Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; volume 4:5504

Animal welfare: data from an in order to contrast the crisis of consumers con- fidence of the last years (Cenci Goga and Correspondence: Paola Sechi, Laboratory of Food online consultation Fermani, 2010). Inspection, Department of Veterinary Medicine, The concept of the animal welfare passes University of Perugia, via San Costanzo, 06126 Paola Sechi, Chiara Baldinelli, Maria F. through the entire life of livestock and the Perugia, Italy. Iulietto, Beniamino T. Cenci Goga European Community shares this value trans- Tel: +39.075.5857929 - Fax: +39.075.5857976. E-mail: [email protected] Laboratory of Food Inspection, mitting legislation for the animal protection. Department of Veterinary Medicine, The proposal and implementation of these Key words: Animal welfare; Consumers; Religious University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy rules are indicative of the growing interest of slaughter. Europeans in this topic and the increased con- cern for the implications that intensive farm- Received for publication: 26 August 2015. ing has on animal health, welfare, and health Revision received: 2 October 2015. Abstract safety of their meat. Accepted for publication: 3 October 2015 In recent decades, there have been a series This work is licensed under a Creative Commons This paper analyses data obtained from an of increasingly detailed rules on the welfare Attribution 3.0 License (by-nc 3.0). online survey related to animal welfare and and protection of animals also during slaugh- religious slaughter topics. The questionnaire ter. In Italy, the protection of animals from ©Copyright P. Sechi, et al., 2015 was conducted with the purpose of examining unnecessary suffering and cruelty represents a Licensee PAGEPress, Italy the purchase behaviour of a group of con- trend in legislation, starting from the Criminal Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; 4:5504 sumers (with different religious orientation) Code of 1889 article 491 including punishment doi:10.4081/ijfs.2015.5504 and their views on animal protection and ritual for the mistreatment of animals to actual leg- slaughter. The main results of the consultation islation. were two. The first evidenced the respondents’ With Regulation No. 1009/2009 (European to the slaughter of animals prescribed by a reli- great interest about the question on animal Commission, 2009) the Council of the gion. This definition takes into account the welfare, which is in accordance with the grow- European Union considered it necessary to religious slaughter in all its aspects, not only ing interest of European citizens concerning amend European legislation regarding the pro- for jugulating an animal without prior stun- this issue. The second was the demand for a tection of animals during slaughter to adapt to ning. It is noted that not all anatomical parts of more transparent labelling of animal products, technological advances and scientific discover- ritually slaughtered animals are used for the which would also reflect animal welfare and ies and to respond to the growing interest of production of Halal or Kosher food. Finally, the slaughter method used. These results are Europeans for the improvement of animal wel- although the regulation prohibits cattle in contrast with marketing analysis, which fare. The regulation came into effect on restraint systems prior to hanging, there is an finds that consumers want to only receive pos- December 2009, was applied from January 1, exception in the case of ritually slaughtered itive information. Paradoxically, the more 2013, and repealed Council Directive animals provided that such devices are adapt- information is transmitted to reassure con- 93/119/EC of December 22 (European ed to the size of the animal and are not sumers, the higher is the risk to alarm them. Commission, 1993), 1993 on the protection of equipped with a device that limits the lateral animals at the time of slaughter or culling. The and vertical movements of the animal’s head. main items dealt with in Regulation No. The current regulation of religious slaughter is 1099/2009 are as follows: greater responsibility based on two principles, which are considered Introduction is given to operators regarding animal welfare; to be confrontational. On the one hand, there the introduction of the concept of correct stun- is a growing awareness of animal welfare that Animal welfare is not only an emotive issue ning indicators; the obligation to obtain a cer- led lawmakers to ban slaughter without prior surrounding meat production but also an tificate of qualification from staff involved in stunning on the grounds that such methods imperative human obligation; European citi- handling animals and/or the slaughter; the cause unnecessary pain to the animal. On the zens are becoming more aware of animal pro- introduction of responsible animal welfare; the other hand, there is the protection of religious tection and the effect on meat quality importance of standard operating procedures; freedom. Member States of the European (Kehlbacher et al., 2012). Not only farm animal and the requirement of prior approval of Union have balanced these two interests in rearing but also transport and slaughtering slaughterhouses, including aspects relating to different ways, and these differences have led constitute a strong impact in meat production animal welfare, by competent authorities. All to a variety of solutions. Belgium, Bulgaria, the and modern consumers’ expectations. The these aspects are meant to increase animal Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, European Commission, during last decade, welfare during slaughter. In the context of Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, carried out several surveys on food quality and, Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 (European Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, on detail, the Eurobarometer survey (Special Commission, 2009), the question of ritual Portugal, the Republic of Cyprus, Romania, Eurobarometer, 2007) demonstrated an evi- slaughter had a marginal role as Community Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom allow dent consumers’ interest in animal welfare rules on ritual slaughter have been transposed religious slaughter without prior stunning pro- friendly products. Those products represent differently depending on the national situa- vided that a number of legal requirements are food of animal origin obtained from animal tion. Considering that national rules take into respected. This also applies to Denmark with reared more respectfully. Among the totality, account dimensions that go beyond the objec- the exception of the slaughter of cattle, which 62% of the people involved in the question- tives of this regulation, it is important to main- allows post cut stunning, which is stunning naire expressed their willingness in buying tain the special dispensation from stunning of after jugulation. Austria, Denmark, Estonia, high welfare animal-based products (Cenci animals before slaughter while granting a cer- and Slovakia allow religious slaughter of cattle Goga and Fermani, 2010). tain level of subsidiarity to each Member State. without stunning provided that a method of Welfare labelling constitutes an impressive Compared to the previous legislation, the new stunning is used after jugulation (post cut way to communicate the attempts in improving regulation adopted a legal definition of ritual stunning). In Finland (with the exception of farm animals’ life and slaughtering conditions slaughter, intended as a series of acts related the province of Åland), while post cut stunning

[page 230] [Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; 4:5504] Article is not formally prescribed, they ruled that ani- ing link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ predominance of female individuals (60%). mals must be stunned at the same time as the viewform?formkey=dElnNFN0cXp4MXVwd2pC Almost all of the respondents were of Italian severing of the neck vessels. Latvia, Sweden, NFFiMll0SlE6MQ nationality (97%). and the Finnish province of Åland (which has The participants were mostly of the The initial questions of the questionnaire a separate legal system), does not allow the Christian religion, only 2% of the subjects defined the type of consumer based on the execution of religious slaughter without prior were Jewish or Muslim. The choice to use a family organization and the frequency of buy- stunning (Dialrel, 2009). computerized questionnaire instead of focus ing food. The purpose is to figure out if the Within the framework of the Dialrel project, groups made possible to reach a larger number consumer is buying only for himself/herself or in regards to religious slaughter financed by of interviewed. The animal welfare topics and buying food for a family. From this comparison, the European Community and divided into six purchasing behaviour have already been it is possible to assume that those married or under-projects, several documents have been addressed under another Community project cohabiting buy food regularly for their families formulated (Bottoni and Ferrari, 2010; Velarde called Welfare Quality (Special Eurobarometer, (41% always; 42% often) and to a lesser extent et al., 2010, 2014; Bergeaud-Blackler et al., 2005, 2007) funded by the European Union. singles (37% always; 25% often). In other 2012). These documents contain a series of The methodology of the questionnaire was cases, there are even lower percentages (22% recommendations for the proper practice of also used for the welfare quality Community always; 24%, often). Investigation of the religious slaughter. These works have opened project. Our questionnaire has a four-part dietary habits of the subjects on the consump- the way for further dialogue on the question of structure: the first part is dedicated to the tion of meat on a weekly basis found that religious slaughter between the different par- background of the consumer who took part in almost all of the respondents habitually con- ties concerned because, even though the infor- the survey; the second focuses on knowledge sumed meat (97%). Of these, 42% ate meat 2- mation on animal welfare and methods has of animal welfare and purchasing behaviour of 3 times a week, 32% 4-5 times per week and increased, few studies have thus far taken into respondents; the third part is devoted to reli- 12% more than 5 times a week. In the second consideration other important aspects such as gious slaughter; and the last part was left open part of the questionnaire several topics were the size of consumption and consumer con- for any ideas or comments. addressed. The level of knowledge of respon- cerns. The issue of consumption and con- The consumers’ background was outlined in dents about the conditions in which animals sumers is very important in light of the recent a series of ten questions on general informa- are reared is of considerable importance. The interest in this theme by consumers of Halal tion, level of education, household composi- survey results are in line with the emphasis by and Kosher products. In recent years, the tion, employment, and religious orientation. the European Commission in respect of animal demand for products that meet requirements Through this first phase it was possible to welfare (Miele et al., 2010a, 2010b). Eighty-two for religious slaughter has increased and the define the type of consumers and separate per cent of respondents have visited a farm at market share of these products is, today, quite them into two categories: ordinary consumers least once and, of these, 58% say they went consistent. In order to remedy the lack of infor- and ethically competent consumers. The sec- there more than three times. Socio-demo- mation in this area, the third Dialrel under- ond part examined the following themes: graphic analysis of responses shows interest- project has explored these aspects using the knowledge and consideration of the conditions ing aspects: people between 50 and 60 years methodology of focus groups in some European under which animals are kept; knowledge, old have been on farms more often (94%) than Union countries. Among the topics covered importance, and the perception of animal wel- subjects of other age categories, as well as were consumer opinions of Muslim and Jewish fare; knowledge and judgment of the consumer more males (86%) than females. It is interest- people about the availability of Halal and of the so-called animal welfare friendly prod- ing to note that the subjects who most fre- Kosher products in their country, on the certi- ucts; the opinion on current labels of products quently visited a farm breeding animals were fication and labelling, and on the problem of of animal origin; and the perception of the those who do not eat meat and, in second false labelling of these products. existing laws on consumer welfare of farmed place, those who eat meat once a week. A In our project it was decided to investigate animals. The third part was preceded by a brief majority of respondents (89%) said they have the issues of consumers but in a context differ- definition of traditional slaughter, the world- at least a basic knowledge of farming condi- ent from those addressed in the Dialrel project. wide way of slaughtering according to each tions while only 11% declared to know nothing. The aim of the survey was to underline the country rules, and religious slaughter, which The cross-analysis of results with social and consumers’ perception of animal protection constitutes the practical application of ritual demographic factors shows that the level of and the impact on their choices. The intent precepts handed down during centuries by knowledge of the conditions in which animals was to reconcile the consumer concerns on Torah and Koran. This addition was needed in are reared is partly related to some of these animal welfare in the food chain with the order to permit even those who were not aware factors. As for the age and sex, males between needs of the market. of the different existing methods of slaughter 50 and 60 years are more knowledgeable about to respond to questions about ritual slaughter. farming conditions. Non-Italian subjects have a greater knowledge of the subject than the Italians (100%). A link between the education Materials and Methods level of respondents and their knowledge of Results farming conditions was not detected. In fact, In order to investigate the attitudes of con- an analysis of the results showed that the more sumers to the welfare and protection of farmed During the survey 320 people replied to the informed on the subject categories are people animals, everyday purchasing practices (espe- questionnaire. For each question, the results with an average education (100%). With cially in relation to animal welfare), consumer were examined in terms of percentages and regard to religious orientation, all followers of expectations of the market, and personal relation to socio-demographic variables of con- Judaism claim to have a high knowledge of the knowledge on religious slaughter, an anony- sumers interviewed. In addition, answers to topic, followed by Muslims and atheists. A com- mous computerized questionnaire was creat- some questions were cross-checked with addi- parison between the wish to receive more ed. The questionnaire was developed using the tional classification variables. More than half information and level of knowledge of farming GoogleForms application (www.google.it) and of the people who answered the questionnaire conditions shows that the higher the level of was then made accessible on-line at the follow- were under the age of 30 (57.5%) with a slight knowledge of the topic the greater is the desire

[Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; 4:5504] [page 231] Article to receive more information about it. ed, while 40% are defined as ordinary con- respondents said that during the purchase of Particular importance was given to the reli- sumers making choices dictated by daily rou- eggs, milk or meat, they never or rarely identi- gious orientation of consumers, particularly tine without associating a product to the con- fy if the product is animal welfare respectful with regard to the last part of the question- ditions in which the animal was reared, trans- through labels. For 42% of these identification naire that focuses on religious slaughter. ported, or slaughtered. The three main param- is never possible. It is important to understand Almost two-thirds of those claimed to be eters on which interviewed consumers based what consumers think of the information on Christian while only 2% were declared to be their purchases were found to be the country the labels of products of animal origin without Jewish or Muslim. The survey results are in of production (69%), the price (65%), and special reference to welfare friendly products. line with the focus of the European ingredients (61%). The presence of additives Results show that a majority of respondents Commission in relation to animal welfare is a fairly evaluated parameter (38%) based on have a negative view of such information; in where great interest has also been encoun- the number of responses. fact, 84% believe that they are not clear and tered in respect to the issue of religious Animal welfare received 27% of the vote. transparent. This lack of identification could slaughter (Miele et al., 2010a, 2010b). The Despite the lower percentage of answers given help influence the ability of those subjects that level of importance given to the protection of to animal welfare, breeding and production do not assess the animal welfare when they the welfare of intensively reared livestock is methods occupy fourth place with 53% of the buy food to consider it in their food choices. It one of the most obvious results of the survey responses that a certain index evaluation of is interesting to note how the subjects that can with the average value of the responses of 8.9 elements connected to animal welfare was more easily identify the labelled welfare friend- in an importance scale from 1 to 10. Moreover, taken into account. The production and farm- ly products are those who do not eat meat the general tendency is to consider farm ani- ing methods received 53% of the responses. (60%) or, at most, once a week (54%). mal welfare from very important or important. Animal welfare is only in the sixth position, as The questionnaire asked the consumers, The latter opinion was uninfluenced by social a percentage, with 26% of the vote. When who is in the best position to ensure that prod- or demographic factors. Also, the importance asked if animal welfare is considered when ucts of animal origin are produced in a welfare given to animal welfare grows with the buying meat, almost two-thirds of respondents friendly way. Most selected; the breeder, with increase of knowledge of respondents on the (64%) said they consider this topic quite often 48% of the votes, and then veterinary surgeons topic itself, the frequency of visits to a compa- or sometimes. However, when comparing this with 45% of the responses. The European ny that breeds the animals, and the conditions result with that relating to the interest in ani- Commission chosen by 34% of respondents in which animals are reared. Animal welfare is mal welfare, the survey showed that despite occupies the third place. Even the Government judged differently for the various species con- almost all of those polled having a high regard and consumers seem to have an important role sidered in the questionnaire: the greater for farm animal welfare, a certain percentage in ensuring the welfare, as mentioned by 44% degree of concern relates to the conditions of (33%) claimed to never or very rarely think of of consumers. Finally, the food processing laying hens and pigs while the opinion on the animal welfare when buying meat. The analy- industry, associations, protectionist, restau- welfare of dairy cows is better although not by sis of the results in relation to socio-demo- rants and food shops seem to have a minor role much. While the majority of respondents are of graphic variables shows that those aged in ensuring animal welfare. In general, it is the opinion that the welfare of farm animals between 50 and 60 years have a greater consid- possible to conclude that, according to con- has improved over the last ten years, there is a eration of animal welfare at the time of pur- sumers interviewed, farmers are the main peo- strong belief that further improvements are chase of food, as well as the subjects of Italian ple responsible for the welfare of their cattle, needed on the level of protection and animal nationality more than non-Italians (56% of are assisted by veterinary surgeons, and all is welfare. There is a need to increase animal Italians do not claim to assess animal welfare regulated and supervised by the European welfare for both ethical reasons and as a pre- most of the time). Regarding the education, Commission and the national Government. requisite for health safety of products of ani- 67% of subjects with an average education Breeders and veterinarians, probably, are seen mal origin. A slight majority of consumers state they assess animal welfare most of the as figures that come into regular contact with (55%) believe that food quality is derived from time. As regards the so-called animal welfare animals and therefore are in the ideal situa- animals raised with high standards of comfort friendly products, namely food of animal origin tion to make necessary changes to improve the while 45% of respondents disagree. Results derived from animals reared with greater welfare of farmed animals. underline most consumers’ belief that better respect for animal welfare, the survey has The survey showed that the surveyed con- products come from animals raised in respect highlighted considerable interest in these sumers tend to overestimate their willingness of animal welfare (according to the concept products. The assessment of the main reasons to purchase products with higher standards of that if the animal is well managed it produces why to buy these foods shows that the idea that animal welfare since the willingness to pay more and better) but at the same time others consumers have about animal welfare friendly higher prices, often required for these foods, do not agree that quality products come from products is anthropocentric in part because and to change the habitual place of ethical animals raised with greater respect. Not all animal welfare seems to be considered a very motivations is not fully put into practice when respondents for whom there is a correlation important indicator of features such as health food shopping. The issue of labelling is partic- between quality/food safety and animal welfare safety and quality of the meat. There is also an ularly noticed, as evidenced by the fact that for believe in the equation: quality=higher food ethical motivation to buy these products: ani- respondents this would be the best method of welfare standards (40% of subjects do not mal welfare friendly products originate from identification of animal welfare friendly prod- believe in this equation). Only 20% of respon- animals that do not suffer (55% of the vote) ucts, both in the form of text and in the form of dents think that their role as a consumer can and so buying these, help farmers treat their logos on product packaging. As many as 77% of better ensure the improvement of animal wel- animals better (49%). Seventy-six per cent of those polled believe that there is a sufficient fare, almost all consumers have confidence in respondents stated that the current labels of choice of animal welfare-friendly food products their ability to influence animal welfare products of animal origin do not identify ani- in supermarkets. This little safety, along with through their purchasing behaviour. The poll mal welfare friendly products. Labelling would 12% of subjects who claim not to know if the showed that 60% of respondents consider represent the best method for identification of presence of these products on the market is themselves as critical thinking consumers, animal welfare friendly products in text form sufficient or not, is indicative of poor and con- whose food purchases are rational and weight- or with logos on the package. Sixty per cent of fused knowledge probably due to the scarcity of

[page 232] [Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; 4:5504] Article information and products available for con- cent are less convinced that the existence of they have at least a basic knowledge of farming sumers of these products. The purpose of the this kind of legislation modifies the conditions conditions with about half of the subjects survey was to find out whether, in practice, in which animals are kept. Finally, 11% of admitting to having good familiarity with the consumers would acquire these products, the respondents do not know if there is a European topic. Given the importance of the issue, it is possible reasons why they buy them, and legislation in this field. not surprising that almost all respondents under what conditions, such as if they are will- In the questionnaire, the theme of religious (94%) would like to be more informed about ing to accept a higher price and to change their slaughter was faced with a different perspec- the conditions in which animals are reared. purchasing habits because of animal welfare tive from that used in studies by Dialrel: the The main source of information for the farm- considerations. The answers to these ques- opinions and concerns about the welfare of ing conditions was found to be the Internet tions are quite positive with 97% of consumers animals slaughtered by religious methods and with 68% of the vote. The information leaflets claiming to be inclined to purchase animal labelling of products Halal and Kosher for per- and television have achieved a broad consen- welfare friendly products. According to the con- sons of all religions and not necessarily of sus but with lower percentages. The level of sumers surveyed, the main reason why they Jewish or Muslim religion have been assessed. importance given to the protection of the wel- buy animal welfare friendly products is the fact Most of the respondents said they know what fare of intensively farmed animals is one of the that they come from healthier animals (69%), religious slaughter is. The interest in receiv- most obvious results of the survey with the followed by those that originate from animals ing information on the slaughtering method average value of the responses, in a growing that do not suffer (55%). For 49% of respon- used when buying meat and dairy products is importance scale from 1 to 10, of 8.9 dents a valid reason to buy these products is to one of the most interesting results that (Kehlbacher et al., 2012). In addition, the gen- help farmers that treat animals better. The emerged from the survey. Indeed, 83% of eral tendency is to consider the welfare of farm quality (46%) and safety of health products respondents are interested in receiving such animals very important or important (40%) represent, respectively, the fourth and information. The inclusion of the slaughtering (Blokhuisa et al., 2008). The latter opinion is fifth reasons of choice and, probably, are method used in the labelling of animal prod- uninfluenced by social or demographic factors. linked to the great perception that animal wel- ucts is seen by nearly four-fifths of consumers Visits to farms that raise animals seem to fare friendly products originate from healthier as a way to be better protected. The problem of increase awareness and consumer concern for animals. Evaluated together, these findings protecting mainly non-Muslim and non-Jewish animal welfare: in fact, the people who visited suggest that consumer purchasing behaviour consumers is that the meat not approved by a farm at least once have a greater considera- is indeed influenced by the idea that animal the Jews and the Muslims, Haram or Treifa, tion of animal welfare even at the moment of welfare friendly products give consumers the but judged fit for consumption by a meat purchase of products of animal origin. These same benefits in terms of health and quality of inspector can get into the same channel of dis- statements, related to the frequency of visiting life, but also begins to help develop a better tribution as the meat obtained by conventional a breeder, show the potential impact that an animal welfare ethic. slaughter and thus be consumed inadvertently awareness campaign for animal welfare may The introduction of stricter animal welfare by ethical consumers. More than half of have that begins with visits to companies that has resulted in increased costs for farmers. respondents would consider using alternative breed farm animals (even with so-called edu- The general thought is that farmers should be methods of religious slaughter and this is the cational farms) as a first step. The comparison compensated for the high production costs opinion of 50% of Muslim and Jewish con- with reality would appear, in fact, to have a related to the improvement of animal welfare. sumers. Thirty-two percent of subjects, among positive impact on the consideration of animal Eighty-eight per cent of respondents support these 50% of Muslims surveyed, are not welfare. The breeder (48%) is considered to be this idea, and about half of them are certainly opposed to religious slaughter but think some- the figure most capable of ensuring the neces- convinced by this concept. More than half of thing could be done to improve the welfare of sary improvements in animal welfare with vet- those surveyed think that animal welfare with- animals slaughtered in accordance with this erinary surgeons (45%), the European in the EU is better than in other parts of the practice. Finally, for 7% of respondents, the tra- Commission (34%) and the Government world. A quarter believed that the security level ditions must be respected even if they are (24%) seen as figures with an important sup- is about the same as other parts of the world, unpleasant. plementary role. Although only 20% of respon- while only 3% of respondents think it is worse dents think that their role as consumers can than in other parts of the world. Eighty-six per better ensure the improvement of animal wel- cent of respondents believe that non-EU coun- fare, almost two out of three consumers have tries should respect the same conditions as Discussion and Conclusions confidence in their ability to influence animal applied to animal welfare in the European welfare through their purchasing behaviour. Union and that the disparities between the The two main findings from the survey are Based on the results of our investigation, the conditions of animal welfare in the European the great importance that consumers give to growing consideration of animal welfare and Union and the rest of the world should be the protection of animal welfare and the need the demand for more information on the reduced. This view is strongly supported by for more and clearer information on animal slaughtering method used draws attention to 50% of respondents and is indicative, firstly, of welfare and the slaughtering method used. the labels of foods of animal origin. These the importance attached to animal welfare The consumers surveyed claim to be suffi- issues may affect the acceptability of the prod- and, secondly, may also reflect an economic ciently informed and ethically involved. What uct in the market (contrary to the rules of mar- component: the introduction of stricter animal is missing is clear and transparent informa- keting which are based on providing positive welfare standards can result in large conse- tion on the products they buy and that the lack information) (Velarde et al., 2008). quences for competitiveness in the world mar- of such information negatively affects their The problem is to find the right formula to ket of products of animal origin obtained in ability to choose. indicate the method of slaughter on the pack- European Union countries more respectful of In spite of the people interviewed having aging of foodstuffs of animal origin without animal welfare. The majority of consumers stated to be well informed about the conditions confusing the consumer. Information strate- believe that European legislation concerning in which animals are raised, they have also gies should take into account the fact that the animal welfare exist for slaughter (74%) and expressed a desire for more information on pattern of consumption of food occurs along a the transport of animals (69%). Fifty-two per this subject. About nine out of ten (89%) say spectrum from ordinary to critical whereby the

[Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; 4:5504] [page 233] Article best solution might be represented by a system rior quality. For more than half of respondents improving farm animal welfare to inform of tiered information, which can satisfy differ- it would be appropriate to use alternative welfare labeling. Food Policy 37:627-33. ent needs. Beyond the label information is also methods of religious slaughter. This is also the Miele M, Evans A, Higgin M, 2010a. Le aspetta- important (Miele et al., 2010a, 2010b). opinion of 50% of respondents of Muslim and tive dei consumatori. In: Cenci Goga BT, Awareness of farm animal welfare in schools, Jewish faiths. A quarter of the subjects are not Fermani AG, eds. La macellazione reli- visits to farms, the conscious use of the opposed to religious slaughter but think some- giosa. Protezione degli animali e pro- Internet and the media, and visits to a slaugh- thing could be done to improve the welfare of duzione igienica delle carni. Point terhouse could provide this information. animals slaughtered in accordance with this Veterinaire Italie ed., Milan, Italy. Respondents have a very clear opinion on practice. Included in this quarter were also Miele M, Higgin M, Evans A, 2010b. Dubbi dei whether or not farmers should be paid for the 50% of Muslims surveyed. Finally, for 7% of consumatori, normativa e trasparenza del higher costs of production related to the breed- respondents, traditions must be respected mercato. In: Cenci Goga BT, Fermani AG, ing of animals under better welfare conditions. even if regrettable. It is also desirable to have eds. La macellazione religiosa. Protezione In fact, almost nine out of ten consumers agree an increased choice of animal welfare friendly degli animali e produzione igienica delle with the principle that financial compensation products in supermarkets and an increased carni. Point Veterinaire Italie ed., Milan, should be used to relieve any increased costs membership of producers working for wellness Italy, pp 69-81. associated with the improvement of animal and ethical production. Napolitano F, Girolami A, Braghieri A, 2010. welfare. There are two ways to ensure an ade- Consumer liking and willingness to pay for quate level of income to producers: the high welfare animalbased products. increase in the cost of animal welfare friendly Trends Food Sci Technol 21:537-43. products and public monetary compensation References Special Eurobarometer, 2005. Attitudes of con- (Napolitano et al., 2010; Toma et al., 2012). sumers towards the welfare of farmed ani- Within the Dialrel project, several focus groups Bergeaud-Blackler F, Evans A, Zivotofsky A, mals. 229/Wave 63.2. Availale from: in some European countries were conducted 2012. WP3-1 deliverable. Final report con- ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ with participants from Muslim and Jewish reli- sumer and consumption issues. Halal and ebs_229_en.pdf gions to investigate the opinion of religious Kosher Focus Groups Results. Dialrel Special Eurobarometer, 2007. Attitudes of EU slaughter themselves, their food consumption Reports ed., University of Bristol, UK. citizens towards animal welfare. 270/Wave practices, and expectations of consumers of Available from: www.dialrel.eu/images/ 66.1. Available from: https://open- halal and kosher products (Cenci Goga and report-consumption.pdf data.europa.eu/it/data/dataset/S470_66_1_ Fermani, 2010). The objective of our survey Blokhuisa HJ, Keelinga LJ, Andrea Gavinelli A, EBS270 was to evaluate the opinions and concerns on Serratosa J, 2008. Animal welfare’s impact Toma L, Stott, A W, Revoredo-Giha C, Kupiec- these same themes of individuals of all reli- on the food chain. Trends Food Sci Technol Teahan B, 2012. Consumers and animal gions and not necessarily just of Jewish or welfare. A comparison between European Muslim religions. A majority of respondents 19:S79-87. Union countries. Appetite 58:597-607. said they know what religious slaughter is. Bottoni R, Ferrari S, 2010. Legislation regard- Velarde A, Anil H, Cenci Goga BT, Frencia JP, There seems to be a positive correlation ing religious slaughter in the EU, candi- between those who consider animal welfare to date and associated countries. Dialrel Lambooij B, Von Holleben K, Von be very important or important and knowledge Reports ed., University of Bristol, UK. Wenzlawowicz BM, Dalmau A, of religious slaughter. The interest in receiv- Available from: dialrel.eu/images/report- 2008. Religious slaughter in Europe. In: ing information on the slaughtering method legislation.pdf Putting the OIE standards to used at the time of purchase of meat and dairy Cenci Goga BT, Fermani AG, 2010. La macel- work: Proceedings of the 2nd OIE Global products is one of the most interesting results lazione religiosa: protezione degli animali Conference on Animal Welfare, 20-22 emerged from the survey. Indeed, 83% of e produzione igienica delle carni. Point October 2008, Cairo, Egypt. OIE-World respondents are interested in receiving such Veterinaire Italie, Milan, Italy. Organisation for Animal Health, Paris, information. Religious orientation doesn’t Dialrel, 2009. Religious slaughter, improving France. seem to affect this interest. It should be noted knowledge and expertise through dialogue Velarde A, Rodriguez P, Dalmau A, Fuentes C, that the propensity to receive information on and debate on issues of welfare, legisla- Llonch P, Von Holleben KV, Anil MH, the slaughtering method used in the packag- tion and socio-economic aspects. Available Lambooij JB, Pleiter H, Yesildere T, Cenci- ing of products of animal origin clashes with from: http://www.dialrel.eu/ Goga BT, 2014. Religious slaughter: evalu- marketing rules based on providing positive European Commission, 1993. Council directive ation of current practices in selected coun- information. The slaughtering method used in of 22 december 1993 on the protection of tries. Meat Sci 96:278-87. the labelling of animal products is seen by animals at the time of slaughter or killing, Velarde A, Rodriguez P, Fuentes C, Llonch P, nearly four-fifths of the consumers as a way to 93/119/EC. In: Official Journal, L 340/21, Von Holleben K, Von Wenzlawowicz M, be more protected. As regards the quality and 31.12.1993. Anil H, Miele M, Cenci Goga BT, Lambooij health safety of products originating from ani- European Commission, 2009. Council regula- B, Zivotofsky A, Gregory N, Bergeaud- mals that were slaughtered in a ritual way, 42% tion of 24 september 2009 on the protec- Blackler F, Dalmau A, 2010. Improving ani- of consumers think that this is the same as tion of animals at the time of killing, mal welfare during religious slaughter. that of products derived from animals slaugh- 1099/2009/EC. In: Official Journal, L 303/1, Recommendations for good practice. tered traditionally. Twenty-eight per cent think 18.11.2009. Dialrel Reports ed., University of Bristol, that this quality is lower while only 2% of con- Kehlbacher A, Bennett, R, Balcombe K, 2012. UK. Available from: http://www.dialrel. sumers think that these products are of supe- Measuring the consumer benefits of eu/images/recom-light.pdf

[page 234] [Italian Journal of Food Safety 2015; 4:5504]