Animal Welfare: What Do Consumers Think?
By Jane Messenger
| Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Do consumers think about how pigs are raised when they shop for pork chops? New research shows that when it comes to picking out meat products, consumers are more concerned about price and quality than about animal welfare and antibiotics.
That’s good news for you because it means there is a level of trust between consumers and producers. This is one of the findings from a new animal-welfare research project for the National Pork Board conducted by RoperASW.
The study was divided into two parts, quantitative and qualitative. For the first section, RoperASW conducted a national, 15-minute telephone survey of 1,000 adults ages 18 and older who have primary or shared responsibility for grocery shopping in their household.
RoperASW wanted to identify consumer issues of concern about pork industry and animal-welfare practices.
The second portion focused on trying to understand consumers’ thought processes in regard to animal-welfare when they shop for meat. NPB also wanted insight into how to effectively communicate with consumers.
Here, RoperASW conducted a series of six focus groups among consumers with various meat consumption habits in Washington, D.C.; Atlanta, Ga., and Seattle, Wash.
“We wanted to learn how consumers want the pork industry to explain our production practices,” says Paul Sundberg, NPB assistant vice president of science and technology.
Here’s a look at what the research says about consumer perceptions and pork:
-
Consumers consider price, meat quality, personal health and safety before taking a bite.
-
Price is the primary factor when purchasing meat.
-
They equate quality with taste. Quality also relates to the perception of pork being healthful and safe.
-
Consumers inspect meat for freshness, overall presentation in the package (how it looks and feels), as well as color, smell, texture, leanness and the grade or cut.
-
Consumer health concerns split into two categories: consumer-controllable factors (fat content) versus consumer-uncontrollable factors (on-farm events such as the use of hormones, animal disease).
-
Consumers’ awareness of how meat is produced varies greatly.
-
They are aware that antibiotics are used in some pork production. This does not impact their buying patterns.
-
Consumers prefer to focus on the product in the meat case, not the harvesting process.
-
Consumers believe the meat process has various monitoring points, but they are unclear about specific details.
-
Government agencies are presumed to have the predominant responsibility for monitoring. Consumers consider the government to be reliable and accountable.
-
Those surveyed said, animal-rights groups are concerned with the rights of animals, not human health.
-
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is the most often cited animal-rights organization. Consumers view them as extreme and seeking shock value. "Animal rights organizations have no long-term credibility with consumers,” says Sundberg.
-
They see the news media (newspapers, television and radio) as fairly credible information sources. However, consumers also view those sources as reactive.
-
Consumers trust the media in terms of reporting the news, but question its objectivity because the outlet wants to sell a product, whether it’s a newspaper or particular news program. Consumers put a lot of stock in the person reporting the news, how well it’s written and presented. “Survey participants are saying the media needs to be honest and objective,” says Sundberg. The media needs to trust consumers enough to report the truth. Consumers can decide what to do with it.” Producers know the animal production process intimately, but they have a vested interest because they make a living from their animals. Even so, consumers believe producers above all other sources. “That means producers have to be factual and objective when telling people what they do,” says Sundberg. “Consumers know and understand that producers make a living taking care of animals.”
-
Veterinarians also are credible sources when it comes to animal care, but they are financially tied to the success of the farmer.
-
Other credible sources for consumers include government agencies, researchers, state and national producer organizations, and other consumers.
-
Consumers are aware of various farming and animal-housing arrangements, but this information is not a priority when making purchasing decisions. They want fresh, quality meat at a reasonable price.
-
They are not aware of existing animal-care guidelines proposed by retail and fast-food chains.
-
Consumers decide which fast-food chains to visit based on convenience, taste and price.
-
Most consumers question the validity of animal-care guidelines by fast-food chains since their business model is based on quantity.
-
This research also shows that when the majority of consumers go to fast-food restaurants, they want convenience, taste and price. Consumers says that producers are responsible for the farms and that the fast-food companies are
responsible for the restaurants.
So, what does all this mean to you?
“Bottom line, consumers trust producers to do what’s right for the animals, themselves and the environment,” says Sundberg. “Most consumers no longer have a personal connection with the farm, but they do with the product.
“Consumers want to trust the producer in terms of how the product gets to market,” he continues. “For producers to maintain a market, they need to maintain consumers’ trust.”
Sundberg believes there is a lot that producers can do to improve their images, such as being active in community organizations and being transparent about production activities. This may even include an on-farm tour. Granted, there are biosecurity issues to consider, but explaining to consumers about your production practices can go a long way.
“We can communicate this on a national level, but showing it on a personal level is essential,” Sundberg contends. “Producers have a responsibility to continue to regulate themselves. We need zero-tolerance for animal abuse. Producers understand this, but consumers are going to hold them to it.”
Dale Norton, a member of NPB’s animal-welfare committee, agrees. “Profits might provide incentives, but taking care of the pigs is a necessity,” he says.
Having to explain your operation to others presents a good opportunity to review your practices to ensure that you’re doing everything necessary to care for your animals properly.
For instance, having to euthanize a pig is a difficult decision for most producers. “You have to decide if you can treat the pig or realize there’s no chance of rehabilitation,” continues Norton. “You don’t want an animal to be in pain any longer than necessary.”
Animal-welfare issues aren’t going away. They may not be at the top of consumers’ shopping lists, but that could change. It’s up to you to stay ahead of the curve.
