Closer to nature: the ethics of ‘green’ representations in animal product marketing

Abstract

Empirical cases from the Danish food market are examined in order to critically discuss the respective modes of communication in light of the premises of socially responsible consumer marketing. This analysis suggests that specific marketing instruments are used to sell animal products by blurring the difference between the paradigms of animal welfare used by producers, and the paradigms of animal welfare implicit in the public understanding of the concept. These instruments rely on the ethical, political and sustainable consumption discourses in order to sell one image of animal welfare in intensive animal production while the production at the same time presupposes a quite different paradigm of animal welfare. Two cases are used to illustrate this: (1) the Danish dairy company Arla Foods’ campaign with the tagline ‘Closer to nature’; and (2) selected ‘quality brands’ that present themselves as welfare-oriented alternatives to conventionally produced animal products, but with only marginal improvements. The rhetoric of both cases specifically manifests a deep coherence between nature, farm, animal and end product, and thereby creates associations of production tied to lives living in nature - thus attempting to display a green, eco-, climate-, and animal friendly production. The tension between marketing and the idea of ethical consumerism is apparent as the need for independent information to make value-based choices is challenged by the liberal rules of the market and more specifically by the lack of a restrictive food labelling policy. The relationship between the ways in which animal welfare is communicated and emphasized through food marketing, and commonly held perceptions of acceptable standards for animal welfare, is discussed and the need for transparency in the area of animal welfare stressed.

Keywords

advertising consumers transparency naturalness animal welfare 

References

  1. Anonymous (2011). Sådan lever grisen bag mærket. Tank, July 2011.Google Scholar
  2. Arla Foods (2011). Tattere på Naturen - fra ide til virkelighed. Available at: http://lfw.dk/ad5g.
  3. Arla Foods (2012). Quality assurance programme Arlagården. Version 3.3. Available at: http://lfw.dk/ess6.
  4. Arla Foods (2013a). Closer to nature. Available at: http://lfw.dk/w4ao.
  5. Arla Foods (2013b). Activities. Available at: http://lfw.dk/7lt8.
  6. Boogaard, B.K., Boekhorst, L.J.S., Oosting, S.J. and Sorensen, J.T. (2011). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science 140: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broom, D. (1991). Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Danish Consumer Council (2011). Danish Crown på kanten af vildledning. Available at: http://lfw.dk/hv89.
  9. Danish Crown (2011). Antonius. Available at: http://lfw.dk/o2qx.
  10. Danish Crown (2012). Den go’e gris. Available at: http://lfw.dk/73xw.
  11. Danish Crown (2013a). Svinekød Available at: http://lfw.dk/4tgj.
  12. Danish Crown (2013b). Bornholmergrisen. Available at: http://lfw.dk/s5lj.
  13. Duncan I.J.H. (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A. Animal Science Supplementum 27: 29–35.Google Scholar
  14. Krogshede, M.B. (2013). Hver femte ko har digitalis dermatitis. Maskinbladet February 22, 2013.Google Scholar
  15. Lenskjold, M. (2009). Bornholmergrisen er populær. Landbrugsavisen. Available at: http://lfw.dk/e8os.
  16. Miele, M. (2010). Report concerning consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare. European Animal Welfare Platform, Belgium, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Rollin, B. (1993). Animal welfare, science and value. Journal ofAgricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (Suppl. 2): 44–50.Google Scholar
  18. Salvador, P. (2011). The myth of the natural in advertising. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies 3: 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 289 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Te Velde, H., Aarts, N. and Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Videncentret for Landbrug (2013). Hvor mange køer er på græs i Danmark?. Available at: http://lfw.dk/emuq.
  22. Yeates, J., Röcklinsberg, H. and Gjerris, M. (2011). Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policymaking regarding animals. Animal Welfare 20: 423–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aesthetics and CommunicationAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations