Abstract
AbstractPublic support is critical for the incorporation of farm animal welfare (FAW) standards into national food policies. Multiple pathways, e.g., market-based policies, political mandates, and donations to animal charities, exist for the public to influence these standards. The challenge often remains that citizens may express significantly different regulatory preferences from consumers thereby disproportionally overburdening the latter. For food, this consumer–citizen role is directly linked to dietary choice. Although a large body of research has examined the determinants of dietary choice on the one hand, and FAW policy preferences, on the other, no attempt has been made to address these issues side by side. This study explores the preferences for FAW regulatory mechanisms and strategic behavior among dietary groups. Preferences for private labeling, political mandates, and donations to charities in support of and against conventional agriculture are examined. Data are from an online survey of 1020 residents conducted in the US. The results show a proclivity among segments of the public who do not consume livestock products for political mandates and the tendency to behave strategically. Regulatory preferences are embedded within distinct human value orientations. Urban—non-urban, generational and gender divides in regulatory preferences are also identified. These insights are relevant for the ongoing development of FAW standards given the portfolio of mechanisms at the disposal of stakeholders.
Funder
Wisconsin Dairy Innovation Hub
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference95 articles.
1. Abrahamse W (2019) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: what works, what doesn’t, and why. Academic Press, Cambidge
2. Allès B, Baudry J, Méjean C, Touvier M, Péneau S, Hercberg S, Kesse-Guyot E (2017) Comparison of sociodemographic and nutritional characteristics between self-reported vegetarians, vegans, and meat-eaters from the NutriNet-Santé study. Nutrients 9:1023. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9091023
3. Andreoni J (1995) Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Q J Econ 110(1):1–21
4. Animal Welfare Institute (2024) Farmed Animal Anti-Confinement Legislation. https://awionline.org/legislation/farmed-animal-anti-confinement-legislation. Accessed 02 May 2024
5. ASPCA (2024) ASPCA supermarket scorecard. https://www.aspca.org/supermarketscorecard#methodology. Accessed 29 April 2024