Strategies to Address Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare · 2017-02-22 · August 2001 Mara...

Department of Agricultural Economics University of Pisa

Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare

and Food Choice Strategies to Address Consumer

Mara Miele and Vittoria Parisi

Concerns about Animal Welfare Italian Report

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 This paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.)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:

M. Miele, V. Parisi: Consumer Concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice - Strategies to Address Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare Italian Report, published by University of Pisa.

FAIR CT98 3678

Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice

Strategies to Address Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare

Italian Report

August 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

Università degli Studi di Pisa E-mail: [email protected]

Via del Borghetto 80 [email protected]

56124 Pisa

Italy

Italian Focus Group Survey Report

• Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of national results ................................................................................................................................ 4 Summary of Strategies workshop ........................................................................................................................ 9

STRATEGIES FOCUS GROUPS................................................................................................................................... 10 Focus groups (Method) ..................................................................................................................................... 10

FOCUS GROUP 28 –08-2001 (5:30 P.M.- 7:30 P.M.) MALE ABC1 AGE 30-50 ......................................................... 12 FOCUS GROUP 29 –08-2001 (5:30 P.M.- 7:30 P.M.) MALE ABC1 AGE 30-50 ......................................................... 12 FOCUS GROUP 27 –07- 2001 FEMALE ABC1 AGE 30-50......................................................................................... 12 FOCUS GROUP 25 –7 - 2001 FEMALE ABC1 AGE 30-50.......................................................................................... 12 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

1-Compulsary Labelling................................................................................................................................................14 2-Minimum standards ...................................................................................................................................................15 3-Change in agricultural policy ....................................................................................................................................16 4-Education of consumers.............................................................................................................................................16 5-Voluntary code of practice.........................................................................................................................................17 6-Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................18

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EU........................................................................................................................... 19 LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................... 19 FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................. 19 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

2


Executive Summary

3


Introduction Summary of national results The project is in its finale stage. From the previous stages of the project, the qualitative stages of the research, focus group discussion with consumers and laddering interviews we gathered information on consumer attitude, nature and level of concerns about farm animals welfare. Particularly, the first set of focus group discussions were meant to understand consumers concerns about animal welfare in the context of food production and we used a video showing the main features of a selected numbers of modern animal rearing systems for promoting the group discussion. In the Italian context, as it emerged from the analysis of the existing literature about this issue, this topic has been little investigated. More remarkably, till very recently, the few studies conducted in this field have shown that there was little concern about animal welfare, generally, and least concern in food production. This qualitative stage of the project aimed to verify whether the consumers concerns about animal welfare had changed, how consumers would express such a concerns and how much it would have an impact in food choice. The focus group texts were analysed to reveal similarities and differences amongst the different groups of consumers. The main results of this first stage can be summarised in the following points: General concerns about food: Consumers in Italy are spontaneously concerned about food safety, health and quality. Italian consumers are particularly concerned about ‘unnatural’ and ‘risky’ chemicals used as animal feed additives, such as antibiotics and hormones. Health concerns are especially relevant to consumers if in the household there are small children, this is remarkably evident in the case of eggs and fresh meat (beef). The role of media campaigns is crucial to address consumers concerns: in the Italian case this is clearly evident for BSE and salmonella. Concern about animal welfare: Both from literature review and from focus groups discussion it emerged that Italian consumers spontaneously very seldom prompt 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. Italian consumers expressed particular concern over battery cages and veal crates. Least concerns about dairy products. In the Italian case the number of animal friendly produced products is very limited and the organic products represented almost the only experience that consumers had of ‘animal-friendly’ produced products. As a consequence of that, only the consumers living in cities and towns in which these products are available could say why they were interested in them. For the organic products the most quoted attributes have been healthiness, better quality and better taste. Consumers used the concepts of ‘natural’ and ‘humane’ to describe the ways in which farm animals should be treated. Meanings of animal welfare: Consumers in Italy measured the welfare of animals in terms of closeness to natural condition. Most consumers believed that if the natural condition is not reproducible for farm animals, at least they should be treated ‘humanely’ and should be kept in production systems well managed and strongly regulated and controlled. A number of consumers in Italy associated animal welfare with organic production and perceived the modern-intensive production techniques as most unfriendly for animals and riskiest for consumers.

4


Sources and reliability of information: Italian consumers received most of their information from the media, especially in occasion such as food scandal (BSE, Dioxine, Salmonella) but, as a recent phenomenon, received information also from specific animal rights movements campaigns (such as LAV). Most consumers felt that they were not well informed about animal production systems. Many of them suspected that this lack of information was a deliberated choice of food industry in order to keep consumer unaware of the way in which food is produced and declared that the Government should provide objective information in this field. Retailing companies have also been blamed for not providing sufficient information on this issue. Most consumers could not express opinion on who they would trust most. The reason of this difficulty is the lack of product experience. In the case of organic products they expressed trust in the EU certification system. Responsibility: The issue of responsibility created some discomfort among the participants. They tended to assume theoretical responsibility but claimed that, as individuals, they were powerless to make any substantial changes. Responsibility was attributed to big producers adopting intensive rearing systems and, to a lesser degree, to big retailers. Small producers have been defined as the subjects that most likely would guarantee the higher animal welfare to farm animals. Advantages and disadvantages of higher animal welfare: There was a consensus that consumers would benefit from improved animal welfare through the improved quality, safety and taste of the products. Italian consumers feared that improved welfare would result in increased costs which would be passed on to the consumer. Participants in Italy claimed that improved animal welfare would lead to reduced use of chemicals, and reduced pollution of the environment. Willingness to pay: All the participants to the groups, declared that they were willing to pay more in principle for improved animal welfare. The lack of availability of animal friendly products on the actual markets made this statement very hypothetical, and most participants could not say how much more they would have been prepared to pay for it. The consumers who said they would pay more, they believed that the products would have better quality and safety. Farm animal production systems: Most of the participants disapproved of the battery cage system for laying hens, stating that it was ‘cruel’ and ‘unnatural’ and that reminded a “concentration camp”. The barn system, with increased space allowance and access to natural light, was considered more acceptable but the vast majority of consumers expressed a preference for free-range production, as long as disease was controlled. The indoor broiler system was generally perceived as ‘packed’ and ‘unhealthy’. Most of the participants preferred the free-range system and believed that it would provide better quality products. All the participants disapproved of the tethers and stalls for sows, describing them as ‘unnecessary’, ‘cruel’. There was also objection to the restriction of the farrowing crate. The loose housing system was perceived to be a reasonable compromise. The outdoor rearing was perceived as the most ‘natural’ and, therefore, the ideal system. The indoor finishing did not present any significant problems. There was generally less concern for the beef systems, although there was a general preference for the outdoor system. Most of the concern related to BSE and cattle feed.

5


Many of the participants thought that the veal crates should be banned. There was a great deal of concern about the inadequate diet, separation from mothers and other calves and restricted movement. The grouped housing system was preferred, but a number of participants objected to the production of veal per se. The relationship between expressed concerns and actual behaviour needed to be investigated further through a deeper examination of consumer beliefs, habits, choices and other factors, which affect consumption. The external attributions, made by the participants, needed to be examined and evaluated in relation to willingness to pay. From the focus groups emerged that 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, therefore, in the following stage of the research it has been conducted a mean-end chain analysis on a sample of concerned consumers. A series of 60 ladder interviews followed the focus group discussion. These interviews are the prerequisite for conducting the mean-end chain analysis and have been used to investigate those factors that determine specific hierarchy of concerns, and the beliefs associated with the equation of ‘good / bad animal welfare implies...”. The ladder interviews presented the opportunity to explore this relationship in detail, by identifying the specific aspects of animal farming that concern consumers (such as space of feed), the consequences for themselves or for the animals that they link to those specific aspects of the production technique and the most important values or final consequences that consumers would associate with those attributes. In the Italian interviews the most important value associated with animal welfare is “Ethics”, it emerges quite clearly that for Italian consumers the welfare of the animals is linked to a very basic/terminal value “Ethics”, the way in which we should live. The concept of “Ethics” has been mentioned for the battery cage in the case of hen and for the veal crate system. These practices have been defined self-evidently unacceptable and against the common sense idea about “how we should live”. The second most important value is “Cruelty” (Should not be cruel or violent to animals). This value is strongly associated with the concept “Suffering” and animal suffering is strongly associated with “Slaughter” and “Transport”. Very often the respondents mentioned practices that are perceived as violent or cruel and that are adopted for obtaining some superfluous or unnecessary product characteristics, such as ‘pink’ meat in veal production. Slaughtering has been mentioned in the case of veal production. The third most often elicited values are “Healthy”, “Natural” and “Young” (young animals should not be eaten). “Healthy” (a healthy life) is a concept that reflects the relevance that health has for a better life, a life lived at full. It is a value linked mainly to the consequences “Safety”(affect food safety) and “H-Health”(affect human health) and is strongly linked to the attributes “Feed”, “Additives” and “Regulated”(regulated feeding), but also to “Mass”(mass production), “Space”, Light, “Outside”. “Young” is referred to baby –animals. In the Italian case is almost always referred to lamb and to calves for veal production. The most often quoted Attribute is “Space” ( 66% of the respondents in the sample). This attribute is strongly linked to “Natural” (Natural living conditions) and “QualityL”(animal’s quality of life), but is also linked to a great number of Consequences (Emphaty, Mental, Ahealth, Distress).

6


Space has been quoted especially for the battery cage and the veal crate system. This attribute has never been associated with products like “prosciutto” (cured ham) and “milk”. On the contrary, pigs for production of ham and cows for production of milk are considered animals with a higher animal welfare than hen and calves or bovine for meat production because they have more freedom of movement (at least in the mind of the consumers). The second attribute is Feed (what the animals are fed on) which is often mentioned with Additives (feed additives, such as antibiotics or hormones) and Regulated (regulated feed, such as force feeding). All of them are strongly linked to Safety (affect food safety) and Hhealth (affect human health), and to the value Healthy (a healthy life). Other important attributes are “Slaughter” and “Life Span”. The former is linked to consequences “Suffering”(animal suffering) and “Mental” (animal mental stress) and to the value “Cruelty”(cruelty towards animals). “Transport” is also linked to consequences like “Suffering” and the value “Cruelty”. Among the 14 consequences we can distinguish 3 more self-interested consequences and 11 consequences for the animals (altruistic). Natural (altruistic) is the most often quoted consequence, and it is followed by “Safety”(safety of the products) and “H-Health”(human health) and “Quality”(quality of the products) of the products which are self-interested. The fist two qualitative stages of the research have been followed by the analysis of a representative sample survey consisting of 500 consumers in each country. The main objectives of the survey were: 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. In the Italian survey the results pointed to the following aspects: Consumption: During the last five years, for 5 out of 7 products included in this survey (beef, veal, pork, lamb and eggs), the percentage of consumers who decreased the consumption is higher than the percentage of those who increased it, with the only exception of milk and poultry in which the percentage of the one who increased the consumption is slightly higher than the ones who decreased it. The percentage of women who decreased consumption is higher than the percentage of men. Beef and veal registered the highest level of decrease and clearly this data has been influenced by the BSE scares. Amongst the consumers who increased the consumption of meats, the percentage of women once again is higher than the percentage of men. Therefore it seems to emerge a situation in which women are more dynamic and less traditional consumption patterns, while men have a more conformist food consumption. Acceptability of production methods: Poultry production has been defined as the most ‘unacceptable’ method of production followed by beef and veal. From the previous stages of the research it has emerged that many consumers tend to believe that eggs and poultry meat are ‘joint products’ and most likely the unacceptability is extended also to the battery cage for laying hens. The unacceptability of beef and veal production has been enhanced by the BSE scares and in the case of beef seems to be linked to the unnatural feed (bones meal). Attributes of animal welfare: all the attributes proposed to the consumers (feed, space, outside access, possibility to express natural behaviour, methods of transportation, methods of

7


slaughtering)1, have been defined relevant to the welfare of farm animals. Among them feed has emerged as the most important one, followed by space and outside access. The relevance given to animal feed has been amplified by the BSE scare and it shows, once again, that consumers tend to prioritise those animal welfare issues that are clear indicators of other (more important to them) characteristics, such as healthiness of the animal products that they will buy. The other two most relevant attributes are ‘space’ and ‘outside access’. Decreased consumption due to animal welfare concerns: One third of the interviewed consumers have declared that they decreased the consumption of some animal products for animal welfare concerns. Among them the number of women is higher than the number of men, 70% of the consumers who changed consumption for animal welfare consideration are women and only 30% are men. Since in the sample there are more women than men, in absolute terms 39% of total women have changed for animal welfare considerations and only 23% of total men. The decrease in consumption for animal welfare consideration has been higher for beef and veal (83% and 67%), medium for poultry, pork and lamb (35%, 32%, 30%) and much less relevant for eggs and milk (18% and 15%). Animal friendly products: 38% of the respondents declared to buy products identified as animal friendly produced. Among them, 33.7%, are men and 66.3% are women. Once again women seem more concerned about animal welfare and also more inclined to innovation. Nevertheless this data has to be interpreted bearing in mind that in the Italian context there are very few labels that clearly refer to the methods of production and address the issue of animal welfare. ‘Free range eggs’ and ‘organic products’ represent the only examples. From the answers and the list of products elicited by the respondent it emerges that ‘origin’ and ‘bought at the farm gate’ (personal knowledge of the producer, small producers) are the main characteristics that consumers can use to infer that an animal product has been obtained with rearing methods aimed at higher animal welfare. Barriers to purchasing animal –friendly products: we identified five possible barriers to purchasing animal friendly produced products: costs, availability of products in shops, information on methods of production, empathy and consumers purchasing behaviour influence on animal welfare. The most important factor listed is information on production methods, followed by availability of animal friendly produced products in regular shops. Cost is the third barrier, and empathy and influence of consumer behaviour are the last. From the attitudinal statements it emerges clearly that consumers are not prepared to pay a higher price for animal friendly produced foods, and this data might look contradictory with the priority given to ‘information’ and ‘availability’ in the direct question. A possible interpretation is that Italian consumers are prepared to pay for something that they do not know yet. The lack of ‘information’ and the scarce ‘availability’ of these products make difficult to express an opinion on ‘how much’ consumers would be ready to pay for them. The factor empathy is more relevant in the attitudinal statements than in the direct question on the actual purchasing behaviour. Empathy and influence are more important for women, while cost is more important for men. There are no gender differences in the case of information and availability. Information: the survey confirmed that Italian consumers think that they know little about modern animal farming systems, as it emerged clearly for the results of the previous stages of the research. The higher level of information is about poultry production, beef and veal. On this issue men believe to have higher information and AB respondents consider themselves more informed than the other social classes.

1 The attributes in the questionnaire have been chosen among the ones elicited by consumers in the focus groups discussions and in the ladder interviews

8


Trust: It clearly emerges from the interviews that all the subjects involved in the production of animal products are not considered trustworthy in providing information on animal welfare issues and are not believed to be able to adopt methods of production meant to higher level of animal welfare. Social movements, such as animal welfare organisations and environmental movements are considered more reliable, while the Government is seen as neglecting this issue. Consumers or consumers organisation are considered the subject that more than any other one can promote the development of more animal friendly methods of farm animal production. Total model factors: for Italian consumers animal products such as eggs and milk are in a different position or belong to a different category than meats. On the specific issue of ‘animal welfare’ this diversity is amplified by the fact that for producing these products there is no need to kill the animal. Therefore is easy to understand that milk and eggs have been listed as best product in terms of overall image. Milk is considered the best products for almost all aspects. Among the meats, poultry has the best image, especially in terms of health and safety. Pork is considered tastiest but more problematic for health reason, while beef and veal have the worst image. It is important to underline that for Italian consumers, even though the overall image of beef is the lowest (with veal) among the meat it is still considered the one the would be harder to give up. This data is indicating that the traditional preference of Italian consumers for beef is still present, even in a period characterised by high alarm for BSE. Summary of Strategies workshop In order to identifying appropriate strategies able to address consumers concerns about animal welfare we held a workshop with representatives of the food industry, animal welfare organisations and policy makers. Two group discussions were conducted during the strategies workshop2 each with key informants. Each group devised strategies for producers, processors/retailers and policy makers. The groups reconvened and discussed the pros and cons of each strategy and a final list of strategies was drawn up to be discussed with the consumer focus groups in the final stage of the research. The following strategies emerged in the workshop: Strategies addressed to Policy Makers: Subsidies Minimum standards applied to EU and non-EU producers Enforcement Monitoring Research/technological development/alternatives Labelling: compulsory v. mandatory Investment subsidies Clear codes/targets – animal welfare Coherent policy Trust in institutions Strategies addressed to Producers: Promotion of best practice Increased communication and transparency of the supply chain Information on implications of good practices Labelling methods of production (based on consumers’ right to know) Niche marketing for added value Advertising

2 The strategies workshop was held in Bruxelles on March 20th, 2001.

9


Improving welfare through improved efficiency, training, etc. Strategies addressed to Processors/Retailers: Transparency Retailers communicate to consumers Labelling for niche market Impact on standards through legislation Co-operation though supply chain Strategies addressed to Consumers /Communication: Better education of consumers (problem: information overload, disassociation, increase information, increase concern?) Labelling Show realities of best practice Funds from the Commission Information : (a) neutral description and (b) evaluation/grade Transparency/openness Product choice (trade-off between animal welfare and price, etc.) Vote Strategies Focus Groups Focus groups (Method) Focus groups produce qualitative data that provide insights into the attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of participants (Krueger, 1994:19). Focus groups analysis is one of the most widely used research methods in marketing, political science and other social sciences, to obtain information on topics not well, or not yet, investigated. It’s generally used for identifying similarities and/or differences in consumers, to determine the language used to define specific products and services and to generate a range of hypotheses on the subject matter. These results are stimulated through an open-ended question and a proceeding in which respondents are able to choose the manner in which they respond and also from comments of those respondents in a group discussion. The focus group presents the advantage of creating an environment where participants are influencing and influenced by others, reproducing a very common situation in real life. The researcher assists several functions in the focus group: facilitating and moderating the discussion, listening to all the participants, observing their reactions and body language, and eventually analysing the texts obtained, using an inductive process. The inductive researcher derives understanding based on the discussion as opposed to testing or confirming a preconceived hypothesis or theory. At this stage of the research we used focus group discussions with consumers concerned about farm animal welfare to elicit the most effective strategies to address those consumers concerned that had been listed in the previous stages of the research. Focus groups aims: To discuss potential strategies with consumers. To assess the degree to which strategies actually address consumer concerns. To recruit the groups of concerned consumers on the basis of age, gender and social class. To identify potential strategies for different actors, including producers, retailers and policymakers.

10


A common discussion guide has been developed by the partners and tested with a first round of pilot focus groups. The results of the first pilot groups showed that there was a need to introduce earlier the discussion on the strategies and to present some animal products, both animal friendly produced and ‘conventionally’ produced, in order to activate a discussion among the participants. A second round of pilot groups has been carried out by the Italian and Irish partners and the discussion guide has been finalised (see annex). From the cluster analysis conducted on the total sample (a total sample of 2,500 consumers, 500 in each of the five study countries) emerged that there where four clusters of consumers: two groups not concerned, and two clusters of concerned consumers. One of the concerned groups was female aged 30-50, ABC1; the other was male aged 30-50 ABC1. In the male groups there were those who were concerned and buy animal friendly produced products and those who are concerned and do not buy them. As the demographics of the groups were intended to reflect the cluster analysis findings (and are not meant to be representative of the population as a whole) the best demographic fit varies by gender only. On the basis of the cluster analysis results it has been agreed to organise four focus groups in each study country, two with women 30-50 ABC1, and two with men, 30-50 ABC1. A recruitment guide (see annex) was developed in order to select consumer concerned about farm animal welfare and with a minimum of knowledge of animal farming systems that would enable them to carry on the discussion around possible strategies for addressing consumers concerns. The final discussion guide (see appendices) was developed on the basis of the results of the pilots focus groups discussion and consisted of two parts: the first part in which participants are given an information on the results of the consumers survey carried on during the preceding phase of the project, the second part in which five scenarios are presented to the participants. During the first part of the focus group discussion, after a brief presentation of the main results of the survey (on the nature and the of consumers concern about animal welfare for farm animals, the impact that these concerned have had on animal products consumption and the barriers to buying animal friendly produced products), the participants are asked to express their opinion on these results, whether they agree or disagree with them and why. The presentation and discussion on the research findings is instrumental in preparing the following part of the discussion on the possible scenarios to address consumers concerns about farm animal welfare. In order to facilitate the discussion it has been agreed on a specific protocol for running the focus groups: • Give to the participants a handout with the main survey results illustrated by the group

facilitator (box 1 in appendices). • Have a range of animal-based food products on the table including: Eggs (Free range, Barn, Farm fresh /battery) Chicken (Very cheap non labelled or limited labelling, Free range, Other labelled chicken i.e. antibiotic free, corn fed etc) Pork or beef (Free-range/outdoor reared, Organic, Conventional) • Give to the participants a handout with the scenarios derived by the workshop (Box2, in

appendices) • Give to the participants a handout with the labels describing different systems of production

for discussing Scenario n.1 (See labels, in appendices) A series of 4 focus groups (two with women, social class ABC1 age 30-50, and tow with men, social class ABC1 and age 30-50), has been conducted in Florence, a medium size city in central

11


Italy, between the end of July 2001 and the end of August 2001. The groups’ composition is presented in the following tables:

Focus group 28 –08-2001 (5:30 p.m.- 7:30 p.m.) Male ABC1 age 30-50 Age Age

class Occupation Number

of children

Pets

Enrico 30 30-40 Programmer 0 Yes Dario 38 30-40 Engineer 0 No Francesco T. 32 30-40 Doctor 0 Yes David 30 30-40 Engineer 0 No Francesco D. 30 30-40 Software engineer 0 No Focus group 29 –08-2001 (5:30 p.m.- 7:30 p.m.) Male ABC1 age 30-50 Age Age


of children

Pets

Andrea N. 32 30-40 Software engineer 0 No Antonfranco. 42 40-50 Engineer 1 no Michele I. 49 40-50 Forester 2 yes Giovanni 45 40-50 Entrepreneur 1 yes Michele P. 36 30-40 Administrative

employee 1 no

Juan Carlos 35 30-40 Engineer 0 no Focus group 27 –07- 2001 Female ABC1 age 30-50 Age Age


of children

Pets

Letizia 45 40-50 housewife 0 no Massimiliana 50 40-50 Entrepreneur 1 yes Francesca 37 30-40 Designer 0 yes Elena 37 30-40 Nurse 2 no Ilaria 31 30-40 Teacher 0 no Focus group 25 –7 - 2001 Female ABC1 age 30-50 Age Age


of children

Pets

Cristina 37 30-40 Engineer 0 no Maria Carola 40 30-40 Surgeon 2 yes Caterina Lucia 50 40-50 Teacher 3 yes Paola 35 30-40 Swimming teacher 3 no Gabriella 50 40-50 Teacher 2 yes Antonella 38 30-40 Employee 0 yes Rosalba 43 40-50 Teacher 2 yes

12


Results Legenda Scenarios: 1= Compulsory Labelling 2= Minimum Standards 3= Change in Agricultural Policy 4= Education of Consumers 5= Voluntary Code of Practice Rank of scenarios for participants to (I) focus group 25-07-2001 (females) 4 3 1 2 5 3 2 4 1 (scenario n. 5 is considered counterproductive) 3 4 1 2 5 3 1 4 2 5 3 4 2 1 5 3 4 1 2 (scenario n. 5 considered misleading). Rank of scenarios for participants to (II) focus group 27-07-2001 (females) 2 1 4 3 5 2 1 4 3 5 1 4 5 2 3 1 2 4 5 3 1 2 4 5 3 Ideal solutions for participants to (I) focus group 25-07-2001 (females) 3+4+2+1 (for all) Ideal solutions for participants to (II) focus group 27-07-2001 (females) 1+2+4 1+2+4 1+4+5 1+2+4+5 1+2+4+5 Rank of scenarios for participants to focus group 28-08-2001 (males) 2 1 3 5 4 2 1 3 5 4 2 1 3 5 4 4 1 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 5 Ideal solutions for participants to focus group 28-08-2001 (males) 1+2+3+4 2+1+3 2+4+1 4+1+2+ 3 (modified) 1+2+3+4 Rank of scenarios for participants to focus group 29-08-2001 (males) 2 1 3 4 5

13


4 1 2 5 3 1 2 4 3 5 2 4 1 3 5 1 2 3 5 4 4 1 2 5 3 Ideal solutions for participants to focus group 29-08-2001 (males) 4+2+1 4+ further regulation from the other 4 scenarios. 1+2+4 1+2 followed by 4, optional 3 e 5 4+1+2, ( 3 and 5 might be useful but not essential). 1-Compulsary Labelling Advantages: The main advantages of this scenario would be a better information for consumers, which is considered extremely lacking in the present situation. A better information would enable consumers to choose among products derived from different production systems. For some participants, mostly females, labels are not considered extremely useful, they relay more on their experience of the products, and are less inclined to use or trust the labels, while men showed more trust and interest in labels: Michele, 49 years:

’Ci vuole un’etichetta che differenzi un prodotto da un altro per la qualità del trattamento degli animali, visto che più o meno tutti guardiamo le etichette e ci perdiamo tempo quindi ci attirerebbero e faremmo un confronto su queste cose.’ ‘We need a labelling system that enables people to differentiate animal products for the type of rearing system they come from. We all look at labels and this information would catch our attention and we could tell products apart.’

Andrea, 32 years:

‘In questo scenario anche il produttore verrebbe esaltato in quanto fa qualcosa di buono, la disinformazione, ora , invece penalizza chi usa buoni criteri, invece questo scenario beneficerebbe sia il consumatore, che sarebbe informato, sia il produttore che avrebbe quindi un ritorno economico.’

‘In the current situation “good producers” are penalised [ because they cannot differentiate their products. ]This scenario has the advantage that would improve consumers information and would also reward “good producers”, who could ask for a better price.’ Rosalba, 43 years:

‘Le etichette andrebbero bene, ma chi ci garantisce rispetto ai controlli?’ ‘Compulsory labelling would be useful, but who could guaranteeing the control of what is declared in the labels?’

On the type of labelling most participants, both men and women, declared to be in favour of simple labels (a logo or an image that should be consistent with the production practice. Some participants underlined the need or usefulness of more detailed labels, coupled with a logo or an image, for those consumers who want to have more information. Most participants underlined

14


the need of explicit information on the labels about the concerns expressed by the consumers and clearly emerged in the results of the survey (what the animal is fed on, feed additives, hormones, antibiotics, space, outdoor access…. see box1). Andrea, 32 years:

‘ Io sono più d’accordo su etichette d’impatto tipo questa (biologico Coop) , qualcosa che dia subito l’idea, magari un immagine di impatto, tipo un pollo all’aperto e uno in gabbia, così chi acquista ha subito l’idea, senza leggere. Poi magari possono esserci informazioni supplementari di dettaglio.’

‘I am in favour of a labelling system that propose explicit images, like a chicken outdoor and a hen in a cage, so that consumers do not have to read. As an option, more information on the rearing system can be stated on the labels.’ Disadvantages: Uncertainty about control has been the most quoted disadvantage of this scenario, since in the description of this scenario there were no reference to the controlling system. Almost all the male participants agreed on the necessity to put in place an effective and rigorous system of control that would guarantee that the statements on the labels regarding the welfare of farm animals are accurate, while many women believed that the cost of controlling would not affect significantly the final cost of the products. Most participants declared to trust more the public organisms for controlling the production practices (both women and men). A minority of participants, mostly men, thought that a private body could be more efficient. 2-Minimum standards Advantages This scenario has been considered essential for all policies targeted to improve the welfare of farm animals and a pre-requisite for the ‘compulsory labelling’ strategy. Some participants, mostly women, declared that the extensive systems of production (free range for all species and only vegetable feed for bovines) should represent the ‘minimum standard’. Letizia, 45 years:

‘ Secondo me [lo standard minimo dovrebbe essere] tutti all’aria e al sole!’ ‘ To me [minimum standard means ] all outdoors and in the sunlight! Rosalba, 43 years:

‘[I vantaggi di questo scenario?] I vantaggi maggiori sarebbero per gli animali, perchè in questo modo ci sarebbero garanzie di una vita migliore per tutti gli animali in produzione’. ‘[Which advantages?] The biggest advantages would be for the animals, since this scenario would guarantee a better life to all animals in production.’

Andrea, 32 anni:

‘ Io non definirei l’uno e il due, due scenari distinti, lo standard minimo ci deve essere sempre, è la base….. lo vedo come un’integrazione allo scenario uno.’ ‘I would not make a distinction between scenario n.1 and the n.2: a minimum standard system must be in place anyway, it is the starting point… I see it as an integration of scenario n.1 (compulsory labelling).

According to the majority of the participants a combination of these two scenarios (1+2) would guarantee all consumers that the animal products are safe and produced in an acceptable friendly

15


way, at the same time, the labelling would allow a differentiation of products according to specific characteristics and would guarantee a better ‘visibility’ to quality products. It has to be underlined that almost all participants agreed on need that the ‘minimum standards of farm animal welfare’ should be higher than the present ones, and they should be re-defined in order to keep into consideration the most shared concerns expressed by consumers since they not always coincide with the opinions of the ‘experts’ (vets). Consumers’ awareness about animal farming practices should be improved with an information campaign. Again, the control of the implementation of these rules (the more rigorous minimum standards) should be provided by public institutions, both national and supranational (European) since these standards should be common to all EU countries and should be applied to products coming from non EU countries as well. Disadvantages The men have identified no specific disadvantages for this scenario, while the women showed more suspects on the ability of ‘experts’ (vets) to address consumers real concerns. 3-Change in agricultural policy This scenario has been favourably judged by the majority of the women and it has been widely debated by the men. Two different opinions emerged among the men: for a group of participants the financial support of the CAP should be granted to all producers in order to allow everybody to reach the animal welfare minimum standards. For another group the financial support should go only to the producers who adopt more animal and environmentally friendly practices. After a debate on this issue all male participants agreed on the need to provide financial incentives only to the producers who adopt more animal friendly practices, otherwise they would have to compete in a market were the producers who do not improve the welfare of the animal in production would have lower costs of production and could sell their products at much lower prices than the ‘animal friendly’ ones. Michele, 49 years: ‘Bisogna sicuramente evitare che questi contributi vengano dati a chi non si muove’ ‘We surely need to avoiding that these financial incentives go producers who do not change’. Advantages A selective system of financial incentives would attract a growing number of producers. A selective system of financial incentives would increase the availability of animal friendly produced products (often mentioned as main barrier to purchasing animal friendly produced products) and it would decrease the price gap between the less animal friendly and the most animal friendly products. Disadvantages This scenario needs the implementation of other policies (minimum standards and labelling) because without these other measures would be little effective. The women more than the men pointed to a main risk that those producers not attracted by the financial incentives could adopt whatever systems in order to cut the costs of production, while a better or safer scenario would guarantee that the producers who do not reach the minimum standards of animal welfare are excluded from the market (and the ones outside the EU could not export into the EU countries). 4-Education of consumers All participants, both women and men acknowledged the usefulness of this scenario, but they agreed on the limited impact that could have if it were not coupled with other measures. Women, more than men, thought that more information would empower consumers and it could bring

16


about consumption changes. All participants have underlined the importance of addressing this issue in schools, where it should be improved the information given to children on healthy diet and modern agricultural practices. Michele, 35 years :

‘Secondo me questo scenario è un pre-requisito, un punto di partenza.’ ‘To me this scenario is a pre-requisite, a starting point’

Francesco 1, 30 years: ‘Questo può responsabilizzare il consumatore però garantire non garantisce niente, in questa maniera però si fa tanta informazione! Uno però può essere informatissimo ma se poi la carne viene fatta tutta alla vecchia maniera non serve’. ‘This scenario can help in increasing consumer awarness, we will have lots of information but it does not guarantee any change. One can be very well informed, but if meat is produced in the same way it does not really matter!.

On the content of the information campaigns most participants mentioned the alternatives available among the modern systems of animal farming, the present regulation (the existing minimum standards). The costs of these campaigns should be mainly public, channelled through the TV, or by the shopping sites and in schools. Advantages A better information among consumers could stimulate a growing demand for animal friendly products and could shrink the market for un-friendly produced animal products. Disadvantages It would take a long time to achieve any results and without other measures it could not change significantly the systems of production. 5-Voluntary code of practice This scenario has been more criticised than the others because the principle of voluntary code of practice may represent an incentive for some producers, who could differentiate their products as quality products, but does not offer a significant tool to improve the welfare of farm animal in general. Most participants have pointed to the ineffectiveness of such a scenario if it were not coupled with other more important regulations (minimum standards and compulsory labelling). A couple of women have argued that this scenario without a minimum standard and a compulsory labelling system, not only would not be able to address consumers concerns about animal welfare, but, it would be potentially dangerous and counterproductive. A proliferation of labels based on voluntary codes developed by producers (or retailers) would create confusion and uncertainty about what is a better system. It would be harder for consumers to identify the animal friendly products, and there would be little or no guarantee for the animals. Enrico, 30 years:

‘Questo scenario è per il benessere dei consumatori, mi sembra; cioè, io non voglio mettere il benessere degli animali avanti però qui è poco rappresentato.’ ‘This scenario is for consumers welfare, I think. I do not want to prioritise animal welfare over consumers welfare, but here there is little room for improving animal welfare’.

Francesco2, 32 years: ‘In effetti, questo scenario da solo, senza ulteriori collegamenti ad altri scenari ha poca forza. Sarebbe solo per una nicchia (di mercato).

17


‘This scenario, without the others, is little effective. At best it would work for a niche market.’

Rosalba, 43 years: più si specifica lo scenario e meno mi piace: ognuno potrebbe stabilire dei parametri diversi di benessere animale e il consumatore sarebbe ancora più confuso. Se esistesse un solo per paese sarebbe già diverso, ma se cominciano a sorgere diversi consorzi, a livello regionale, è sempre più confuso. Se ci teniamo davvero al benessere animale non possiamo puntare sul consorzio volontario, il discorso deve essere più generale. ‘The more I understand this scenario the less I like it. In this way everybody could define animal welfare in a different way and the consumer would be even more confused. If this voluntary code were only one for each country maybe it would work, but if there is a multitude of voluntary codes (regional, locals) we will have only a great confusion.’

Advantages Voluntary, therefore it would be easier to implement and the cost of the controlling system would be only on the producers; maybe useful for some ‘niche’ products, high quality products. Disadvantages It would not represent a solution for all animal production; it would not address consumers concerns about animal welfare in general. 6-Conclusions The analysis of the group discussions has confirmed that for Italian consumers the welfare of farm animals is used as an indicator of safe and improved quality animal products. Most participants agreed with the results of the consumers survey presented in the first part of the discussion (both on the nature and the level of concerns). In the Italian focus groups the ‘Minimum Standard’, ‘Compulsory Labelling’ and ‘Education of Consumers’ were the most important scenarios. All three scenarios have, to some extent, been considered useful in addressing consumer concerns about farm animal welfare, but none of them has been considered effective enough per se. While men have considered the combination of those three scenarios the most effective strategy (ideal scenario), the women have underlined more the positive role of the ‘Changes in the CAP’ and the Education of Consumers’ in bringing about a change in the animal production systems. The ‘Voluntary code of practice’ have been considered by the majority as a useful incentive, but the voluntary adoption of the more friendly farming practices through a system of incentives has been considered a weak proposal since it would not guarantee that all the animal products on the market would be of good quality and safe. Again, as in previous stages of the research, Italian consumers use ‘animal welfare’ as a clue to food safety and therefore all voluntary systems (in this case financial incentives or voluntary codes of practice) are seen to be suspect since the producers that would not adopt them would abide by no rules and no controls. Some women have expressed a very negative opinion about this scenario and have underlined the risk of confusing consumers with a multitude of labels without a common frame of reference. The Education of Consumers has been considered by the majority of the participants as a prerequisite for any attempt to improve the welfare of farm animals. The opinions that Italian consumers are little informed and, therefore, less aware of the problem of the welfare of the animals for food production, has been widely shared. Both women and men have pointed that the most effective way to improve consumer awareness about this problem and consumer’s capacity to discriminate among products would be through general public information campaigns at sales points and information given in school on the modern system of animal farming, to the future consumers.

18


The ‘Minimum Standards’ scenario has been considered the most appropriate to guaranteeing consumers, but the need for a thorough controlling system has been strongly underlined. The same issue has emerged in the discussion of the other scenarios. The ‘Changes in the CAP’ has been considered very helpful, but only if it is coupled with the ‘Minimum Standards’. During the discussion of all the scenarios, but especially around the ‘Minimum Standard’ scenario, the issue of the possible higher costs of production that eventually would be passed on to the consumers has emerged. The possibility that animal products coming from non-EU countries, with a different (less rigorous) regulation on animal welfare, would compete with lower prices in the European markets represented the highest concern. A possible solution to this problem has been identified in the proposal of extending to all imported animal products the same ‘Minimum Standard’. Recommendations for the EU Italian consumers seem to identify the need for better information provided by public institutions (and retailers) to consumers on modern animal farming in order to increase consumers’ awareness of the way in which food is produced and in order to enable consumers to express a better informed food choice. A compulsory system of labelling would address the same concern. These two strategies are considered very useful, but at the same time they would not address consumer concerns about the welfare of all animals in production. Italian consumers are also in favour of a redefinition of the minimum standards for all species. The new ‘minimum standards’ should be applied to both EU and non EU products. The set of experts called to define the new, improved minimum standards of farm animals welfare should include consumers representatives and animal welfare association representatives. There is a concern that the present minimum standards have been developed taking into account producer goals (costs reduction) rather than consumer concerns about animal welfare. In the consumer’s mind animal welfare is an indicator of product safety and quality. Thus, there is a need to include consumer perspectives in the definitions of acceptable standards. A selective system of financial incentives that would reward only the producers adopting ‘animal and environmentally friendly’ production processes is also considered very useful. A system in which all producers obtain the same financial incentives with (present) ‘low’ minimum animal welfare standards is considered unacceptable and counterproductive. Therefore a reform of the CAP in this direction is highly recommended. The majority of participants considered the ‘Voluntary code of practice’ a useful strategy for niche products and for retailers private policies, but it seems ineffective in addressing consumers concerns about the totality of the animal products on the EU markets. This is the only scenario that has been criticised as ineffective and, by a minority of participants, has been even defined potentially counterproductive. Limitations to the study The discussion of the strategies with consumers was limited to a qualitative phase. The focus group discussions were conducted with consumers ‘concerned’ about farm animal welfare. We gained information on what types of strategies these consumers would consider most effective and what type of ideal scenario or general policy they would welcome for addressing their concerns, but we cannot generalise this data as representative of the totality of consumers. Future research From this research we learned that consumers (in general) are concerned about farm animal welfare and they consider animal welfare as an indicator of food safety and food quality. We also learned that the concern for farm animal welfare rarely has been mentioned as main reason for

19


changing consumption patterns (in Italy only in the case of beef). Among the possible barriers for purchasing ‘animal friendly produced products’ the majority of consumers has mentioned availability and scarce information as the main factors. Future research should concentrate on what type of policy the broader public (the totality of consumers) would welcome in order to address consumer concerns about farm animal welfare.

20


References Krueger, R.A. (1994) Focus Groups – A Practical Guide for Applied Research Sage: London. Miele M., Parisi V. (1998), Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food

choice, Italy-Literature Review. The University of Pisa EU Project CT98 3678. Miele M., Parisi V. (1999), Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food

choice, Italian Focus Group Report. The University of Pisa EU Project CT98 3678. Miele M., Parisi V. (2000), Italian Report on Laddering Interviews. The University of Pisa EU

Project CT98 3678. Miele M., Parisi V. (2001), Italian Report on Consumers Survey. The University of Pisa EU

Project CT98 3678.

21

Strategies to Address Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare · 2017-02-22 · August 2001 Mara...

Documents

Transcript of Strategies to Address Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare · 2017-02-22 · August 2001 Mara...