2000 and January 2001 Variation Beef -22% Horse meat +50% Pork +37% Fish +25% Chicken +12% Source: la Repubblica 1/02/ 2001, by Federconsumatori
Many consumers have turned from beef to pork, increasing total consumption in 2000 to 2.09
million tons or 0.5 % over 1999 levels. While the BSE crisis has definitely benefited the pork
sector, pork meat consumption had already reached record levels in Italy due to low prices and
large supplies throughout the EU in both 1999 and 2000. Poultry consumption is not as strong as
during BSE crisis, as the reputation of poultry meat was somewhat muddied by the dioxin crisis
and what it revealed about industrial production methods. Exotic meats, such as bison, moose,
kangaroo, ostrich, buffalo up to now confined in small niche markets, have increased sales
sharply, especially in restaurants (La Repubblica, January 11th 2001:29). Fish sales have
increased as well. According to Osservatorio Ismea-Nielsen during the second week of January
fish consumption was 25% higher than the previous week (source: AIAB,
http://www.aiab.it/novità.php3?id=251).
Method
The survey has been conducted by adopting the following hypotheses, listed by topics:
Consumption:
Consumers will have decreased their consumption of animal-based food products for health
rather than animal welfare reasons.
More women than men will have decreased their consumption of animal-based food products.
There will be a greater decrease in red meat compared to white meat, eggs and milk.
There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in levels of change in
consumption and type of animal-based food product.
Concern
Women will be more concerned about animal welfare than men.
ABC1s will be more concerned than C2DEs.
Consumers will express more concern for the animals’ welfare than for human health, quality of
food or healthiness of food (using animal welfare as an indicator).
There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level and type of concern.
Q3 Change in consumption of poultry in the last 5 years Less About the
same More Total
Gender Male 28 152 23 203 % 13.8 74.9 11.3 100 Female 42 187 54 283 % 14.8 66.1 19.1 100 Total 70 339 77 486 % 14.4 69.8 15.8 100 Social class AB 8 35 6 49 % 16.3 71.4 12.2 100 C1 8 95 16 119 % 6.7 79.8 13.4 100 C2 7 37 9 53 % 13.2 69.8 17.0 100 DE 45 167 46 258 % 17.4 64.7 17.8 100 Total 68 334 77 479 % 14.2 69.7 16.1 100 Q3 Change in consumption of lamb in the last 5 years Less About the same More Total Gender Male 17 109 9 135 % 12.6 80.7 6.7 100 Female 30 118 16 164 % 18.3 72.0 9.8 100 Total 47 227 25 299 % 15.7 75.9 8.4 100 Social class AB 5 19 3 27 % 18.5 70.4 11.1 100 C1 5 65 8 78 % 6.4 83.3 10.3 100 C2 5 28 3 36 % 13.9 77.8 8.3 100 DE 31 112 11 154 % 20.1 72.7 7.1 100 Total 46 224 25 295 % 15.6 75.9 8.5 100
14
Italian Survey Report
Q3 Change in consumption of beef in the last 5 years Less About the same More Total Gender Male 49 130 7 186 % 26.3 69.9 3.8 100 Female 78 140 14 232 % 33.6 60.3 6.0 100 Total 127 270 21 418 % 30.4 64.6 5.0 100 Social class AB 18 24 3 45 % 40.0 53.3 6.7 100 C1 19 82 4 105 % 18.1 78.1 3.8 100 C2 13 30 3 46 % 28.3 65.2 6.5 100 DE 74 131 11 216 % 34.3 60.6 5.1 100 Total 124 267 21 412 % 30.1 64.8 5.1 100
Q3 Change in consumption of veal in the last 5 years Less About the same More Total Gender Male 31 129 10 170 % 18.2 75.9 5.9 100 Female 51 152 16 219 % 23.3 69.4 7.3 100 Total 82 281 26 389 % 21.1 72.2 6.7 100 Social class AB 12 23 3 38 % 31.6 60.5 7.9 100 C1 9 87 6 102 % 8.8 85.3 5.9 100 C2 9 32 2 43 % 20.9 74.4 4.7 100 DE 50 136 15 201 % 24.9 67.7 7.5 100 Total 80 278 26 384 % 20.8 72.4 6.8 100
15
Italian Survey Report
Q3 Change in consumption of eggs in the last 5 years Less About the same More Total Gender Male 20 172 12 204 % 9.8 84.3 5.9 100 Female 31 233 25 289 % 10.7 80.6 8.7 100 Total 51 405 37 493 % 10.3 82.2 7.5 100 Social class AB 7 38 5 50 % 14.0 76.0 10.0 100 C1 5 111 5 121 % 4.1 91.7 4.1 100 C2 5 45 4 54 % 9.3 83.3 7.4 100 DE 33 204 23 260 % 12.7 78.5 8.8 100 Total 50 398 37 485 % 10.3 82.1 7.6 100 Q3 Change in consumption of milk in the last 5 years Less About the same More Total Gender Male 15 161 16 192 % 7.8 83.9 8.3 100 Female 21 230 25 276 % 7.6 83.3 9.1 100 Total 36 391 41 468 % 7.7 83.5 8.8 100 Social class AB 8 33 4 45 % 17.8 73.3 8.9 100 C1 4 101 8 113 % 3.5 89.4 7.1 100 C2 4 44 4 52 % 7.7 84.6 7.7 100 DE 20 205 25 250 % 8.0 82.0 10.0 100 Total 36 383 41 460 % 7.8 83.3 8.9 100
16
Italian Survey Report
Q3 Change in consumption of total meat and poultry in the last 5 years Less About the same More Total Gender Male 31 137 36 204 % 15.2 67.2 17.6 100 Female 41 161 71 273 % 15.0 59.0 26.0 100 Total 72 298 107 477 % 15.1 62.5 22.4 100 Social class AB 7 29 9 45 % 15.6 64.4 20.0 100 C1 9 95 16 120 % 7.5 79.2 13.3 100 C2 7 35 11 53 % 13.2 66.0 20.8 100 DE 49 132 70 251 % 19.5 52.6 27.9 100 Total 72 291 106 469 % 15.4 62.0 22.6 100
Q4. Reason for the change of the consumption Frequencies Percent BSE 72 31.6 Taste 27 11.8 Changes in the household composition 24 10.5 Contribution to health 20 8.8 Changes in the diet 17 7.5 Threatens to health 16 7.0 Lack of trust in food safety 13 5.7 Changes in the lifestyle 5 2.2 Animal diseases 5 2.2 Publicity 5 2.2 Economic reasons 2 0.9 Miscellaneous 22 9.6 Total 228 100.0
The Italian respondents listed BSE as first reason for changing food consumption habits: 72
respondents out of 228 (31.6%).
Other reasons for changes have been ‘taste’ and /or ‘changes in tastes’ (27 respondents), changes
in the household composition, such as the presence of children or ageing of the family (24
respondents).’Positive contribution to health reasons’ have been mentioned by 20 respondents
(in this category we included all the answers that referred to fitness, wellbeing, precautions for
health, as opposed to ‘threatens to health’, mentioned by 16 respondents). In this last category
we included the answers that pointed to causes of illness. 13 respondents have mentioned lack of
trust in food safety and 5 respondents declared that spreading of diseases in farm animals was the
main cause of their consumption habits change. Publicity and ‘lifestyle’ also have been identified
by 5 consumers as motivations for changing products. In the Italian sample only 2 consumers
17
Italian Survey Report
Acceptability of method of production
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.30
Pork Poultry Beef Lamb Veal Eggs Milk
Mean
indicated ‘economic reasons’ for change, while is quite high the number of consumers that could
not identify a specific reason for change.
Production methods acceptability
On ‘production methods acceptability’ the Italian consumers identified ‘poultry’ as the most
unacceptable, beef and veal as second most unacceptable while lamb, pork and milk are
generally considered acceptable. The results of the sample survey are coherent with the findings
of the previous qualitative stages of the research: Italian consumers seem to be more informed
about poultry production methods since, lately, the conditions of life of hens in battery cages
have been shown in several TV programmes (on the public channels). Nevertheless this
information is quite incomplete since, as it has been widely repeated during the ladder interview
and focus groups discussions, many consumers believe that broilers and eggs are produced in the
same way, from the same production system (battery system).
Q.9 Acceptability of method of production (from most acceptable to least acceptable)
The following three statements were addressing the issue of information. Most Italian consumers
(93%) believes that farmers should provide more information on rearing methods, while 43% of
the respondent think that food retailers provide enough information on this issue. A large
majority of consumers (73%) acknowledge a positive role for the Government in providing
25
Italian Survey Report
information to the public on this issue. This data might be affected by the attitude adopted by the
Minister of Agriculture (Pecoraro Scanio, from the Green Party) during the BSE crises and in the
debate on GMO foods. In these cases Italian consumers acknowledged that the minister of
agriculture prioritised 'consumers worries' over 'producers interests' therefore the information
provided by the Government is considered reliable and the image of the Government has been
highly improved.
The following statements dealt with the issue of labelling animal friendly produced foods and
availability of animal friendly labelled foods. On this issue the answers of consumers are more
contradictory. Again the percentage of respondents who do not have an opinion on this issue is
quite high (about 25% in each statement). On the one hand the majority of the consumers
declares that they do not trust labels, and this lack of trust prevents them from buying animal
friendly produced foods. Most consumers believes that these products are not available in shops
but, at the same time, the majority of the consumers believe that animal friendly produced
products are 'easily available to them'. A possible explanation of these contradictory data is that a
large part of consumers cannot identify exactly what animal friendly produced products means
and most people believes that products bought 'at the farm gate', as well as meats from the 'local
butcher', are different from foods available in conventional stores. In fact it seems to emerge
from the answers to the previous questions 14 that the products bought at the farm gate or from
the local butcher, even if are completely unlabelled are believed to be produced in an animal
friendly way while the products available in regular stores are more 'anonymous' and most of
them are likely to come from factory farming.
The following four statements dealt with the issue of cost of animal friendly produced foods and
consumers willingness to pay for them. Once again the number of people who cannot express an
opinion is high (around 25%), but the answers to these statements are quite consistent. The large
majority of consumers (72%) declared that they are not prepared to pay higher prices for animal
friendly products, over 50% of the respondent declared that they resent having to pay higher
prices for such a products and always over 50% of the respondent argue that the higher cost of
these food actually prevent them from buying it (57%).
The last four statements dealt with the issue of 'empathy'. Again for these statements over 25%
of the respondents could not express an opinion. The majority, 57%, agreed with the statements
'I feel that living conditions of most farms animals is acceptable' and always a majority of
respondents do not consider the condition of life of farm animal a priority in their life and do not
think about it when they shop for food. It is worth underlining that, regarding these four
26
Italian Survey Report
statements, women more than men are concerned about the way in which farm animals are
treated when buying food. Q18 Percent of statements Agree
strongly Agree somewhat
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree somewhat
Disagree strongly
Don't Know
The amount of animal-based food I eat has no effect on the way animals are treated
8.6 31.5 21.6 24.0 6.8 7.6
What I choose to buy has no effect on the welfare of farm animals
10.0 29.3 20.4 27.3 6.2 6.8
By choosing products labelled with animal welfare information, I can influence the way animals are treated
4.2 13.6 15.6 41.3 15.0 10.4
I believe people should eat less animal products to improve the welfare of farm animals
7.0 24.4 17.8 35.1 10.8 5.0
Farmers should provide more reliable information on how animals are reared for food
46.5 47.3 3.0 1.6 0.4 1.2
Food retailers provide enough reliable information on animal production
9.0 38.3 14.4 26.3 6.6 5.4
The Government provides enough reliable information on how animals are reared for food
25.5 47.5 10.8 11.0 2.0 3.2
I am not sure whether animals welfare labels can be trusted, therefore, I am reluctant to buy such food
17.4 31.9 17.2 22.4 7.2 4.0
Food with animal welfare labels is easily available to me
15.4 38.1 11.6 18.0 5.0 12.0
Lack of animal welfare labelled food in the shops prevents me from buying it
10.8 27.9 14.2 25.5 9.0 12.6
Food with animal welfare information is widely available
16.2 42.7 10.8 13.0 3.6 13.8
You have to look hard to find foods with animal welfare labels
15.8 44.3 9.6 13.4 5.2 11.8
I can afford to buy food with animal welfare labels all of the time
3.4 18.2 18.6 43.1 8.6 8.2
The cost of food with animal welfare labels deters me from buying it
3.0 14.2 17.4 43.9 12.8 8.8
I am willing to pay more for products with improved animal welfare
3.0 7.8 15.2 51.1 21.2 1.8
I resent having to pay more for foods produced with improved animal welfare
7.0 22.6 15.6 39.1 13.6 2.2
Farm animal welfare is a major concern in my life
6.0 22.8 23.0 32.9 14.6 0.8
I feel that the living conditions of most farm animals is acceptable
4.8 22.0 10.6 44.1 13.2 5.4
When I buy animal-based food, I rarely think about how farm animals have been kept
8.6 32.1 20.0 25.3 11.6 2.4
I often think about the way in which farm animals are treated
5.4 22.8 19.0 36.5 14.2 2.2
Q18 Means for each barrier Empathy Influence Cost Availability Information Mean 3.24 3.13 3.51 2.59 2.30 Valid frequency 499 495 498 464 498 Don't know 2 6 3 37 3
27
Italian Survey Report
Q18 Means for each barrier by gender Empathy Influence Cost Availability Information Male Mean 3.13 3.01 3.54 2.58 2.31 Valid frequency 209 208 208 187 209 Don't know 0 1 1 22 0 Female Mean 3.32 3.22 3.49 2.60 2.30 Valid frequency 290 287 290 277 289 Don't know 2 5 2 15 3 Q18 Means for each barrier by social class Empathy Influence Cost Availability Information AB Mean 3.37 2.95 3.60 2.82 2.43 Valid frequency 50 50 50 47 50 Don't know 0 0 0 3 0 C1 Mean 3.19 3.21 3.62 2.36 2.22 Valid frequency 123 122 122 117 123 Don't know 0 1 1 6 0 C2 Mean 3.21 3.11 3.56 2.59 2.19 Valid frequency 54 54 54 52 54 Don't know 0 0 0 2 0 DE Mean 3.25 3.13 3.43 2.66 2.35 Valid frequency 264 262 264 243 264 Don't know 2 4 2 23 2 Q18 Means for each barrier – paired T-test Empathy Influence Cost Availability Influence 0.1185 Cost -0.2718 -0.3848 Availability 0.6949 0.5521 0.9361 Information 0.9378 0.8269 1.2109 0.2918
Information
Question 19 was dedicated to investigate consumers level of information on farm animals rearing
practices. The percentage of consumers that consider themselves informed about rearing
practices is around 30% for each product, a slightly higher percentage of consumers is more
informed about poultry production (39%), eggs (37.2%) and milk (37.5%) and slightly lower
about lamb (28%). About one third of the respondent could not express any opinion and the
majority declared themselves to be uninformed. There is a gender difference: men believe
themselves to be more informed than women. There is also a difference in social classes: the
percentage of AB respondents that tend to believe that they are better informed about all the
products is higher, most of all in the case of poultry.