Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems

Abstract

Many members of the public and important stakeholders operating at the upper end of the food chain, may be unfamiliar with how food is produced, including within modern animal production systems. The intensification of production is becoming increasingly common in modern farming. However, intensive systems are particularly susceptible to production diseases, with potentially negative consequences for farm animal welfare (FAW). Previous research has demonstrated that the public are concerned about FAW, yet there has been little research into attitudes towards production diseases, and their approval of interventions to reduce these. This research explores the public’s attitudes towards, and preferences for, FAW interventions in five European countries (Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain and the UK). An online survey was conducted for broilers (n = 789), layers (n = 790) and pigs (n = 751). Data were analysed by means of Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The results suggest that the public have concerns regarding intensive production systems, in relation to FAW, naturalness and the use of antibiotics. The most preferred interventions were the most “proactive” interventions, namely improved housing and hygiene measures. The least preferred interventions were medicine-based, which raised humane animal care and food safety concerns amongst respondents. The results highlighted the influence of the identified concerns, perceived risks and benefits on attitudes and subsequent behavioural intention, and the importance of supply chain stakeholders addressing these concerns in the subsequent communications with the public.

A value chain analysis of interventions to control production diseases in the intensive pig production sector

“…Consumer views on interventions to reduce production diseases came from two systematic reviews [26,27] and a citizen survey conducted in 2017 [28] as part of the PROHEALTH project. The systematic reviews analysed consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare (FAW) with specific focus on production diseases in intensive systems.…”

“…The prophylactic use of antibiotics was identified as a key concern. Results relevant to the evidence gap identified were collected by [28] who assessed public opinion in the study countries from 2,330 responses; the data was analysed by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.…”

“…Consumer concerns related to animal production were identified in two PROHEALTH reviews [26,27] and in an EU survey [28]. Results suggest that the public have concerns over intensive production systems including, in relation to FAW, the lack of naturalness in these systems (including animals being able to perform natural behaviours), humane treatment of animals and the use of veterinary medicines, in particular the use of antimicrobials and associated antimicrobial resistance.…”

“…Given these concerns, it is unsurprising that the most preferred interventions in the EU survey [28], across all three animals surveyed (pigs, broilers and layers), were those that can be viewed as the most proactive, natural and least invasive, namely measures related to housing and hygiene. The least preferred interventions were those that were medicine-based, which raised concerns in relation to humane animal care and human food safety concerns.…”

“…Concerns about negative impacts on the food chain relating to food safety were also expressed, particularly relating to veterinary pharmaceutical interventions, including antibiotic usage, vaccination and the use of probiotics. At the same time, the reviews and citizen survey [26,27,28] suggest that the public do not really know what production diseases are and have limited knowledge about how the food they purchase is produced. This is linked to cognitive dissonance, whereby people reduce the stress they experience when thinking about production systems, and the process of food production with their own behaviours in relation to food choices involving meat consumption [57,58].…”