Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling

Abstract

Policy makers in the European Union are envisioning the introduction of a community farm animal welfare label which would allow consumers to align their consumption habits with their farm animal welfare preferences. For welfare labelling to be viable the market for livestock products produced to higher welfare standards has to be sufficiently segmented with consumers having sufficiently distinct and behaviourally consistent preferences. The present study investigates consumers' preferences for meat produced to different welfare standards using a hypothetical welfare score. Data is obtained from a contingent valuation study carried out in Britain. The ordered probit model was estimated using Bayesian inference to obtain mean willingness to pay. We find decreasing marginal WTP as animal welfare levels increase and that people's preferences for different levels of farm animal welfare are sufficiently differentiated making the introduction of a labelling scheme in the form of a certified rating system appear feasible.

Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?

“…The findings are in line with Kehlbacher et al (2012): the higher the standards of animal welfare, the higher the WTP. Consequently, different WTPs can be achieved indicating that a multi-level labelling system is comprehensible.…”

“…Another study conducted by Tonsor and Wolf (2011) showed that consumers are willing to pay a surplus of 20 % for pork and eggs labelled as produced without using gestation crates for sows or cages for laying hens. Kehlbacher et al (2012) provided further evidence that the WTP rises when the standards of the animal welfare improve. In their hypothetical study, the WTP is Moreover, in January 2013 two animal welfare labels with two levels each, "Für mehr Tierschutz" ("For more animal welfare") and "Tierschutz-Kontrolliert" ("Animal welfare controlled"), were introduced in Germany.…”

“…Those labels are of binary nature. As animal welfare is a metric variable from a scientific point of view (cf Kehlbacher et al, 2012), it is advantageous for producers to use a multi-level labelling system to communicate the different stages of housing conditions in order to market their products at appropriate graded prices.…”

Welfare-friendly Products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil,

“…Considering that food purchasing decision involves little information processing and minimal time expenditure (VANHONACKER and VERBEKE, 2014), clear and precise information is essential to consumer decision-making. In the specific case of WFP, label can take different formats to inform about animal rearing conditions (KEHLBACHER et al, 2012) and to allow consumers to understand the circumstances in which animals were reared, since the majority of consumer is distant from animal production systems. Again, availability seems to be a key-problem, in terms of quantity and quality of information offered to consumers.…”

Attitudes toward farm animals welfare and consumer's buying intentions: Case of Serbia

“…The most prominent variations determinants are established to be socio-demographic factors. Previous research (Lagerkvist, Hess, 2011, Kehlbacher et al, 2012Grimsrud et al, 2013) consistently acknowledged that age, income, gender and the level of education played significant role in the distinguishment of consumers' willingness to pay for animal-friendly products. In addition, the presence of children in the household (Toma et al, 2012), as well as whether family owed a pet (Harper, Henson, 2001), influenced how prone they would be to pay premium price for products which considered animal welfare.…”