Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems

  • L. J. Frewer
  • A. Kole
  • S. M. A. Van de Kroon
  • C. de Lauwere


Recent policy developments in the area of livestock husbandry have suggested that, from the perspective of optimizing animal welfare, new animal husbandry systems should be developed that provide opportunities for livestock animals to be raised in environments where they are permitted to engage in “natural behavior.” It is not known whether consumers regard animal husbandry issues as important, and whether they differentiate between animal husbandry and other animal welfare issues. The responsibility for the development of such systems is allocated jointly between farmers, regulators, different actors in the food chain, and consumers. This research focuses on understanding consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the development and introduction of such systems, to ensure that they are acceptable to consumers as well as producers, regulators, and scientists. Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and animal husbandry practices were evaluated using quantitative consumer survey, which focused on two animal husbandry issues – farmed pigs and farmed fish. Following pilot work, 1000 representative Dutch consumers were sampled about their attitudes to either pig or fish husbandry. The results indicated that consumers think about animal welfare in terms of two broad categories related to their health and living environment, but do not think about welfare issues at a more detailed level. Greater concern was expressed about the welfare of pigs compared to fish. Consumer trust in labeling also emerged as an important issue, since consumers need to trust different food chain actors with responsibility for promoting animal welfare, and are reluctant to consider the details of animal husbandry systems. As a consequence, a transparent, enforceable, and traceable monitoring system for animal welfare friendly products is likely to be important for consumers.


Animal welfare fish farming pig farming consumer attitudes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beekman V., Bracke M., van Gaasbeek A.F.G., van der Kroon S.M.A. Begint een beter dierwelzijn bij onszelf? (Does better animal well-being start with oneself?) (Den Haag: LEI, 2002)Google Scholar
  2. Bennet, R.M. 1997‘Farm Animal Welfare and Food Policy’Food Policy22281288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, R.M., Anderson, J., Blaney, JP. 2002‘Moral Intensity and Willingness to Pay Concerning Animal Welfare Issues and their Importance for Agricultural Policy’Journal of Agricultural Ethics15187202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornett, H.L.I., Guy, JH., Cain, PJ. 2003‘Impact of Animal Welfare on Costs and Viability of Pig Production in the U.K.’Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics16163186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bredahl, L. 1999‘Consumers’ Cognitions with Regard to Genetically Modified Foods: Results of a Qualitative Study in Four Countries’Appetite33343360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, MB. 2001‘The Chain of Effects From Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: the Role of Brand Loyalty’Journal of Marketing658393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frewer L.J. ‘Consumer Science Implications for the Interface of Risk Assessment and Risk Management’. Supplement, Human and Environmental Risk Assessment, (HERA), The Interface between Risk Assessment and Risk Management (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R. 1996‘What Determines Trust in Information About Food-Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs’Risk Analysis.16473486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Shepherd, R. 1997‘Public Concerns About General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit and Ethics’Science, Technology and Human Values2298124Google Scholar
  10. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Shepherd, R. 1998‘Understanding Public Attitudes to Technology’Journal of Risk Research1221237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frewer, L.J., Salter, B. 2002‘Public Attitudes, Scientific Advice and the Politics of Regulatory Policy: the Case of BSE’Science and Public Policy29137145Google Scholar
  12. Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., Bredahl, L. 2003‘Communicating About the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: Effects of Different Information Strategies’Risk Analysis2311171133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Frewer, J.L, Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., Berdal, KG. 2004‘Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods’Food and Chemical Toxicology4211811193special issue ENTRANSFOODCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Sandøe, P. 2003‘Beyond the Knowledge Deficit: Recent Research into Lay and Expert Attitudes to Food Risks’Appetite41111121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanis, E., Groen, AF., De Greef, K.H. 2003‘Societal Concerns about Pork and Pork Production and Their Relationships to the Production System’Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics16137162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lassen, J.K., Madsen, H., Sandøe, P. 2002‘Ethics and Genetic Engineering – lessons to be Larned From Genetically Modified Foods’Bioprocess Biosystems Engineering24263271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. M.A.F.F. (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)1999Working Together for the Food Chain: Views from the Food Chain GroupHMSOLondonGoogle Scholar
  18. McComas, K., Trumbo, CW. 2001‘Source Credibility in Environmental Health Risk Controversies. Application of Meyers credibility index’Risk Analysis21467480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McEarchern, M.G., Schroeder, M.J.A. 2002‘The Role of Livestock Production Ethics in Consumer Values Towards Meat’Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics15221237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuire, W.J. 1985‘Attitudes and Attitude Change’Lindzey, G.Aronson, E. eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 2.Random HouseNew York238241Google Scholar
  21. Pan-Huy, S.A., Fawaz, RB. 2003‘Swiss Market for Meat From Animal Friendly ProductionResponses of Public and Private Actors in Switzerland’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics16119136Google Scholar
  22. Pennings, J.M.E., Wansink, B., Meulenberg, M.TG. 2002‘A Note on Modeling Consumer Reactions to a Crisis: The Case of the Mad Cow Disease’International Journal of Research in Marketing1991100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Renn, O., Levine, D. 1991‘Credibility and trust in risk communication’Kasperson, R.E.Stallen, P.M.J. eds. Communicating Risks to the Public.KluwerDordrecht175218Google Scholar
  24. Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. 1995Fairness and Competence in Citizen ParticipationKluwer Academic PublishersLondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Rowe, G., Frewer, LJ. 2000‘Public Participation Methods: An Evaluative Review of the Literature’Science, Technology and Human Values.25329Google Scholar
  26. Rowe, G., Frewer, LJ. 2004‘Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda’Science, Technology and Human Values29512556Google Scholar
  27. Scholderer, J., Frewer, LJ. 2003‘The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy’Journal of Consumer Policy26125127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegrist, M. 2000‘The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risk and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology’Risk Analysis20195203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Signicom.2001De perceptie van dierenwelzijn in de varkenshouderij bij burgers (The perception of animal well-being from the perspective of citizensSignicomAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Steenkamp J.-B.E., M. 1997‘Dynamics in consumer behaviour with respect to agriculture and food products’Wierenga, B.Tilberg, VA.Grunert, K.SteenkampJ.- B.E., M.Wedel, M. eds. Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in a Changing World.KluwerDordrect207215Google Scholar
  31. Te Velde, H., Aarts N., and C. van Woerkum, Eten, maar niet willen weten. Veehouders en consumenten over de omgang met dieren in de veehouderij. (Not wanting to know about food production: Stock breeders, consumers and animal husbandry in cattle breeding) (Rathenau Instituut, den Haag, 2002)Google Scholar
  32. Trumbo, C.W., McComas, KA. 2003‘The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception’Risk Analysis23343353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Verbeke, W. 2001‘Beliefs, Attitude and Behaviour Towards Fresh Meat Revisited After the Belgian Dioxin Crisis’Food Quality and Preference12489498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verbeke, W., Viaene, J. 1999‘Beliefs, Attitude and Behaviour Towards Fresh Meat Consumption in Belgium: Empirical Evidence from a Consumer Survey’Food Quality and Preference10437445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verbeke, W., Oekel, M.J., Warnants, N., Viane, J., Boucque, Ch.V. 1999‘Consumer Perception. Facts and Possibilities to Improve the Acceptability of Health and Sensory Characteristics of Pork’Meat Science537799Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. J. Frewer
    • 1
  • A. Kole
    • 1
  • S. M. A. Van de Kroon
    • 1
  • C. de Lauwere
    • 1
  1. 1.Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Social Sciences DepartmentUniversity of WageningenWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations