Farm animal welfare regulatory preferences and food choice: survey evidence from the US

Author:

Boaitey AlbertORCID

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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3