Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 141–151

Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production:Meeting Consumer Concerns about Meat Safety and AnimalWelfare

  • Wim A. J. Verbeke
  • Jacques Viaene


Livestock production today faces thedifficult task of effectively meeting emergingconsumer concerns while remaining competitive on majortarget markets. Meeting consumer concerns aboutproduct safety and animal welfare are identified askey attention points for future livestock production.The relevance of these issues pertains to productionefficiency and economic benefits and tore-establishing meat sector image and consumer trust.The current paper analyses consumer concerns about theethical issues of meat safety and animal welfare fromcurrent livestock production. The research methodologyis based on literature review, secondary data sources,and primary research through focus group discussionsand a survey of 320 meat consumers in Belgium.Objectives were to assess importance attached byconsumers to product safety and animal welfare asethical issues in commercial livestock production, andto evaluate consumer perception of these issues forbeef, pork, and poultry. Significant differences inissue importance and perception are identified amongconsumer groups based on socio-demographic andbehavioral characteristics. From the analysis, meatsafety emerges as an absolute but minimum requirementfor future success of livestock and meat production.Additionally, animal welfare can be expected to becomea critical theme especially for pork and poultryacceptance.

Animal welfare Belgium consumer behavior meat meat safety survey 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bansback, R., “Towards a Broader Understanding of Meat Demand,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 46 (1995), 287-308.Google Scholar
  2. Blanford, D. and L. Fulponi, “Consumer Concerns and Public Policy for Agriculture,” in V. Beekman and F. Brom (eds.), First European Congress on Agricultural and Food Ethics: Preprints (Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Centre, 1999), pp. 19-25.Google Scholar
  3. Brom, F. W. A., “Food, Consumer Concerns and Trust,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2(2), pp. 127-139. This issue.Google Scholar
  4. Demeyer, D., “Modern Production Methods and Meat Quality: An Integrated Relationship,” in G. Enne and G. Elias (eds.), Proceedings International Workshop on Certification System for Agroindustrial Products and their Quality: The Case of Fresh Bovine and Pork Meat (Milan: UNI and Fondazione Cariplo per la Ricerca Scientifica, 1993), pp. 82-92.Google Scholar
  5. Den Ouden, M., Economic Modelling of Pork Production-Marketing Chains, Ph.D. Dissertation, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands (1996).Google Scholar
  6. Frewer, L., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd, “Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated With Food-related Hazards,” Risk Analysis 18 (1998), 95-102.Google Scholar
  7. Hughes, D., “Animal welfare: The Consumer and The Food Industry,” British Food Journal97(10) (1995), 3-7.Google Scholar
  8. Hughes, D., “Animal welfare: The Food Industry and Government,” in T. Wallace and W. Schroder (eds.), Government and the Food Industry: Economic and Political Effects of Conflict and Co-operation (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997), pp. 205-220.Google Scholar
  9. Issanchou, S., “Consumer Expectations and Perceptions of Meat and Meat Product Quality,” Meat Science 43 (1996), S5-S19.Google Scholar
  10. Kafka, C. and R. von Alvensleben, “Consumer Perception of Food-related Hazards and the Problem of Risk Communication,” in AIR-CAT (ed.), Health, Ecological and Safety Aspects in Food Choice. AIR-CAT Series 4(1) (1998), 21-40.Google Scholar
  11. Kramer, C., “Food Safety: The Consumer Side of the Environmental Issue,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 22 (1990), 33-40.Google Scholar
  12. Ödberg, F., “Dierenwelzijn: een wetenschappelijke benadering [AnimalWelfare Scientifically Approached],” Proceedings of 47th PUO-day, Vlees: Van Producent Tot Consument [Meat from Producer to Consumer], Verhandelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen, University of Ghent 38 (1998), 121-138.Google Scholar
  13. Osgood, C., G. Suci, and P. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  14. PVE, “Media-aandacht vee-en vleessector laat consument onberoerd [Media Attention Livestock and Meat Leaves Consumers Indifferent],” PVE-Sectorinfo 46 (1997), 1-2.Google Scholar
  15. Sparks, P. and R. Shepherd, “Public Perceptions of Food-related Hazards: Individual and Social Dimensions,” Food Quality and Preference 5 (1994), 185-194.Google Scholar
  16. Strak, J., R. Ward, and D. Hallam, The Effectiveness of MLC' Meat Promotion in the UK (1990-1997) (Cambridgehire: EuroPA and Associates, 1997).Google Scholar
  17. Van Trijp, H., Variety Seeking in Product Choice Behavior: Theory with Application in the Food Domain, Ph.D. Dissertation, Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands (1995).Google Scholar
  18. Verbeke, W., Factors Influencing the Consumer Decision-making Process Toward Meat, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ghent, Belgium (1999).Google Scholar
  19. Verbeke, W. and J. Viaene, “Consumentengedrag ten aanzien van vlees in België [Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat in Belgium],” TSL Tijdschrift voor Sociaal wetenschappelijk onderzoek van de Landbouw 13 (1998a), 20-40.Google Scholar
  20. Verbeke, W. and J. Viaene, “Consumer Behaviour Towards Meat in Belgium,” in C. Viau (ed.), Long-term Prospects for the Beef Industry (Ivry-sur-Seine: INRA, 1998b), pp. 281-291.Google Scholar
  21. Verbeke, W. and J. Viaene, “Beliefs, Attitude and Behaviour Towards Fresh Meat Consumption in Belgium: Empirical Evidence from a Consumer Survey,” Food Qualityand Preference, 10 (1999), 437-445.Google Scholar
  22. Verbeke, W., M. Van Oeckel, N. Warnants, J. Viaene, and C. Boucqué, “Consumer Perception, Facts and Possibilities to Improve Acceptability of Health and Sensory Characteristics of Pork,” Meat Science 53 (1999), 77-99.Google Scholar
  23. Verbeke, W., J. Viaene and O. Guiot, “Health Communication and Consumer Behavior on Meat in Belgium: From BSE until Dioxin,” Journal of Health Communication 4 (1999), 345-357.Google Scholar
  24. von Alvensleben, R., “Das Image von Fleisch: eine Analyse und ihre Konsequenzen für das Marketing [Meat Image: Analysis and Consequences for Marketing],” Fleischwirtschaft75(1995), 356-360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim A. J. Verbeke
    • 1
  • Jacques Viaene
    • 1
  1. 1.Department AgriculturalEconomicsGhent UniversityGentBelgiumE-mail:

Personalised recommendations