Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and …...Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the...

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 This paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.)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

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

Via del Borghetto 80 [email protected]

56124 Pisa

Italy

Italian Survey Report

Abstract The present national report presents the results of the interviews conducted with a sample survey

of 500 Italian consumers (290 women and 210 men) on concerns about farm animal welfare and

impact on food choice. Consumers have been asked to express their opinions on seven products:

beef, veal, lamb, poultry, pork, eggs and milk. The survey has been conducted at the end of

November -beginning of December 2000 when some new cases of BES have been identified in

the French herds, therefore the interviews have been conducted in period of greater concerns for

beef production. From the analysis of interviews it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

Most Italian consumers have changed their consumption of meats during the last five years with

a clear tendency to substitution of beef and veal with other types of meats (poultry and pork).

Women seem to be more inclined to change than men.

The changes in consumption of animal products is more limited and in the case of milk there is a

minor increase.

About 30% of the respondents in the sample survey have declared that they changed their

consumption because of the way in which animals are treated. The percentage of women is much

higher than the percentage of men.

Italian consumers declared that they have very little information on animal farming methods and

would like to receive more information on this matter. All the subjects involved in animal

production, most remarkably Government and the food industry, are considered unreliable in

providing information on this issue and in taking responsibility for insuring higher level of

animal welfare in farm animals.

Italian consumers cannot identify exactly ‘Animal friendly produced products’ through specific

labels. These products are very scarce on the Italian markets and the only examples are free

range eggs and organic products. Italian consumers tend to use ‘origin’ and ‘place of shopping’

(bought at the farm gate) as clue for methods of rearing meant to higher animal welfare.

1


List of content

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

METHOD ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Consumption........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Production methods acceptability ..................................................................................................................... 18

Attributes of animal welfare .............................................................................................................................. 18

Decreased consumption due to animal welfare concerns.................................................................................. 19

“Animal friendly products”............................................................................................................................... 24

Barriers to purchasing animal-friendly products .............................................................................................. 25

Information........................................................................................................................................................ 28

Trust .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

Responsability ................................................................................................................................................... 34

Total model factors............................................................................................................................................ 34

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................................... 36

PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 38

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 39

2


Introduction

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


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

4

http://www.aiab.it/novit�.php3?id=191)



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.

Acceptability of production methods

5



Consumers will find production methods for beef, veal and eggs least acceptable.

Women will find conditions less acceptable than men.

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level and type of acceptability.

Attributes of animal welfare

Consumers will consider those attributes which directly affect human health, such as feed, most

important.

Women will consider each of the attributes more important than men.

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level and type of attribute.

Decreased consumption due to animal welfare concerns

More women than men will have decreased their consumption because of animal welfare

concerns.

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level of decrease.

There will be variation in decreased consumption between red meat, white meat and dairy

products.

“Animal-friendly" products.

More women than men will select animal-friendly products.

ABC1s will select more animal-friendly products than C2DEs.

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in type and amount of product

selected.

Barriers to purchasing animal-friendly products

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level and type of barriers.

There will be variation between men and women in level and type of barriers.

There will be variation between ABC1s and C2DEs in level and type of concern.

There will be variation in importance between concrete and abstract barriers.

Information

Consumers will be most informed about production methods for eggs.

Consumers will consider themselves to be uninformed overall.

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level and type of information.

Trust

Consumer will express least trust in the Government and the food industry.

There will be variation amongst the five participating countries in level and type of trust.

Responsibility

Consumers will attribute responsibility externally.

Total model factors

6


There will be product variation in terms of taste, healthiness, safety, convenience and value for

money.

The model applied is presented in the following page.

The questionnaire for the survey has been elaborated with the other partners on the results

obtained in the previous stages of the research: focus groups discussions and ladder interviews.

A pre-test has been conducted in UK and after the first corrections a pilot of 15 interviews has

been conducted in each country. Validity and Reliability tests have been conducted on the pilot

interviews in order to do the final changes. The marketing agency Produkt and Markt, based in

Germany, conducted the phone interviews using computer-assisted interviewing, on a

representative sample of 500 consumers in each country. The results of the interviews have been

analysed by using the software SPSS for statistical analyses.

Results

Consumption

The first part of the questionnaire was dedicated to investigate consumers consumption habits

and more specifically the following issues: frequencies of animal products consumption (the

products included beef, pork, chicken, lamb, veal, eggs and milk) ; changes in animal products

consumption and relative motivations. A filter has been introduced in order to interview only the

consumers who habitually consume at least two of the seven animal products listed.

In the Italian sample the highest frequency of consumption for six products is 'once a week', the

only exception is lamb: 40% of the sample consumers do not eat this type of meat and 36% has

very low frequency of consumption (once a month or even less). In most regions in Italy lamb is

consumed only at Easter time.

Chicken has the highest penetration rate among the meats, only 3% of the sample do not

consume it, and the highest frequencies of consumption in each range: 'once a week', 'twice to

four times a week' and 'five to seven times a week'.

Pork follows chicken as second highest type of meat consumed 'once a week' (38%) and it is

followed by beef (33.7%). On the contrary beef has the second highest frequency in the range

'twice to four times a week' (25.5%) and it is followed by pork (22.4%).

'Total meat' consumption is quite high, 64.5% of the sample consumers declare to consume 'meat

and poultry' from five to seven times a week. This high frequency probably is affected by the

consumption of processed meats, such as prosciutto and salami, since it is sharply in contrast

with the results of the previous questions.

7


8

Model of consumer concern about animal welfare and the impact on food choice

Animal welfarebeliefs and concerns

(+)

animal-centredconcernsabout impact of husbandrypractices on animal welfare

acceptabilityof animalproduction methods

for product and its substitutes

human-centred concernsabout impact of husbandrypractices on human welfare

(health, safety, taste)acceptabilityof animalproduction methods

for product and its substitutes

perception of other

product characteristics

of a product and its substitutes

taste

healthiness

safety

value for money

perceivedavailability ofanimal friendly products

willingness to pay for higher then usual

animal welfare products

knowledgeabout production methods

perceived

responsibility

for animal welfare

empathy/disassociation

awareness and personalunderstanding of animals’

needs

socio-demographics(income, social class, age,gender, religion, ethnicity,

nationality)

consumption of

animal-based

products

(various products ortotal, relative share vs.

total amount)

consumption ofanimal friendly

products(vs. knowledge/evoked

set)

consumption

change

habit/convenience(perceived difficulty to

stop consumption;previous consumption

change)

perceived influence

on standardsof animal

welfare


For milk the highest frequency of consumption is in the range 'five to seven times a week' (61%)

and for eggs in the range 'twice to four times a week' (45.3%).

For all types of meats women have highest frequencies of non consumption (never) or least

consumption (once a month). There are small differences in terms of social classes: the only

difference emerging is the highest frequency in the range 'twice to four times a week' of beef

consumption for AB-consumers; a higher percentage of AB consumers has decreased poultry

consumption, while in the other social classes is higher the percentage of the one who increased

consumption of poultry and in the case of veal the percentage of AB consumers who decreased

consumption is 31.2, higher than in the other social classes, 20.8 in average.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Frequency of consumption of total amount of meat and poultry

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

Never Once a monthor less

Once every twoweeks

Once a week 2 to 4 times aweek

5 to 7 times aweek

Perc

ent

PorkBeefVeal

��

LambMilk��

��

Poultry

Eggs Total meat

9


Q1 Frequency of consumption of pork Never Once a

month or less

Once every two weeks

Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 11 20 43 85 48 2 209 % within Gender 5.3 9.6 20.6 40.7 23.0 1.0 100 Female 22 39 60 106 64 1 292 % within Gender 7.5 13.4 20.5 36.3 21.9 0.3 100 Total 33 59 103 191 112 3 501 % of Total 6.6 11.8 20.6 38.1 22.4 0.6 Social class AB 4 8 13 12 11 2 50 % within Social class 8.0 16.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 4.0 100 C1 8 11 27 59 18 123 % within Social class 6.5 8.9 22.0 48.0 14.6 100 C2 3 6 8 22 15 54 % within Social class 5.6 11.1 14.8 40.7 27.8 100 DE 18 32 54 93 68 1 266 % within Social class 6.8 12.0 20.3 35.0 25.6 0.4 100 Total 33 57 102 186 112 3 493

Q1 Frequency of consumption of poultry Never Once a

month or less


Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 6 4 31 87 77 4 209 % within Gender 2.9 1.9 14.8 41.6 36.8 1.9 100 Female 9 9 32 114 122 6 292 % within Gender 3.1 3.1 11.0 39.0 41.8 2.1 100 Total 15 13 63 201 199 10 501 % of Total 3.0 2.6 12.6 40.1 39.7 2.0 100 Social class AB 1 2 9 22 15 1 50 % within Social class 2.0 4.0 18.0 44.0 30.0 2.0 100 C1 4 3 21 49 45 1 123 % within Social class 3.3 2.4 17.1 39.8 36.6 0.8 100 C2 1 1 9 23 19 1 54 % within Social class 1.9 1.9 16.7 42.6 35.2 1.9 100 DE 8 7 23 103 118 7 266 % within Social class 3.0 2.6 8.6 38.7 44.4 2.6 100 Total 14 13 62 197 197 10 493

10


Q1 Frequency of consumption of beef Never Once a

month or less


Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 23 11 38 79 56 2 209 % within Gender 11.0 5.3 18.2 37.8 26.8 1.0 100 Female 60 32 36 90 72 2 292 % within Gender 20.5 11.0 12.3 30.8 24.7 0.7 100 Total 83 43 74 169 128 4 501 % of Total 16.6 8.6 14.8 33.7 25.5 0.8 100 Social class AB 5 6 5 18 15 1 50 % within Social class 10.0 12.0 10.0 36.0 30.0 2.0 100 C1 18 11 18 42 34 123 % within Social class 14.6 8.9 14.6 34.1 27.6 100 C2 8 3 10 20 12 1 54 % within Social class 14.8 5.6 18.5 37.0 22.2 1.9 100 DE 50 22 40 86 66 2 266 % within Social class 18.8 8.3 15.0 32.3 24.8 0.8 100 Total 81 42 73 166 127 4 493

Q1 Frequency of consumption of lamb Never Once a

month or less


Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 73 84 20 22 10 209 % within Gender 34.9 40.2 9.6 10.5 4.8 100 Female 128 100 25 23 15 1 292 % within Gender 43.8 34.2 8.6 7.9 5.1 0.3 100 Total 201 184 45 45 25 1 501 % of Total 16.4 8.5 14.8 33.7 25.8 0.8 100 Social class AB 23 16 2 4 5 50 % within Social class 46.0 32.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 100 C1 45 58 9 7 4 123 % within Social class 36.6 47.2 7.3 5.7 3.3 100 C2 18 19 6 8 3 54 % within Social class 33.3 35.2 11.1 14.8 5.6 100 DE 111 89 27 25 13 1 266 % within Social class 41.7 33.5 10.2 9.4 4.9 0.4 100 Total 197 182 44 44 25 1 493

11


Q1 Frequency of consumption of eggs Never Once a

month or less


Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 5 6 14 83 94 7 209 % within Gender 2.4 2.9 6.7 39.7 45.0 3 100 Female 3 10 28 99 133 19 292 % within Gender 1.0 3.4 9.6 33.9 45.5 7 100 Total 8 16 42 182 227 26 501 % of Total 1.6 3.2 8.4 36.3 45.3 5 100 Social class AB 3 2 19 25 1 50 % within Social class 6.0 4.0 38.0 50.0 2 100 C1 2 2 10 53 54 2 123 % within Social class 1.6 1.6 8.1 43.1 43.9 2 100 C2 3 6 26 18 1 54 % within Social class 5.6 11.1 48.1 33.3 2 100 DE 6 7 24 81 126 22 266 % within Social class 2.3 2.6 9.0 30.5 47.4 8 100 Total 8 15 42 179 223 26 493

Q1 Frequency of consumption of milk Never Once a

month or less


Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 17 4 5 20 53 110 209 % within Gender 8.1 1.9 2.4 9.6 25.4 53 100 Female 15 5 7 12 57 196 292 % within Gender 5.1 1.7 2.4 4.1 19.5 67 100 Total 32 9 12 32 110 306 501 % of Total 6.4 1.8 2.4 6.4 22.0 61 100 Social class AB 5 2 14 29 50 % within Social class 10.0 4.0 28.0 58 100 C1 10 1 3 12 26 71 123 % within Social class 8.1 0.8 2.4 9.8 21.1 58 100 C2 2 2 2 6 14 28 54 % within Social class 3.7 3.7 3.7 11.1 25.9 52 100 DE 15 6 7 12 55 171 266 % within Social class 5.6 2.3 2.6 4.5 20.7 64 100 Total 32 9 12 32 109 299 493

12


Q1 Frequency of consumption of total amount of meat and poultry Never Once a

month or less


Once a week

2 to 4 times a week

5 to 7 times a week

Total

Gender Male 1 5 45 40 118 209 % within Gender 0.5 2.4 21.5 19.1 56.5 100 Female 2 7 24 54 205 292 % within Gender 0.7 2.4 8.2 18.5 70.2 100 Total 1 2 12 69 94 323 501 % of Total 0.2 0.4 2.4 13.8 18.8 64.5 100 Social class AB 12 9 29 50 % within Social class 24.0 18.0 58 100 C1 4 25 19 75 123 % within Social class 3.3 20.3 15.4 61 100 C2 1 4 9 12 28 54 % within Social class 1.9 7.4 16.7 22.2 52 100 DE 1 1 3 22 54 185 266 % within Social class 0.4 0.4 1.1 8.3 20.3 70 100 Total 1 2 11 68 94 317 493

Beef and veal have scored the highest decrease in consumption during the last five years: on

average 30.4% of the respondents have decreased beef consumption and 21.2% have decreased

veal consumption. Pork, lamb, poultry, eggs and milk follow these two products. Only for

poultry and milk the frequency of the respondents who increased consumption is higher than the

ones who decreased it.

The increase in consumption of ‘poultry’ and ‘total meats and poultry’ is due to a higher number

of women that increased the consumption compared to the ones that decreased it; 26% of women

increased the consumption of ‘total meats and poultry’ and only 17,6% of men.

Q3 Change in consumption of pork in the last 5 years Less About the

same More Total

Gender Male 33 151 14 198 % 16.7 76.3 7.1 100 Female 51 182 37 270 % 18.9 67.4 13.7 100 Total 84 333 51 468 % 17.9 71.2 10.9 100 Social class AB 11 30 5 46 % 23.9 65.2 10.9 100 C1 9 97 9 115 % 7.8 84.3 7.8 100 C2 8 39 4 51 % 15.7 76.5 7.8 100 DE 52 163 33 248 % 21.0 65.7 13.3 100 Total 80 329 51 460 % 17.4 71.5 11.1 100

13


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


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


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


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


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)

Mean Milk 3.1974 Lamb 3.1441 Pork 3.13 Eggs 3.0576 Veal 2.7639 Beef 2.7342 Poultry 2.7065


18

The Italian consumers have considered all the 6 factors proposed in question n. 10 either ‘very

important’ or ‘important’ in affecting the welfare of the animals and this is coherent with the


results of the focus groups discussions and the ladder interviews. More specifically they listed

‘quality of animal feed’ as main factor for the welfare of the animals. The second factor is ‘the

animal’s access to the outside’ and the third is ‘amount of space the animal has to live in’. These

are followed by ‘The freedom to behave normally’, ‘Conditions of transportation’ and

‘Conditions of slaughtering’. It has to be underlined that most likely this ranking has been

affected by the impact of the information campaign on BSE that has brought to the attention of

the public the issue of feeding cows with bone meal.


4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

4.60

4.70

4.80

4.90

Amount of spacethe animal has to

live

Quality of theanimal's feed

The animal'saccess to the

outside

Conditions inwhich liveanimals aretransported

Conditions inwhich the animal

is slaughtered

The freedom forthe animal to

behave normally

Mean

Decreased consumption due to animal welfare concerns

Concerns about animal farming systems has been declared by 33% of respondent as the main

reason for a reduction in consumption of meat or animal products. Among them, the percentage

of women is 70% (39% of total women) much higher than the percentage of men 30% (23% of

total men). There is also a difference in social classes: 44% of AB respondents have changed

their consumption of food for concerns about the way animal are treated, in the other social

classes the percentage is lower.

19


Q12 Reduced consumption of food because of concerns about way in which animals are treated No Yes Total Gender 160 48 208 % 76.9 23.1 100

Female 177.0 113.0 290 % 61.0 39.0 100 Total 337.0 161.0 498 % 67.7 32.3 Social class AB 28 22 50 % 56 100 C1 101 22 123 % 17.9 100 C2 32 22

Male

100

44

82.1 54

% 59.3 40.7 100 DE 172 91 263 % 65.4 34.6 100 Total 333 157 490 % 68.0 32.0 100

Decrease in consumption of beef and veal (83% e 67,5%) are the most frequently listed for

concerns about the way animals are treated. This data is also very much affected by the period in

which the survey has been conducted, right after the information about the new cases of BSE

identified in France. There are no differences in terms of social classes and gender.

For all the other products less than 50% of the consumers declared themselves to have decreased

the consumption: 35.6% for poultry, 31.9% for pork, 29.7 for lamb, 18.1% for eggs, and 15% for

milk. These data are consistent with general trends in the market of meats, where there has been

a substitution of beef and veal with pork and chicken (and fish).

There are no relevant differences between men and women in the cases of reduction of

consumption of poultry, but there is a significant difference between social classes: a higher

percentage of AB (40.9%) and C1 (45.5%) respondents have decreased consumption of poultry

for the way in which animals are treated, compared to the other respondents (C2: 23.8%; DE:

34.1).

The opposite situation emerges in the case of lamb: only 9.1% of AB respondents have

decreased the consumption of this meat, muck less than the respondents of the other classes (C1:

31.8; C2:28.6; DE:33.7).

20


Q12 Consumed less pork because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 28 19 47 % 59.6 40.4 100 Female 81 32 113 % 71.7 28.3 100 Total 109 51 160 % 68.1 31.9 100 Social class AB 17 5 22 % 77.3 22.7 100 C1 16 6 22 % 72.7 27.3 100 C2 14 7 21 % 66.7 33.3 100 DE 60 31 91 % 65.9 34.1 100 Total 107 49 156 % 68.6 31.4 100 Q12 Consumed less beef because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 8 39 47 % 17.0 83.0 100 Female 19 94 113 % 16.8 83.2 100 Total 27 133 160 % 16.9 83.1 100 Social class AB 6 16 22 % 27.3 72.7 100 C1 1 21 22 % 4.5 95.5 100 C2 5 16 21 % 23.8 76.2 100 DE 15 76 91 % 16.5 83.5 100 Total 27 129 156 % 17.3 82.7 100

21


Q12 Consumed less poultry because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 31 16 47 % 66.0 34.0 100 Female 72 41 113 % 63.7 36.3 100 Total 103 57 160 % 64.4 35.6 100 Social class AB 13 9 22 % 59.1 40.9 100 C1 12 10 22 % 54.5 45.5 100 C2 16 5 21 % 76.2 23.8 100 DE 60 31 91 % 65.9 34.1 100 Total 101 55 156 % 64.7 35.3 100 Q12 Consumed less lamb because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 33 13 46 % 71.7 28.3 100 Female 78 34 112 % 69.6 30.4 100 Total 111 47 158 % 70.3 29.7 100 Social class AB 20 2 22 % 90.9 9.1 100 C1 15 7 22 % 68.2 31.8 100 C2 15 6 21 % 71.4 28.6 100 DE 59 30 89 % 66.3 33.7 100 Total 109 45 154 % 70.8 29.2 100

22


Q12 Consumed less veal because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 12 35 47 % 25.5 74.5 100 Female 40 73 113 % 35.4 64.6 100 Total 52 108 160 % 32.5 67.5 100 Social class AB 6 16 22 % 27.3 72.7 100 C1 5 17 22 % 22.7 77.3 100 C2 7 14 21 % 33.3 66.7 100 DE 34 57 91 % 37.4 62.6 100 Total 52 104 156 % 33.3 66.7 100 Q12 Consumed less eggs because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 39 8.0 47 % 83.0 17.0 100 Female 92 21.0 113 % 81.4 18.6 100 Total 131 29.0 160 % 81.9 18.1 100 Social class AB 17 5.0 22 % 77.3 22.7 100 C1 18 4.0 22 % 81.8 18.2 100 C2 17 4.0 21 % 81.0 19.0 100 DE 75 16.0 91 % 82.4 17.6 100 Total 127 29.0 156 % 81.4 18.6 100

23


Q12 Consumed less milk because of concern about the way animals are treated No Yes Total Gender Male 39.0 8.0 47 % 83.0 17.0 100 Female 97.0 16.0 113 % 85.8 14.2 100 Total 136.0 24.0 160 % 85.0 15.0 100 Social class AB 21.0 1.0 22 % 95.5 4.5 100 C1 18.0 4.0 22 % 81.8 18.2 100 C2 16.0 5.0 21 % 76.2 23.8 100 DE 77.0 14.0 91 % 84.6 15.4 100 Total 132.0 24.0 156 % 84.6 15.4 100

“Animal friendly products”

To the question ‘Do you tend to select food products that are labelled as been produced to higher

than normal standards of animal welfare?’ 38% of the respondents (valid percentage) declared

they choose products labelled as reared ‘with higher animal welfare’. Among them, 33.7%, are

men and 66.3% are women. If we look at the answers to the following question 14 (Which of

these products [of higher animal welfare] do you select most frequently?) most consumers

cannot properly identify labels addressing the production methods and they tend to indicate ther

product’s attributes or characteristics that might imply higher animal welfare. The most frequent

answers have been ‘national’ products: this is a broad category that encompasses all the products

that have been identified as local, regional, national etc, therefore ‘origin’ is used by consumers

as clue to higher animal welfare. The same happens in the category ‘farm’, that encompasses all

the answers in which is mentioned ‘farm products’ (bought directly on farm). Very often

consumers mentioned ‘retailers brands’ or ‘producers brands’, such as ‘Amadori’ or ‘Uova GS’,

that are quality brands but do not refer to the methods of production. Only a small minority of

respondents have listed labels that clearly indicate the method of production such as ‘free range

eggs’, ‘free range products’ and ‘organic brand’ or ‘organic products’. It has to be underlined

that in the Italian food markets ‘animal friendly produced’ foods are very scarce and the few

products available, such as free range eggs and organic products, have been introduced very

recently in supermarket chains. These products are almost completely absent in the South of Italy

where the big retailing chains are not present.

24


Q14 Which of these products do you select most frequently? Product 1 Product 2 Product 3 National 72 10 1 Producer brand 33 11 0 Retailer brand 31 10 0 Farm 21 7 2 Free range 9 2 0 Free range eggs 5 0 2 Organic product 3 0 2 Organic brand 2 1 0 Own production 2 0 0

Barriers to purchasing animal-friendly products

Question 15 (How important is each of this factors when you are considering buying products

that are labelled as being produced to higher then usual animal welfare standards?') was

dedicated to identify, with a direct question, eventual barriers to purchasing of 'animal friendly'

products. The factors proposed to the consumers were: costs, availability in shops, information,

empathy and impact of consumers shopping choice on animal welfare.

Italian consumers have ranked these factors as follow: first, information on production methods;

second, availability in common shops; third, impact of food choice on animal welfare; fourth,

cost of the products and, last, empathy.

In the following Q18 consumers were asked to say whether they agreed or not with a series of

statements (in a point five scale) that, indirectly, meant to identify barriers to buying animal

friendly produced foods (see following table). The first four statements were addressing the issue

of the possible influence of consumers choice in promoting the spreading of methods of

production meant to promote higher animal welfare. A small majority of the Italian consumers in

the sample seems to believe that consumers choice does not affect the welfare of farm animals

but one third of the responds cannot express an opinion on such matter (answers 'do not know'

and ' neither agree or disagree'). Quite remarkably, more consumers seem to believe that they can

improve the standard of animal welfare by avoiding buying meats more than by choosing

products with labels addressing the higher animal welfare standard of the method of production.

Once again the lack of animal friendly products in regular shops might be a reason for this

answer, but it is also possible to interpret this data as addressing the issue that a high

consumption of meats is leading to mass production and factory farming, which is perceived as

inevitably neglecting animal welfare considerations.

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


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


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


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.

28


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Informed about the ways in which animals are reared

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Veryuninformed

Somewhatuninformed

Neitherinformed noruninformed

Somewhatinformed

Well informed Don't Know

Perc

ent

Pork��

Beef��

Veal��

Milk

Poultry

Lamb

Eggs

Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of pork Very

uninformed Somewhat uninformed

Neither informed nor uninformed

Somewhat informed

Well informed

Total

Gender Male 14 56 45 61 9 185 % 7.6 30.3 24.3 33.0 4.9 100 Female 25 89 84 66 5 269 % 9.3 33.1 31.2 24.5 1.9 100 Total 39 145 129 127 14 454 % 8.6 31.9 28.4 28.0 3.1 100 Social class AB 2 11 10 19 6 48 % 4.2 22.9 20.8 39.6 12.5 100 C1 7 39 31 27 104 % 6.7 37.5 29.8 26.0 100 C2 7 8 13 17 1 46 % 15.2 17.4 28.3 37.0 2.2 100 DE 23 84 73 64 6 250 % 9.2 33.6 29.2 25.6 2.4 100 Total 39 142 127 127 13 448 % 8.7 31.7 28.3 28.3 2.9 100

29


Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of poultry Very


Somewhat informed

Well informed

Total

Gender Male 53 40 69 11 185 % 6.5 28.6 21.6 37.3 5.9

Female 23 73 76 12 269 % 8.6 28.3 31.6 4.5 100 35 126 116 154 23 454 % 7.7 27.8 25.6 33.9 100 Social class AB 2 8 26 5 48 % 16.7 14.6 54.2 10.4 100

C1 7 30 32 30 5 % 6.7 28.8 30.8


12 100

85 27.1

Total 5.1

7 4.2

104 28.8 4.8 100

C2 6 7 12 2 46 % 13.0 26.1 41.3 4.3 100 20 77 64 78 11 250 % 8.0 30.8 25.6 31.2 100 Total 35 122 153 23 448 % 27.2 25.7 34.2 5.1 100

Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of beef Very



Well informed

Total

Gender Male 14 43 68 6 186 7.5 29.6 23.1 36.6 3.2 100 Female 26 89 71 73 266 % 9.8 33.5 27.4 2.6 100 Total 144 114 141 13 452

% 8.8 31.9 25.2 31.2 2.9

19 15.2

DE 4.4

115 7.8

Somewhat informed

55 %

7 26.7

40 100

Social class AB 2 13 13 17 3 % 4.2 27.1 27.1 6.3 100 C1 9 28 31 2 104 8.7 32.7 26.9 29.8 1.9 100 C2 6 9 12 18 45 % 13.3 20.0 40.0 100 DE 84 59 75 8 249

% 9.2 33.7 23.7 30.1 3.2 Total 40 140 112 13 446 % 9.0 25.1 31.6 2.9 100

48 35.4

34 %

26.7

23 100

141 31.4

30


Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of lamb Very



Somewhat informed

Total

Gender Male 23 60 49 7 182 % 33.0 23.6 26.9 3.8 100

Well informed

43 12.6

Female 35 92 68 58 11 264 % 13.3 34.8 25.8 22.0 4.2

Total 58 152 111 18 446 % 13.0 24.9 24.0 4.0 100 Social class 4 15 8 18 3 48 % 8.3 31.3 16.7 37.5 100 C1 15 36 23 2 103 % 35.0 26.2 22.3 1.9 100

C2 11 8 14 12 1 % 23.9 17.4 30.4 2.2 100 DE 28 61 53 12 243 11.5 36.6 25.1 21.8 4.9 100 Total 58 148 110 106 440 % 13.2 33.6

100 107

34.1 AB

6.3 27

14.6 46

26.1 89

% 18

25.0 24.1 4.1 100.0 Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of veal Somewhat

uninformed Neither informed nor uninformed

Somewhat informed

Well informed

Total

Male 14 55 46 65 6 % 7.5 29.6 24.7 3.2 100 Female 29 79 68 6 266 10.9 31.6 29.7 25.6 2.3 100 Total 43 139 125 133 452 % 9.5 30.8 29.4 2.7 100 Social class AB 12 12 18 4 48

% 4.2 25.0 25.0 37.5 8.3 C1 10 33 31 1 104 % 9.6 29.8 27.9 1.0 100 6 10 12 16 1 45 % 13.3 22.2 26.7 35.6

Very uninformed

Gender 186 34.9

84 %

12 27.7

2 100

29 31.7

C2 2.2 100

DE 25 80 68 70 249 % 10.0 32.1 28.1 2.4 100 Total 135 123 133 12 446

% 9.6 30.3 27.6 29.8 2.7

6 27.3

43 100.0

31


Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of eggs Very

uninformed Neither informed nor uninformed

Somewhat informed

Well informed

Total

Gender 11 53 43 70 7 184 % 6.0 28.8 23.4 38.0 100 Female 23 79 74 16 265 % 29.8 27.5 27.9 6.0 100

Total 34 132 116 144 23 % 7.6 29.4 25.8 5.1 100 Social class AB 2 9 23 4 48 4.2 20.8 18.8 47.9 8.3 100

Somewhat uninformed

Male 3.8

73 8.7

449 32.1

10 % C1 7 34 27 31 4 103

% 6.8 33.0 26.2 30.1 100 C2 5 8 18 1 45 % 17.8 28.9 40.0 2.2 100

DE 20 77 66 71 14 % 8.1 31.0 26.6 5.6 100 Total 34 115 143 23 444 7.7 29.1 25.9 32.2 5.2 100.0

Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared for the production of milk Very


Somewhat informed

Well informed

Total

Gender Male 52 44 69 9 185 % 5.9 28.1 23.8 37.3 4.9

Female 23 80 72 18 266 % 8.6 27.1 27.4 6.8 100

3.9 13

11.1 248

28.6 129

%


11 100

73 30.1

Total 34 132 116 142 27 451 7.5 29.3 25.7 31.5 6.0 100 Social class AB 2 10 9 23 48 % 4.2 20.8 47.9 8.3 100 C1 35 29 30 3 104

% 6.7 33.7 27.9 28.8 2.9 C2 5 8 12 1 45 % 11.1 26.7 42.2 2.2 100 20 76 65 69 18 248 % 8.1 30.6 26.2 27.8 100 Total 34 129 141 26 445 % 29.0 25.8 31.7 5.8 100.0

Q19 Informed about the ways in which animals are reared - paired T-test Pork Poultry Beef Lamb Eggs Poultry -0.1586

% 4

18.8 7

100 19

17.8 DE

7.3 115

7.6

Veal

Beef -0.0288 0.1353 Lamb 0.1166 0.2803 Veal -0.00443 0.1596 -0.1284 Eggs -0.1292 0.03118 -0.2534 -0.125 Milk -0.1441 0.0133 -0.2777 -0.1422 -0.0111

Trust

On question 20 consumers were asked to say who they would trust in giving information on farm

animal welfare. The rank emerged from the sample survey is presented in the following table:

0.1532 0.02434 -0.1027 -0.12

32


‘consumers organisations’ are the trustworthiest while the Government is last. Farmers’

organisation, meat industry and retailing chains are all considered unreliable, while all the other

categories listed are considered reliable. The actors in the world of production are considered

unreliable with the only exception of butchers.

Q20 Sources of information: trustworthy rank Mean Consumer organisations 3.73

3.53 Environmental organisations

Friends/family 3.50

Scientists 3.46 Animal welfare organisations 3.45 Butchers 3.02 Farmers' organisations 2.89 Supermarkets 2.64 Food industry 2.52 Government 2.20

Trust

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

Con

sum

eror

gani

satio

ns

Frie

nds/

fam

ily

Envi

rom

enta

lor

gani

satio

ns

Scie

ntis

ts

Ani

mal

wel

fare

orga

nisa

tions

But

cher

s

Farm

ers'

orga

nisa

tions

Supe

rmar

kets

Food

indu

stry

Gov

ernm

ent

Mean

33


Q20 Paired T-test

Gov

ernm

ent

Supe

rmar

ket

s But

cher

s

Food

in

dust

ry

Farm

ers'

or

gani

satio

ns A

nim

al

wel

fare

or

gani

satio

ns C

onsu

mer

or

gani

satio

ns Fr

iend

s/

fam

ily

Scie

ntis

ts

Supermarkets -0.4315 Butchers -0.8102 -0.3747 Food industry -0.3361 0.1093 0.5021 Farmers' organisations -0.6912 -0.2649 0.1209 -0.3623 Animal welfare organisations -1.2436 -0.8161 -0.4195 -0.9041 -0.5563 Consumer organisations -1.5331 -1.0971 -0.7231 -1.2121 -0.8406 -0.307 Friends/family -1.343 -0.913 -0.5331 -1.0271 -0.6701 -0.114 0.1996 Scientists -1.2458 -0.8038 -0.4387 -0.9496 -0.569 -0.0022 0.283 0.0846 Environmental organisations -1.2918 -0.8734 -0.4757 -0.9617 -0.6081 -0.0549 0.2505 0.0473 -0.0495

Responsability

In question 21 the consumers were asked to say who should take responsibility for insuring

acceptable standards of farm animal welfare. According to the results of the survey for Italian

consumers the first four subjects that should take responsibility are the farmers, the Government,

and the food industry (see table below). Consumers have been listed last.

Lastly, on question 22, consumers were asked to rank the same subjects on the basis of the actual

responsibility they would take for ensuring acceptable standards of farm animal welfare: in this

case ‘animal welfare organisations’ have been listed first, followed by ‘environmental

organisations’, ‘butchers’, ‘farmers’ and ‘consumers’. All the other subjects are considered to

take low responsibility.

Total model factors

The last five questions in the questionnaire were dedicated to assessing consumer’s preferences

and attitudes towards the 7 products used for investigating the specific attitude towards animal

welfare.

Milk and eggs are considered better than meats. Milk is considered the best products for taste,

healthiness, safe to eat, and second regarding value for money. It is also considered the products

more difficult to give up, will eggs comings second.

Among the meats, poultry is considered first followed by pork, lamb and last are beef and veal.

Poultry, among the meats, is considered the least expensive and the healthiest. Pork is considered

the tastiest meat, but it would be easier for many consumers to stop eating it and it is considered

second last as far as healthiness is concerned. Lamb is last for taste and it is the first product the

consumers would be ready to give up. Beef and veal have the worst image in terms of

healthiness and safety, they are considered the most expensive, but, among the meats, beef

34


represents the one that would be more difficult to renounce for the majority of consumers. Also

this data is clearly affected by the specific time in which the survey has been conducted.

Q23 – Q27 Rank of Total model factors (products overall image: from best to worst) Taste Healthiness Safe to eat Convenience to

stop eating Value for money Total

Milk 1 1 1 1 2 6 Eggs 3 2 3 2 1 11 Poultry 6 3 5 4 3 21 Pork 2 6 4 6 4 22 Lamb 7 4 2 7 5 25 Beef 4 7 7 3 6 27 Veal 5 5 6 4 7 27

Q23-Q27 Means of Total model factors Taste Healthiness Safe to eat Convenience to

stop eating Value for money

Milk 4.19 4.28 3.85 3.66 3.78 Pork 4.00 3.57 3.63 2.82 3.72 Eggs 3.95 3.98 3.64 3.22 3.96 Beef 3.88 3.80 2.74 2.90 2.61 Veal 3.83 3.66 2.96 2.89 2.47 Poultry 3.78 3.84 3.46 2.89 3.76 Lamb 3.71 3.80 3.71 2.70 2.68

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Means of Q23 - Q27

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Milk Pork Eggs Beef Veal Poultry Lamb

Mean

��Taste

��Healthiness

�� Safe to eat Convenience to stop eating

�� Value for money

35


Conclusions

From the first elaboration of the survey results we can draw some conclusions on Italian

consumers attitudes towards farm animal welfare concerns and the impact on food choice. The

conclusions will be presented according to the list of hypotheses we used for designing the

questionnaire.

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 their 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 a situation seems to emerge in which women have more dynamic and less traditional

consumption patterns, while men have more routinesed 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

slaughtering) chosen among the ones elicited by consumers in the focus groups discussions and

in the ladder interviews, 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 Italian 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

36


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 themselves ready 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 makes it difficult to express an

opinion on ‘how much’ consumers would be ready to pay for them.

The empathy factor is more relevant in the attitudinal statements than in the direct question on

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.

37


Information: the survey confirmed that Italian consumers think that they know little about

modern animal farming systems, and this corresponds with 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 they have higher information and AB respondents consider themselves more

informed than the other social classes.

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 which give higher levels 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 it is easy to understand that milk and eggs have been listed as best

product in terms of overall image. Milk is considered the best product 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 reasons, 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 meats 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.

Problems and limitations

In the Italian case the information gathered on ‘social class’ needs further elaboration for several

reasons. First of all the dimension of the social classes varies enormously, secondly this

classification has been done on the basis of the respondent’s job and not on the basis of the main

earner in the household or total income. This last issue represents a limitation for interpreting the

data since we do not have any information on the total income of the family.

38


References

AA.VV. (2000), Sempre meno carne bovina sulle tavole degli italiani, archivio AIAB,

10/12/2000, at http://www.aiab.it/novità.php3?id=191).

AA.VV. (2001), Mucca pazza: Ismea, +25% consumo pesce famiglie, archivio AIAB 24/1/2001,

http://www.aiab.it/novità.php3?id=251)

AA.VV. (2001), Mucca pazza: macellai in piazza; calo vendite 70/90 per cento, archivio AIAB,

19/1/2001, at http://www.aiab.it/novità.php3?id=243).

Bangone G. (2001), Mucca pazza I veri pericoli in agguato, Panorama, 25/1/2001, pp. 37-43.

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.

Regini F. (2001) Italy Livestock and Products semi-Annual. USDA Report at

http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200102/65679596.pdf

Tanzarella M. (2001), Lo chef porta in tavola la bistecca di canguro, in La Repubblica, 11

gennaio, pag. 29.

Travaglio M. (2001), “Si specula su carne e pesce” prezzi più cari del 50 per cento, in La

Repubblica, 1 febbraio, pag. 4.

39




http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200102/65679596.pdf

Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and …...Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the...

Documents

Transcript of Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and …...Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the...