IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3619-d1070287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudinal and Behavioural Differences towards Farm Animal Welfare among Consumers in the BRIC Countries and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando Mata

    (CISAS—Centre for Research and Development in Agri-Food Systems and Sustainability, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial Nun’Álvares, 34, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal)

  • Maria Dos-Santos

    (IUL DINÂMIÁCET, ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Avenida das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Jack Cocksedge

    (Department of Economics and Finance, Durham University, Stockton Road, The Palatine Centre, Durham DH1 3LE, UK)

Abstract

This study explores cross-cultural differences in consumers’ attitudes toward farm animal welfare (FAW) in BRIC countries. Questionnaires administered in each country contained the following questions: (i) “It is important to me that animals used for food are well cared for”, (ii) “The typical nationality thinks it is important that animals used for food are well cared for”, (iii) “Low meat prices are more important than the well-being of animals used for food”, and (iv) “The typical nationality thinks that low meat prices are more important than the well-being of animals used for food”. Answers were given on a Likert scale (from total disagreement to total agreement). Data fit multinomial logistic models using “Country” and “Gender” as factors and “Age” as a covariate. The results showed that women had stronger pro-animal attitudes. Statements on the perception of FAW importance had an agreement tendency that increased with age, while the opposite was true for meat prices. Brazil showed the highest levels of individual pro-FAW attitudes, and the same trend in relation to meat prices. Russia showed a slightly lower pro-FAW attitude, but the perception of the compatriots’ attitudes towards FAW showed the opposite. Russians in general disagree with low meat prices in exchange for the detriment of FAW. Indians were the least supportive of FAW and, together with the Chinese, were the least supportive of an increase in meat prices to improve FAW. The Chinese showed prominent levels of neutrality towards FAW. These results may contribute to the definition of food and trade policies and help to adjust the supply chain to consumers’ socio-cultural and economic differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando Mata & Maria Dos-Santos & Jack Cocksedge, 2023. "Attitudinal and Behavioural Differences towards Farm Animal Welfare among Consumers in the BRIC Countries and the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3619-:d:1070287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3619/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3619/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yufeng Ren & Zhemin Li & Yuting Wang & Tianyu Zhang, 2020. "Development and Prospect of Food Security Cooperation in the BRICS Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Altmann, Brianne A. & Anders, Sven & Risius, Antje & Mörlein, Daniel, 2022. "Information effects on consumer preferences for alternative animal feedstuffs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Harald Grethe, 2017. "The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 75-94, October.
    4. Burggraf, Christine & Kuhn, Lena & Zhao, Quiran & Teuber, Ramona & Glauben, Thomas, 2015. "Nutrition transition in two emerging countries: A comparison between China and Russia," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211375, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    6. Sun, Dongsheng & Liu, Yifang & Grant, Jason & Long, Yanyu & Wang, Xiaojuan & Xie, Chaoping, 2021. "Impact of food safety regulations on agricultural trade: Evidence from China's import refusal data," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    7. Elizabeth S. Byrd & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2018. "Presentation matters: Number of attributes presented impacts estimated preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 377-389, March.
    8. Catherine Happer & Laura Wellesley, 2019. "Meat consumption, behaviour and the media environment: a focus group analysis across four countries," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(1), pages 123-139, February.
    9. Gabriela Olmos Antillón & Håkan Tunón & Daiana de Oliveira & Michael Jones & Anna Wallenbeck & Janice Swanson & Harry Blokhuis & Linda Keeling, 2021. "Animal Welfare and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals—Broadening Students’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Jill E. Hobbs, 1996. "Transaction costs and slaughter cattle procurement: Processors' selection of supply channels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 509-523.
    11. Harald Grethe, 2017. "The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 75-94, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Funke, Franziska & Mattauch, Linus & van den Bijgaart, Inge & Godfray, Charles & Hepburn, Cameron & Klenert, David & Springmann, Marco & Treich, Nicholas, 2021. "Is Meat Too Cheap? Towards Optimal Meat Taxation," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-08, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    3. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1478-1501, August.
    4. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    5. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Inge van den Bijgaart & H. Charles J. Godfray & Cameron Hepburn & David Klenert & Marco Springmann & Nicolas Treich, 2022. "Toward Optimal Meat Pricing: Is It Time to Tax Meat Consumption?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 219-240.
    8. Assem Abu Hatab & Maria Eduarda Rigo Cavinato & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2019. "Urbanization, livestock systems and food security in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(2), pages 279-299, April.
    9. Carlier, Alexis & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 113-152, April.
    10. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    11. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Huber, Robert & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    12. Hanbin Lee & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2023. "National and subnational regulation of farm practices for consumer products sold within a jurisdiction: California's Proposition 12," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 838-853, November.
    13. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    14. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Xia Tong & Wei Ding & Zhanfei Huang & Yutong Gu, 2024. "Governance mechanism of quality and safety of imported agricultural products in China based on grounded theory," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Wijnands, Jo H.M. & van der Lans, Karin & Hobbs, Jill E., 2006. "International Flower Networks: Transparency and Risks in Marketing Channel Choice," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7759, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Chen, Junhong & Nian, Yefan & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Value, Attitude/Belief, and Sustainable Food Consumption," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322485, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Abele Kuipers & Agata Malak-Rawlikowska & Aldona Stalgienė & Anita Ule & Marija Klopčič, 2021. "European Dairy Farmers’ Perceptions and Responses towards Development Strategies in Years of Turbulent Market and Policy Changes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, March.
    20. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3619-:d:1070287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.