Report on national survey - Germany March 2001

Transcription

1 EU FAIR-CT Cosumer Cocers About Aimal Welfare Ad The Impact O Food Choice 1 Report o atioal survey - Germay March 2001 Floria Köhler Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketig Istitut für Agrarökoomie Uiversität Kiel fkoehler@agric-eco.ui-kiel.de D Kiel Tel: or Germay Fax: This report is derived from a project etitled Cosumer Cocer about Aimal Welfare ad the Impact o Food Choice (CT ), fiaced by the Europea Commissio s FAIR programme. The report does ot ecessarily reflect the views of the Commissio or the parter orgaisatios. Furthermore, the study does ot aticipate future EU policy. The author would like to ackowledge the cotributio of the project parters: Dr Specer Heso, Uiversity of Guelph, Caada; Dr. Gemma Harper, Uiversity of Readig, Uited Kigdom; Dr Aroua Ouédraogo, Istitut Natioal de la Recherche Agroomique, Paris, Frace; Dr Mara Miele ad Ms Vittoria Parisi, Uiversita Degli Studi di Pisa, Italy; Professor Reimar vo Alveslebe, Christia Albrechts Uiversitaet zu Kiel, Germay; Mr Mick Sloya, Meat ad Livestock Commissio, Milto Keyes, Uited Kigdom; Ms Soja va Tichele ad Dr David Wilkes, Eurogroup for Aimal Welfare, Brussels, Belgium; Mr Joh Keae, Bord Bia, Dubli, Irelad

2 Table of Cotets 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY REVIEW OF LITERATURE FOCUS GROUPS LADDERING INTERVIEWS DEVELOPEMENT OF HYPOTHESES METHOD HYPOTHESES MODEL ABOUT IMPACT OF ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS ON FOOD CHOICE PILOT SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS CONSUMPTION FREQUENCIES (QUESTION 1): CONSUMPTION CHANGES (QUESTIONS 2 + 3) REASONS FOR CONSUMPTION CHANGE (QUESTION 4) ANIMAL- AND HUMAN-ORIENTED CONCERNS AND BELIEFS ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE ACCEPTABILITY OF ANIMAL TREATMENT IN FOOD PRODUCTION (QUESTION 9) IMPORTANCE OF ANIMAL WELFARE FACTORS (QUESTION 10) REDUCED CONSUMPTION DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE? (Q 11) PRODUCTS WITH REDUCED CONSUMPTION DUE TO ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS GENERAL CHOICE OF ANIMAL WELFARE LABELLED FOOD PRODUCTS (QUESTION 13) PARTICULAR ANIMAL FRIENDLY PRODUCTS CONSUMED (QUESTION 14) BARRIERS & PROMOTORS FOR IMPACT OF CONCERNS ON FOOD CHOICE (Q 18) INFORMATION ABOUT ANIMAL TREATMENT IN FOOD PRODUCTION (QUESTION 19) TRUST IN SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE (QUESTION 20) ACTUAL AND DEMANDED RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR BY INSTITUTIONS (Q 21/22) TOTAL MODEL QUESTIONS (QUESTIONS 23-27)

3 4 APPENDICES QUESTIONNAIRE (GERMAN LANGUAGE) ADDITIONAL TABLES AND CHARTS Questio 1: Questio 2 + 3: Questio Questio List of Figures Figure 1: Cosumptio of milk, eggs ad total meat Figure 2: Specific meat cosumptio frequecies Figure 3: Average product specific cosumptio frequecies Figure 4: Total 5 year cosumptio chage Figure 5: Reasos for cosumptio chage Figure 6: acceptability of productio methods Figure 7: Importace of aimal welfare attributes Figure 8: Reduced cosumptio due to aimal welfare cocers Figure 9: 'Aimal friedly' products cosumed Figure 10: Barrier meas Figure 11: Mea of barrier scales by geder Figure 12: Meas of barrier scales by social class Figure 13: Iformatio status about productio coditios Figure 14: Trust i iformatio sources Figure 15: Demaded versus actual resposibility Figure 16: Demaded resposibility by geder Figure 17: Product specific meas for healthiess Figure 18: Product specific meas for safety Figure 19: Product specific meas for coveiece Figure 20: Product specific meas for value for moey Figure 21: Product specific meas for taste Figure 22: Cosumptio frequecy: total amout of meat ad poultry Figure 23: Cosumptio frequecy of pork Figure 24: Cosumptio frequecy of beef Figure 25: Cosumptio frequecy of poultry Figure 26: Cosumptio frequecy of veal Figure 27: Cosumptio frequecy of milk Figure 28: Cosumptio frequecy of lamb Figure 29: Cosumptio frequecy of eggs Figure 30: 5 year cosumptio chages for curretly cosumed products Figure 31: Perceived iformatio status about pork productio Figure 32: Perceived iformatio status about beef productio Figure 33: Perceived iformatio status about egg productio Figure 34: Perceived iformatio status about milk productio Figure 35: Perceived iformatio status about poultry productio Figure 36: Perceived iformatio status about veal productio Figure 37: Perceived iformatio status about lamb productio

4 List of Tables Table 1: Geder ad cosumptio frequecy Table 2: Social class ad cosumptio frequecy Table 3: Aimal- & huma-orieted beliefs & cocers about productio coditios Table 4: Correlatio coefficiets betwee huma- & aimal-orieted beliefs Table 5: Mea over correlatio-coeff. across & withi aimal- & huma-orieted statemet groups Table 6: Product specific acceptability of aimal treatmet: tests of equality & correlatio coefficiets27 Table 7: Product specific acceptability of aimal treatmet ad geder Table 8: Geder ad perceived importace of aimal welfare factors Table 9: Importace of various aimal welfare factors: Tests of equality ad correlatio coefficiets.. 31 Table 10: Reduced cosumptio due to cocers about farm aimal treatmet? Table 11: Cross tabulatio of geder ad cocer iduced cosumptio reductio Table 12: Chi-Square-Test of associatio: geder & cocer iduced cosumptio reductio Table 13: Cross tabulatio of social class ad cocer iduced cosumptio reductio Table 14: Chi-Square-Test of associatio: social class ad cocer iduced cosumptio reductio. 33 Table 15: Statemets of the 'barrier' scales Table 16: Mea, variace ad skewess for the 'barrier' scales Table 17: Geder ad barrier-scales - sigificace tests Table 18: Tests of equality ad correlatios betwee barrier scales Table 19: Correlatio coefficiets betwee scales ad behavioural variables (ot product-specific) Table 20: Barrier scales ad cosumptio frequecies: correlatios Table 21: Barrier scales ad various cosumptio chages: correlatios Table 22: Barrier scales ad behaviour iduced by welfare cocers: correlatio coefficiets Table 23: Iformatio status about productio coditios: Tests of equality ad correlatios Table 24: Geder ad iformatio status about rearig coditios Table 25: Social class ad iformatio status about rearig coditios Table 26: Trust i sources of iformatio about aimal welfare: Equality tests ad correlatios Table 27: Geder ad trust i iformatio sources about aimal welfare Table 28: Demaded resposibility: Equality tests ad correlatios Table 29: Actual resposible behaviour: Equality tests ad correlatios Table 30: Geder ad demaded resposible behaviour Table 31: Equality tests ad correlatios for demaded vs. actual resposible istitutioal behaviour 63 Table 32: Geder ad actual resposible behaviour Table 33: Product raks for product specific meas Table 34: Correlatio-coeff.: product specific behavioural variables & welfare related attitudes/beliefs69 Table 35: Rakig of correlatio stregth betwee product-specific behavioural variables ad welfare related attitudes/beliefs Table 36: Product specific cosumptio freq: correlatio coeff. with other prod. specific questios Table 37: Total 5 year cosumptio chage (product specific): correlatio coefficiets with other product specific questios Table 38: Meat cosumptio chage (ot product specific): corr.-coeff. with prod.-specific questios 73 Table 39: Total meat cosumptio frequecy (ot product specific): correlatio coefficiets with product specific questios Table 40: Total 5 year cosumptio chage due to welfare cocers (product specific): correlatio coefficiets with other product specific questios Table 41: Acceptability of aimal treatmet: correlatios with other product specific questios Table 42: Perceived product healthiess: correlatios with other product specific questios Table 43: Perceived product safety ad taste: correlatios with other product specific questios Table 44: Perceived coveiece to stop cosumptio ad iformatio about aimal treatmet: correlatios with other product specific questios Table 45: Social class ad cosumptio chage Table 46: Geder ad cosumptio chage for curretly cosumed products Table 47: 5 year chaged cosumptio due to cocers about aimal welfare cocers Table 48: 5 year chaged cosumptio due to aimal welfare cocers ad social class Table 49: Reduced cosumptio due to aimal welfare cocers ad geder Table 50: Perceived iformatio status about productio coditios ad geder Table 51: Perceived iformatio status about productio coditios ad social class

5 1 Itroductio This paper reflects the curret (March 2001) state of a ogoig aalysis of a cosumer survey o "Cosumer cocers about aimal welfare ad the impact o food choice". The survey was coducted i Germay from November, 30 th to December, 15 th, at approximately the same time as the surveys i the project-parter coutries, UK, Frace, Irelad ad Italy. It is part of the EU fuded project EU FAIR-CT Results of earlier steps i the project are briefly reviewed. The hypotheses are preseted that guide the aalysis of the reports i all parter coutries. A cocise model of "Cosumer cocers about aimal welfare ad the impact o food choice is preseted". The aalysis tries to aswer the formulated hypothesis. The demographic variables that are looked at are geder ad social class of the respodet herself. Additioally some tables of correlatio coefficiets are preseted for the barrier statemets ad total model statemets with behavioural variables - largely without commet. 1.1 Objectives of the survey To assess cosumer cocers about aimal welfare amogst a represetative sample of cosumers i each study coutry. To idetify segemets of cosumers with similar cocers about aimal weflare. (This report looks at this poit oly i terms of geder ad social class) Relate cocers about aimal welfare, ad chages i the methods applied i aimal productio to the potetial choice of aimal-based food products. (This is doe i the correlatio coefficiet tables, that are additioal to the guidig hypotheses, i.e. correlatio coefficiets of behavioural variables with the barrier scales ad with model statemets) To assess the trade-off cosumers make betwee aimal welfare, price ad other product characteristics. Various barriers are ivestigated. May associatios ca be looked at i the correlatiocoefficiet tables that are preseted without commets i the chapter o the barrier scale ad i the chapter o the 'total' model statemets

6 1.2 Review of literature The Germa literature review ivestigated more tha fifty empirical studies with some relevace o the subject. Most empirical work was foud to be quatitative i ature ad oly briefly touched o the issued of cosumer cocers about aimal welfare. The lik betwee cocers about aimal welfare ad food choice was mostly ot ivestigated i previous empirical work. The literature review revealed that attitudes towards moder husbadry practices are clearly egative. This is for istace reflected i the commoly used critical term 'factory farmig' (Massetierhaltug). Moder husbadry practices are believed to hardly respect aimal welfare, aimal health is see to be poor ad food safety threateed. Both aspects, poor aimal welfare i itself ad uhealthy practices are importat. People advocate political actio to improve husbadry practices ad aimal welfare. A sese of obligatio is idetified for humas to provide good welfare for aimals to serve huma eeds. The chapter o food products i the literature review revealed that the image of meat deteriorated over the last twety years ad also the kid of egative meat image factors chaged. Health ad food safety issues were idetified as importat reasos for distrust, deteriorated image ad perceived quality of meat. Aimal welfare issues were less clearly, but still foud to be relevat i these respects, too: Distrust of aimal products higed less o idividual products tha o a geerally egative perceptio of husbadry practices, which might also be due to aimal welfare reasos. I most studies questios about aimal welfare were ot directly posed but rather implied i terms like 'free-rage'. 'Free rage' was e.g. foud to be o the fifth importace rak from a set of twelve product ad process quality criteria. A survey which icluded 50% aimal-friedly meat shoppers foud the aimal welfare related quality criteria 'careful trasport & ad slaughter' ad 'husbadry which respects aimal eeds' to be amog the three most importat meat quality criteria from a give list, very much o the same rak as 'o fed atibiotics'. A earlier study from the eighties iquired ito purchase motives of battery ad bar egg purchasers. A ope eded questio foud 'price' to be the most importat motive for coscious battery egg purchasers ad the welfare related 'more appropriate keepig', to be the most importat motive for coscious bar egg purchasers. The importace of aimal welfare as a purchase criterio is - 6 -

7 mixed for both ope ad closed ed questios, but closed-eded questios clearly make it more importat. Further evidece suggests that people believe aimal friedly produced products to be healthier ad taste better ad local or Germa origi products were e.g. associated with better keepig coditios for aimals. The literature review idetified a sigificat gap betwee the ofte measured high cosumer cocers about aimal welfare i food productio ad relatively low market share for aimal friedly products. Lack of kowledge about what product labels really mea was, for 1994 ad 1998, idetified as a importat obstacle to buyig eggs regarded as more aimal friedly. Mislead purchase decisios probably also explai to some exted that self-reported purchase behaviour for eggs is exaggerate whe compared to market shares. Availability of free-rage eggs was ot cosidered a importat obstacle by a majority of respodets i a survey coducted i Focus Groups The focus group discussio cofirmed the importace of health ad food safety issues for food choice ad also the egative perceptio of moder, i cotrast to traditioal husbadry ad food productio practices. Aimal welfare was spotaeously ot the most importat associatio i relatio to the catchword 'food', but was evertheless spotaeously metioed i all female groups it was thus spotaeously metioed more ofte tha BSE ad almost as ofte as the issue of geetically modified orgaisms. I the esuig discussio aimal sufferig ad poor welfare i moder productio systems was criticised ad it was demurred that aimals were ot treated as a ed i themselves but exploited. Humas were see to be resposible for the welfare of aimals. However, slaughter itself was ot accepted to be a ethical problem, i.e. it was ot see as problematic i itself that humas eat aimals. People i the focus groups early uaimously expressed empathic feeligs ad were deeply cocered about the welfare of the aimals whe they were cofroted with video images of productio systems reactios to the video were i this respect very distict from the geeral discussio o food. As i the literature review the level of cocer about aimal welfare clearly depeded o how cocer was measured

8 What did people regard as importat for aimal welfare? Aimals should have the opportuity to express atural behaviour, e.g. urestricted movemet, dust bathig, they should be provided access to fresh ad atural food ad daylight. Hygiee should be assured. Both huma care ad the opportuity for the aimals to decide what to do for themselves were see importat. Perceived cosequeces of buyig better aimal welfare products were ot oly self-cetred i the form of better taste, quality ad healthier products but also had the form of simply feelig better ad havig a good cosciece. Metioed obstacles for purchasig more aimal-friedly products or purchasig less aimal products are lack of imagiatio ad disassociatio of the product from the aimal, good taste, good utritioal value of aimal products, everyday problems that absorb oes eergy, low trust i claims about better produced products, perceived icosistet marketig (e.g. well produced meat pre-packaged) ad higher price. May participats iferred the stadard of aimal welfare from the source of purchase ad how much they trusted it. 1.4 Ladderig Iterviews The three most importat areas of cocer about farm aimal welfare were idetified i the cocepts of 'Space', 'Trasport' ad '(appropriateess of) Feed'. For the whole data set 'Space' was the attribute with the strogest coectios to other cocepts. It was liked to areas of cocer coded uder 'outside', 'husbadry' ad 'mass'. Further clusters of closely coected cocers cosist of the followig attribute-pairs: 'feed' ad 'additives', 'trasport' ad 'slaughter' 2 ad 'mass' ad 'additives'. Roughly speakig 'Space', 'Trasport' ad 'Feed' are at the cetre of the three most importat attribute clusters. Most cosequeces ad values i the hierarchical value map ca be thought of as either more orieted towards people or aimals. The attribute 'space' evokes associatios i both directios. Limited space restricts atural behaviour of the aimal ad is ot see compatible with people's wish that aimals should live, feed ad move aturally, which is strogly emphasised as right ad justified by referrig to what people wat to have for themselves

9 This is the more domiat ethical cocer. Aother more complex but probably weaker cocer is that aimal health is adversely affected from lack of space ad the esuig lack of atural exercise ad behaviour. Poor aimal health adversely affects food safety ad hece huma health, which is see valuable. There also is a more direct lik from aimal health to quality of life i the sese that whe the aimal feels bad, the perso feels bad too, which is much like empathy, but worded differetly. A differet chai leadig from 'space' over aimal health ad 'safety' leads to cosumptio ad purchase patters. The probably domiat chai for feed cocetrates more o the cosequeces for humas: Feed affects aimal health, food safety ad hece huma health. But a chai ca also be costructed leadig from aimal health to the 'empathy' code. A iterestig aspect for the huma related chais from 'feed' ad 'space' is, that they ca be related to purchase ad cosumptio patters via 'safety' as a cosequece. Trasport coditios are ultimately most strogly coected to the ethics code which comprises various qualifyig statemets, from ordiary rejectios of practices to more sophisticated moral rules about what is right or wrog, should or should't be doe. I the sample there is widespread cocer about aimal trasport. Trasport coditios are disapproved of. Trasport is see ecessary for slaughter ad cosumers feel uhappy, distressed, upset ad pity for the aimal whe they thik about trasport, sice it impiges o the aimals quality of life ad causes sufferig for the aimal, particularly metioed is emotioal ad metal sufferig ad stress. Trasport is qualified as cruel ad see as leadig to premature mortality of the aimals. The lik betwee trasport coditios ad the empathycodes is also strog. These codes comprise statemets of idetificatio, role takig, empathy ad compassio. The 'empathy as a value' code is particularly strogly liked to the trasport code, it comprises statemets like "Oe should treat aimals like oe wats to be treated oeself". But trasport is also liked to the competitiveess code: People believe that bad trasport practices result from a attempt to miimise costs e.g. by limitig the amout of care provided. Participats clearly disapprove of the profit motive. Amog the three attributes 'space', 'trasport' ad 'feed', 'trasport' is the oe most strogly coected to the 'rules[&regulatios]' code: Two people metio that bad trasport practices exist despite improved legislatio. 2 Slaughter therefore is more of a issue i coectio with trasport ad stress associated with it ad ot so - 9 -

10 To summarise the cosequeces ad values associated with the attributes: more relevat for the aimal orieted chais are cocepts like empathy ad iferece from huma aimal comparisos, ature ad perceived adequacy, quality of life, sufferig of aimals, views about what is right to do ad feeligs of distress as well as good feeligs about good practices. More relevat for the huma orieted chais are aimal health, food safety ad other quality of food, huma health, life quality ad ejoymet. 1.5 Developemet of Hypotheses The hypotheses ad the model were developed from the work doe at previous project stages, from joit discussio amog the project parters ad from literature o moral ad socialpsychology ad evirometal behaviour. 2 Method 2.1 Hypotheses Cosumptio 1. Cosumers will have decreased their cosumptio of aimal-based food products for health rather tha aimal welfare reasos. 2. More wome tha me will have decreased their cosumptio of aimal-based food products. 3. There will be a greater decrease i red meat compared to white meat, eggs ad milk. 4. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level of chage i cosumptio ad type of aimal-based food product Cocer Wome will be more cocered about aimal welfare tha me. ABC1s will be more cocered tha C2DEs. Cosumers will express more cocer for the aimals welfare tha for huma health, quality of food or healthiess of food. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level ad type of cocer Acceptability of productio methods Cosumers will fid productio methods for beef, veal ad eggs least acceptable. Wome will fid coditios less acceptable tha me. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level ad type of acceptability. much oe of violatig the right to life of aimals

11 2.1.4 Attributes of aimal welfare Cosumers will cosider those attributes which directly affect huma health, such as feed, most importat. Wome will cosider each of the attributes more importat tha me. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level ad type of attribute Decreased cosumptio due to aimal welfare cocers More wome tha me will have decreased their cosumptio because of aimal welfare cocers. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level of decrease. There will be variatio i decreased cosumptio betwee red meat, white meat ad dairy products 'Aimal-friedly products More wome tha me will select aimal-friedly products. ABC1s will select more aimal-friedly products tha C2DEs. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i type ad amout of product selected Barriers to purchasig aimal-friedly products There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level ad type of barriers. There will be variatio betwee me ad wome i level ad type of barriers. There will be variatio betwee ABC1s ad C2DEs i level ad type of cocer. There will be variatio i importace betwee cocrete ad abstract barriers Iformatio Cosumers will be most iformed about productio methods for eggs. Cosumers will cosider themselves to be uiformed overall. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level ad type of iformatio Trust Cosumer will express least trust i the Govermet ad the food idustry. There will be variatio amogst the five participatig coutries i level ad type of trust Resposibility Cosumers will attribute resposibility exterally Total model factors There will be product variatio i terms of taste, healthiess, safety, coveiece ad value for moey

12 2.2 Model of cosumer cocer about aimal welfare ad the impact o food choice Aimal welfare cocers ad beliefs (+) perceived availability of aimal friedly products geeral aimal cetred beliefs ad cocers about aimal welfare ad husbadry practices; acceptability of aimal treatmet (for product ad its substitutes) (+) huma cetred cocers about aimal welfare (e.g. about health, safety, taste impact) (+) Perceptio of other product characteristics (of a product ad its substitutes) (-) (+) willigess to pay for high aimal welfare products iformatio about productio methods perceived resposibility for aimal welfare ad perceived cosequeces of ow behaviour for aimals (+) empathy, awareess of state of eed of aimals, disassociatio, cetrality of aimal welfare cocer cosumptio frequecy for aimal product (various products or total, relative share vs. total amout) cosumptio of aimal friedly products (vs. kowledge/evoked set) cosumptio chage taste healthfulless socio-demographic variables (e.g. icome as measure of coveiece factor) (+) safety value for moey habit (perceived difficulty to stop cosumptio; previous cosumptio chage)

13 2.3 Pilot Two pilot iterviews of 15 iterviews each were coducted by the author of this report. Results of the pilot iterviews were discussed by all parters ad ammedmets icorporated i the mai survey. The fial Germa questioaire ca be looked at i the appedix. 2.4 Sample 507 people were iterviewed (computer aided telephoe iterviews) by "Produkt ud Markt". Iterviews were coducted from November 30 th till December 15 th, amidst the most sever BSE crisis Germay experieced so far. Some results of the survey eed to be iterpreted agaist the backgroud of the BSE crisis. 2.5 Aalysis The survey data were iputted ito ad aalysed with SPSS. May of the data were either ordial or omial. T-tests ad Pearso-correlatio-coefficiets are strictly speakig ot applicable to these data, therefore, whereever possible (i the time give), o-parametric tests were employed ad mostly yielded the same results as the parametric alteratives (which are preseted, too - to esure better comparability). Some of the otatio used i the report is as follows: vl = very low correlatio, l = low correlatio, m = medium correlatio, h = high correlatio. * = the zero hypothesis ca be rejected sigificatly at p = 0.05, ** = the zero hypothesis ca be rejected very sigificatly at p = 0.051, = the zero hypothesis ca be rejected highly sigificatly at p = Multivariate aalyses are ot employed i this report. They remai to be doe. Ope eded questios were coded maually

14 3 Results 3.1 Cosumptio frequecies (Questio 1): I the questioaire cosumptio frequecies for seve idividual aimal products were iquired, five meat products, eggs (icludig processed eggs) ad milk (icludig dairy products) - ad additioally the total amout of meat. The cosumptio was defied to iclude both the processed ad uprocessed product. Reported cosumptio frequecies will oly approximate real cosumptio. This is e.g. due to the fact that people are ot always aware about what exactly they cosume - especially whe it comes to processed products ad sometimes eve for away from home cosumptio. 3 Figure 1: Cosumptio of milk, eggs ad total meat 62% 41% 41% milk total amout of meat ad poultry eggs 32% 32% 10% 17% 9% 15% 2% 9% 5% 6% 8% 2% 8% 2% 1% 5 to 7 times a week 2 to 4 times a week oce a week oce every two weeks oce a moth or less ever Milk followed by eggs were the two most ofte cosumed idividual aimal products. Oly the followed pork, poultry ad beef as three meat products traditioally cosumed i Germay. All these products were cosumed cosiderably less tha veal ad lamb which are traditioally ot so much part of the Germa cuisie. The total meat cosumptio frequecy was higher tha for eggs but lower tha for milk ad dairy products. Milk, eggs ad meat i geeral are cosumed o a regular basis: more tha eighty percet of the sample cosume each of these three product classes at least oce a week ad may cosiderably more. A majority of 75% cosume pork at least oce a week ad 62% poultry. Oly a miority of 30% does so for beef. These are outumbered by the 32% of people who say to ever cosume beef or the 52% who either ever cosume beef or oly 'oce a moth or less'. The cosumptio of scadal stricke beef is evertheless higher tha that of lamb ad veal. Lamb ad veal are ot so much part of people's evoked set, the set of products about which they might make cosumptio decisios. 3 I oe of the pretests to this survey, I experimeted o the effect of differet questio wordig o reported cosumptio frequecy: I used questio 1, worded the same as i the fial survey ad added a questio o cosumptio frequecy for eggs ad milk which emphasised that these categories also iclude the processed form. I the listed a few examples for processed milk ad egg products. Although the meaig of the two questios was the same, cosiderably higher reported cosumptio frequecies resulted i the secod format of the questio

15 Figure 2: Specific meat cosumptio frequecies pork poultry beef veal lamb 40% i percet of valid sample 43% 40% 44% 52% 29% 29% 31% 32% 6% 10% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 19% 20% 16% 10% 7% 5% 3% 4% 7% 13% 22% 8% 5% 5 to 7 times a week 2 to 4 times a week oce a week oce every two weeks oce a moth or less ever 4.5% of the sample say, they ever cosume poultry ad 1.4% ever cosume eggs. A relatively high proportio of 8% ever cosumes milk. 9.3% of the sample rate their total meat cosumptio as 'oce a moth or less' (7.5%) or 'ever' (1.8%). 3% of respodets see themselves as vegetarias ad further 5.3% have bee vegetarias i the past. 7.1% have oe or more vegetarias i their household. The share of vegetarias i the sample might uderestimate the total share of people who see themselves as vegetarias i Germay, because the first screeig questio excluded people who said ot to cosume more tha two of the seve aimal products preseted. This excluded vegas but might have also deterred ordiary vegetarias from participatio, as a certai proportio of them cosume eggs ad milk ot o their ow but oly whe it ca't be easily avoided i products. 'Pork' had the highest correlatio with the 'total amout of meat' (Spearma-Rho: 0.524), followed by poultry (Rho: 0.298), beef (Rho: 0.288) ad veal (Rho: 0.143). Lamb cosumptio was ot sigificatly correlated with total meat cosumptio, but eggs (Rho 0.232)ad milk (Rho: 0.106) were slightly. 4 4 All sigificat correlatio coefficiets were highly sigificat at p = 0.001, oly milk was less sigificat (i.e. at p = 0.05)

16 Figure 3: Average product specific cosumptio frequecies (midrak = mea) Cosumptio frequecy midraks milk total meat eggs pork poultry beef veal lamb The media cosumptio frequecies are: milk = 6 (5 to 7 times a week), total meat = 5 (oce a week), eggs = 5 (oce a week), pork = 4 (every two weeks), poultry = 4 (every two weeks), beef = 2 (oce a moth or less), veal = 2 (oce a moth or less), lamb = 1 (ever). A Wilcoxo test redered cosumptio frequecy differeces betwee all 28 product pairs highly sigificat at the p = error level. Does cosumptio frequecy differ betwee me ad wome? Both the o-parametric Ma-Whitey-U test for the cetre of locatio ad the test of associatio i a cotigecy aalysis (Cramer's-V) show geder effects for the cosumptio of pork, beef, lamb, veal ad total meat. Me ted to cosume more of these tha wome. The followig table also suggests that wome cosume more milk tha me. Descriptive statistical measures show higher poultry cosumptio for wome, but iductive statistical tests yield o sigificat differece here. Mea egg cosumptio differeces are too small to be sigificat, but Cramer's V evertheless shows a associatio betwee geder ad egg cosumptio. Lookig ito the cross-table oe fids more me the expected (uder the assumptio of idepedece of geder ad egg-cosumptio) o both extremes of the cosumptio scale. This cotrasts the distributio of wome who ted to cluster more aroud the medium egg cosumptio levels

17 Table 1: Geder ad cosumptio frequecy product Ma-Whitey-U Test for equality of locatio Mea for me (m) compared with wome (w) Cramer-V pork m > w poultry ot sigificat (0.067) m < w ot sigificat (0.119) beef m > w lamb m > w veal m > w total meat m > w * eggs ot sigificat (0.656) m > w ** milk m < w ** : probability of erroeously rejectig the equality assumptio p <=0.001; **: p<=0.01; *: p<=0.05; the cosumptio frequecy variable is coded o a ordial scale i this ad the other cases i this report. Readig example 1:The assumptio of equal pork cosumptio of me ad wome ca be rejected with a error p<= Geder differeces are thus highly sigificat for pork, meas show that me cosume more tha wome. Readig example 2: A cotigecy aalysis shows a highly sigificat degree of associatio betwee geder ad pork cosumptio. Associatio stregth is measured by Cramer's V = This measure ca assume values betwee 0 ad 1. Does cosumptio frequecy differ betwee social classes? The hypothesis that there are o differeces betwee social classes for the cosumptio frequecy of a product could ot be rejected for ay of the eight items whe a Kruskal- Wallis-Test was employed. But there was a tedecy towards sigificace for poultry (p = 0.083) ad beef (p = 0.082). A Spearma-correlatio-coefficiet of (very low correlatio) for the items 'frequecy of poultry cosumptio' ad 'social class of respodet' was statistically sigificat at p = 0.05 ad suggest that the lower a social class is, the higher is a perso's poultry cosumptio

18 Table 2: Social class ad cosumptio frequecy Frequecy Ged er milk total meat eggs pork poultry beef veal lamb Never AB 40% 7% (4) 2% (1) 2% (1) 7% (4) 5% (3) 23% (14) 51% (31) (25) C1 48% 7% (5) 3% (2) - 13% (9) 7% (5) 47% (33) 47% (33) (34) C2 41% 55% 8% (22) 1% (4) 1% (4) 6% (17) 4% (11) 34% (96) (117) (157) DE 52% 9% (6) 1% (1) 1% (1) 9% (6) 3% (2) 23% (16) 48% (34) (37) Oce a AB 50% 5% (3) 7% (4) 13% (8) 10% (6) 19% (12) 26% (16) 38% (23) moth or (31) C1 42% less - 9% (6) 6% (4) 7% (5) 11% (8) 11% (8) 38% (27) (30) C2 48% 39% 2% (5) 4% (11) 8% (22) 6% (17) 12% (33) 22% (64) (136) (111) DE 38% 4% (3) 9% (6) 4% (3) 10% (7) 11% (8) 32% (23) 37% (26) (27) Oce AB 3% (2) 7% (4) 7% (4) 11% (7) 23% (14) 13% (8) 7% (4) 5% (3) every two C1 3% (2) 4% (3) 7% (5) 13% (9) 23% (16) 13% (9) 7% (5) 6% (4) C2 4% weeks 2% (5) 5% (14) 9% (25) 11% (30) 19% (55) 18% (50) 6% (16) (10) DE 1% (1) 3% (2) 14% (10) 7% (5) 18% (13) 17% (12) 9% (6) 3% (2) Oce a AB 2% (1) 16% (10) 27% (17) 32% (20) 31% (19) 21% (13) 2% (1) 2% (1) week C1 14% (10) 17% (12) 35% (25) 25% (18) 34% (24) 23% (16) 4% (3) 3% (2) C2 9% (27) 16% (44) 31% (89) 31% (87) 32% (91) 16% (47) 5% (14) 2% (6) 2 to 4 times a week 5 to 7 times a week DE 11% (8) 10% (7) 32% (23) 24% (17) 30% (21) 14% (10) 7% (5) 6% (4) AB 19% (12) 42% (26) 40% (25) 36% (22) 19% (12) 16% (10) 2% (1) 3% (2) C1 18% (13) 34% (24) 32% (23) 39% (28) 24% (17) 6% (4) 4% (3) 1% (1) C2 45% 43% 38% 16% (46) 32% (91) 9% (25) 1% (3) 1% (2) (127) (124) (109) DE 14% (10) 37% (26) 41% (29) 48% (34) 32% (23) 13% (9) - 1% (1) AB 65% (40) 27% (17) 11% (7) 5% (3) 3% (2) 2% (1) 2% (1) - C1 58% (41) 34% (24) 20% (14) 3% (2) 1% (1) 1% (1) - - C2 63% (181) 29% (83) 8% (22) 9% (25) 2% (5) 1% (4) - - DE 61% (43) 41% (29) 7% (5) 3% (2) 6% (4) 1% (1) - - Percetages apply relative to the total umber of people i a social class. Total umber of people are give i brackets

19 3.2 Cosumptio chages (Questios 2 + 3) Cosumptio chages were measured as cosumptio chages withi the last five years. Two differet questios were used, oe for curretly cosumed products ad oe for curretly ot cosumed products. I this sectio I will discuss total cosumptio chage, a ew variable calculated by combiig these two questios (questios 2 ad 3). 5 Figure 4: Total 5 year cosumptio chage i % of valid populatio less about the same more 58% 64% 66% 66% 68% 48% 49% 49% 40% 38% 3% 3% 28% 9% 25% 24% 9% 13% 13% 10% 19% beef veal pork lamb eggs poultry milk For ay product the largest share of people did ot chage their cosumptio i the previous five years. This idicates the habitual ature of food cosumptio ad the fact that it is culturally embedded. Hece past cosumptio levels are importat predictors for future cosumptio. A secod iterestig poit is that the umber of cosumptio reductios outweigh cosumptio icreases for all meat products but poultry. Hece somethig like a chage i food culture, away from (red) meat seems to be o its way. Also eggs see more cosumptio reductios tha icreases. The survey was coducted amidst the most severe BSE crisis Germay experieced so far. This is probably reflected i the fact that both beef ad veal experieced the largest reported five year cosumptio reductios. Nearly half the survey populatio reported to have reduced beef cosumptio while oly 3% claimed they icreased their cosumptio. Milk presets itself rather uaffected i the curret crisis: more people curretly report icreases tha reductios. Compared to other products, milk presets the most stable cosumptio patter. 5 Tables for cosumptio chages (questio 2 oly) of curretly cosumed products are preseted i the appedix

20 Cosumptio chages for a product are ivariably weakly, highly sigificatly ad positively correlated with the correspodig cosumptio frequecy of a product. 6 Previous five-year cosumptio reductios ted to go had i had with comparatively lower cosumptio levels. The Spearma-correlatio coefficiet betwee cosumptio chage of beef ad cosumptio frequecy of poultry (Sp.-Rho = , sigificat at level p = 0.01) is oe of the few further sigificat coefficiets betwee chages ad frequecies. Cosumptio reductios for beef correlate very weakly but highly sigificatly with higher poultry cosumptio levels. This is the oly egative correlatio i a correlatio matrix of frequecies ad chages. However o correlatio was sigificat betwee cosumptio chages for poultry ad cosumptio chages for beef. Where there are sigificat correlatios betwee cosumptio chages for differet products, these ted to be very weak ad positive. If reported ad actual cosumptio chages were the same, this would imply, that the various sorts of meats are either complemetary goods to a certai exted or idepedet, but ot substitutes. The curret BSE crisis would the result i lower overall meat-cosumptio levels. 7 The highest positive ad sigificat correlatios occur betwee cosumptio chages for the red meats, 'veal ad beef' (Spearma-Rho: 0.326, p = 0.001) ad 'veal ad lamb' (Spearma-Rho: 0.236, p = 0.001). Do total cosumptio chages differ betwee me ad wome? A Ma-Whitey-U test was sigificat for pork, beef, veal (me cosume more of these three products tha wome) ad milk (wome cosume more tha me). Differeces of locatio were ot sigificat for poultry, lamb ad eggs. Cramer's V revealed sigificat associatios i the cases of pork, poultry, beef ad veal cosumptio chages ad o sigificat associatios for geder ad lamb, milk ad egg cosumptio chages. Wome teded to say more ofte tha me that they decreased their cosumptio of pork, beef ad veal over the past five years. At the same time they icreased their poultry cosumptio more ofte the me. Do total cosumptio chages differ betwee social classes? Kruskal-Wallis tests rejected the hypothesis of o differece betwee social class oly i the case of cosumptio chages for eggs (sigificat at p = 0.05). Paired Ma-Whitey-tests were the coducted betwee all pairs of social class for 'egg cosumptio chages'. The AB group said to have reduced its egg cosumptio sigificatly more tha the C2 group (at p = 0.01) ad likewise the DE group reduced its egg cosumptio cosiderably more tha the C2 group (p = 0.05). No other social group differeces were sigificat i the case of egg cosumptio chages. 8 6 Spearma rak-correlatio coefficiets vary betwee ad (sigificat at the level 0.001). The exceptio is the correlatio coefficiet for veal (very weak correlatio of at p = 0.006). 7 It is ot clear whether correlatio coefficiets betwee reported cosumptio chages reflect correlatios betwee actual cosumptio chages. The coclusio is therefore ot ecessarily a predictio. 8 The other products were ot tested o Whitey-Ma-U as the Kruskal-Wallis-test showed o sigificat overall differeces

21 3.3 Reasos for cosumptio chage (Questio 4) People who metioed that they had chaged their cosumptio for at least oe of the products were asked to express their mai reaso. 364 people were asked ad 133 ot asked. Aswers were coded with the same codig framework as i the other coutries. Ofte aswers coded with more tha oe code, be it that the perso metioed more tha oe item or that the item metioed did ot apply uambiguously to oly oe code. Figure 5: Reasos for cosumptio chage Reasos for chage i cosumptio bse cotributio to health chages i diet taste threates health chages i lifestyle chaged household compositio lack of trust i food safety miscellaeous ethical reasos publicity aimal diseases ecoomic reasos coveiece availability 19% 17% 13% 11% 9% 9% 8% 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 25% 30% The table graphs all the codes by their frequecies. 'BSE' was the relatively most frequetly give reaso (30%). This is o real surprise as the iterviews were coducted i a acute bse crisis. Related to this reaso were other codes like 'cotributio to health' (25%), 'threates health' (13%), 'lack of trust i food safety' (9%) ad 'aimal diseases' (4%). Health ad safety cocers hece come out as the most importat determiat of cosumptio chage. Eve some of the remaiig codes might be coected to the safety issue to a cosiderable degree (e.g. 'chages i diet')

22 Coveiece reasos (3%), availability (0%) ad ecoomic reasos (4%) come out as less importat tha 'ethical reasos' (6%). 'Ethical reasos' largely have to do with the way aimals are reared, with 'factory farmig' ad aimal welfare. Some coveiece reasos might however also be cotaied i 'chages i lifestyle' (11%) ad other codes. Publicity (6%) is as importat as ethical reasos (6%). 3.4 Aimal- ad huma-orieted cocers ad beliefs about aimal welfare The followig tables display uivariate statistics ad bivariate Spearma rak-correlatio coefficiets for statemets related to aimal-orieted ad huma-orieted beliefs ad cocers about aimal welfare. Cosumers expressed both kids of beliefs ad cocers i a previous project stage that iquired ito the motivatioal bases of aimal welfare cocers (compare the ladderig iterviews report). Cocer about aimal welfare was there foud to be motivated by various beliefs ad cocers about ufavorable cosequeces of those husbadry practices perceived to imply poor aimal welfare. These could ofte be classified ito two broad categories, amely huma-orieted (athropocetric) ad aimal-orieted (zoocetric) beliefs ad cocers. Due to limited space oly a small fractio of beliefs ad cocers foud i the ladderig iterviews were used as statemets i the survey. Aimal-orieted (zoocetric) beliefs related to the impact of various productio coditios o aimal welfare, i.e. the impact of crowded coditios, outdoor access, trasport coditios ad itesive productio o aimal welfare. Huma-orieted (athropocetric) beliefs related to the impact of aimal welfare relevat productio coditios o food safety, healthiess of food ad taste. A huma-orieted ad a aimal-orieted scale was costructed, each as mea over six huma- ad aimal-orieted belief-statemets respectively. Uivariate statistics idicate that prompted beliefs about the impact of husbadry coditios o both aimal welfare ad matters of more direct huma iterest (taste, food safety & healthiess) are geerally very strog: Typically betwee 40% ad 50% of respodets agreed very strogly (ad geerally aother 20-30% agreed slightly) that selected husbadry coditios (crowded coditios, o outdoor access, itesive practices, o daylight) have adverse effects o both aimals ad humas. However, beliefs are slightly stroger with regard to the impact of husbadry coditios o aimals (media = 4.33) tha humas (media = 4) - the Wilcoxo-test yields a highly sigificat (p = 0.000) differece. O the other had, the variace ad stadard deviatio are slightly higher for the huma- tha the aimal-orieted scale. The proportio of valid aswers for idividual statemets ('do't kow'-cases excluded) is slightly higher for aimal-orieted beliefs (97.6% %) tha for huma-orieted beliefs (77.7% %). I.e. slightly less people have a opiio about the effect of husbadry coditios o product characteristics compared to the effect o aimals. This is particularly true for certai special cases like the effect of daylight o taste. But 97.4% of respodets have a view o the more geeral statemet that 'the health of farm aimals affects the safety of the food we eat'

23 Table 3: Aimal- & huma-orieted beliefs & cocers about productio coditios codig agree strogly % agree somewhat % either agree or disagree% disagree somewhat % disagree strogly % stadard deviatio mea (media) valid (missig) % correlatio with cofql correlatio with coaw Aimal-orieted beliefs (Crobach's α = 0.69) 9 Farm aimals have a acceptable quality of life eve i crowded coditios (acrowd) Farm aimals have a good quality of life eve if they have o access to the outdoors (aacout) Farm aimals kept oly idoors have a good quality of life (aidoor) Poor trasport coditios reduce the welfare of farm aimals (atras) Itesive aimal productio affects the aimal's quality of life (aites) Aimals kept i itesive coditios have a poor quality of life (aicod) Aimal-orieted-beliefs scale (arithmetic mea over the above six statemets): (aimalm) Aimal-orieted cocer 4.22 (5) 4.01 (4) 98.0 (2.0) 97.6 (2.4) 4.10 (4) 98.0 (2.0) (5) (0.4) (5) (1.4) (5) (1.2) (4.3) (0) I am cocered that the way farm aimals are treated affects their (5) (1.2) quality of life (coaw) Huma-orieted beliefs (Crobach's α = 0.68, α = 0.70 if statemet 'sfhealt' deleted) Itesive productio of farm aimals produces food that is safe to eat (sfite) Aimals with o outdoor access produce food that is healthy (hltout) Farm aimals with o access to atural light produce poor tastig food. (tslight) Farm aimals kept oly idoors affects the healthiess of food. (hlthid) The health of farm aimals affects the safety of the food we eat (sfhealt) Overcrowdig of farm aimals is bad for the utritioal value of food (tovrc) (5-1) Huma-orieted-beliefs scale (arithmetic mea over the six statemets above): (humam) Huma-orieted cocer I am cocered that the way farm aimals are treated affects the quality of aimal-based food (cofql) Numbers uder the ratig scale refer to valid percetages for each statemet (4) 4.04 (4) 3.69 (4) 3.79 (4) 4.23 (5) 3.94 (4) 3.88 (4) 4.21 (5) 96.6 (3.4) 97.8 (2.2) 77.7 (22.3) 93.7 (6.3) 97.4 (2.6) 92.5 (7.5) 100 (0) 98.2 (1.8) Crobach's α is a measure of scale reliability, i.e. iteral cosistecy of a scale. It is related to the average correlatio betwee scale items ad may assume values betwee zero ad oe

24 Wordig directio of statemets (positive versus egative) might have had a effect o the extet to which people cofirm effects of husbadry practices: Statemets that poit out adverse cosequeces of poor husbadry practices receive a higher proportio of coset compared to the proportio of disset for statemets that suggest favourable cosequeces of upopular husbadry practices. Spearma-rak-correlatio coefficiets betwee all pairs of belief-statemets are sigificatly differet from zero (mostly highly sigificat at p=0.000) ad rage betwee ad (the table cotais correlatio coefficiets multiplied by 1000). Pairs of statemets worded i the same directio ted to have slightly higher correlatio-coefficiets tha pairs which are oppositely worded. The average correlatio coefficiet for statemets withi the group of aimal-orieted belief-statemets (0.314) was slightly higher tha the correlatio coefficiet for statemets withi the group of huma-orieted belief statemets (0.271) ad across the two groups of belief-statemets (0.271). The impact of husbadry coditios o aimal welfare was perceived more geeralised tha the impact of husbadry coditios o food attributes ad hece humas. Table 4: Correlatio coefficiets betwee huma- & aimal-orieted beliefs ACR OWD AAC OUT AIND OOR ATR ANS AINT ENS AINC OND CON AW SFIN TEN HLT OUT TSLI GHT HLTH IND SFH EALT NTO VRC CON FQL ACR OWD ACR OWD AAC OUT * AAC OUT AIND OOR ** * 209 AIND OOR ATR ANS ** * ATR ANS AINT ENS AINT ENS AINC OND AINC OND CON AW CON AW SFIN TEN SFIN TEN Spearma-rak-correlatio-coefficiets multiplied by HLT OUT ** HLT OUT TSLI GHT ** TSLI GHT HLT HIND HLT HIND SFH EALT * ** 144 ** ** 286 SFH EALT NTO VRC * ** NTO VRC CON FQL ACR OWD AAC OUT AIND OOR ATR ANS AINT ENS AINC OND CON AW SFIN TEN HLT OUT TSLI GHT HLT HIND SFH EAL T NTO VRC 1 CON FQL CON FQL

25 I additio to belief-statemets, oe aimal-cetred cocer statemet ad oe huma-cetred cocer statemet were employed i the survey. 85% of respodets said to be either slightly or somewhat cocered about the impact of husbadry practices o aimals ad 82% about the impact o product characteristics ad humas. A Wilcoxo-test did ot yield statistically sigificat differeces for the distributios of these two variables. Do beliefs correlate with cocers? All correlatio coefficiets betwee cocer ad belief statemets were statistically highly sigificat. Aimal-orieted belief statemets were slightly more strogly associated with aimal-orieted tha huma-orieted cocer. This clear relatioship did ot prevail i the case of huma-orieted beliefs. Athropocetric ad zoocetric cocers were relatively highly correlated with each other (0.478) - suggestig either strog iterdepedecies or lack of ivolvemet i the subject area which leads to geeralised judgemets. Correlatio coefficiets betwee cocer ad belief scales raged from to (which is higher tha the correlatio coefficiet for idividual beliefstatemets). Athropocetric cocer (cofql) about aimal welfare seems oly slightly more motivated by huma-orieted beliefs (corr.-coeff. with humam = 0.478) tha aimalorieted beliefs (corr.-coeff. with aimalm = 0.438). Zoocetric cocer (coaw) i tur seems oly slightly more motivated by aimal-orieted beliefs (0.495) tha by humaorieted-beliefs (0.466). Table 5: Mea over correlatio coefficiets across ad withi aimal- & humaorieted statemet groups aimal-orieted beliefs huma-orieted beliefs aimal-orieted cocers aimal-orieted beliefs (mea over 15 statemets) (mea over 36 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets) humaorieted beliefs (mea over 36 statemets) (mea over 15 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets) aimal-orieted cocers (mea over 6 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets) 1 huma-orieted cocers (mea over 6 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets) huma-orieted cocers (mea over 6 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets) (mea over 6 statemets)