Are They Buying It? United States Consumers’ Changing Attitudes toward More Humanely Raised Meat, Eggs, and Dairy
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Respondent Characteristics
3.2. Attitudes towards Farm Animal Welfare and Industry
3.3. Consumer Purchasing Decisions
3.4. Willingness to Pay for Welfare Certified Products
3.5. Demographic Predictors of Consumer Attitudes and Willingness to Pay
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The Pew Charitable Trusts. Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. Available online: https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/news_events/PCIFAPSmry.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Fraser, D. The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 79, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Napolitano, F.; Girolami, A.; Braghieri, A. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erian, I.; Phillips, C.J.C. Public Understanding and attitudes towards meat chicken production and relations to consumption. Animals 2017, 7, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Report Buyer. Animal Welfare Report: Issues and Opportunities in the Meat, Poultry, and Egg Markets in the U.S. Available online: https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/4918755/animal-welfare-issues-and-opportunities-in-the-meat-poultry-and-egg-markets-in-the-u-s.html (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Eurobaramater. Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Fraser, D. Farm animal production: Changing agriculture in a changing culture. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2001, 4, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Government. United States Code, Title 49: Transportation. Available online: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleX-chap805-sec80502.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- United States Government. United States Code, Title 7: Agriculture. Available online: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title7/pdf/USCODE-2014-title7-chap48.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Livestock Slaughter 2017 Summary. Available online: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/LiveSlauSu/LiveSlauSu-04-18-2018.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2017).
- United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Poultry Slaughter 2016 Summary. Available online: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/pslaan17.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- United States Government. United States Code, Title 7. Chapter 54: Transportation, Sale, and Handling of Certain Animals. Available online: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title7/html/USCODE-2015-title7-chap54.htm (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Farm Animal Confinement Bans by State. Available online: https://www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. Chickens and Eggs 2017 Summary. Available online: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/ChickEgg//2010s/2018/ChickEgg-02-26-2018.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- National Chicken Council. Broiler Chicken Industry Key Facts 2018. Available online: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/broiler-chicken-industry-key-facts/ (accessed on 17 July 2018).
- National Chicken Council. Animal Welfare for Broiler Chickens. Available online: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/industry-issues/animal-welfare-for-broiler-chickens/ (accessed on 17 July 2018).
- Rhodes, R.T.; Appleby, M.C.; Chinn, K.; Douglas, L.; Firkins, L.D.; Houpt, K.A.; Irwin, C.; McGlone, J.J.; Sundberg, P.; Tokach, L.; et al. A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005, 227, 1580–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Global Animal Partnership. The 5-Step Animal Welfare Program. Available online: https://globalanimalpartnership.org/5-step-animal-welfare-rating-program/ (accessed on 18 July 2018).
- Humane Farm Animal Care. Humane Farm Animal Care Annual Report 2017. Available online: http://certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-Annual-Report-Final2.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2018).
- A Greener World. AWA Standards. Available online: https://agreenerworld.org/certifications/animal-welfare-approved/standards/ (accessed on 18 July 2018).
- Care, H.F.A. Certified Humane and Handled: Our Standards. Available online: https://certifiedhumane.org/how-we-work/our-standards/ (accessed on 18 July 2018).
- Global Animal Partnership. Available online: https://globalanimalpartnership.org (accessed on 18 July 2018).
- Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.; Estevez-Moreno, L.X.; Sepulveda, W.S.; Estrada-Chavero, M.C.; Rayas-Amor, A.A.; Villarroel, M.; Maria, G.A. Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci. 2017, 125, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolf, C.A.; Tonsor, G.T.; McKendree, M.G.; Thomson, D.U.; Swanson, J.C. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 5892–5903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lusk, J.L.; Norwood, F.B. A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008, 233, 1121–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Animal Welfare Institute. Label Confusion: How “Humane” and “Sustainable” Claims on Meat Packages Deceive Consumers. Available online: https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/products/AWI-FA-FoodLabelReport-05072014.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports National Research Center: Natural Food Labels Survey. Available online: http://www.consumerreports.org/content/dam/cro/magazine-articles/2016/March/Consumer_Reports_Natural_Food_Labels_Survey_2015.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms. Available online: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Yang, R.; Raper, K.C.; Lusk, J.L. The impact of hormone use perception on consumer meat preference. In Proceedings of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Mobile, AL, USA, 2–4 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Paulsen, A. The Humane Labeling of Animal-Based Food Products; A Working Overview. Available online: http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/6702-humane-labeling-standards (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Unites States District Court Northern District of California. Organic Consumers Association Court Case. Available online: https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/oca_v_sanderson_-_complaint_court_stamped.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Goulet, D. Confusion in Court Over “All Natural” Claims. Available online: http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/classactions/articles/spring2012-0412-all-natural-labels-mean-marketing.html (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Compassion Over Killing. Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Concerning Kroger Simple Truth Chicken Labeling. Available online: http://cok.net/news/press-releases/simple-truth-chicken-label-removed (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Humane Society of the United States. Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Concerning Perdue Chicken Labeling. Available online: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2014/10/Perdue-settlement-101314.html (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. Available online: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Napolitano, F.; Serrapica, M.; Braghieri, A. Contrasting attitudes towards animal welfare issues within the food chain. Animals 2013, 3, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clopper, C.J.; Pearson, E.S. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guangyong, Z. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 159, 702–706. [Google Scholar]
- Wald, A. Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1943, 54, 426–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKendree, M.G.S.; Croney, C.C.; Widmar, N.J.O. Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 3161–3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perry, B.; Grace, D. How growing complexity of consumer choices and drivers of consumption behaviour affect demand for animal source foods. EcoHealth 2015, 12, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Immink, V.M. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Sutherland, M.A.; Webster, J.; Sutherland, I. Animal health and welfare issues facing organic production systems. Animals 2013, 3, 1021–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dransfield, E.; Ngapo, T.M.; Nielsen, N.A.; Bredahl, L.; Sjödén, P.O.; Magnusson, M.; Campo, M.M.; Nute, G.R. Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Sci. 2005, 69, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roosen, J.; Lusk, J.L.; Fox, J.A. Consumer demand for and attitudes toward alternative beef labeling strategies in France, Germany, and the UK. Agribus. Int. J. 2003, 19, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Associated Press. Judge Rejects ‘Happy Cow’ Lawsuit. Available online: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/27/business/fi-cows27 (accessed on 24 July 2018).
- Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C.; Troy, D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Darby, M.; Karni, E. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J. Law Econ. 1973, 16, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagerkvist, C.J.; Hess, S. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2011, 38, 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusk, J.L.; Hudson, D. Willingness-to-pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2004, 26, 152–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bray, J.; Johns, N.; Kilburn, N. An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | % |
---|---|
Sex | |
Male | 45 |
Female | 55 |
Age, year | |
Under 30 | 23 |
30–44 | 27 |
45–59 | 26 |
60 & over | 25 |
Education | |
High school or less | 28 |
Some college | 25 |
College graduate/post-graduate | 47 |
Total Household Income | |
Below $50,000 | 51 |
$50,000–$99,999 | 33 |
Above $100,000 | 13 |
Can’t Answer | 3 |
US Census Region | |
Northeast | 20 |
Midwest | 23 |
South | 36 |
West | 21 |
Item | % | 95% CI |
---|---|---|
Concern about the welfare of animals that are raised as food for people to eat. % somewhat or very concerned | 78 | 75–81 |
Believe that there should be an objective third party checking on the welfare of animals on farms rather than just the company itself. % agree or strongly agree | 78 | 75–81 |
Importance of practices for indicating good treatment of farm animals. % somewhat or very important. | ||
Farms raise animals with shelter, resting areas, and sufficient space | 84 | 80–87 |
Farms do not confine animals so tightly that they can barely move | 84 | 80–87 |
Farms are inspected by outside government or independent entities to verify that they are treating animals well | 82 | 78–86 |
Farms provide healthy enough living conditions so that the animals do not need to be routinely fed antibiotics to prevent illness in the animals | 78 | 74–82 |
Animals spend most of their time outdoors on pasture | 77 | 73–81 |
Animals have the ability to engage in natural behaviors since they would live in natural conditions | 77 | 73–81 |
Farms do not confine animals in cages where they can’t turn around or extend their limbs | 76 | 72–80 |
Farms provide pain control when conducting castration, beak trimming, or other procedures | 76 | 72–80 |
Trust in industry to treat the animals they raise for food well. % somewhat or completely trust | ||
Dairy | 56 | 53–59 |
Egg | 53 | 49–56 |
Beef | 49 | 46–52 |
Poultry | 46 | 43–49 |
Pork | 45 | 42–48 |
Item | % | 95% CI |
---|---|---|
Pay attention to labels on meat, eggs, and dairy products saying how the animal was raised. % some or a lot of attention | 70 | 66–73 |
Do not care if store carries products with certifications that ensure that farm animals are treated well. % agree or strongly agree | 33 | 30–36 |
Would like stores to carry a greater variety of welfare-certified meat, eggs, and dairy products than they currently offer. % agree or strongly agree | 75 | 72–78 |
Importance of information when making a purchasing decision. % somewhat or very important | ||
Knowing the animal did not receive antibiotics | 76 | 72–80 |
Knowing the animal did not suffer when it was raised on the farm | 75 | 71–79 |
Knowing the animal was treated well | 74 | 70–78 |
Knowing the product is labeled as natural | 69 | 65–74 |
Knowing the product is labeled as USDA Organic | 68 | 64–73 |
Where the animal was raised—indoors or outdoors | 65 | 61–69 |
Item | % * | 95% CI |
---|---|---|
Willingness to Pay for a Dozen Eggs that Came from Hens Whose Welfare was Verified under a Trustworthy Welfare Certification * | ||
Would not pay extra | 31 | 28–34 |
$0.50 extra | 41 | 38–45 |
$1.50 extra | 16 | 13–18 |
$2.50 extra | 9 | 7–11 |
≥$3.50 extra | 2 | 1–3 |
Willingness to Pay for 1 pound of Chicken Breast that Came from Hens Whose Welfare was Verified under a Trustworthy Welfare Certification | ||
Would not pay extra | 30 | 27–33 |
$1.00 extra | 37 | 34–40 |
$2.00 extra | 15 | 13–18 |
$3.00 extra | 7 | 6–9 |
≥$4.00 extra | 3 | |
Willingness to Pay for Entree at a Restaurant that Serves Welfare-Certified Animal Products | ||
Would not pay extra ** | 43 | 40–47 |
<$5.00 extra | 41 | 37–44 |
$5.00–$10.00 extra | 13 | 11–15 |
>$10.00 extra | 3 | 2–4 |
Demographic Predictors | Model 1: Concern About Welfare a | Model 2: Attention to Labels b | Model 3: Willing to Pay More, Certified Eggs c | Model 4: Willing to Pay More, Certified Chicken c | Model 5: Willing to Pay More, Restaurant Entrée d | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prob (95% CI) | p-Value | Prob (95% CI) | p-Value | Prob (95% CI) | p-Value | Prob (95% CI) | p-Value | Prob (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Age, year | ||||||||||
<30 | 78 (72–84) | 76 (70–82) | 85 (80–91) | 83 (78–89) | 68 (61–75) | |||||
30–44 | 86 (82–91) | <0.001 | 77 (72–82) | <0.001 | 74 (68–80) | <0.001 | 75 (69–80) | <0.001 | 59 (51–66) | 0.11 |
45–59 | 75 (69–81) | 64 (58–70) | 63 (57–70) | 63 (56–70) | 56 (49–63) | |||||
≥60 | 70 (64–76) | 58 (52–64) | 55 (48–62) | 50 (43–57) | 40 (33–48) | |||||
Annual household income, $ | ||||||||||
<50,000 | 76 (72–80) | 65 (61–70) | 65 (60–69f | 63 (59–68) | 52 (47–57) | |||||
50,000-100,000 | 79 (74–83) | 0.67 | 73 (68–78) | 0.05 | 73 (68–78) | 0.02 | 71 (66–76) | 0.05 | 58 (52–64) | 0.02 |
>100,000 | 78 (71–85) | 72 (64–80) | 74 (66–81) | 73 (65–80) | 61 (52–69) | |||||
Gender | ||||||||||
Female | 82 (79–86) | 65 (60–69) | 69 (64–73) | 66 (61–70) | 52 (47–57) | |||||
Male | 72 (67–76) | <0.001 | 72 (68–76) | 0.02 | 69 (64–73) | 0.96 | 68 (64–73) | 0.44 | 58 (53–63) | 0.11 |
US Census Region | ||||||||||
Midwest | 78 (72–85) | 66 (59–73) | 69 (62–75) | 68 (61–75) | 53 (44–61) | |||||
Northeast | 77 (72–83) | 0.64 | 66 (60–73) | 0.36 | 68 (62–75) | 0.99 | 66 (59–72) | 0.69 | 58 (50–66) | 0.74 |
South | 79 (74–83) | 72 (67–77) | 69 (64–74) | 69 (64–74) | 56 (50–62) | |||||
West | 74 (68–80) | 68 (62–74) | 68 (62–74) | 64 (58–71) | 53 (46–60) |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Spain, C.V.; Freund, D.; Mohan-Gibbons, H.; Meadow, R.G.; Beacham, L. Are They Buying It? United States Consumers’ Changing Attitudes toward More Humanely Raised Meat, Eggs, and Dairy. Animals 2018, 8, 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080128
Spain CV, Freund D, Mohan-Gibbons H, Meadow RG, Beacham L. Are They Buying It? United States Consumers’ Changing Attitudes toward More Humanely Raised Meat, Eggs, and Dairy. Animals. 2018; 8(8):128. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080128
Chicago/Turabian StyleSpain, C. Victor, Daisy Freund, Heather Mohan-Gibbons, Robert G. Meadow, and Laurie Beacham. 2018. "Are They Buying It? United States Consumers’ Changing Attitudes toward More Humanely Raised Meat, Eggs, and Dairy" Animals 8, no. 8: 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8080128