Would consumers pay more for animal welfare?
Sustainability has multiple meanings. While most commonly associated with practices that have a lower-than-average impact on the environment and contribution to climate change, it can also mean, in some contexts, practices that promote worker welfare.
Dairy is a commodity often linked by consumers, through its status as an animal product, to both climate change and animal suffering. But out of these things, what do consumers care about the most? Would they be willing to pay more for the reduction of animal suffering or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?
A new study in the journal Food Quality and Preference explored which factors of dairy production concerned Swiss consumers the most.
Are consumers willing to pay more for animal welfare?
Previous studies have shown that consumers are often willing to pay more for certain key components of animal welfare, such as increased contact between cow and calf, pain elimination during dehorning, and increased outdoor access.
Switzerland’s mountainous terrain makes the production of plant-based food difficult. However, it is well suited for grassland-based dairy production, making animal welfare a key issue in the country.
In this study, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to examine what choices consumers would make in a real purchasing scenario. They were tested if they would pay more for milk or butter if certain conditions were met.
The study found that consumers have a preference for organic milk production rather than conventional, loose housing as opposed to tethering, and killing on farm as opposed to transporting to the slaughterhouse. They are in favour of a reduction in GHG emissions, so long as it doesn’t negatively impact the animals in question.
Consumers were particularly concerned about animal housing, i.e. the change from tethered to loose housing. The study calculated that if their desired improvements were made to animal conditions in dairy and milk production, they would pay an average of 2.73 CHF (€2.90) more per person per month for milk and 2.56 CHF (€2.72) for butter.
This would amount to, for milk, a 1.01% increase in monthly food budget and 0.13% in monthly overall expenditure. For butter, it would be a 0.96% increase in food budget and a 0.12% increase in overall expenditure. Consumers’ willingness to pay more also exceeded the upper cost limit of actually making this change in farming practice (although tethering is no longer the market standard in Switzerland and takes place on less than 50% of its farms).
The increase in expenditure for housing would be higher than for all other animal welfare improvements. However, it also, the study points out, affects a greater portion of the animal’s lifetime than the other animal welfare aspects.
When GHG emissions reduction conflicts with animal welfare, what will consumers prioritise?
The research also looked at whether consumers would pay more for dairy linked to a reduction in GHG emissions. This result was significant but less than that for animal welfare improvements.
If GHG emissions reductions conflicted with animal welfare, resulting in a reduction of said welfare, consumers would not be willing to pay more. There was a negative correlation, in fact, between willingness to pay more and this reduction of animal welfare, even when in service of decreased GHG emissions.
Sourced From: Food Quality and Preference
'Animal welfare has priority: Swiss consumers’ preferences for animal welfare, greenhouse gas reductions and other sustainability improvements in dairy products'
Published on: 24 October 2024
Doi: 10.1038/s41585-024-00939-y
Authors: S Richter, H Stolz, A L Martinez-Cruz, A Kachi
