Animal welfare and gender: a nexus in awareness and preference when choosing fresh beef meat?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Questionnaire conceptual structure.

Table 1. “Ethically incorrect” animal products selected for the research.

Gap or inconsistent practices with animal welfare standards	Selected “Ethically incorrect” animal products	References ID^a
Cruelty in meat preparation/eating (live animals)	Crustaceans	[1]; [2]; [3]
	Eels	[3]; [2]; [4]
	Snails	[2]; [3]
Reduced age of animals at the times of slaughter	Lambs	[3]; [5]; [6]; [7]
	Calves	[3]; [6]; [7]; [6]; [8]
	Piglets	[1]; [3] ; [7]
Cruelty during animal breeding	Foie gras	[3]; [9]; [10]
Consumption environmentally unsustainable/hunting practice	Game	[1]; [3]; [11]; [12]; [13]
Consumption environmentally unsustainable	Frogs	[1]; [2]

^aThe full references corresponding to each ID are reported in the Annexe A.

Table 2. Gender differences towards beef meat attribute perception (1 = strongly unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = less important, 4 = important, 5 = very important).

	Men (values in %)					Women (values in %)					Test
	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	χ^2	p
Animal welfare	6.5	10.0	22.6	33.5	27.4	2.3	3.4	11.3	27.9	55.1	46.664	***
Breed	5.2	6.1	21.7	33.5	33.5	4.1	9.0	37.2	32.7	16.9	25.313	***
Brand	12.2	8.7	34.9	26.6	17.5	8.3	13.3	33.7	25.0	19.7	4.561
Colour	5.2	6.0	29.3	28.4	31.0	4.9	6.0	19.5	30.3	39.3	7.572
Country of origin	3.5	3.5	11.7	27.4	53.9	0.8	4.5	9.8	22.2	62.8	8.335
GMOs free	16.2	12.7	18.9	22.8	29.4	4.1	9.8	22.2	24.8	39.1	23.640	***
Nutritional characteristics	6.4	7.7	23.2	34.8	27.9	2.7	3.0	14.8	40.2	39.4	19.660	**
Packaging	17.0	22.3	28.8	19.7	12.2	14.6	18.5	34.2	20.8	11.9	2.532
Price	6.9	7.3	28.9	34.9	22.0	3.0	12.7	31.8	39.7	12.7	14.825	**
Quality certifications	3.5	4.8	24.1	28.1	39.5	0.4	2.6	12.1	27.5	57.4	26.260	***
	Men		Women		Test
	Mean	Std. Dev.	Mean	Std. Dev.	Mann-Whitney U	p
Animal welfare	3.65	1.17	4.30	0.96	20065	***
Breed	3.84	1.12	3.49	1.01	23890	***
Brand	3.28	1.21	3.34	1.18	29478
Colour	3.74	1.12	3.93	1.13	27361	*
Country of origin	4.25	1.03	4.42	0.90	27627	*
GMOs free	3.36	1.43	3.85	1.17	24591	***
Nutritional characteristics	3.70	1.15	4.11	0.95	24526	***
Packaging	2.88	1.26	2.97	1.21	28322
Price	3.58	1.12	3.46	0.97	28281
Quality certifications	3.95	1.07	4.39	0.83	23256	***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

GMOs: genetically modified organisms.

Table 3. Awareness of consumers regarding the designated guarantor of animal welfare standards in the meat production process.

	Men (values in %)		Women (values in %)		Test
Item	Yes	No	Yes	No	χ^2	p
Associations for animal protection	50.6	49.4	54.2	45.8	5.450	*
Breeders and producers	31.2	68.8	30.2	69.8	0.065
Certification bodies for specific brands	6.8	93.2	1.5	98.5	0.643
European Commission	18.1	81.9	10.9	89.1	0.056
Food industry	17.7	82.3	11.3	88.7	0.980
Medical/veterinary/public health control bodies/Consumer associations	9.3	90.7	12.0	88.0	6.082	*
National governments	54.0	46.0	64.7	35.3	4.330	*
Slow food	16.0	84.0	15.3	84.7	0.328
Shops and restaurants	15.6	84.4	13.8	86.2	9.513	**

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 4. Ethically incorrect product consumption.

EIP	Men (values in %)	Women (values in %)	Z test	p Value
Crustaceans	70.9	64.7	2.20
Eels	25.3	8.7	25.54	***
Snails	21.9	9.8	14.34	***
Lambs	79.7	62.9	17.42	***
Calves	60.8	52.7	3.34
Piglets	45.6	29.5	14.20	***
Foie gras	22.8	10.9	13.09	***
Game	58.6	34.9	28.89	***
Frogs	25.7	8.7	26.61	***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5. Component pattern and component load values of the considered factors.

	Components
Item	C1	C2	C3	C4
	Animal-friendly and certified meat	Traditional and local production	Consumption based on experience and credence	Visual attributes and price sensitive
Gender (W = 1)	0.712	−0.200	−0.116	0.002
Animal welfare	0.698	0.100	0.119	0.054
GMO-free	0.627	−0.030	0.171	0.040
Quality certifications	0.560	0.460	0.031	−0.143
Nutritional characteristics	0.484	0.328	0.192	0.287
Brand	0.058	0.678	0.317	−0.023
Breed	−0.152	0.658	0.016	0.243
Country of origin	0.364	0.544	−0.001	−0.167
Educational level	−0.062	−0.075	−0.750	0.034
Age	0.076	0.178	0.739	−0.028
Price	−0.092	−0.056	−0.049	0.660
Colour	0.238	0.333	−0.087	0.608
Awareness of certification bodies	−0.038	0.263	−0.387	−0.418

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index = 0.68.

Bartlett’s sphericity test: Chi square 816.748, p value .000.

Each component was named in accordance to the consumption models described by the significance of values.

The value bolded are the major loadings for each item.

GMO: genetically modified organism.

Table 6. Associations between consumer perception and preference related to meat consumption models.

Components	Clusters
	1	2	3
	“Traditionalist consumers”	“Distracted consumers”	“Animal welfare and price sensitive consumer”
C1: Animal-friendly and certified meat	−2.231	−2.585	+1.038
C2: Traditional and local production	+2.334	−4.022	−0.103
C3: Consumption based on experience and credence	−0.160	+0.834	+3.850
C4: Visual attributes and price sensitive	−1.855	−0.201	+1.132

The results above indicate the mean score of individuals, for the coordinates on axes C1 to C4 in each clusters.

Table

ID	Full reference
[1]	Broom DM. 2016. Sentience and animal welfare: new thoughts and controversies. Animal Sentience: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Animal Feeling 1(5):11.
[2]	Yudina O, Fennell D. 2013. Ecofeminism in the tourism context: a discussion of the use of other-than-human animals as food in tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 38(1):55–69.
[3]	Bastian B, Loughnan S, Haslam N, Radke HRM. 2012. Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38(2):247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291.
[4]	Bergqvist J, Gunnarsson S. 2013. Finfish aquaculture: Animal welfare, the environment, and ethical implications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26(1):75–99.
[5]	Miranda-de la Lama GC, Sepúlveda WS, Villarroel M, María GA. 2013. Attitudes of meat retailers to animal welfare in Spain. Meat Science 95(3):569–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.046.
[6]	Miele M, Evans A. 2010. When foods become animals: Ruminations on ethics and responsibility in care-full practices of consumption. Ethics, Place and Environment 13(2):171–190.
[7]	McEachern MG, Schröder MJA. 2002. The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2):221–237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015052816477.
[8]	Paavola J. 2001. Towards sustainable consumption: economics and ethical concerns for the environment in consumer choices. Review of social economy 59(2):227–248.
[9]	Cherry E, Ellis C, DeSoucey M. 2011. Food for thought, thought for food: Consumption, identity, and ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40(2):231–258.
[10]	Heath D, Meneley A. 2010. The naturecultures of foie gras: techniques of the body and a contested ethics of care. Food, Culture & Society 13(3):421–452.
[11]	De Backer C J, Hudders L. 2015. Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behaviour. Meat science 99:68–74.
[12]	Casabona CMR, Epifanio LES, Cirión AE. 2010. Global food security: ethical and legal challenges. EurSafe 2010 congress. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands 532.
[13]	Demartini E, Vecchiato D, Tempesta T, Gaviglio A, Viganò R. 2018. Consumer preferences for red deer meat: A discrete choice analysis considering attitudes towards wild game meat and hunting. Meat science 146:168–179.