Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Labels for Animal Husbandry Systems Meet Consumer Preferences: Results from a Meta-analysis of Consumer Studies

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Political decision-makers in the European Union (EU) are currently discussing the introduction of a mandatory uniform labelling scheme for meat and milk that provides information on husbandry systems similar to the already existent labelling scheme in the EU egg market. The objective of this paper was to assess whether such information is relevant to consumers when buying meat and milk. The paper was based on a systematic synthesis of 53 scientific journal articles on empirical consumer studies. The review revealed that consumers perceived the aspects of outdoor access, stocking density and floor type as important factors influencing animal welfare. On average, consumers not only had a positive attitude towards more animal welfare-friendly husbandry systems with outdoor access and space allowance but were also willing to pay a price premium for products from such systems. All studies on consumer segmentation identified at least one consumer segment that placed great importance on animal welfare-friendly husbandry systems. Interestingly, many studies identified one or more other segments who still had a significant preference for animal welfare-friendly products even though other product attributes were more important to them. Based on the findings, the paper presents conclusions regarding the labelling of husbandry systems for meat and milk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(adapted from: Moher et al. 2009)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agra-Europe. (2016). Länderberichte: Verbraucherschützer fordern klarere Tierschutzkennzeichnungen. Agra-Europe, 57(3), 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • AMI—Agrarmarkt Informations-Gesellschaft mbH. (2015). Markt Bilanz Eier und Geflügel 2015. Daten—Fakten—Entwicklungen—Deutschland—EU—Welt. AMI, Bonn.

  • Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2009). Marketing —An introduction (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstra, T. J., Gremmen, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Moral values and attitudes toward Dutch sow husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28, 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Boekhorst, L. J. S., Oosting, S. J., & Sørensen, J. T. (2011). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science, 140(1–3), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117(1), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caracciolo, F., Cicia, G., Del Giudice, T., Cembalo, L., Krystallis, A., Grunert, K. G., et al. (2016). Human values and preferences for cleaner livestock production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(1), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, C. S., Hötzel, M. J., Weary, D. M., Robbins, J. A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2016). Imagining the ideal dairy farm. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(2), 1663–1671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2005). Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio, 34(4–5), 366–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission Directive. (2002). 2002/4/EC of January 2002 on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens, covered by Council Directive 1999/74/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L30/44, January 31, 2002.

  • Darby, M., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge, J., van der Lans, I. A., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Different shades of grey: Compromise products to encourage animal friendly consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge, J., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2013). The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poultry Science, 92(12), 3080–3095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jonge, J., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2014). Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems. Food Policy, 49(1), 174–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni, D., Tonsor, G. T., Calantone, R., & Peterson, H. C. (2014). Disentangling direct and indirect effects of credence labels. British Food Journal, 116(6), 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Pasquale, J., Nannoni, E., Del Duca, I., Adinolfi, F., Capitanio, F., Sardi, L., et al. (2014). What foods are identified as animal friendly by Italian consumers? Italian Journal of Animal Science, 13(4), 782–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T. M., Nielsen, N. A., Bredahl, L., Sjödén, P. O., Magnusson, M., et al. (2005). Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science, 69(1), 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze, L., & Nayga, R. M., Jr. (2012). The effects of information on willingness to pay for animal welfare in dairy production: Application of nonhypothetical valuation mechanisms. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(3), 1099–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbakidze, L., Nayga, R. M., Jr., & Li, H. (2013). Willingness to pay for multiple quantities of animal welfare dairy products. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D’Agroeconomie, 61(3), 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, K. A., Billington, K., McNeil, B., & McKeegan, D. E. F. (2009). Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare, 18(3), 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Kole, A., Van De Kroon, S. M. A., & De Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Torres, S., López-Gajardo, A., & Mesías, F. J. (2016). Intensive vs. free-range organic beef. A preference study through consumer liking and conjoint analysis. Meat Science, 114(2016), 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golan, E., Kuchler, F., & Mitchell, L. (2001). Economics of food labelling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(2), 117–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracia, A. (2013). The determinants of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products in Spain. Animal Welfare, 22(2), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracia, A., Loureiro, M. L., & Nayga, R. M., Jr. (2011). Valuing an EU animal welfare label using experimental auctions. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 669–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C., & Sandilands, V. (2007). Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens. Animal Welfare, 16(4), 499–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, S. F., & Zilberman, D. (2006). Green markets, eco-certification, and equilibrium fraud. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 627–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heerwagen, L. R., Mørkbak, M. R., Denver, S., Sandøe, P., & Christensen, T. (2015). The role of quality labels in market-driven animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28, 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, C. T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2007). Food and sustainability: Do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards? Appetite, 49(1), 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, G., Schramm, M., & Spiller, A. (2005). The reliability of certification: Quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference, 25(1), 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehlbacher, A., Bennett, R., & Balcombe, K. (2012). Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy, 37(6), 627–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koistinen, L., Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Kotro, J., Mäkelä, J., et al. (2013). The impact of fat content, production methods and carbon footprint information on consumer preferences for minced meat. Food Quality and Preference, 29(2), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krystallis, A., de Barcellos, M. D., Kügler, J. O., Verbeke, W., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science, 126, 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liljenstolpe, C. (2008). Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness, 24(1), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liljenstolpe, C. (2011). Demand for value-added pork in Sweden: A latent class model approach. Agribusiness, 27(2), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marian, L., & Thøgersen, J. (2013). Direct and mediated impacts of product and process characteristics on consumers’ choice of organic vs. conventional chicken. Food Quality and Preference, 29(2), 106–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez Michel, L., Anders, S., & Wismer, W. V. (2011). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for value-added chicken product attributes. Journal of Food Science, 76(8), 469–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKendree, M. G. S., Widmar, N. O., Ortega, D. L., & Foster, K. A. (2013). Consumer preferences for verified pork-rearing practices in the production of ham products. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38(3), 397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesías, F. J., Escribano, M., de Ledesma, A. R., & Pulido, F. (2005). Consumers’ preferences for beef in the Spanish region of Extremadura: A study using conjoint analysis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(14), 2487–2494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(6), e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mørkbak, M. R., Christensen, T., & Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2010). Consumer preferences for safety characteristics in pork. British Food Journal, 112(6–7), 775–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, T., Foster, K., & Lusk, J. L. (2006). Marketing opportunities for certified pork chops. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olynk, N. J., & Ortega, D. L. (2013). Consumer preferences for verified dairy cattle management practices in processed dairy products. Food Control, 30(1), 298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olynk, N. J., Tonsor, G. T., & Wolf, C. A. (2010). Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(2), 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., & Mäkelä, J. (2010). Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozo, V. F., Tonsor, G. T., & Schroeder, T. C. (2012). How choice experiment design affects estimated valuation of use of gestation crates. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 639–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prickett, R. W., Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2010). Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results from a telephone survey of US households. Animal Welfare, 19(3), 335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risius, A., & Hamm, U. (2015). Product and price differentiation for beef according to rearing system of cattle. Fleischwirtschaft, 2, 108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, B., & Sheldon, I. (2007). Credence good labelling: The efficiency and distributional implications of several policy approaches. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(4), 1020–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sepulveda, W. S., Maza, M. T., & Pardos, L. (2011). Aspects of quality related to the consumption and production of lamb meat Consumers versus producers. Meat Science, 87(4), 366–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, B. T., de Barcellos, M. D., Olsen, N. V., Verbeke, W., & Scholderer, J. (2012). Systems of attitudes towards production in the pork industry. A cross-national study. Appetite, 59(3), 885–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, J. M., Schuppli, C. A., & Fraser, D. (2014). Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livestock Science, 163, 150–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teisl, M. F., & Roe, B. (1998). The economics of labeling: An overview of issues for health and environmental disclosure. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 27(2), 140–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempesta, T., & Vecchiato, D. (2013). An analysis of the territorial factors affecting milk purchase in Italy. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., & Wolf, C. A. (2011). On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes. Food Policy, 36(3), 430–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzea, A. D., Hobbs, J. E., & Zhang, J. (2011). Activists and animal welfare: Quality verifications in the Canadian pork sector. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(2), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., Jr., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49(1), 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Naald, B., & Cameron, T. A. (2011). Willingness to pay for other species’ well-being. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1325–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F. A. M., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(6), 551–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science, 123(1), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Pérez-Cueto, F. J. A., de Barcellos, M. D., Krystallis, A., & Grunert, K. G. (2010). European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science, 84(2), 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viegas, I., Nunes, L. C., Madureira, L., Fontes, M. A., & Santos, J. L. (2014). Beef credence attributes: Implications of substitution effects on consumers’ WTP. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(3), 600–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich, R., Franz, A., & Spiller, A. (2014a). Analyses into consumers’ willingness to pay a certain price in multi-level labelling systems: The animal welfare label as an example. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 92(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich, R., Kuehl, S., Zuehlsdorf, A., & Spiller, A. (2014b). Consumer Attitudes in Germany towards different dairy housing systems and their implications for the marketing of pasture raised milk. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(4), 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Anne Christopherson for proofreading the manuscript. The present review study was conducted with financial support from the Animal Welfare Commissioner of the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Food Marketing, University of Kassel, Steinstrasse 19, 37213, Witzenhausen, Germany

    Meike Janssen, Manika Rödiger & Ulrich Hamm

Authors
  1. Meike Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manika Rödiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulrich Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meike Janssen.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 List of reviewed articles
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janssen, M., Rödiger, M. & Hamm, U. Labels for Animal Husbandry Systems Meet Consumer Preferences: Results from a Meta-analysis of Consumer Studies. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 1071–1100 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9647-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9647-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation