Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Farm animal welfare in livestock production is a topical and important issue attracting growing interest of policy makers, consumers, stakeholders in the supply chain and others. While there is much public interest in the issue this is not reflected in the supply and market shares of animal food products that are produced under welfare standards that exceed legislative requirements. Given the obstacles to devising stricter legislative standards, higher welfare animal food products are mostly made available through market-based approaches. This paper discusses different challenges and opportunities for a range of public and consumer policies and makes recommendations on how these might be strengthened. The paper does not report primary empirical findings but assembles available knowledge on citizen and consumer attitudes and perceptions towards animal welfare from various research disciplines. We argue that in order for public and consumer policies to be (more) efficient and effective, it is important to develop a segmented and targeted strategy. This paper will thus elaborate on what information could and should be provided to whom. This implies the need for a good understanding of how people conceptualize farm animal welfare. Further, information provisioning should address the needs and expectations of those specific consumer segments most likely to be motivated to purchase higher welfare products. Based on the assembled information, opportunities and challenges for information provisioning and communication to the public and consumers are identified. The merits and limitations of different forms of information provisioning and animal welfare labelling are discussed and recommendations are set forth for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York, US: Continuum International Publishing group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. British Food Journal, 111, 1140–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, M. C. (1999). Definitions of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 159–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. M., & Larson, D. (1996). Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: An exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47, 224–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C., & Hammarström, A. (2006). The process of building a new governmental authority based on public demands for improved animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I. E., & Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy Marketing, 11, 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003). Labelling information demanded by European consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat. Meat Science, 65, 1095–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binnekamp, M., & Ingenbleek, P. (2006). Market barriers for welfare product innovations. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blokhuis, H. J., Keeling, L. J., Gavinelli, A., & Serratosa, J. (2008). Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, S79–S87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2006). Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 104, 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117, 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botreau, R., Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bracke, M. B. M., & Keeling, L. J. (2007). Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 16, 225–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, M. B. M., De Greef, K., & Hopster, H. (2005). Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal-welfare - concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 4167–4175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H., & Cesar, C. (2007). Eating well, eating fare: Farm animal welfare in France. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporale, V., Alessandrini, B., Dalla Villa, P., & Del Papa, S. (2005). Global perspectives on animal welfare. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique, 24, 567–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2007). Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34, 321–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Mørbak, M., Denver, S., & Hasler, B. (2006). Preferences for food safety and animal welfare—A choice experiment study comparing organic and conventional consumers. In Proceedings of the 1st joint European organic congress, Odense, Denmark, 2 pages.

  • Dagevos, H. (2005). Consumers as four-faced creatures. Looking at food consumption from the perspective of contemporary consumers. Appetite, 45, 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (2006). A user’s guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerfler, R. L., & Peters, K. J. (2006). The relativity of ethical issues in animal agriculture related to different cultures and production conditions. Livestock Science, 103, 257–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Sciences, 27(Suppl.), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H., & Fraser, D. (1997). Understanding animal welfare. In M. Appleby & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (pp. 19–31). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, P. J. (1995). Farm animal welfare, Europe and the meat manufacturer. British Food Journal, 97, 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. D., & Schneider, H. P. (2005). The World Veterinary Association and animal welfare. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique, 24, 639–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Weiner, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy Marketing, 10, 102–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking, U. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: The case of the Q&S label. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31, 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council). (2006). Report on welfare labelling. http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/welfarelabel-0606.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M. W. (2009). Defining animal welfare—Does consistency matter? New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 57, 71–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (1995). Science, values and animal welfare: Exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare, 4, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50, S1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracia, A., & Zeballos, G. (2011). Animal welfare concern and attitudes towards more animal welfare friendly meat products: Characterization and segmentation. Informacion Tecnica Economica Agragria, 107(1), 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K. G., & Valli, C. (2001). Designer-made meat and dairy products: Consumer-led product development. Livestock Production Science, 72, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. (2006). Disgust reactions to meat among ethically and health motivated vegetarians. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 45, 125–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansman, H. (1999). De consument gevangen in cijfers: Zoektocht naar het bestaan van consumentenbeelden. http://www.lei.dlo.nl/publicaties/PDF/1999/3_xxx/3_99_07.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Harper, G., & Henson, S. (2001). Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. Final report (EU FAIR CT98-3678). http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Hewson, C. J. (2003). Can we assess welfare? Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44, 749–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, C. T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2005). Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history. Appetite, 45, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, C. T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2007). Food and sustainability: Do consumers-package information mers recognize, understand and value on production standards? Appetite, 49, 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, P. D., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 579–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D. (1995). Animal welfare: The consumer and the food industry. British Food Journal, 97, 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IGD (The Institute of Grocery Distribution). (2007). Consumer attitudes to animal welfare. http://www.igd.com/index.asp?id=1&fid=1&sid=8&tid=33&cid=311. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Ingenbleek, P., Backus, G. B. C., Binnekamp, M. H. A., Bondt, N., Goddijn, S. T., Hoste, R., Immink, V. M., Oosterkamp, E. B., & de Vlieger, J. J. (2006). Dierenwelzijn in transitie; thema’s rond de implementatie van de dierenwelzijnsindex. http://www.verantwoordeveehouderij.nl/producten/Verwaarding/DierenwelzijnInTransitie.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Ingenbleek, P., Binnekamp, M., Van Trijp, J., & de Vlieger, J. (2004). Dierenwelzijn in de markt. Een drieluik van consumenten, retailers en belangenorganisaties in Europa. http://www.lei.dlo.nl/publicaties/PDF/2004/5_xxx/5_04_11.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Ingenbleek, P., & Immink, V. M. (2011). Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Animal Welfare, 20, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasper, J. M., & Nelkin, D. (1992). The animal rights crusade—The growth of a moral protest. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory—Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanis, E., Groen, A. F., & De Greef, K. H. (2003). Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 137–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiley-Worthington, M. (1989). Ecological, ethological and ethically sound environments for animals: Towards symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2, 223–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjaernes, U., Roe, E., & Bock, B. (2007). Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. Powerpoint-presentation on the second stakeholder conference ‘Assuring animal welfare: From societal concerns to implementation’, Welfare Quality®, 3–4 May, Berlin, Germany.

  • Korthals, M. (2005). Ethics of food production and consumption. http://www.app.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/E96C8F3F-A0A4-48C3-956C-355C676B1836/24283/MichielKorthalsEthicsofFoodProductionandConsumptio.doc. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Tronstad, Å., & Risvik, E. (2002). Attitudes towards meat and meat-eating among adolescents in Norway: A qualitative study. Appetite, 38, 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laskova, A. (2007). Perceived consumer effectiveness and environmental concerns. In: Proceeding of the 13th Asia Pacific management conference (APMC), 18–20 November, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 206–209.

  • Lawrence, A.B., & Stott, A.W. (2009). Profiting from animal welfare: An animal-based perspective. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/lawrence%2009.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Green, A., Warner, D., & Coles, A. (2008). Farm assurance schemes: Can they improve farming standards? British Food Journal, 110, 1088–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liljenstolpe, C. (2008). Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedisch pig production. Agribusiness, 24, 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L. (2011). The market for animal welfare. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 561–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, L. E., Bennett, R. M., Tranter, R. B., & Wooldridge, M. J. (2007). Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15, 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, M., de Boer, M., O’Reilly, S., & Cotter, L. (2003). Factors influencing intention to purchase beef in the Irish market. Meat Science, 65, 1071–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEachern, M. G., & Schröder, M. J. A. (2002). The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. (1991). A socioeconomic perspective on animal-welfare. Outlook on Agriculture, 20, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. (2004). Animal welfare, economics and policy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfare.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Meulenberg, T. (2003). ‘Consument en burger’, betekenis voor de markt van landbouwproducten en voedingsmiddelen. Tijdschrift voor Sociaal Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van de Landbouw, 18, 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuwissen, M., & Van der Lans, I. (2004). Trade-offs between consumer concerns: An application for pork production. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/24996/1/sp04me01.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napolitano, F., Girolami, A., & Braghieri, A. (2010). Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21, 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napolitano, F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A., & Braghieri, A. (2008). Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yoghurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 910–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. A. (2004). Consumer decision making and image theory: Understanding value-laden decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, T., Foster, K., & Lusk, J. L. (2006). Marketing opportunities for certified pork chops. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nocella, G., Hubbard, L., & Scarpa, R. (2010). Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olesen, I., Alfnes, F., Røra, M. B., & Kolstad, K. (2010). Eliciting consumers’ willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livestock Science, 127, 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan-Huy, S. A., & Fawaz, R. B. (2003). Swiss market for meat from animal-friendly production - responses of public and private actors in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouta, E., Heikkila, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., & Makela, J. (2010). Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushen, J. (2003). Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: Bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushen, J., Butterworth, A., & Swanson, J. C. (2011). Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and application. Journal of Animal Science, 89(4), 1219–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seamer, J. H. (1998). Human stewardship and animal welfare. Applied Animal Behavioural Science, 59, 201–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpell, J. A. (1999). Sheep in wolves’ clothing? Attitudes to animals among farmers and scientists. In F. L. Dolins (Ed.), Attitudes to animals: Views in animal welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, L. J. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24, 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. T., & Fraser, D. (2010). On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science, 131, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundrum, A. (2007). Conflicting areas in the ethical debate on animal health and welfare. In W. Zollitsch, C. Winckler, S. Waiblinger, A. Haslberger (Eds.), Sustainable food production and ethics (pp. 257–262) (preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

  • Te Velde, H. T., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., Harris, C., Holt, D., & Pajor, E. A. (2007). Livestock welfare product claims: The emerging social context. Journal of Animal Science, 85, 2354–2360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toma, L., Stott, A. W., Revoreda-Giha, C., & Kupiec-Teahan, B. (2012). Consumers and animal welfare: A comparison between European countries. Appetite, 58, 597–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk, N. J. (2011). Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuyttens, F., Heyndrickx, M., De Boeck, M., Moreels, M., Van Nuffel, A., Van Poucke, E., et al. (2008). Broiler chicken health, welfare and fluctuating asymmetry in organic versus conventional production systems. Livestock Science, 113, 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubilava, D., Foster, K. A., Lusk, J. L., & Nilsson, T. (2008). Effects of income and social awareness on consumer WTP for social product attributes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 587–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). The importance of the message frame in the case of information provision related to energy and environmental problems. Energy Policy, 38, 5541–5549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wezemael, L., Verbeke, W., Kügler, J. O., de Barcellos, M. D., & Grunert, K. G. (2010). European consumers and beef safety: Perceptions, expectations and uncertainty reduction strategies. Food Control, 21, 835–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F. A. M., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(6), 551–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2009). Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science, 88, 2702–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science, 123, 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Pieniak, Z., Nijs, G., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2012). The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2007). Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15, 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116, 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., & Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verain, M. C. D., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S. J., Onwezen, M. C., & Antonides, G. (2012). Segments of sustainable food consumers: A literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 347–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18, 325–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. (2012). Citizen and consumer attitudes towards animal welfare in livestock production. Presentation at EU Animal Welfare Conference, Brussels, 29 February 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/seminars/docs/290212_d1s2_1_wim_verbeke.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2013.

  • Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F. J. A., de Barcellos, M. D., Krystallis, A., & Grunert, K. G. (2010). European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science, 84, 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude—Behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64, 542–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M., Fry, C., & Carruthers, S. P. (1998). European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy, 23, 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worsley, A., & Lea, E. (2003). Consumers’ personal values and sources of nutrition information. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 42, 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 495–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Filiep Vanhonacker & Wim Verbeke

Authors
  1. Filiep Vanhonacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim Verbeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wim Verbeke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W. Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 153–171 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9479-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9479-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation