Amelia Rose Cornish, Donnel Briley, Bethany Jessica Wilson, David Raubenheimer, David Schlosberg, Paul Damien McGreevy, “
The Price of Good Welfare: Does Informing Consumers About What On-Package Labels Mean for Animal Welfare Influence Their Purchase Intentions?”
Appetite 148: 104577, 2020.
- Most people care about the welfare of the animals that we eat
- It's even possible that people think that more “humane” products taste better
- The “Heuristic-Systematic Model,” a version of System 1 and System 2 (Thinking, Fast and Slow); System 1 decision making might mean you just buy what you always have bought
- Food labels can be confusing; there's “…a proliferation of new and unfamiliar on-package labels [p. 2]” Are industry-provided labels reliable?
- Online survey with some 1600 Australian respondents, almost ¾ female
- The respondents are asked about their purchase intentions for meat and eggs, given different labels and prices; some of the labels provide more detailed information about animal welfare than the others
- The purchase intention questions are followed up by an “animal attitude” survey
- Young people and females are more sympathetic to animals
- Older people (and males) think the current level of farm animal welfare is better than what other age groups think -- and interest in buying higher welfare products wanes as views of current welfare improve
- Lower income people are less likely to buy (more expensive) higher welfare meat
- People who grew up in the city, and highly educated people, are more likely to buy the higher welfare versions
- The main result: more detailed label info leads to an increased intention to purchase higher welfare products
No comments:
Post a Comment