FACULTY OF BIO-ENGINEERING

Academic year 2009-2010

Consumers’ Perception and Attitudes towards Farm Animal Welfare

Shanshan Chen

A master dissertation submitted to Ghent University, Belgium, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Human Nutrition

Promoter: Prof. dr. ir. Wim Verbeke Co-promoter: Ir. Filiep Vanhonacker

1 ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

In developed societies, food supply has largely exceeded food demand and turned markets from product-driven into demand-driven economies, which leads marketing to better meet consumers’ needs, demands and preference. In the same time, the intensification in livestock production triggered by the blind pursuit of maximum profit has affected the sustainable development of animal husbandry in a negative sense. Thus concern for animal welfare among citizens as a public issue and among consumers as a product attribute is increasing. And animal welfare has become a public concern which influences the consumers, food products producers, researchers, policy makers, etc. On the contrary, animal welfare is rather a new issue and even a total new concept in most of the developing countries.

The aim of this master thesis is to investigate the consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare, as well as how this attitude differs in societies and countries. Generally speaking, this thesis is based on two consumer studies. The first study consists of secondary data collected via consumer questionnaires in the context of a large European project (Q-PORKCHAINS). This project included five EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Greece), which allows to compare attitudes towards animal welfare cross-country. Further, attitudes towards animal welfare is related to different socio-demographic characteristics, food related lifestyle, inner characteristics (Schwartz Pictorial Value), different attitudes towards environment and nature, industrial food production technological progress and ethnocentrism, familiarity with livestock production and animal-based production and meat consumption. In the second study, an additional survey was performed in China by a new questionnaire. In this questionnaire, more basic questions were used since animal welfare is a rather new issue in China. This study could provide a balanced picture on the knowledge of animal welfare and the evaluation of it among consumers in China. It allows relating the concern for animal welfare to socio-demographics, familiarity with livestock production and animal-based production and meat

i ABSTRACT consumption. Furthermore, conclusions from both studies will provide insights in similarities and dissimilarities between China and Europe in terms of attitudes and perceptions towards farm animal welfare, which is an issue that has not been profoundly researched yet.

Resulting from Study 1, we found higher concern for animal welfare among consumers from the Northern oriented European countries when buying food, as compared to Southern and Eastern European countries. Regarding differences within societies, a higher concern for animal welfare was found among consumers who pay more attention to quality aspects, who enjoy shopping, who more frequently do shopping in special shops or buy organic foods, who planned what to buy in advanced, who are not care the price of the products, who like to search information of the products. Individuals with more benevolence and higher sense of being in security, and those who advocate hedonism, self-direction, universalism and more stimulation in their lives have a higher concern for animal welfare. Furthermore, people who worry about environment and nature and have negative attitudes towards industry food production are also associated with a higher concern about animal welfare. On the other hand, higher concern about animal welfare is found among female consumers, young people, people living in urban areas, people in higher financial state, and small household size. Based on Study 2, we found the level of knowledge about animal welfare is very low in China. Most Chinese consumers think higher animal welfare is an indicator for other more important attributes of the products such as food quality and safety. Furthermore, we found a very poor evaluation of farm animal welfare in China. Cattle are associated with the highest welfare while pigs and chicken have the lowest. Moreover, the conception of animal welfare among Chinese respondents bears more resemblance to the functional approach than mental and natural approaches. Most consumers think information about animal welfare is too little available, and they are willing to know more about animal welfare. They prefer to getting these kinds of information mainly through internet, animal welfare labels and food labels.

ii ABSTRACT

With respect to the impact of socio-demographic characteristics on consumers’ attitudes and perceptions towards farm animal welfare, we found there is a higher concern about animal welfare among consumers who are familiar with the livestock production in China which is contrary to that among European consumers. On the other hand, we did not find a big difference in the attitude towards animal welfare among male and female consumers, people who have children and those who have not, as well as in people who keeping a pet and those who have not. Finally, a higher concern for animal welfare is associated with a lower consumption of animal food products.

iii DEDICATION

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my parents who have supported me form the beginning of my study.

Aslo this thesis is dedicated to all thoes people who participated in the questionnairs.

I would like to thank my promoter Prof. Dr. Ir. Wim Verbeke, for providing me an opportunity to do my master dissertation from where I learnt a lot.

I would like express my gratitude to my supervisor ir. Filiep Vanhonacker for his patience and valuable supervision through the whole writing.

I would like to thank Mie Remaut, the couse coordinator, and Marian, the course coordinator assistant, for their supports for my study and life in Belgium.

Finally, I would like to thank my friend Yi Qiang, who give me great help in my study and thesis writing.

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4

2.1. THE CONCEPT OF ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 4

2.2. PUBLIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE...... 6 2.2.1. Animal attributes as attitude modifiers...... 6 2.2.2. Individual human attributes as attitude modifiers...... 7 2.2.2.1. Social structure positions...... 7 2.2.2.2. Individuals’ unique animal-related experience ...... 9 2.2.3. Culture factors as attitude modifiers ...... 9 2.2.4. Science as attitude modifiers ...... 10

2.3. CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR RELATED TO ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 11 2.3.1. Food choice with animal welfare...... 11 2.3.2. People’s willingness to pay for animal welfare...... 12

2.4. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 13

3. RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY ...... 14

STUEY 1 ...... 14

3.1. QUESTIONNAIRE AND SCALE...... 14

3.2. DATA COLLECTION AND PROCEDURE ...... 15 3.2.1. Data Collection...... 15 3.2.2. Dependent Variables...... 15 3.2.3. Independent Variables ...... 16 3.2.3.1. Food Related Lifestyle...... 16 3.2.3.2. Schwartz Pictorial Value...... 17 3.2.3.3. Environment and Nature, Industrial Food Production and Technological Progress...... 17 3.2.3.4. Ethnocentrism ...... 17 3.2.3.5. Others...... 18 3.2.4. Procedure of analyzing...... 18

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDY 2...... 18

3.0. BACKGROUND OF CHINA...... 18

3.1. QUESTIONNAIRE AND SCALE...... 19

3.2. DATA COLLECTION AND METHOD ...... 20 3.2.1. Data Collection...... 20 3.2.2. Dependent Variables...... 20 3.2.2.1. Animal welfare as a Product Attribute ...... 20 3.2.2.2. Concern for Animal Welfare...... 20 3.2.2.3. Evaluation of Animal Welfare in China...... 21 3.2.2.4. Attitude towards Information Provision about Animal Welfare...... 21 3.2.3. Independent Variables ...... 21 3.2.3.1 Knowledge and conceptualization of animal welfare among Chinese consumers ...... 21 3.2.3.2 Familiarity with Livestock Production ...... 22 3.2.3.3 Consumption of animal products...... 22

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 23

STUDY 1...... 23

4.1. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS...... 23

4.2. SCALE RELIABILITIES...... 23

4.3. RELATION BETWEEN SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERS AND ATTITUDE

TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 23 4.3.1. Gender...... 23 4.3.2. Age ...... 26 4.3.3. Living Environment...... 27 4.3.4. Living State ...... 28 4.3.5. Countries...... 29

4.4. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES INFLUENCING ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 30 4.4.1. Education Level, Financial State and Household Size ...... 30 4.4.2. Food Related Lifestyles...... 32 4.4.3. Schwartz Pictorial Value ...... 33

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.4.4. Environment and Nature, Industrial Food Production and Technological Progress ...... 33 4.4.5. Ethnocentrism ...... 34 4.4.6. Food Production Related to Environment Protection ...... 34 4.4.7. Pork Eating Habit and Frequency of Total Pork Consumption ...... 35

4.5. FAMILIARITY WITH PRIMARY PORK PRODUCTION AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS

ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 35

STUDY 2...... 37

4.1. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS...... 37

4.2 ANIMAL WELFARE AS A PRODUCT ATTRIBUTE...... 37

4.3 KNOWLEDGE OF ANIMAL WELFARE AMONG CHINESE CONSUMERS ...... 41

4.4. CONCERN FOR ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 42 4.4.1 Willing to Know the Information about Animal Welfare...... 42

4.5. EVALUATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE IN CHINA...... 43

4.6. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL

WELFARE...... 44

4.7. FAMILIARITY WITH LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL

WELFARE...... 47

4.8. CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL

WELFARE...... 48

4.9. KNOWLEDGE OF ANIMAL WELFARE AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL

WELFARE...... 51

4.10. SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE

OF CONSUMERS FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND CHINA...... 52

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 53

REFERENCES ANNEXES

iii LIST OF TABLES

List of Tables

TABLE 3-1 ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMAL WELFARE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS...... 16

TABLE 4-1 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERS OF SAMPLE...... 24

TABLE 4-2 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

GENDER...... 25

TABLE 4-3 FREQUENCY OF TOTAL PORK CONSUMPTION IN THE RELATION OF GENDER ...... 25

TABLE 4-4 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

AGE ...... 26

TABLE 4-5 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMAL UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

LIVING ENVIRONMENT...... 27

TABLE 4-6 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

LIVING STATE ...... 29

TABLE 4-7 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

DIFFERENCE COUNTRIES...... 30

TABLE 4-8 THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND FINANCIAL STATE...... 31

TABLE 4-9 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

EDUCATION LEVEL ...... 31

TABLE 4-10 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

FOUR LEVELS OF EDUCATION ...... 32

i LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4-11 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

PORK EATING HABIT ...... 35

TABLE 4-12 CORRELATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES WITH ATTITUDE

TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 36

TABLE 4-13 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN TERMS OF FOOD CHOICE

MOTIVATION, ANIMAL TREATMENT AND ANIMA UTILITY IN THE RELATION WITH

FAMILIARITY OF PRIMARY PRODUCTION...... 37

TABLE 4-14 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERS OF CHINESE SAMPLE ...... 38

TABLE 4-15 IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES ...... 39

TABLE 4-16 CORRELATION BETWEEN HIGHER ANIMAL WELFARE AND OTHER

ATTRIBUTES OF PRODUCTS...... 40

TABLE 4-17 DIFFERENT WAYS THAT CONSUMERS WILLING TO GETTING INFORMATION

ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 43

TABLE 4-18 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE AND

EDUCATION AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE...... 45

TABLE 4-19 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE RELATION WITH EDUCATION

LEVEL ...... 47

TABLE 4-20 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE AND

EDUCATION AND FINANCIAL STATE...... 47

TABLE 4-21 CONCERN ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS...... 49

TABLE 4-22 CORRELATION BETWEEN FAMILIARITY WITH LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND

TOTAL ANIMAL PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION AND CONCERN FOR ANIMAL WELFARE ...... 50

TABLE 4-23 CORRELATION BETWEEN FREQUENCIES OF EATING ANIMAL BASED

PRODUCTS AND CONCERN FOR ANIMAL WELFARE...... 50

TABLE 4-24 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE RELATION WITH

DIFFERENCE DIFFERENT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE...... 51

ii LIST OF FIGURES

List of Figures

FIGURE 1-1 SIX SCIENTIFIC KEY ACTIVITIES OF Q-PORK CHAIN...... 2

FIGURE 2-1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL STATE, MENTAL STATE AND

NATURALNESS...... 5

FIGURE 4-2 AGREE WITH CONCERN DIFFERENT SPECIOUS OF ANIMALS FOR ANIMAL

WELFARE...... 42

FIGURE 4-3 EVALUATION OF WELFARE OF DIFFERENT FARM ANIMALS AMONG

CONSUMERS IN CHINA...... 44

FIGURE 4-4 NUMBER OF CONSUMERS VISITING FARM WITH DIFFERENT FARM ANIMALS ...... 47

1 INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past decades, concern for animals and interest in how the animals are raised has gained importance throughout different societies. Especially western countries focus on how human should interact with animals and claim that animals are treated unjustified (Broom and Johnson 1993). More and more attention is drawn to the welfare of animals. The public interest in “animal welfare” has increased strongly not only among consumers, producers and retailers, but also among governments, some social groups (animal welfare organizations) and scientific researchers. The increasing interest can be explained to a large extent by the prosperity level in Western society (Seamer 1998), where food supply has largely exceeded food demand and turned markets from product-driven into demand-driven economies. Consequently , the goal of marketing is to better meet consumers’ needs, demands and preference (Vanhonacker, Verbeke et al. 2007) Simultaneously, a growing number of people believe that the intensification in livestock production triggered by the blind pursuit of maximum profit has affected the sustainable development of animal husbandry in a negative sense. It is proved that animal welfare influences the ethical food choice of consumers as a subscale of ecological welfare (Lindeman and Väänänen 2000).

The public is often confronted with the word “Animal welfare” in newspapers, magazines, television programmes, as well as in numerous academic journals. In this study, we are interested in the attitude of consumers towards animal welfare, and how this attitude differs in society dependent on country, socio-demographic characteristics, and various attitudinal, behavioural and life-style variables.

This thesis is based on an integrated European project within the sixth framework programme, i.e. Q-PORKCHAINS (www.q-porkchains.org). The overall aim of the Q-PORKCHAINS project is to improve the quality of pork and pork products for consumers: development of innovative, integrated, and sustainable food production

1 INTRODUCTION

chains of high quality pork products matching consumer demands. The Q-PORKCHAINS project has six scientific key activities, one of them being specifically focused on the consumer (Figure 1-1). One of the expected long-social impact of the project is to meet the growing consumer demands for healthy high quality pork with regard to animal welfare (Karlsson and Christensen 2008).

Figure 1­1 Six scientific key activities of Q-Pork Chain （Source: http://www.q-porkchains.org/news_press/about.aspx ）

The aim of this master thesis is to learn about the consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare as citizens and as consumers based on two studies. In study 1, the questionnaire developed in the Q-PORKCHAINS project was used. In this project, five EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Greece) were included allowing to compare attitudes towards animal welfare cross-country. Further, attitudes towards animal welfare was related to different socio-demographic characteristics, food related lifestyle, inner characteristics (Schwartz Pictorial Value), different attitudes towards environment and nature, industrial food production technological progress and ethnocentrism, familiarity with livestock production and animal-based production and meat consumption. In Study 2, a more basic questionnaire was developed to be distributed in China since animal welfare is a rather new and unknown issue in China. We focused on relating the concern for animal welfare to socio-demographics, familiarity with livestock production and

2 INTRODUCTION

animal-based production and meat consumption. Furthermore, consumers’ attitudes and perceptions towards farm animal welfare are rather unexplored in China. Therefore this study was also interested in some additional issues, like how Chinese consumers conceptualize farm animal welfare, how they evaluate it, etcetera. This provides a balanced picture on the knowledge of animal welfare and the evaluation of it among consumers in China. And also it allows discussing differences in perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare related to socio-demographic characteristics, meat consumption frequency and familiarity of the livestock production between China and EU countries.

The remainder of the thesis is organized as follows: Chapter 2 consists of a literature review that first discusses how animal welfare is conceptualized. Secondly, it elaborates on public attitudes towards animal welfare, and focuses on different modifiers of these attitudes. Thirdly, consumer behaviour related to animal welfare is discussed. Finally, at the end of the literature review, the scope and objective of this thesis are introduced. In Chapter 3 the research methodology for Study 1 and Study 2 is outlined separately, and includes details on the data collection, the questions and the scales used in the questionnaire and the procedure of analyses. Results of the analyses of two studies are then presented and discussed in Chapter 4. Finally, concluding remarks are provided, by comparing Chinese and European consumers, with corresponding policy implications.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. The Concept of Animal welfare

Recently, scientific disciplines relevant to animal welfare including animal husbandry, animal science, veterinary medicine and behavioural science have developed rapidly due to the increasing concern about animal welfare, and an increasing demand for livestock products produced with consideration of animal welfare(Appleby, V. Cussen et al. 2008). In this context, an assessment of animal welfare is needed to evaluate the level of animal welfare and to ensure certain standards for animal welfare. However, animal welfare is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, and no consensus definition is available yet (Vanhonacker, Van Poucke et al.). In this section, a brief overview of the different definitions of animal welfare will be discussed. Human-animal interactions have existed from the beginning of human’s civilization. In ancient time, animals were killed by man as a resource of food. For thousands years, animals were not only raised for supplying food, but were also domesticated for transport and working for man like protection, entertainment or companionship as pets and used in the experiments (Broom and Johnson 1993). Before, studies in the relation to animal welfare were mainly focused on companion and laboratorial animals. However, along with the intensification of Western livestock production and the corresponding public concern, many research studies were also devoted to the welfare of farm animals. Originally, animal welfare was considered as a sub-discipline of animal health until Brambell (1965) separated both issues. He considered animal welfare as a wide term that embraces both the physical and mental well-being of the animal, and argued that both the animal’s functioning and feelings should be taken into account when evaluating welfare. Covering scientific literature, three approaches of farm animal welfare can be distinguished. A first approach relates to the physical state of the animal. For example, McGlone (1993) focused on the physiological aspect and stated that an animal was in a poor state of welfare only when physiological systems were

4 LITERATURE REVIEW

disturbed to the point that survival or reproduction is impaired. This is an extreme view that welfare is only poor when survival or reproduction is impaired by a physical problem. A second approach relates animal welfare only to the mental state of the animals which depends upon what animals feel (e.g. Duncan, 1993). Dawkins (1988) held the similar opinion and argued that to be concerned about animal welfare was to be concerned with the subjective feelings of animals, particularly the unpleasant subjective feelings of suffering and pain. A third view relating animal welfare to naturalness as well as the physical states concerns the control of pain and suffering and the fulfillment of animals’ natural needs and demands, which were called telos by Rollin (1993). The truth is probably situated somewhere in between, in a condition that does not consider the three approaches separate from each other but interrelated. This is issued by WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals) in its ‘Concepts of Animal Welfare’ veterinary training resource which includes three states: (1) physical state (fitness) which is centred in the traditional definitions (2) mental state (feeling) which plays an important role and becoming increasingly understood and explored (3) naturalness which refers to the ability of the animal to fulfil its natural needs and desires being recently recognized and added. Figure 2-1 explains the relationship between these three states. The overlap between the three states indicates the interrelationship.

Figure 2-1 Relationship between physical state, mental state and naturalness (Source:http://www.worldanimal.net/online_management_book/1%20Animal%20Welfare.pdf)

5 LITERATURE REVIEW

Thus, the definition of “animal welfare” is an undeniable link between all these three concepts. Any significant change in one aspect tends to affect the other two, therefore it is reasonable to take a holistic approach and consider all three elements (Appleby and Hughes 1997). Along with the difficulty in defining the concept of farm animal welfare, no agreed-on indicators are currently available to assess the welfare status of the animals. The only universally accepted conclusion in assessing animal welfare is that there is no single measure of welfare but a need for a combination of the measurement using different indicators considering different environmental and nutritional aspects (Dawkins 1980;

Mason and Mendl. 1993; Moynagh 2000; Dawkins 2003).

2.2. Public Attitude towards Animal Welfare

Nowadays, public attitude towards animal welfare tends to be a topical issue in the researches of animal welfare. A lot of studies try to find the factors which influence the public attitude towards animal welfare (Kellert and Berry 1980; Nibert 1994; Griffith, Wolch et al. 2002; Serpell 2004; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). According to Serpell (2004), “attitude modifiers” is defined as any factors that produce changes in either (a) people’s affective/emotional responses to animals and/or (b) people’s perceptions of an animal’s utility to humans. And he divided these modifiers into four categories: (1) animal attributes as attitude modifiers (2) individual human attributes as attitude modifiers (3) culture factors as attitude modifiers (4) science as attitude modifiers. In this section, we will discuss these modifiers in depth.

2.2.1. Animal attributes as attitude modifiers

Animals are different in size and shapes, and also in the degree of domestication. The attitudes towards animal welfare of people are affected by these intrinsic attributes of animals, and some initial basis for peoples’ attitudes discrimination are formed by these intrinsic attributes (Serpell 2004). It is thought that animals which are more close to humans or that are physically, behaviourally or cognitively similar to humans tend to evoke more positive attitudes

6 LITERATURE REVIEW

from humans (Serpell 2004). And animals that are thought to be cute, aesthetically appealing or admirable and vulnerable such as rare also tend to obtain positive attitudes from humans. Although there is a big argument on the animals which are useful or beneficial to human, generally they cause more positive attitudes than other animals, However like honey bees and cockroaches may cause exceptions because sometimes they are offensive to humans (Serpell 2004).

2.2.2. Individual human attributes as attitude modifiers

With the increasing interest in animal welfare, diverse attitudes towards animal welfare are shaped among different people. However, empirical and theoretical research considering factors affecting publics’ attitude remains limited in sociology. Kendall et al (2006) aimed to filling this gap by distinguishing different factors as structural determinants for attitudes towards animal welfare. Kendall et al divided them into two sets: (1) people’s social structure position in the society (2) individuals’ unique animal-related experiences.

2.2.2.1. Social structure positions In the previous studies, a hypothesis was formed that there were systematic differences towards animal welfare in the social groups, such as gender, class and race (Nibert 1994; Griffith, Wolch et al. 2002; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006), although the reasons behind were not well-understood. And also an “underdog hypothesis” was suggested to refer those lower in the stratification hierarchy may have greater concern with animal welfare. An explanation about this was social structure positions provide distinct life experience as well as affect their worldviews and ideologies (Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). According to Kendall and co-authors, the social structure positions related to the formation of the animal-human relationships and different attitudes towards animals were divided into two categories: (A) place-based structural positions especially focusing on urban or rural areas (B) other social structural positions including gender,

7 LITERATURE REVIEW

race/ethnicity socioeconomic status, family state, age and education (Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). (A) Place-based structural positions With regard to the place-based structural position, it is proved that farmers and the people with rural background and farming lifestyles are less concerned about animal welfare (Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). (B) Other social structural positions: a. Gender and Race: women have greater concern with animal welfare than men since women are primary family caretakers and maybe more likely to engage in household tasks that put them in contact with animals (Serpell 2004; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). Similarly, Heleski, Mertiget et al. (2004) found that there is a strong correlation between gender and total attitude score. This research reflects that females, on average, had higher total attitude scores which are assumed to be empathy for agricultural animal welfare and by other studies (Mathews and Harold A. Herzog 1997; Paul and Podberscek 2000). On the other hand, it is reported that blacks are more concerned for animal welfare comparing to whites maybe because of the social, historical and cultural dimensions (Nibert 1994; Griffith, Wolch et al. 2002; Kendall,

Lobal et al. 2006). b. Socioeconomic status: people in to some degree less affluent income group tend to have greater concern with animal welfare (Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006) which has an agreement with a recent study that there is a small, but significant, negative correlation between income and attitude towards animal welfare among people in Australia. This difference in animal welfare scale scores was found to be significantly lower in people in the highest income category (more than AUD$60,000 annually) than people in the relatively lower income category (less than AUD$15,000 annually) (Signal and Taylor 2006). c. Family State: people with children in the household tending to have less concern about animal welfare on the one hand due to less time and energy, on the other hand due to more focus on their care and attention to their children (Harper and Henson 2000; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006).

8 LITERATURE REVIEW

d. Age: Harper and Henson argued that the young people tend to have a more positive attitude towards animal welfare and also express a great desire to be informed (Harper and Henson 2000). However, in the research of Heleski Mertig et al(2004), they did not find a significant relationship between age and attitude score. e. Education: despite the social structural position mention about, there are also some arguments relating education to concern for animal welfare. The conclusion that people with higher education have less concern with animal welfare (Paul and Podberscek 2000; Serpell 2004)is contrast to Kellert and Berry (1980) who asserted that higher level of education is associated with more positive affect and less positive or negative utility orientations.

2.2.2.2. Individuals’ unique animal-related experience People who are non-hunters or vegetarian (Lindeman and M.Väänänen 2000) or have pets (Kendall et al., 2006) are proved to be more concerned about food quality and safety and have positive attitudes towards animal welfare. The disagreement regarding keeping pet is that no significant relationship between the total attitude score and whether people considered having a pet or not in the study of Heleski, Mertig et al. (2004) through the questionnaires asking people who used to keep or now is having pets.

2.2.3. Culture factors as attitude modifiers

According to Serpell (2004), culture factors can be divided into four main but overlapping categories. The first category is history. Historical cultural factors refer to that some people may also persist in some form of attitudes long after they have ceased to be culturally or relevant attitudes have changed over time. The second category is culture/religious belief and values. This factor may promote particular attitudes towards animals both generally and specifically for reasons that are frequently obscured by the passage of time. This factor is also supported by Heleski Mertig et al (2004) who found a higher total attitude scores to be correlated with liberal viewpoints and a negative correlation between a higher sense of religiosity and

9 LITERATURE REVIEW total attitude scores, i.e. people with a low score in terms of religiosity are more concerned with farm animal welfare. The third category is culturally defining practices. Due to cultural, animals get the particular significance, for example bull in Span has a particular attention because of the bullfighting. The last category is cultural representation. Different representations of animals in cultural art, language, literature, media and so on, are, at least to some extent affects people’s attitudes towards animal welfare (Baker 1993; Serpell 2004).

2.2.4. Science as attitude modifiers

Science plays an important and positive role in influencing the western attitudes towards animal welfare (Serpell 2004).In general, science or scientific researches have directly or indirectly impacts on the peoples’ attitudes in the way of (1) giving proves on making or redefining legislation and improving the practice of animals. Some relationship between the politician affiliation and total attitude score towards animal welfare is also found in the study of Heleski Mertig et al (2004). (2) giving the latest informing related to animal welfare issue to public and research funders, which may then translate into additional funds or concern expressed by the public (Phillips 2009). Studies on animal behaviour, consciousness and cognition increase the awareness of human in giving more attention to animals and they also provide the professional and scientific proves which point out that animals are sensitive and vulnerable to stress and suffering than we thought in the past, which help to form positive attitudes to the welfare of animals (Dawkins 1980; Duncan and Petherick 1991). Also, one of the study on the neurological complexity of animal proposed that the animal needs increasing amounts of welfare protected from society in order to insure that it does not suffer from pain, fear and environmental and social stimulation since the nervous system complexity of the animals is increasing (Grandin 2002). On the other hand, due to the development of these studies there is now widespread recognition of the ‘sentience’ of animals.

(http://www.worldanimal.net/online_management_book/1%20Animal%20Welfare.pdf).

10 LITERATURE REVIEW

Sentience implies that animals: a. are aware of their own surroundings; b. have an emotional dimension; c. are aware of what is happening to them; d. have the ability to learn from experience; e. are aware of bodily sensations – pain, hunger, heat, cold etc; f. are aware of their relationships with other animals; g. have the ability to choose between different animals, objects and situations. The European Union has officially recognized animals to be ‘Sentient Beings’ which reinforces the need to protect welfare which is also mentioned in the treaty of Amsterdam

(http://www.dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/2513/Treaty%20of%20Amsterdam%20(En).pdf) . Scientific research has fed the public’s appetite for detailed, popularized accounts of animal life histories. Also science plays an important role in counteracting negative cultural representations of animals (Serpell 2004).

2.3. Consumer Behaviour Related to Animal Welfare

2.3.1. Food choice with animal welfare

In the study of Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle (1995), a food choice questionnaire (FCQ) was developed including nine motives that determine consumers’ food choice: health, mood, convenience, sensory, appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity and ethical concern. In 1999, in response to the increasing importance of ethical issues, three complementary motives were developed by Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) and added to the FCQ: (1) ecological welfare including subscales for animal welfare and environment protection; (2) political values; (3) religion. The results obtained in the report of Harper and Henson (2000) indicated that consumers are motivated by human health concerns thus they are motivated by animal welfare because they treated animal welfare as an indicator of other core attributes of products such as quality, safety and so on. Same find is that although of increasing importance, animal welfare, as a product attribute, is usually rated as less important than primary product attributes, such as health, sensory appeal and price (Lindeman and M.Väänänen 2000).In addition, the concern for animal welfare is also motivated by the values of empathy and ethics (Harper and Henson 2000).

11 LITERATURE REVIEW

In a study where consumers who buy higher animal welfare products (eggs) are compared with those who do not, strong perceived price and availability barriers, a lower importance of ethical issues and low perceived consumer effectiveness were the main reasons for consumers not buying higher animal welfare products. Contrary, a consistent choice for products with higher welfare was linked with a high importance attached to ethical issues, a low effect of price and availability perception, a strong association of higher welfare products with product attributes like health, taste, and quality; and a high perceived consumer effectiveness (Vanhonacker and Verbeke 2009). For instance, consumer behaviour would change when product is packaged as convenient food (prepared meals and so on), although these consumers plan to choose products with higher welfare in the beginning. Furthermore, consumers who plan to buy high welfare farm animal products state that though they are concerned about animal welfare, some barriers may occur including lack of information, lack of availability, lack of personal influence, dissociation of the product from the animal of origin, and higher cost (Harper and Henson 2001). For instance, some foods are too far from the live animal and cannot be directly linked to welfare issues since most of them are imported from other countries and their histories cannot be traced (Moynagh 2000) which causes the difficulty in choosing high animal welfare products.

2.3.2. People’s willingness to pay for animal welfare

In questionnaires, most of the respondents indicate that they are willing to pay more for higher animal welfare products (Verbeke and Viaene 1999; Harper and Henson 2000). In a study among United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, France and Italy, most participants think improved welfare would result in increased costs which would be passed on the consumers and they were willing to pay more for improved animal welfare but the amount would depend on the initial cost of the products and the way in which it would be used with an exception in France (Harper and Henson 2000). Another research with respect to the cost that consumer were willing to pay for chicken with different welfare found out that consumers are prepared to pay up to

12 LITERATURE REVIEW

three times the cost of conventionally grown chicken for an open roost chicken (Moynagh 2000). Simultaneously, most of the consumers who are willing to pay more also stated that the product would have to have other improved quality characteristics such as better taste (Harper and Henson 2000). On the other hand, in the view of a consumer some people are not willing to pay more for animal-friendly products although being a citizen they are concerned about animal welfare (Aarts and Te Velde 2001).

2.4. Scope and Objectives

Till today, there are only few studies available that focus on a comparison of consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare among different countries. The main objective of this master thesis is to map consumers’ attitudes and perceptions towards farm animal welfare among different countries in Europe. More specific research objectives are (1) to investigate whether consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare differ between European countries, and (2) to investigate whether consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare differ between different socio-demographic groups. In addition, a small-scale survey approach was conducted mainly in three biggest cities in China (Beijing, Shanghai and Nanjing), which will provide some primary data on the (1) knowledge of animal welfare and the evaluation of it among consumers in China, and (2) differences in perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare related to socio-demographic characteristics, familiarity of livestock production and animal-based production and meat consumption between China and EU countries.

13 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3. Research Materials and Methodology

Study 1

3.1. Questionnaire and Scale

The study used the secondary data source collected by a consumer survey carried by Q-PORKCHAINS in January 2008. This computer-based survey was carried out in 5 European countries including Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Germany and Greece in order to identify the attitudes towards pig production and pork consumption as consumers or citizen roles. The questionnaire consisted of ten parts: 1) Socio-demographic characters (of the respondents) questions; 2) Food related lifestyle questions; 3) Schwartz Pictorial Value Questionnaire; 4) Attitudes towards environment and nature, industrial food production and technological progress; 5) Attitudes towards animal welfare; 6) Ethnocentrism; 7) Environment friendly food production; 8) Conjoint analysis of pig production systems; 9) preliminary product questions; 10) Pork consumption (Annex 1). Almost all items measuring attitudes were drawn from literature, and were measured by 7-point Likert scales, ranging form “totally disagree” (1) to “totally agree” (7). Items about attitude towards environmental protection and nature were developed based on the New Environmental Paradigm scale (Dunlap, Van Liere et al. 2000). Items about attitude towards industrial food production were based on the study of Beckmann et al (2001). Items about attitude towards technological progress were used by Hamstra (1991). Attitude towards animal welfare animal welfare was measured using eight items of which six came from Kendall, Lobal et al. (2006), and the other two from Lindeman and Väänänen (2000). Values getting from the items in Schwartz pictorial value questionnaire present the inner characteristics of people to guide their behaviour which they are somehow personal determinants (Schwartz 2006). Schwartz pictorial value in our question was

14 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY measured by 6-points scales, where 1 meant “Not like me at all” and 6 meant “Very much like me” and the variable values will be discussed later in the

3.2. Data Collection and Procedure

3.2.1. Data Collection

The data collection procedure was described in Krystallis et al. (2009). In short, the questionnaires were electronically distributed in the second half of January 2008, after they were pre-tested. They were self-administered by the respondents, which means they were not assisted during completion, in order to avoid interviewer bias.

3.2.2. Dependent Variables

Attitudes towards animal welfare were assessed through eight items in the fifth part of the questionnaire. These items were categorized into three groups named food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility. The food choice motivation category included items reflecting to what extent that people agree with that animal welfare as a motivation to choose a specific food, i.e. consumer with a higher mean value of this category consider more about animal welfare and take it as a motivation when they choose food. The second category, animal treatment, consisted of three items that reflect general ethical animal treatment issue. The issue came from to which extent you agree with that animals should be treated in a more friendly way, i.e. the higher mean value got form this category indicates consumer support better treatment to animal. The animal utility category reflected the evaluative concept of general utilitarianism, i.e. to what extent that people believe human need or use animal without concern for the welfare of the animals (Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). . The lower mean value stands for the strong oppose against animal utilitarianism and higher concern for animal welfare (Table 3-1). All eight attitude items would be used for statistic analysis.

15 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Table 3-1 Attitudes toward animal welfare questionnaire items

Food choice motivation - It is important that the food that I normally eat has been produced in a way that animals have not experienced pain - It is important that the food that I normally eat has been produced in a way that animals' rights have been respected Animal Treatment - In general, humans have too little respect for the quality of life of animals - Increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed - Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animal Animal Utility - As long as animals do not suffer pain, humans should be able to use them for any purpose. - It is acceptable to use animals to test consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics and household cleaners - Hunting animals for sport is an acceptable form of recreation

3.2.3. Independent Variables

3.2.3.1. Food Related Lifestyle

The food-related lifestyle instrument is developed as a tool to measure how people link food to the attainment of life values. We tried to find the relationship with these values and the attitudes towards animal welfare among consumers. All the items associated with food related lifestyle were classified into (1) quality aspect (2) purchasing motives aspect (3) cooking methods aspect (4) ways of shopping aspect and (5) consumption situations aspect (Bruns, Scholderer et al. 2004; Hoek, Luning et al. 2004). The quality aspect refers to attributes applying to food products, generally linking to health, price/quality ratio, novelty, organic products, taste and freshness. Purchasing motives aspect refers to what is expected from a meal and what is the relative importance of these various consequences. How important are social aspects, hedonism, tradition, and security? The cooking method aspect includes items related to whether you are interested in cooking or looking for new ways or convenience, whether cooking is a whole family involvement or woman’s task or planning activity.

16 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Items related to how people buy food products were in the ways of shopping aspect. Such as whether consumers read labels and other product information during shopping, or whether they rely on the advice of experts or advertisements and whether they do shopping specialty food shops. Questions about how meals spread over the day and whether eating is a social event were included in consumption situations aspect (Bruns, Scholderer et al. 2004).

3.2.3.2. Schwartz Pictorial Value

The items from Schwartz Pictorial Value were categorized into ten categories to see to which extent the responders have the sense of achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, power, security, self-direction, stimulation, tradition and universalism (Aertsens, Verbeke et al. 2008). These senses were showed to have some affect on the consumers’ behaviour.

3.2.3.3. Environment and Nature, Industrial Food Production and Technological Progress

The first five items in the fourth part of the questionnaire were classified into the environment and nature category reflecting to what extent people think they are doing harm to the environment. The industrial food production category contained the next five items which reflected to what extent people believe industrial food production destroy the nutritional value of the food. The remaining items in technological progress category reflect to which extent the responder feel technological progress had a positive effect.

3.2.3.4. Ethnocentrism

The eight items related to ethnocentrism were divided into two categories (Krystallis, de Barcellos et al. 2009). The fist category named “employment” included the first three items and reflected the degree that people wish to keep the employment rate. The other category named “ecology” included remaining items reflecting the degree that people want to prevent the local economy.

17 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.2.3.5. Others

Besides the independent variables mentioned above, other independent variables include socio-demographic characters, environment friendly food production and consumption of animal-based products and familiarity of the primary pork production

3.2.4. Procedure of analyzing

The survey data was statistically analyzed using the software package SPSS 17.0. The mean values of food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility were calculated and compared by either independent T-test (in the case of comparing two categories) or by One-way ANOVA (in the case of comparing more than two categories). Bivariate correlation tests were used to compare two interval-scaled variables. When implementing one-way ANOVA, Levene test was first used to check for equal variances. Post hoc Dunnett T3 multiple comparison test was used when equal variance was not assumed and post hoc Scheffe multiple comparison test for equal variance was assumed. 99% confidence interval was chosen because of the big sample size.

Study 2

3.0. Background of China

The concept of “animal welfare” had been introduced to China only in the last decade but for more than twenty years in Western countries. For this reason our sample was targeted mainly to the young generation in China. On the other hand, the education level and the economic states of citizens in China are extremely different between different regions. In order to make our target population comparable with European countries, we chosen our target group from those who live or work in the eastern-northern part of China, especially in Shanghai, Beijing and Nanjing which are the three most developed cities in China. The economical and educational levels of

18 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY these three cities are presented in Table 3-2 with the comparison with the five countries from Western Europe in study 1.

Table 3-2 Comparison of economic and educational level between China and Western Europe

Education Level (2007) Gross national income per Gross enrollment rate(%) tertiary1 capita (PPP, 2008)2 average 22.13 $6,0101 Beijing 57 $22,371 China Shanghai 652 $27,734 Nanjing 55.3 $9,720 Belgium 62.13 $35,3801 Denmark 80.33 $37,5301 Germany 46.13（1995） $35,9501 Poland 66.93 $16,7101 Greece 90.83 $28,3001 1. the number of pupils (total, male, female) enrolled in tertiary, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population (total, male, female) of the five-year age group following on from the secondary school leaving age 2. PPP: purchasing power parity

Animal welfare is a new concept to Chinese consumers. As such, the aim of this study is to have a general picture with respect to how Chinese people think about farm animal welfare, and to learn more about their knowledge level, attitudes, perceptions, and information needs.

3.1. Questionnaire and Scale

In Study 2, a preliminary food choice questionnaire of 25 items was generated through choosing questions from Study 1 added by other questions related to animal welfare since “animal welfare” has not been a real issue yet in China. The chosen question included questions related to socio-demographic characteristics and familiarity of the primary pork production in study 1. Other questions included the importance of the production attributes, the evaluation of animal welfare in China and the knowledge of animal welfare among Chinese consumers. Almost all items

1 Data Source: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf 2 Data Source: http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/ 3 Data Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

19 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY measuring attitudes were measured by 5-point scales except the items related to evaluation of animal welfare of China which was measured by 7-point scales, “very poor” (1) and “very good” (7).

3.2. Data Collection and Method

3.2.1. Data Collection

The fieldwork took place during January 20th and February 28th, 2010 after editing, correcting, electronic programming and translating the electronic questionnaire.

3.2.2. Dependent Variables

Attitudes towards animal welfare were assessed mainly through 4 questions used in the questionnaire. These questions included how important animal welfare as a product attribute is for consumers when choosing animal food products and whether the consumers will concern about animal welfare when they buy them, how consumers evaluate the welfare of production animals in China and also whether they are willing to get the information about animal welfare.

3.2.2.1. Animal welfare as a Product Attribute Perceived importance reflects how a consumer weighs the different attributes of a product and then makes a purchasing decision. In our questionnaire, 18 product attributes were provided for their perceived importance of animal welfare in the food purchasing decision process with a five-point, where 1 meant “totally unimportant” and 5 meant “very important”. These product attributes include: price, taste, reliability, quality, origin, health, safety, appearance, freshness, environmental friendliness, availability, animal welfare, religion, political dietary restrain, eating style, convenience and production method.

3.2.2.2. Concern for Animal Welfare Respondent’s attitude was measured in terms of concerning for animal welfare when buying products. They were asked by “Are you concerned about ‘animal welfare’

20 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY while you have to buy animal products?” and this was measured on a five-point interval scale by “not at all concern” (1) to “very much concern” (5).

3.2.2.3. Evaluation of Animal Welfare in China Respondent’s attitude was measured in terms of evaluating the current state of farm animal welfare in China. Therefore the statement: “Do you believe the current state of farm animal welfare in China in general is…?” was used. This item was measured on a seven-point interval scale by “very poor” (1) to “very good” (7).

3.2.2.4. Attitude towards Information Provision about Animal Welfare Respondent’s attitude in terms of willing to know the information about animal welfare was measured by the statement “Do you wish to know more information about animal welfare when buying animal products?” This item was measured by five scale “not at all willing” (1) to “very much willing” (5).

3.2.3. Independent Variables

3.2.3.1 Knowledge and conceptualization of animal welfare among Chinese consumers In order to gain insights in the level of knowledge about animal welfare in China, two questions were given to the respondents “have you ever heard about animal welfare”, and “which item(s) do you think can be included in the concept of animal welfare”. On the first question, respondents could tick one of the three answers, “I have never heard of it”, “I have heard of it but do not know much about it” and “I have heard of it and know a lot about it”. The second question was based on the five freedoms, developed by the Brambell committee (Brambell 1965). Five options included five aspects of “five freedoms” (1) freedom from hunger and thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour (2) freedom from discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area (3) freedom from pain, injury or disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment (4) freedom to express normal behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind (5) freedom from fear and

21 RESEARCH MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering (Brambell 1965). The responders can tick more than one answer if they want.

3.2.3.2 Familiarity with Livestock Production Familiarity was assessed using the item “Do you know any animal producer?”, “Do you have any animal farm nearby?” and “Have you ever visited a farm?” Respondents were expected to answer “Yes” or “No”. Respondents who already visited a farm were further asked by which farm animals were kept on that farm.

3.2.3.3 Consumption of animal products The consumption frequency of animal food products was probed on 7-point scales that range from “yearly or less frequent” (1) to “Daily” (7). Consumers’ responses were registered for pig, beef, chicken, duck, goose, fish, and milk and eggs.

3.2.4. Procedure of analyzing

Descriptive statistics were used to obtain the importance of animal welfare as a food product attribute, the knowledge of animal welfare among Chinese consumers, the concern for animal welfare including whether they were willing to pay a higher price for it and whether they were interested in information about animal welfare, and also the evaluation of welfare of animals in China. 95% confidence interval was chosen in Study 2 since the sample size was comparatively smaller than Study 1. The mean values of the importance of animal welfare as a product attribute for consumers, whether the consumers will concern about animal welfare when they buy animal food products, how consumers evaluate the welfare of production animals in China and whether they are willing to get the information about animal welfare were calculated and compared by either independent T-test or One-way ANOVA. The relation between two interval-scaled variables was tested using bivariate correlation-tests.

22 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4. Results and Discussion

Study 1

4.1. Sample Characteristics

A total number of 2,386 respondents intentionally targeted to 20 to 70 years old completed this questionnaire with an average age of 41 years (SD=13). The sample was almost equally distributed in gender, education and all the five countries (nearly

20% in each). The detailed profile of the sample is presented in Table 4-1.

4.2. Scale Reliabilities

All eight items evaluating attitude towards animal welfare in part 5 have first been tested for reliability. Cronbach alpha values are α=0.789 for attitudes towards food choice motivation (2 items), α=0.688 for attitudes towards animal treatment (3 items), α=0.639 for attitude towards animal utility (3 items). These values indicate a satisfactory reliability. As such, the different items could be merged in the three respective constructs to represent consumers’ attitudes towards animal welfare.

4.3. Relation between Socio-demographic Characters and Attitude towards Animal Welfare

4.3.1. Gender

Men and women have significantly different (p<0.001) attitudes towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility (Table

4-2). Women are more easily to take animal welfare as a motivation of choosing food than men and also they are likely to express affection by the treatment of animals. On the other hand, men pay more attention to the practical and material value of animals or the animal’s habitat than to animal welfare comparing with women.

23 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-1 Socio-demographic characters of sample

Item Sample Number Sample（％） Sex Male 1,184 49.6 Female 1,202 50.4 Country Belgium 485 20.3 Denmark 466 19.5 Poland 465 19.5 Greece 498 20.9 Germany 472 19.8 Age 20-29 572 24 30-40 620 26 41-51 583 24.4 51-70 611 25.6 Living environment Urban area 1,007 42.2 Rural area with many pigs 751 31.5 Rural area with few pigs 628 26.3 Current marital state Married 1,202 50.4 Not married but living together 332 13.9 Not married and not living together 586 24.6 Devoiced 221 9.3 Widowed 45 1.9 Education ≤ 18 years 1,218 51.0 ＞18 years 1,168 49.0 Financial state Not well off 229 4.6 Difficult 109 9.6 Modest 681 28.5 Reasonable 1,168 49 Well off 199 8.3 Total 2,386 100%

24 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-2 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with gender

Sex respondent Mean (SD) p-Value Food choice Man 5.55 (1.41) 0.00 motivation Woman 5.93 (1.28) Animal Man 5.30 (1.22) 0.00 Treatment Women 5.56 (1.15) Man 3.09( 1.42) Animal Utility 0.00 Women 2.52 (1.39)

These findings confirm earlier results (Serpell 2004; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006, Heleski, Mertig et al. 2004, Mathews and Harold A. Herzog 1997; Paul and Podberscek 2000). Women in general have a higher total attitude score towards animal welfare and a higher concern for animal welfare than men. They are motivated by the attribute of animal welfare to choose food and oppose to utilitarianism. This may be due to that women are easier to be affected by cure ways of treating animals and arouse empathy for animals than men. Also women have more chance to come in contact with animals because of the higher involvements in the housework and care work in the whole family (Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006). On the other hand, we can assume that the different attitude towards animal welfare between man and women is also related to the higher preference among males to consuming meat (Table 4-3). The desire to enjoy animal-based foods leads to a less concern about animal welfare among man. Table 4-3 Frequency of Total Pork Consumption in the Relation of Gender

Total Pork Consumption (SD)1 p –value2

Male 1.73 (1.59) 0.000* Female 1.32 (1.28)

25 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.3.2. Age

The sample was intentionally divided into four age groups with an almost equally distribution in group size (Table 4-1). No significant difference is founded in the attitudes towards animal treatment among different age groups (Table 4-4). But differences are founded in the attitude towards food choice motivation and animal utility (Table 4-4). In these two categories, consumers in 20-29 years old group have higher concern about animal welfare against animal utilitarianism while they are more easily to neglect the animal welfare as a product attribute when they make choice.

Totally opposite situation happens in the group of 41-51 year old. Table 4-4 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with age 20-29 30-40 41-51 52-70 p-value year old year old year old year old (between groups) Food choice 5.51A 5.60AB 5.97C 5.89C 0.000* motivation1 (1.47) (1.35) (1.30) (1.25) Animal 5.40 5.31 5.51 5.50 0.013 Treatment (1.17) (1.20) (1.20) (1.20) 2.65A 2.74AB 3.00BC 2.81 ABC Animal Utility2 0.000* (1.42) (1.40) (1.44) (1.44) 1. A-C Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Dunnett T3 multiple comparison test). 2. A-C Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Scheffe multiple comparison test).

It was found that young people were distinctively activated by the attitude values associated with empathy and they were more emotional (Harper and Henson 2000) which can be explain the higher disagreement value towards animal utility in our study. Our findings related to food choice motivation are in conflict to the literatures of Kellert and Berry (1980) and Nibert (1994). We suppose two factors lead to less importance of animal welfare to young people in choosing food. First, young people treated animals as living creatures and they have a stronger wish to enjoy food and have better quality of life. Secondly, young people are always quick decision makers

26 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION and like routine purchasing when they are in the shops. Therefore, they seldom search for specific information related to animal welfare initiatively.

4.3.3. Living Environment

No significant varieties in the attitude towards animal welfare in the aspect of food choice motivation (p=0.075) and animal treatment (p=0.069) are found between consumers from urban areas and from rural areas in all five countries. But when we look to animal utility, consumers from urban areas are much more worried about animal welfare when being asked the question related to using animals than those from rural areas (p<0.001). The findings related to animal treatment and animal utility are consistent to that in previous literature of Kendall, Lobal et al (2006). For further exploration, we divided consumers from rural areas more specifically into two groups, rural areas with many pigs and rural areas with few pigs. We find that animal welfare is more likely to be a motivation of choosing foods for consumers from rural areas with few pigs. Meanwhile they pay less attention to it when they really use animals comparing to consumers from rural areas with few pigs. No significant difference of ethical animal treatment between these two groups is found (.

Table 4-5). Table 4-5 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility in the relation with living environment

Rural area with Rural area with Urban area p-Value many pigs few pigs Food Choice 5.68A 5.69AB 5.90C 0.003* Motivation1 (1.38) (1.37) (1.28) Animal 5.48 5.34 5.45 0.040 Treatment (1.17) (1.19) (1.24) Animal 2.68A 2.87AB 2.92B 0.001* Utility2 (1.39) (1.48) (1.42) 1. A-C Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Dunnett T3 multiple comparison test). 2. A-B Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Scheffe multiple comparison test).

27 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Consumers from rural areas consider animal welfare much more when buying foods since they have more chance to come in contact with animals. On the other hand, they use animals with less consideration of their welfare, owing to the different utilitarian purpose of animal between rural areas and urban areas. In rural areas, people rely on animals not only for food, but also for some agriculture activities such as cultivation and milling while in urban areas, animals are often raised as pets for funny or accompany. This can also be used to explain why there is a higher agreement in urban areas with better treatment to animals. In addition, the rural areas with limited number of animals can provoke more concern for animals. Simultaneously people there also put more focus on the using value of animals since they still need animals to do agriculture work in their daily life. That can be the reason for the higher agreement with animal utility but more consideration for animal welfare as a motivation of food choice in the rural areas with few pigs comparing with that with many pigs.

4.3.4. Living State

We classified marital state into two groups named living alone and not living alone. The category of living alone included the responders who were not married, divorced or widowed. The other category included those who were married or were not married but living together. Significant difference between groups of living alone and not living alone was only observed in the attitudes towards animal utility (P<0.001). Living alone respondents have stronger conflict to that neglect the welfare of animals when using them

(Table 4-6) comparing with not living alone people. Same finding was observed in previous literature of Kendall, Lobal et al. (2006) that consumers not living alone spend more energy on family work which may lead to the utilitarian purpose of animals.

28 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-6 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with living state Living alone Not living alone p-Value (2 tailed)

Food Choice Motivation 5.66(1.42) 5.79(1.32) 0.025

Animal Treatment 5.43(1.22) 5.43(1.18) 0.922

Animal Utility 2.66(1.40) 2.89(1.44) 0.000*

The probably reason is that people who are not living alone (1) want animals to do more agricultural production for getting more profit to support a bigger family (2) have no energy or time to consider about animal welfare. For example, they need to prepare for a bigger meal for the whole family and take care of their children. In contrast, people living alone may spend more time with animals as friends and take better care of them. They tend to rely on animals to get rid of loneliness rather than use them for some purposes. But this hypothesis needs to be proved by further studies. Consumers not living alone have higher agreement with taking animal welfare as a motivation of choosing foods. This may be caused by more time involved for this segment of consumers to choosing foods in order to, for example, meet all the requirements of their families, while for consumers living alone they do shopping more easily and quickly.

4.3.5. Countries

There is a significant difference in the attitudes toward animal welfare among these five countries (Table 4-7). Consumers in Demark consider much more about animal welfare when they are making choice of buying food. On the contrary, in Greece consumers are least concerned about it when choosing food, although they are strongest against to the utilitarianism of animals in all five countries. Comparing with consumers in other countries, consumers in Belgium seem to have the lowest agreement with the ethical animal treatment issue that more attention should be put to better treatment to animals. In Poland, the highest valued got in animal utilitarianism

29 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

indicates that consumers are in a higher agreement of using animal with less or without consideration of animal welfare. Table 4-7 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with difference countries

BELGIUN DENMARK POLAND GREECE GERMANY p-Value. Food choice 5.70BC 6.06D 5.67AB 5.38A 5.91BCD 0.000 motivation1 (1.41) (1.10) (1.40) (1.49) (1.22) Animal 5.19A 5.55BCD 5.59BCD 5.42ABC 5.41AB 0.000 Treatment1 (1.36) (1.04) (1.21) (1.08) (1.21) Animal 3.04CD 2.85C 3.32D 2.34A 2.49AB 0.000 Utility1 (1.45) (1.44) (1.45) (1.33) (1..27) 1. A-D Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Dunnett T3 multiple comparison test).

The difference among different countries can be caused by the different socio-demographic characteristics of our respondents in different countries. For example, higher percentage of urban respondents in Greece (74.9%) than that in Belgium (33.8%), Denmark (33.3%), Poland (33.5%) and Germany (33.7%) leads to a higher agreement in animal utility. On the other hand, according to the previous literatures, public attitude towards animal welfare can be modified not only by individual human attributes, but also by culture factors and the science development. We suppose that the difference between different countries are mainly due to the different cultures, but can also be due to the different level of animal science and law development. Since in our questionnaire there is no question related to culture, low and animal science, this hypothesis need to be explored by further studies.

4.4. Independent Variables influencing Attitude towards Animal Welfare

4.4.1. Education Level, Financial State and Household Size

We divided the education level into two. Responders who have received further education after high school, including bachelor, master or beyond are in the superior education group (≥18 years) while the others are in the high education group (<18 years). There was an almost equal distribution of the sample in the education level.

30 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nearly 50% of our responders claimed that the financial states of their households are reasonable. The distribution of household size in our sample is presented in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8 The distribution of household size and Financial state

Number of the household Number of the responders Percentage of the total sample 1 468 19.6 2 711 29.8 3 525 22.0 4 429 18.0 5 150 6.3 5+ 56 4.2 Financial state Number of the responders Percentage of the total sample Not well off 109 4.6 Difficult 229 9.6 Modest 681 28.5 Reasonable 1168 49.0 Well off 199 8.3 Total 2386 100

By doing T-test, there is no significant difference in the attitudes towards animal welfare between consumers in the superior education group (≥18 years) and consumers in the high education group (<18 years) (Table 4-9). Table 4-9 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with education level

high education superior education p-Value (2 tailed) group (<18 years) group(≥18 years)

Food Choice Motivation 5.81(1.35) 5.67(1.36) 0.015

Animal Treatment 5.48(1.19) 5.38(1.20) 0.047

Animal Utility 2.76(1.43) 2.85(1.43) 0.144

For further exploration, we did one-way ANOVA to compare the attitude towards animal welfare between four levels of education, elementary school or lower, lower secondary school, upper secondary school and beyond high school/university. Within these four levels, significant different in attitudes toward animal welfare was only observed in the term of food choice motivation and animal treatment (Table 4-10).

31 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-10 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with four levels of education

Elementary Lower Upper Beyond High school or secondary secondary school / p-Value lower school school University (18+) (<12 y) (12-15) (15-18) Food Choice 5.57A 6.08AD 5.69ABC 5.67AB 0.000* Motivation1 (1.52) (1.22) (1.38) (1.36)

Animal 5.95ABC 5.61BC 5.41AB 5.38A 0.003* Treatment1 (0.84) (1.14) (1.21) (1.20)

3.13ABC 2.63A 2.81AB 2.85ABC Animal Utility2 0.74 (1.86) (1.37) (1.45) (1.43)

1. A-D Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Dunnett T3 multiple comparison test). 2. A-C Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.01, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Scheffe multiple comparison test).

On the other hand, negative correlations between attitudes towards animal welfare in the aspect of food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility on the one hand and financial states and family size on the other hand were found (Table 4-12). These results are consistent with previous literature findings which concluded the negative attitudes were raised by less contact with animals in the higher education or higher financial states group and less energy of the people from large families to focus on animal welfare issue (Harper and Henson 2000; Paul and Podberscek 2000; Serpell 2004; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006; Signal and Taylor 2006)

4.4.2. Food Related Lifestyles

Consumers who pay more attention to quality aspects, who enjoy shopping, who more frequently do shopping in special shops or buy organic foods, who always planned what to buy in advanced, who are not care the price of the products, who like to search information of the products have higher concern of animal welfare in food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility.

32 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the previous literature, animal welfare was found to be used as an indicator for other more important product attributes including healthy, safety and quality aspect (Harper and Henson 2000). For consumers who buy organic foods and who do not care the price of the products, they may think products produced by higher animal welfare animals are in higher quality than other products. For consumers who more frequently do shopping in special shop, who think shopping should be planned in advance and who like to search information of the products are more easily being exposed to the animal welfare issues. Consequently, higher concern about animal welfare is formed (Table 4-12). Interestingly, consumer who have more interest in cooking and finding new ways of cooking, who prefer conveniently cooking, who think cooking is women’s task but with whole family involvement concern about animal welfare when buying them and they support better treatment to animals. But they have relatively lower concern for animal utility. It still needs further exploration

4.4.3. Schwartz Pictorial Value

Higher concern of animal welfare related to food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility are found among the individuals with more benevolence and higher sense of being in security, and those who advocate hedonism, self-direction, universalism and more stimulation in their lives. People who want to keep conformity with others and to hold the power of themselves have a relatively negative attitude towards animal welfare. Consumers who want to follow the customs either handed down by his religion or his family and those who want to be recognized of his achievement have more consideration about animal welfare when buying foods and support to that better treatment are needed for animals, even though they do not hold a stronger concern of attitudes towards animal utilitarianism (Table 4-12).

4.4.4. Environment and Nature, Industrial Food Production and Technological Progress Environment and nature: There is a positive correlation between worry about environment and nature and their attitude towards animal welfare in the term of all the

33 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION three aspects. People who are worried about environment and nature are more willing to know the information and issues about natural life of the animals and their welfare and concern for it (Table 4-12). Industrial Food production: Negative attitudes towards industry food production do not lead to a negative attitude to animal utilitarianism but leads to higher concern of animal welfare as a food choice motivation and animal treatment. Since the industry food production provoke anxiety of the consumers about the negative effect of the products but not really the anxiety with the animals (Table 4-12). Technological progress: People keeping a positive attitude to technological progress also keep a higher concern for animal welfare as a motivation of choosing foods. On the other hand, they do not think animals needed to be treated better by human-beings and they keep a lower concern about animal utility. We suppose these people believe the animal utilitarianism and the treatment of them can be improved by the technological progress. For example, farms use machines instead of animals to milling or cultivation in the western countries (Table 4-12).

4.4.5. Ethnocentrism

Consumers who support ethnocentrism in order to keep the rate of employment and protect the national economy are more concerned about animal welfare in the aspect of food choice motivation and animal treatment. In contrary, they keep less concern about animal welfare when using animals (Table 4-12).

4.4.6. Food Production Related to Environment Protection

People who think food should be produced in an environment friendly way also support that animal welfare can become a motivation of choosing food, animal should be treated in a friendly way and we should combat and resist animal utilitarianism. Again, this is because they are more willing to know the information and issue about natural life of the animals and their welfare and more concern for it (Table 4-12)

34 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.4.7. Pork Eating Habit and Frequency of Total Pork Consumption

Two hundred forty three consumers (10.1%) in our sample are vegetarian. In most of the previous literatures (Lindeman and Väänänen.M 2000; Kendall, Lobal et al. 2006), it was found that vegetarians have a much higher concern for animal welfare. In our study we found vegetarians not only have a higher concern for animal welfare in the

aspect of food choice motivation, animal treatment, but also in animal utility (Table

4-11). The view on ethical animal treatment can influence the consumer’s eating habits, i.e. being a vegetarians or a non-vegetarians. Vegetarians seem to have higher concern for animal treatment and pay more attention to what they are eating for

example they will choose higher animal welfare products (Table 4-11). On the other hand, more frequent total pork consumption leads to a negative attitude towards animal welfare in each category. We think this may be due to the strong

desire to eating meat and enjoy foods and quality life (Table 4-11). Table 4-11 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with pork eating habit

Food Choice motivation Animal Treatment Animal Utility Non-vegetarian 5.74 (1.35) 5.42 (1.19) 2.86 (1.44) Vegetarian 5.98 (1.31) 5.77 (1.16) 2.51 (1.47) P-Value 0.238 0.758 0.490

4.5. Familiarity with Primary Pork Production and Attitude towards animal welfare Consumers who are not familiar with primary pork production, i.e. those who do not know a pig producer or those who do not have a farm nearby, tend to have higher concern of animal welfare in the aspect of food choice motivation and animal

treatment (Table 4-13). This may be caused by the curiosity or interesting in animal production with a different attribute (animal welfare) which leads to the higher attention on animal welfare. Furthermore, these consumers keep lower concern for animal utility due to the less contact with animals compare to consumers who are more familiar with primary pork production.

35 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-12 Correlation between Independent Variables with Attitude towards Animal Welfare

Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Food Choice Animal Treatment Animal Utility Motivation Financial State -0.069** -0.071** 0.080** Household Size -0.071** -0.076** 0.028** Quality aspects 0.023** 0.282** -0.077** Purchasing motives 0.112** 0.168** 0.007 Food Related Cooking methods 0.045* 0.088** 0.056** Life style Ways of shopping 0.135** 0.169** -0.007 Consumption situations -0.036 0.019 0.050* Achievement 0.003 0.050* 0.023 Benevolence 0.218** 0.179** -0.136** Conformity -0.002 -0.029 0.093** Hedonism 0.023 0.022 -0.035 Schwartz Power -0.086** -0.36 0.064** Pictorial Value Security 0.119** 0.135** -0.030 Self-direction 0.158** 0.168** -0.087** Stimulation 0.023 0.096** -0.002 Tradition 0.024 0.040 0.065** Universalism 0.327** 0.307** -0.193** Worry about Environment and Nature 0.055** 0.151** -0.029 Negative Attitudes to Industrial Food 0.122** 0.192** 0.061** Production Positive Attitudes to technological Progress 0.012 -0.012 0.247** Employment 0.094** 0.137** 0.024** Ethnocentrism Ecology 0.059** 0.094** 0.050* Food Production Related to Environment 0.476** 0.432** -0.232** Preservation Total Pork Consumption -0.035 -0.041* 0.086** *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

36 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-13 Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and anima utility in the relation with familiarity of primary production

Food Choice Animal Treatment Animal Utility Motivation Know a Pig Producer 5.64 (1.46) 5.29 (1.31) 3.03 (1.46) Don’t Know a Pig Producer 5.79 (1.32) 5.50 (1.15) 2.76 (1.44) P-Value 0.005* 0.001* 0.954 Farm Nearby 5.70 (1.42) 5.37 (1.28) 3.06 (1.48)

No Farm Nearby 5.79 (1.33) 5.49 (1.15) 2.76 (1.44)

P-Value 0.103 0.006* 0.682

Study 2

4.1. Sample Characteristics

A total number of 98 respondents intentionally mainly targeted to 17 to 44 year old (90.8%) completed this questionnaire with an average age of 29 years (SD=10). The detailed profile of the sample is presented in Table 4-14. In this survey, in order to make our sample comparable in the term of economic and education level to the sample in Study 1, the survey was mainly done among people living in big cities. Thus there is a strong bias towards characteristics of our sample like living environment.

4.2 Animal welfare as a Product Attribute

Among all the 18 attributes of meat-based products we gave out, consumers think safety, freshness, healthy, quality and reliability are the five most important attributes of the products, followed by the taste, dietary restraint, eating style, familiarity, environmental friendliness (Table 4-15). It shows that consumers in our target sample are now aware of the impacts that their foods have on their healthy and critical about the safety of their foods.

37 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-14 Socio-demographic characters of Chinese sample

Item Sample Number Sample（％） Sex Male 53 54.1 Female 45 45.9 Age 17-29 69 70.4 30-40 17 17.4 41+ 12 12.2 Living environment A big city 89 91.8 The suburbs of outskirts of a big city 2 2.0 A town of a small city 3 3.1 A country village 3 3.1 Current marital state Non-single Married 37 37.8 Not married 58 59.1 Single Devoiced 3 61 3.1 62.2 Widowed 0 0 Education Lower than secondary school 0 0 ≤ 18 years Secondary School 6 21 6.1 21.4 High school 15 15.3 University 52 53.1 ＞18 years 77 78.6 Master or beyond 25 25.5 Financial state Not well off 4 4.1 Difficult 2 2.0 Modest 66 67.3 Reasonable 15 15.3 Well off 3 3.1 Do not know 8 8.2 Pet Keeping Pet keeper 25 25.5 Non-pet keeper 73 74.5 Total 98 100

38 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-15 Importance of different product attributes

Product attribute Mean (SD) Safety 4.73(0.57) Freshness 4.56(0.63) Health 4.54(0.68) Quality 4.51(0.68) Reliability 4.41(0.74) Taste 4.26(0.63) Dietary restraint(weight control, disease) 3.74(1.05) Eating style/ familiarity 3.72(0.97) Environmental friendliness 3.72(1.00) Convenience 3.53(0.94) Availability 3.37(0.97) Appearance 3.36(0.90) Price 3.32(0.83) Production method 3.27(1.11) Origin 3.16(0.92) Animal welfare 2.80(1.01) Religion 2.17(1.14) Political 1.92(1.04)

Our consumers are comparably not so interested in the attributes of convenience availability, appearance, and the price of the products. It may be caused by: (1) the culture of China: Chinese people have high interest in cooking and eating, they are ready to buy food far away, spend a lot of time on cooking and focus on taste instead of appearance and price. (2) the way of buying food: Although there are a lot of supermarkets nearby where the consumers live in China, people are still accustom to going to the markets which may be far away from them to buy foods since they think foods there are more fresh then in the supermarkets (3) Socioeconomic state: Most of our samples are in higher economic areas than others in China, so the price is not so important to them.

39 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On the other hand, animal welfare together with religion and political reasons are the three least concerned attributes of the products. In Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing, politics there are comparable open and there are not a lot of ethnic minorities there who may choose or eat food according to their religions or political reasons. Most consumers in China are not familiar with the concept of animal welfare, so they neglect animal welfare as an attribute of a product. But they think higher animal welfare products will be healthier, safer, more trustworthy, more easily available and better acceptable for them, more environmental and also the products will have better quality, better hygiene and better taste. These results show that consumers seem to easily take animal welfare as an indicator for other more important attributes of the product such as quality, health and safety (Table 4-16). The results are consistent to that in the report of Harper and Henson in 2000 (Harper and Henson 2000). Also consumer think higher animal welfare products will be more profitable for producer mainly because of the premiums on animal-friendly products (Harper and Henson 2000).

Table 4-16 Correlation between Higher Animal welfare and Other Attributes of Products

Pearson Correlation Coefficient Mean (SD) (Bivariate-test) Higher animal welfare Healthier 4.30(0.91) 0.323** Safer 4.27(0.92) 0.366** Better hygiene 4.24(0.92) 0.341** More trustworthy 4.17(0.92) 0.314** Better quality 4.16(1.00) 0.357** More expensive 4.03(1.02) 0.026 More environmental 4.02(1.04) 0.406** Better taste 3.93(0.99) 0.294** More profitable for producer 3.54(1.21) 0.200* Better acceptable for me 3.40(1.06) 0.468** More easily available 3.16(1.12) 0.338** * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

40 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.3 Knowledge of Animal Welfare among Chinese Consumers

More than half of our samples (54.1%) have never heard about animal welfare while only 2% of our samples stated that they knew it very well (Figure 4-1). The spread of knowledge of animal welfare in China is very low even in the areas with comparatively higher educational and socioeconomic state.

Figure 3 Knowledge of “animal welfare” among Chinese Consumers 53

34

9

Number of consumers Number 2

never heard about it heard about it but do heard about it and know it very well not know much about it know a lot about it Figure 4-1 Knowledge of “animal welfare” among Chinese Consumers Being asked about “the five freedoms”, 84.7% of the consumers chose the item “freedom animals from hunger and thirst”. 75.5% of them support “freedom animals from discomfort” and 73.5% support for “Freedom animals from fear and distress”. Nearly 70% of them support “freedom animals from pain, injury or disease”. 67.3% agree with “freedom to express normal behaviour of animals” and almost half of them (49%) choose all of these five items. In the three aspects of animal welfare based on previous literatures, consumers in China have more concerns on the physical state of animals, but relatively lower concerns on the mental state (feeling) and naturalness (telos). This finding is a little bit opposite to findings from previous, mainly European, studies. In the study of Vanhonacker, Verbeke et al (2008), they found citizen in European take human–animal relationship and some specific aspects included the dimensions of housing and climate (stocking density, available space and air quality), animal suffering and stress (pain through human intervention and stress), and transport and slaughter (slaughter without pain or stress) into account when thinking about animal welfare. Also in the study of Te Velde, Aarts et al. (2002), it was found that consumers think more about natural live while producers thinks more

41 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION about functional approach (physical state). Among different types of animals, more respondents supported that all animals for food production need to be better and ethical treated comparing with only mammals for food production. On the other hand, when we compared “only mammals for food production” with the “only mammals for food production with the animals for experiments” and also compared “any animals for food production” with “any animals for food production with the animals for experiments”, we found that people more concerned about animal welfare of these animals for food production than for experiments (Figure 4-2).

Percentage 100 81.6 80 56.1 60 44.9 33.7 40 20 0 percentage Only Mammals for food Any animals for food Only Mammals for food Any animals for food production production production with the animals production with the animals for experiments for experiments Figure 4-2 Agree with concern different specious of animals for animal welfare

4.4. Concern for Animal Welfare

55 consumers (56.1%) claimed they do not at all concerned (19.4%) or almost not concerned (36.7%) about animal welfare when they buy animal products. Only 21 consumers (21.4%) concerned about it while the others (22.5%) are neutral. It may be because more than half of our sample have never heard about animal welfare before, although those who know about animal welfare but do not concern about it when buying products cannot be excluded.

4.4.1 Willing to Know the Information about Animal Welfare

Almost all of the consumers (90.9%) agree with the statement that the information about animal welfare is too little available and 33.7% of our sample would will to know the information about animal welfare when they are buying animal products. Around 70% of our consumers stated that more information about animal welfare will influence their meat consumption pattern (Table 4-17). Comparing with the consumers

42 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION in Europe, the consumption pattern of European consumers is not influenced by the information about animal welfare so easily as Chinese consumers (Vanhonacker, Verbeke et al. 2007). In addition, among all the way of getting information of animal welfare, consumers prefer to get information through internet, special animal welfare label, food label and science departments. On the other hand, consumers have a relatively lower trust in farmers since in China, we suppose this is due to that (1) most of the farmers have a lower education level and consumers believe farmers do not know animal welfare or nor well known about it which leads to they are not willing to know the information from farmers. (2) It seems difficult for farmers to feed the high welfare animals since they should assure the yields to meet the huge demand of the market in China, especially without a subsidy from the government.

Table 4-17 Different ways that consumers willing to getting information about Animal Welfare Willing to know the information about AW Internet 4.00 (0.91) Animal welfare label 3.98 (0.93) Food Label 3.92 (0.90) Science departments 3.97 (2.03) Food Industry 3.78 (0.93) Animal welfare organization 3.77 (0.91) TV 3.64 (0.96) Newspaper 3.63 (0.97) Government 3.61 (1.02) School/University 3.58 (0.95) Magazine/Leaflet 3.58 (0.90) Family/Friend/Acquaintances 3.57 (0.94) Radio 3.48 (0.97) Retail/shop 3.40 (0.90) Farmer 3.32 (0.91)

4.5. Evaluation of Animal Welfare in China

Only two consumers think farm animals in China live with a good or rather good welfare. Most of our consumers think the welfare of farm animals is poor, including 14.3% evaluated animal welfare in China as very poor, 21.4% evaluated it as poor and 39.8% evaluated it as rather poor, which is more or less the same as European citizens

43 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION who evaluated the overall welfare of farm animals as being between moderate and very bad (European Commission 2006). Among the chosen farm animals, consumers think dairy cattle have the highest welfare than other animals in order to keep higher productivity of dairy cattle and ensure the quality of the milk (Figure 4-3).The same results was founded in the literature of Verbeke (2009).

pig 3.04 chicken 3.07

duck 3.2 beef cattle 3.27 goose 3.32

fish 3.36 dairy cattle 3.74 Figure 4-3 Evaluation of welfare of differentScale of evaluationfarm animals of animal among welfare consumers in China

In previous studies, it was found that consumer considered cage system for laying hens as to be cruel or unnatural in Western countries (Harper and Henson 2000, Verbeke 2009). The unnatural or cruel ways of raising chicken seems to form the negative attitude among consumers in China. This can be one reason to explain why the welfare of chicken in China has the lowest appraisal comparing to other animals.

4.6. Socio­demographic Characteristics and Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Gender: In general, female pay more attention to animal welfare as an attribute of product and concern for it more when they buy the products than man. Also they have a lower evaluation about animal welfare in China. These findings are consistent to that in the Western countries in Study 1 that women have a higher concern for animal welfare. On the other hand, we find that although females are more concerned about animal welfare, they are less interested in information about animal welfare. We suppose it is maybe because female do not have enough time to search for these kind of information since they are more involved in the housework and care work in the family (Table 4-21).

44 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Marital status and household size: Non-single consumers think animal welfare as an attribute is less important to themselves than to single consumers including those who are not married, divorced and widowed, although they will really concern for it when they buy products. This can be a prove of explanation in Study 1 that non-single consumers have to choosing foods in order to meet all the requirements of their families, while for consumers living alone do shopping more easily, quickly and routinely. Meeting the whole family’s requirements leads to that non-single consumers are much more (p<0.05) willing to know the information about animal welfare then consumers who are married (Table 4-21). There is a negative correlation in the attitude towards animal welfare and household size, i.e. bigger families have lower concern for animal welfare. Table 4-18 Correlations between attitude towards animal welfare and education and household size

Pearson Correlation Coefficient Concern about Evaluation of Animal welfare as Willing to know animal welfare farm animal an attribute of information about when buying welfare in animal product animal welfare animal products china Household size -0.143 0.011 -0.107 -0.020

Pet Keeping: To consumers who have a pet, animal welfare as one of the attributes is more important comparing to consumers who have no pet. And they concern more when they buy animal-based products. We infer it is because the special experience and emotion forming from the life companied by the pets. Living with pet can rise sympathy and this emotion will be evoked when considering about animal welfare of the farm animals. Also sympathy for farm animals will lead consumers to be more worried about animals and restrict to evaluate the animal welfare of them which can be presented in the lower score in the evaluation than that of non-pet keeping consumers. However, these consumers are not willing to get the information about animal welfare. We assume this is because (1) this segment of consumers may feel they are already known well since they have a pet the animal welfare of their pet is

45 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION high (2) keeping pets takes more time and they do not have time to get the information comparing with those who have no pets (Table 4-21). Children: Consumers who have children pay more attention to animal welfare both as an attribute of animal products and when buying them. They tend to have a more negative attitude towards animal welfare of farm animals in China. We assume this is because these consumers are more focused on the quality and safety of the animal products since they want to keep their children in a good health. And animal welfare is considered to be an indicator of other attributes of the products like quality and safety(Harper and Henson 2000) they think products with higher animal welfare will be safer and in a better quality and safety. For further exploration, we divided consumers with children in two group, consumers with young children (zero to nine years old) and consumer with older children (ten to seventeen years old). We find a small difference between these two groups. Consumers with older children consider animal welfare as an attribute of products is more important than those with young children although they are not really concern about animal welfare when they buy the products and are willing to know the information about animal welfare (Table 4-21). Education and Financial state: In the previous studies, the study about people with higher education have less concern with animal welfare (Paul and Podberscek 2000; Serpell 2004) is in contrast to that higher level of education is associated with more positive affect and less positive or negative utility orientations (Kellert and Berry 1980). The study of Kendall, Lobal et al. (2006) showed that people in less affluent income groups tend to have greater concern with animal welfare while others claim there is a small, but significant, negative correlation between income and attitude towards animal welfare (Signal and Taylor 2006). In the study of China, there is no significant difference between superior education group (≥18 years) and high education group (<18 years) (Table 4-19). People in a high financial state believe animal welfare is less important as an attribute of products to them as well as when buying these products and they are not willing to know the

46 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION information about animal welfare (Table 4-20). This finding is consistent to the finding in Study 1.

Table 4-19 Attitude towards animal welfare in the relation with education level high education superior education p-Value

group (<18 years) group(≥18 years) (2 tailed)1 Animal welfare as an attribute of 3.03(1.16) 2.73(0.97) 0.64 animal product Concern about animal welfare 2.29(1.10) 2.53(1.07) 0.59 when buying animal products Evaluation of farm animal 3.04(0.97) 2.73(1.14) 0.38 welfare in China Willing to know information 3.29(1.10) 3.22(0.91) 0.41 about animal welfare

Table 4-20 Correlations between attitude towards animal welfare and education and financial state

Pearson Correlation Coefficient Animal welfare Concern about Evaluation of Willing to know as an attribute animal welfare farm animal information about of animal when buying welfare in animal welfare product animal products china Financial State -0.063 -0.166 0.097 -0.090 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.7. Familiarity with Livestock Production and attitudes towards Animal Welfare In our sample, 65.3% know some animal producer and 29.6% had visited a farm before while only 7.1% stated there is a farm nearby them. Our consumers in China are most familiar to the farms with pig, chicken and fish (Figure 4-4). 20 17 14 13 15 12 10 8 66 5

number of of consumer number 0 pig chicken fish duck goose beef cattle dariy cattle Figure 4-4 Number of consumers visiting farm with different farm animals

47 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In general, consumers who know some livestock producers or some animal farms nearby and who have visited a farm have relatively higher concern for animal welfare than the others. These people are more likely to have a lower evaluation of welfare of farm animals in China (Table 4-22). It shows that consumers have a negative assessment of animal welfare in China if they are more familiar with the environment or situations and life of farm animals or the farm systems in China. And this familiarity cause more concern about animal welfare when buying products and to know information about animal welfare.

4.8. Consumption of animal products and attitudes towards Animal Welfare In general, we found that consumers with higher animal products consumption frequency have less concern about animal welfare in the term of importance of animal welfare as an attribute of products, concern for animal welfare when buying it, evaluation of welfare of farm animals and willing to know the information about animal welfare (Table 4-23). The negative correlation shows consumers with high consumption have a higher willing to enjoy these animal-based foods. This kind of willing can lead to neglecting of animal welfare. This finding can prove the explanation about negative correlation between consumption frequency of animal product and attitude towards animal welfare in the Study 1.

48 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-21 Concern about animal welfare in the relationship with socio-demographic characteristics

Animal welfare as an Concern about animal welfare Evaluation of current state Willing to know the animal attribute of product when buying animal products of animal welfare in China welfare information Male 3.23 (0.93) 2.74(1.04) 2.94(1.22) 2.51(1.07) Gender Female 3.24 (0.98) 2.87(0.99) 2.62(0.96) 2.44(1.10)

P-Value 0.528 0.926 0.155 0.768

Single 3.54 (0.84) 2.76 (1.01) 2.62 (1.11) 2.78 (1.20)

Marital Non-single 3.05 (0.97) 2.82 (1.02) 2.90 (1.11) 2.29 (0.95) status P-Value 0.768 0.012* 0.229 0.040*

Yes 3.36(0.99) 3.08(1.00) 2.68(1.25) 2.44(1.04)

Pet keeping No 3.19(0.94) 2.72(1.00) 2.84(1.07) 2.51(1.09)

P-Value 0.125 0.458 0.554 0.768

Have children 3.21 (0.78) 3.00 (0.93) 2.92 (1.02) 3.08 (0.83)

No children 2.66 (1.05) 2.31 (1.07) 2.76 (1.14) 3.28 (0.99)

Children P-Value 0.09 0.06 0.543 0.372 Presenting Young children 3.21 (0.89) 3.07 (0.83) 2.93 (0.92) 3.29 (0.61)

Old children 3.33 (0.78) 2.92 (1.00) 3.08 (1.16) 2.92 (1.00)

49 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4-22 Correlation between familiarity with Livestock Production and total animal production consumption and concern for Animal Welfare Animal welfare Concern about Evaluation of Willing to know as an attribute animal welfare farm animal information

of animal when buying welfare in about animal product animal products China welfare Know any livestock 2.80(0.95) 2.56(1.05) 2.62(1.16) 3.25(0.90) producer Don’t know any 2.79(1.15) 2.32(1.12) 3.11(0.95) 3.20(1.07) livestock producer p-Value (2 tailed) 0.11 0.87 0.09 0.32 know any animal farm 3.00(0.82) 2.71(1.11) 2.57(1.27) 3.43(0.53) nearby Don’t know any animal 2.79(1.03) 2.46(1.08) 2.81(1.10) 3.22(0.98) farm nearby p-Value (2 tailed) 0.41 0.91 0.42 0.17 Have visited a farm 2.83(0.89) 2.69(0.89) 2.48(1.12) 3.21(0.94) Have not visited a farm 2.78(1.07) 2.39(1.14) 2.93(1.09) 3.25(0.96) p-Value (2 tailed) 0.26 0.09 0.16 0.76

Table 4-23 Correlation between frequencies of eating animal based products and concern for Animal Welfare Pearson Correlation Coefficient Animal Concern about Evaluation of Willing to know welfare as an animal welfare farm animal information Eating attribute of when buying welfare in about animal frequency animal product animal products China welfare Pig -0.16 -0.23* -0.06 -0.19 Beef -0.03 -0.10 -0.14 -0.18 Chicken e -0.23* -0.13 -0.05 -0.10 Duck -0.10 -0.14 0.04 -0.11 Goose 0.06 -0.17 0.01 -0.09 Fish 0.04 -0.01 -0.17 0.04 Milk -0.08 -0.04 -0.09 -0.20 Egg -0.15 0.02 -0.12 -0.17 Total animal -0.15 -0.16 -0.14 -0.19 production * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

50 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.9. Knowledge of animal welfare and attitudes towards Animal Welfare A significant difference between knowledge of animal welfare and attitude towards animal welfare is observed only in the item of evaluation of farm animal welfare in

our study (Table 4-24). Consumers who claimed that they knew animal welfare very well had a lower assessment of animal welfare in China. This is consistent to the finding about familiarity of animal production and assessment of animal welfare. In all our consumers who claimed that they had heard of animal welfare but did not know much about it and those who knew a lot about it, we find only 11.1% of them knew some animal farm nearby them and 33.3% of them had visited a farm before. We suppose that consumer who claimed they knew animal welfare got their knowledge mainly through some media and evaluate animal welfare in China affected by some media and their own imagination about the raise system and way for producing animal products, since most of them have not really seen the situation about the animals and their welfare in the farm. On the other hand, consumers with a higher knowledge of animal welfare are more willing to know the information about it followed by those who have never heard about it. Table 4-24 Attitude towards animal welfare in the relation with difference different level of knowledge Heard about it Heard about it Never and know a lot but do not know heard p-Value about it much about it about it Animal welfare as an attribute 2.73A 2.82AB 2.80AB 0.96 of animal product2 (1.00) (0.83) (1.13) Concern about animal2 welfare 2.63AB 2.35A 2.53AB 0.67 when buying animal products2 (1.12) (0.98) (1.14) Evaluation of farm animal 2.09A 2.74AC 2.98BC 0.05 welfare in China1 (0.94) (0.99) (1.16) Willing to know information 3.55AB 3.17A 3.21AB 0.52 about animal welfare2 (0.69) (0.94) (1.01) 1. A-C Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Dunnett T3 multiple comparison test). 2. A-B Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05, (1-way ANOVA and Post hoc Scheffe multiple comparison test).

51 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.10. Similarities and dissimilarities of attitudes towards animal welfare of Consumers from European Countries and China We found some similarities among the consumers from European countries and China even the level. These similarities include  consumers in a higher financial state have a lower concern about animal welfare.  there is a negative correlation between household size and concern for animal welfare  consumers who have a higher consumption of animal-based products and a lower concern about animal welfare  consumers who are not familiar with production animal-based products have higher concern about animal welfare in the consumers.  non-single consumers will concern about animal welfare when they buying them than single consumers

On the other hand, there are also some dissimilarity among consumers from European countries and China. Firstly, there is no significant difference between male and female consumers in China while in Europe, this difference is significant. This may be due to different level of knowledge of animal welfare among consumers in Europe and China. In China, most of the consumers either females or males do not know animal welfare very well which leads to the almost same attitudes towards it. While in Europe, female and male consumers keep different attitudes towards animal welfare since they know about it. Secondly, in China higher concern for animal welfare is found among consumers who are familiar with livestock production which is totally contrary to Europe.

52 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Now days, there is an increasing interest in animal welfare in the western markets. In order to better meet the demand and preference of them, food producers pay more attentions to animal welfare as an attribute of their products. On the same time, more researches and policies (laws) are developed to support this issue. Animal welfare has become a public concern that influences the consumers, food products producers, researchers, policy makers, etc. On the contrary, animal welfare is rather a new issue or even a total new concept in most of the developing countries.

In this research, we investigate consumers’ attitudes and perceptions towards farm animal welfare. It is based on two consumer studies. The first study consists of secondary data that was collected via consumer questionnaires in the context of a large European project (Q-PORKCHAINS) including five EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Greece). In the second study, an additional survey was performed in China by a new questionnaire.

We try to compare these attitudes and perceptions between different countries and their possible relationship with socio-demographic groups and familiarity with production of animal-based product. In addition, in Study 1, we worked on the possible relationship between different attitudes and perceptions and food related lifestyle, inner characteristics (Schwartz Pictorial Value), different attitudes towards environment and nature, industrial food production, technological progress and ethnocentrism. We found different attitudes towards animal welfare in terms of food choice motivation, animal treatment and animal utility among consumers from different countries, which can be explained by the different culture and level of animal science and law development companied by the influence of socio-demographic characteristic, food related lifestyle, inner characteristics. In Study 2, the conception of animal welfare, the level of knowledge of animal welfare and its relationship with attitude towards animal welfare were studied on the

53 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

one hand. On the other hand, the concern of animal welfare including willingness to know the information about animal welfare and the evaluation of animal welfare in China were investigated. When we delivered the questionnaire in China, most of our responders asked why we focused on studying the welfare of animals, and not the welfare of humans. Also they claimed that it seemed impossible for wide spreading of knowledge of animal welfare in China. They thought people would not care about welfare of animals since in some areas of China even the welfare of human can not be guaranteed. This is also reflected in the findings of our study. The importance of animal welfare as an attribute of products is still very low and they tend to neglect the feeling and naturalness of farm animal but only pay attention to the physical states of these animals even most of our samples coming from biggest cities of China with a high average education level and economic state. But this can also attribute to the short period that the concept of animal welfare was introduced, the lower spreading of this knowledge and little information about it.

On one hand, these results in both studies provide useful information for governments, social groups, policy makers etc. For instance, when one government wants to make a new policy on a gentle way of slaughter to decrease the fears and pain of the farm animals, first they need to raise their citizen’s awareness of animal welfare. Thus the public can understand the need of this policy. According to our results, it is important to have insights in how consumer’s socio-characteristics, knowledge, food related lifestyles affect their attitudes towards farm animal welfare and animal production practices. In this way, policy or marketing efforts can be implemented based on the needs of some specific consumer segments, and efforts to increase knowledge levels or awareness among consumers can be introduced more efficiently. On the other hand, these results reveal the need for further researches in the area of animal science, marketing and consumer behaviour, etc. In the local market, since some of the consumers are interested in animal welfare and some are not, animal-based products producers can focus on the interests or demands of their target segments of consumers who put attention on the issue about animal welfare. According to our results, they

54 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

can know much better about their target group of consumers and improve the quality of their products, development of innovative, integrated, and sustainable food production chains of high quality animal-based products to meet their demands much easier. Additionally, in the international market producers can produce exported products which are different with these consumed in local areas according to the different attitudes towards animal welfare among different countries.

The study of China shows a new picture of attitudes and perceptions towards animal welfare in some parts of China. Consumers there although not know much about it, they still have high interest in it and willing to know some information about it. It gives evidence that it is possible for governments, social groups and animal-based products producers to spread the concept of animal welfare since in some area of China or some segments of citizen or consumers they are interesting in it and they prefer to get the information mostly through internet, animal welfare label and food label. Also this study shows different picture of attitudes and perception of animal welfare of consumers in China and European countries for Chinese researchers to have further researches. However, we can not found significant difference in analyzing the relationship between animal welfare and some socio-demographic characteristics which are founded in the previous study. These socio-demographic characteristics include the living environment, education level and economic state. This could be caused by the selection bias of our sample. In order to make our sample comparable to the European consumers, we selected our sample living in the three biggest cities of China. This leads to most of our respondents coming from urban area with a relatively high education and economical states and is not representative for the entire Chinese population.

55 REFERENCES

References

Aertsens, J., W. Verbeke, et al. (2008). "Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review." British Food Journal 111: 1140-1167 Andrew Steptoe, T. M. Pollard, et al. (1995). "Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: the Food Choice Questionnarie." Appetite 25: 267-284 Appleby, M. C. and B. O. Hughes (1997). "Animal Welfare." CAB International Appleby, M. C., V. Cussen, et al. (2008). Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals Baker, S. (1993). "Picturing the beast: animals, identity, and representation" Beckmann, S. C. and S. Brokmose, Lind, R.L. (2001)." Danish Consumers and Organic Foods. "Copenhagen Business School [in Danish] Brambell (1965). "Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems." London Brambell, F. W. R. (1965). "Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems." Command Report 2836, HMSO Broom, D. M. and K. G. Johnson (1993). "Stress and animal welfare." Animal Behavior Series: 1-2 Bruns, K., J. Scholderer, et al. (2004). "Closing the gap between values and behavior--a means-end theory of lifestyle." Journal of Business Research 57(6): 665-670 Dawkins, M. S. (1980). Animal suffering: the science of animal welfare, Chapman and Hall Ltd Dawkins, M. S. (1988). "Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare." Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209 Dawkins, M. S. (2003). "Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare." Zoology 106(4): 383-387 Duncan, I. J. and J. C. Petherick (1991). "The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare." Journal of Animal Science. 69(12): 5017-5022 Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, et al. (2000). "Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale." Journal of Social Issues 56 (3) 425-442 Issues European Commission 2006 Special Eurobarometer 238 "Risk Issues". Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Luxembourg Grandin, T. (2002). "Animals Are Not Things." from http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html. Griffith, M., J. Wolch, et al. (2002). "Animal Practices and the Racialization of Filipinas in Los Angeles." Society and Animals 10(2): 21-48 Hamstra, A. M. (1991). "Biotechnology in Foodstuffs: Towards a Model of Consumer Acceptance". T. S. Institute. The Hague

56 REFERENCES

Harper, G. and S. Henson (2000). "Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice". Consumer values and concern about animal welfare. Heleski, C. R., A. G. Mertig, et al. (2004). "Assessing attitudes toward farm animal welfare: A national survey of animal science faculty members." Journal of Animal Science. 82(9): 2806-2814. Hoek, A. C., P. A. Luning, et al. (2004). "Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers." Appetite 42(3): 265-272. Karlsson, A. H. and M. Christensen. (2008). "Q-PorkChains." from http://www.q-porkchains-industry.org/fileadmin/contents/About_QPorkChains /QPorkChains_GeneralPresentation.pdf. Kellert, S. R. and J. K. Berry (1980). "Knowledge, Affection and Basic Attitudes Toward Animals in American Society." United States Government Printing Office. Washington, DC, USA. Kendall, H. A., L. M. Lobal, et al. (2006). "Public Concern with Animal Well-Bding: Place, Social Structural Location, and Individual Experience." Rural Sociology 71(3): 399-428. Krystallis, A., M. D. de Barcellos, et al. (2009). "Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems." Livestock Science 126(1-3): 46-56. Lindeman, M. and M. Väänänen (2000). "Measurement of ethical food choice motives." Appetite 34(1): 55-59. Mason, G. and M. Mendl. (1993). "Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare?" Animal Welfare 2: 301-319. Mathews, S. and J. Harold A. Herzog (1997). "Personality and Attitudes toward the Treatment of Animals " Society and Animals 5: 169-175. McGlone, J. J. J. (1993). "What is animal welfare?" Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Suppl. 1-2: 26-36. Moynagh, J. (2000). "EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare." AgBioForum 3(2 & 3 ): 107-114. Nibert, D. (1994). "Animal Rights and Human Social Issues." Society and Animals 2(1): 15-24. Paul, E. S. and A. L. Podberscek (2000). "Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal welfare." Veterinary Record. 146(10): 269-272. Phillips, C. (2009). "The Welfare of Animals." Animal Welfare 8. Schwartz, S. H. (2006). "Basic Human Values: An Overview." The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Jerusalem Seamer, J. H. (1998). "Human stewardship and animal welfare." Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59(1-3): 201-205. Serpell, J. A. (2004). "Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare." Animal Welfare 13: S145-151. Signal, T. and N. Taylor (2006). "Attitudes to animals : demographics within a community sample."

57 REFERENCES

Te Velde, H., N. Aarts, et al. (2002). "Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers' and Consumers' Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2): 203-219. Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, et al. "Citizens’ Views on Farm Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: 1-19. Vanhonacker, F. and W. Verbeke (2009). "Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not." Poultyr Science 88: 2702-2711. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, et al. (2008). "Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?" Livestock Science 116: 126-136. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, et al. (2007). "Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare." Nternational Journal Of Sociology Of Food And Agriculture Vol.15(2): 91-107. Verbeke, W. and J. Viaene (1999). "Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey." Food Quality and Preference 10:437±445. Verveke. W(2009)."Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare." Animal Science 18: 325-333

58 ANNEXES

Annex 1 Questionnaire Used in Q-PORKCHAIN

Introduction

Dear,

At this moment we realize a big international survey for different European universities. This survey is part of a publicly funded research project that aims at better understanding consumers’ attitudes to food products and food production in particular.

This questionnaire will take about 30 minutes to complete.

We would like to ask you to complete the attached questionnaire before

To start the questionnaire, please click here

The questionnaire will be sent back to us immediately after you have filled in the last question.

You participation on this study is very important!

We would like to remind you that the anonimity of your answers is always guaranteed, since they are treated in a tables format (percentages) and never in a personalised way. For more information, you can click here.

Whenever you have a question, you can always consult our website www.nid.be, or you can send us an email on XXXX

Thank you very much in advance for your partcipation.

Kind regards,

*PROG: NOT BACK AFTER EACH QUESTION

*PROG: RESPONDENT CAN CONTINUE Q'RE WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO ANSWER

DID YOU ALREADY AGREE ON THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT CAN CONTINUE THE

Q'RE WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO ASWER?

*PROG: GIVE EACH RESPONDENT RANDOMLY A NUMBER FROM 1-4 IN FUNCTION OF

SPLIT BALLOT IN PART 10

ANNEXES

PART 1: SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS *VRAAG SD1 Are you a…? 1: Man 2: Woman

*VRAAG SD2 In which year were you born? (PLEASE NOTE CORRECT YEAR) 19I__I__I

*VRAAG SD3 Which of the following describes best your current marital status? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 1: Married 2: Not married, but living together 3: Not married, living alone 4: Divorced 5: Widowed

*VRAAG SD4 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 1: Unfinished lower secondary school (elementary school) (untill 12 years old) 2: Lower secondary school (untill 12-15 years old) 3: Upper secondary school (untill 15-18 years old) 4: High school / University beyond (18 years and older)

*VRAAG SD5 How would you describe the financial status of your household? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 1: Not well off 2: Difficult 3: Modest 4: Reasonable 5: Well off 6: Don't know

*VRAAG SD6 What is your current occupation? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 1: Self-employed farmer 2: Self-employed in general 3: Managing employee

ANNEXES

4: Salaried employee 5: Skilled worker 6: Unskilled worker 7: Student 8: Retired 9: Unemployed or on leave 10: Not engaged in active employment 49: Other

*VRAAG SD8 What is your weight (in kilograms)? (PLEASE NOTE EXACT NUMBER) *PROG: RANGE 40-200 |__|__| KG

*VRAAG SD9 What is you length (in centimeters)? (PLEASE NOTE EXACT NUMBER) *PROG: RANGE 140 CM -210CM |__|__| CM

*VRAAG SD10 Which of the following discribes best the area where you live in? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 1: A big city 2: The suburbs or outskirts of a big city 3: A town or small city 4: A country village 5: A farm or home in the countryside 6: Don't know

*VRAAG SD 11 How many people are currently living in your household in each of the following age brackets, including yourself? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER PER LINE - PROCEED LINE PER LINE) 0-2 years old 3-5 years old 6-9 years old 10-13 years old

ANNEXES

14-17 years old 18-21 years old 22-25 years old 26-29 years old 30-39 years old 40-49 years old 50-59 years old 60 years old or older

1: 0 2: 1 3: 2 4: 3 5: 4 or more

*PROG: WHEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD = DOES NOT LIVE ALONE What is your ZIP code? (PLEASE NOTE YOUR ZIP CODE) I__I__I__I__I

ANNEXES

PART 2: FOOD RELATED LIFESTYLE QUESTIONS

*VRAAG 1 You are going to see several statements related to food. Can you please indicate for each statement to which extent you agree with it? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘I totally disagree’ and 7 means ‘I totally agree’. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

- To me product information is of high importance. I need to know what the product contains *PROG: ONLY TO BE ASKED TO NOT LIVING ALONES The kids or other members of the family always help in the kitchen; for example they peel the potatoes and cut the vegetables. - I only buy and eat foods which are familiar to me - Shopping for food does not interest me at all - I find taste in food products important - Usually I do not decide what to buy until I am in the shop - It is important for me to know that I get quality for all my money - Well-known recipes are indeed the best - I make a point of using natural or ecological food products - I eat before I get hungry, which means that I am never hungry at meal times - I compare product information labels to decide which brand to buy - I like buying food products in speciality stores where I can get expert advice - I compare prices between product variants in order to get the best value for money - We use a lot of ready-to-eat foods in our household - I notice when products I buy regularly change in price - I always buy organically grown food products if I have the opportunity - Dining with friends is an important part of my social life - I don't like spending too much time on cooking - I dislike everything that might change my eating habits - I have more confidence in food products that I have seen advertised than in unadvertised products - When cooking, I first and foremost consider taste - I prefer fresh products to canned or frozen products - In our house, nibbling has taken over and replaced set eating hours - I look for ways to prepare unusual meals - I do not see any reason to shop in speciality food stores - It is the woman’s responsibility to keep the family healthy by serving a nutritious diet - Going out for dinner is a regular part of our eating habits - I look for ads in the newspaper for store specials and plan to take advantage of them when I go shopping - I compare labels to select the most nutritious food

ANNEXES

- I don't mind paying a premium for ecological products - I always plan what we are going to eat a couple of days in advance - Nowadays the responsibility for shopping and cooking ought to lie just as much with the husband as with the wife - A familiar dish gives me a sense of security *PROG: ONLY TO BE ASKED TO NOT LIVING ALONES My family helps with other mealtime chores, such as setting the table and doing the dishes - To me the naturalness of the food that I buy is an important quality - I like to know what I am buying, so I often ask questions in stores where I shop for food - Recipes and articles on food from other culinary traditions make me experiment in the kitchen - Over a meal one may have a lovely chat - It is important to me that food products are fresh - I love to try recipes from foreign countries - I always check prices, even on small items - I enjoy going to restaurants with my family and friends - I like to have ample time in the kitchen - I am influenced by what people say about a food product - We often get together with friends to enjoy an easy-to-cook, casual dinner - Shopping for food is like a game to me - Before I go shopping for food, I make a list of everything I need - I prefer to buy fresh meat and vegetables rather than pre-packed - I try to avoid food products with additives - It is more important to choose food products for their nutritional value rather than for their taste - Being praised for my cooking adds a lot to my self-esteem - Frozen foods account for a large part of the food products I use in our household - I just love shopping for food - I am an excellent cook - When I serve a dinner to friends, the most important thing is that we are together - I prefer to buy natural products, i.e. products without preservatives - I consider the kitchen to be the woman’s domain - Information from advertising helps me to make better buying decisions - I use a lot of mixes, for instance baking mixes and powder soups - I make a shopping list to guide my food purchases - What we are going to have for supper is often a last-minute decision - Cooking is a task that is best over and done with - Eating is to me a matter of touching, smelling, tasting and seeing, all the senses are involved. It is a very exciting sensation - I always try to get the best quality for the best price - I eat whenever I feel the slightest bit hungry - Cooking needs to be planned in advance - I like to try new foods that I have never tasted before

ANNEXES

*PROG: ONLY TO BE ASKED TO NOT LIVING ALONES When I do not really feel like cooking, I can get one of the other members of my family to do it - I like to try out new recipes

To which extent to you agree with…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

7: Totally agree 6: 5: 4: Neither agree nor disagree 3: 2: 1: Totally disagree

ANNEXES

PART 2: SCHWARTZ PICTORIAL VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE

*VRAAG 2

You are now going to see different descriptions of people. Can you please indicate for each description, to which extent this person is like you? You can answer with a number from 1 to 6, where 1 means ‘Not like me at all' and 6 means ‘Very much like me'. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

*PROG: ASK SPLIT BALLOT A TO MEN, SPLIT BALLOT B TO WOMEN *PROG: ROTATE ITEMS WITHIN EACH SPLIT BALLOT

*SPLIT BALLOT A: MEN - Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things in his own original way - It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things - He thinks it is important that every person in the world should be treated equally. He believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life - It's important to him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he does - It's important to him to live in secure surroundings. He avoids anything that might endanger his safety - He likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. He thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life - He believes that people should do what they're told. He thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching - It is important to him to listen to people who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with them, he still wants to understand them - It is important to him to be humble and modest. He tries not to draw attention to himself - Having a good time is important to him. He likes to "spoil" himself - It is important to him to make his own decisions about what he does. He likes to be free and not depend on others - It's very important to him to help the people around him. He wants to care for their well-being - Being very successful is important to him. He hopes people will recognise his achievements - It is important to him that the government ensures his safety against all threats. He wants the state to be strong so it can defend its citizens - He looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He wants to have an exciting life - It is important to him always to behave properly. He wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong - It is important to him to get respect from others. He wants people to do what he says - It is important to him to be loyal to his friends. He wants to devote himself to people close to him - he strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to him

ANNEXES

- Tradition is important to him. He tries to follow the customs handed down by his religion or his family - He seeks every chance he can to have fun. It is important to him to do things that give him pleasure

*SPLIT BALLOT B: WOMEN - Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to her. She likes to do things in her own original way - It is important to her to be rich. She wants to have a lot of money and expensive things - She thinks it is important that every person in the world should be treated equally. She believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life - It's important to her to show her abilities. She wants people to admire what she does - It's important to her to live in secure surroundings. She avoids anything that might endanger her safety - She likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. She thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life - She believes that people should do what they're told. She thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching - It is important to her to listen to people who are different from her. Even when she disagrees with them, she still wants to understand them - It is important to her to be humble and modest. She tries not to draw attention to herself - Having a good time is important to her. She likes to "spoil" herself. - It is important to her to make her own decisions about what she does. She likes to be free and not depend on others - It's very important to her to help the people around her. She wants to care for their well-being - Being very successful is important to her. She hopes people will recognise her achievements - It is important to her that the government ensures her safety against all threats. She wants the state to be strong so it can defend its citizens - She looks for adventures and likes to take risks. She wants to have an exciting life - It is important to her always to behave properly. She wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong. - It is important to her to get respect from others. She wants people to do what she says - It is important to her to be loyal to her friends. She wants to devote herself to people close to her - She strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to her - Tradition is important to her. She tries to follow the customs handed down by her religion or her family - She seeks every chance she can to have fun. It is important to her to do things that give her pleasure

A person like this is…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

6: Very much like me

ANNEXES

5: Like me 4: Somewhat like me 3: A little like me 2: Not like me 1: Not like me at all

ANNEXES

PART 3 : ATTITUDE TOWARDS ENVIRONMENT AND NATURE, INDUSTRIAL FOOD PRODUCTION, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS

*VRAAG 3

You are going to see several statements about the environment. Can you please indicate for each statement to which extent you agree with it? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘I totally disagree’ and 7 means ‘I totally agree’. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS - Humans are severely abusing the environment - The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations - The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated - The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources - If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe - Most food manufacturers are more interested in earning money than in the nutritional quality of their products - Modern food production removes vitamins and minerals from food products - The food industry is very concerned about the nutritional value of their products - Most foods are so processed that they have lost their nutritional value - The majority of food products can be eaten without risk - The degree of civilization of a people can be measured from the degree of its technological development - New technological inventions and applications make up the driving force of the progress of society - In Belgium, and in the rest of Europe we are probably better off than ever, thanks to the tremendous progress in technology - Throughout the ages, technological know-how has been the most important weapon in the struggle for life Because of the development of the technology we will be able to face up to the problems of tomorrow's society

To which extent to you agree with…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 7: Totally agree 6: 5: 4: Neither agree nor disagree 3: 2: 1: Totally disagree

ANNEXES

PART 4: ANIMAL WELFARE

*VRAAG 4

You are going to see several statements about animal welfare. Can you please indicate for each statement to which extent you agree with it? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘I totally disagree’ and 7 means ‘I totally agree’. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

- It is important that the food that I normally eat has been produced in a way that animals have not experienced pain - It is important that the food that I normally eat has been produced in a way that animals' rights have been respected - In general, humans have too little respect for the quality of life of animals - Increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed - Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animal - As long as animals do not suffer pain, humans should be able to use them for any purpose. - It is acceptable to use animals to test consumer products such as soaps, cosmetics and household cleaners - Hunting animals for sport is an acceptable form of recreation

To which extent to you agree with…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

7: Totally agree 6: 5: 4: Neither agree nor disagree 3: 2: 1: Totally disagree

ANNEXES

PART 5: ETNOCENTRISM

*VRAAG 5

You are going to see several statements about products from (Fill in your county: Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Poland, Germany). Can you please indicate for each statement to which extent you agree with it? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘I totally disagree’ and 7 means ‘I totally agree’. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

- Buy [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German]-made products. Keep [Fill in your county: Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Poland, Germany] working - [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German]- consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow [Fill in your country: Belgians, Danes, Greeks, Poles, Germans] out of work - Buying [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German] produced products supports the local community's livelihood - [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German] products first, last and foremost - A real [Fill in your country: Belgian, Dane, Greek, Pole, German] should always buy [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German]-made products - We should purchase products manufactured in [Fill in your county: Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Poland, Germany] instead of letting other countries get rich off us - It's always best to purchase [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German] products - It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support [Fill in your country: Belgian, Danish, Greek, Polish, German] products

To which extent to you agree with…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

7: Totally agree 6: 5: 4: Neither agree nor disagree 3: 2: 1: Totally disagree

ANNEXES

PART 6: Environment friendly food production

*VRAAG 6

Below you are again going to see different items. Can you please indicate for each statement to which extent you agree with it? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘I totally disagree’ and 7 means ‘I totally agree’. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

It is important to me that the food I eat normally

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

- has been prepared in an environmentally friendly way - has been produced in a way which has not shaken the balance of nature - is packaged in an environmentally friendly way

To which extent to you agree with…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER PER LINE - PROCEED LINE PER LINE)

7: Totally agree 6: 5: 4: Neither agree nor disagree 3: 2: 1: Totally disagree

ANNEXES

PART 7: CONJOINT ANALYSIS

*SHOW SCREEN You are now going to see different texts that describe different ways of producing pigs. Please indicate after each text how much you dislike or like this particular way of producing pigs.

*VRAAG 7 Can you please indicate for each text whether you like or dislike this particular way of producing pigs? You can answer with a number from -5 to 5, where -5 means ‘dislike very much' and 5 means ‘like very much'. 0 means 'neither dislike nor like'.

Key Attributes Levels

1. Consider a small farm with less than 100 sows & other livestock 1: Stocking density 2. Consider a farm with about 400 sows 3. Consider a farm up to or more than 800 sows with hired labour 1. The animals are housed on slatted floors. 2: Floor type (where the 2. The animals are housed on litter. pigs live) 3. The animals have outdoors access.

1. The effort to reduce the production system’s ecological impact on soil, water and air is minimal

2. There is some effort to reduce the production 3: Impact on soil, air, system’s ecological impact on soil, water and air and water 3. The effort to reduce the production system’s

ecological impact on soil, water and air is maximum 1. Pigs’ feeding aims for standard fat content 4: Health - Fat 2. Pigs’ feeding aims for lower fat content 3. Pigs’ feeding aims for healthy fat 1. The farm produces pigs with similar meat quality every time

2. The farm produces pigs with different quality 5: Chain type and because of biological variations and changing local product quality conditions

3. The farm produces pigs with the qualities demanded only by their main customers

How much do you like this way of producing pigs? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

ANNEXES

11: 5 like very much 10: 4 9: 3 8: 2 7: 1 6: 0 neither dislike nor like 5: -1 4: -2 3: -3 2: -4 1: -5 dislike very much

ANNEXES

PART 8: PRELIMINARY PRODUCT QUESTIONS

*VRAAG 8

Do you know a pig producer? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: Yes 2: No 3: Don't know

*VRAAG 9

Do you have a pig farm nearby? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: Yes 2: No 3: Don't know

*VRAAG 10

Do you eat pork? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: Yes  GO TO NEXT PART: PORK CONSUMPTION 2: No  GO TO PART : ANIMAL BIOTECH QUESTIONS 3: Don't know  GO TO PART : ANIMAL BIOTECH QUESTIONS

ANNEXES

*FILTER: THIS PART IS ONLY ASKED TO THOSE WHO EAT PORK (CODE 1 ON QUESTION 10)

PART 9: PORK CONSUMPTION

*SHOW SCREEN The following part of the questionnaire is about pork consumption.

*SHOW SCREEN You are firstly going to see several meat products and other meals. Please indicate for each product how often you eat this product. If you have difficulties to define exactely, please base yourself on last year and/or last week.

*VRAAG 11

*PROG: DO NOT SHOW TITELS OF EACH GROUP TO RESPONDENT – ROTATE PRODUCTS WITHIN THE GROUPS BUT KEEP ORDER OF GROUPS ITSELF.

*FOR BELGIUM:

*FRESH FIRST CUT 1)Tenderloin 2)Mignonette 3)Pork roast, chop 4)Pork ribs 5)Pork offal/entrails such as liver or kidneys

*FRESH MINIMALLY PROCESSED 6)Minced pork meat 7)Sausages (fresh, braadworst) 8)Pork based brochette 9)Small cuts (fondue, barbecue, etc.)

*FURTHER PROCESSED 10)Pork Escalope/Schnitzel 11)Pork cordon bleu 12)Stuffed meat 13)Mixed gyros-pita meat 14)Remaining mixed meat 15)Other pork (roasted, cooked baked)

*DISHES

ANNEXES

16)Lasagne 17)Spaghetti Bolognese 18)Pizza

*MEAT PRODUCTS 19)Salami (ardennes, boulogne, pure pork, with/without garlic) 20)Cooked ham 21)Dry cured ham (ardennes ham, coubourg, etc.) 22)Dry cured meat products ('bacon', filet de saxe, etc.) 23)Sausages (Vienna, Frankfurter, etc.) 24)Cooked sausages (saucisson) 25)Liver paté 26)Marinated 27)Toppings 28)Canned meat

How often do you eat (*PROG: SHOW PRODUCT)? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

8: Daily 7: Several times a week 6: Weekly 5: Several times a month 4: Monthly 3: Several times a year 2: Yearly or less frequent 1: Never

ANNEXES

*FILTER: FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (xxx), ASK ONLY FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE EATEN AT LEAST 2-11 TIMES PER MONTH (AND THUS HAVE RECEIVED CODE 3-13 ON QUESTION 11)

*SHOW SCREEN We would now like to know whether you (or your household) normally buy this product fresh or frozen.

*VRAAG 12 *PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*FRESH FIRST CUT Tenderloin Mignonette Pork roast, chop Pork ribs Pork offal/entrails such as liver or kidneys

*FRESH MINIMALLY PROCESSED Minced pork meat Sausages (fresh, braadworst) Pork based brochette Small cuts (fondue, barbecue, etc.)

*FURTHER PROCESSED Pork Escalope/Schnitzel Pork cordon bleu Stuffed meat Mixed gyros-pita meat Remaining mixed meat Other pork (roasted, cooked baked)

*DISHES Lasagne Spaghetti Bolognese Pizza

*MEAT PRODUCTS Salami (ardennes, boulogne, pure pork, with/without garlic) Cooked ham Dry cured ham (ardennes ham, coubourg, etc.) Dry cured meat products ('bacon', filet de saxe, etc.)

ANNEXES

Sausages (Vienna, Frankfurter, etc.) Cooked sausages (saucisson) Liver paté Marinated Toppings Canned meat

How is this product normally bought (in your household)? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: Fresh/chilled 2: Frozen

ANNEXES

*SHOW SCREEN We would now like to know where you (or your household) normally buy each of these products.

*VRAAG 13 *PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*FRESH FIRST CUT Tenderloin Mignonette Pork roast, chop Pork ribs Pork offal/entrails such as liver or kidneys

*FRESH MINIMALLY PROCESSED Minced pork meat Sausages (fresh, braadworst) Pork based brochette Small cuts (fondue, barbecue, etc.)

*FURTHER PROCESSED Pork Escalope/Schnitzel Pork cordon bleu Stuffed meat Mixed gyros-pita meat Remaining mixed meat Other pork (roasted, cooked baked)

*DISHES Lasagne Spaghetti Bolognese Pizza

*MEAT PRODUCTS Salami (ardennes, boulogne, pure pork, with/without garlic) Cooked ham Dry cured ham (ardennes ham, coubourg, etc.) Dry cured meat products ('bacon', filet de saxe, etc.) Sausages (Vienna, Frankfurter, etc.) Cooked sausages (saucisson) Liver paté Marinated Toppings

ANNEXES

Canned meat

Where do you (or your household) normally buy (*PROG: SHOW PRODUCT)? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: At the butcher 2: In the supermarket 3: Somewhere else

*SHOW SCREEN: We would now like to know when you normally consume this products.

*VRAAG 14 *PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*PROG: SEE LIST Q 13

When do you normally eat (*PROG: SHOW PRODUCT)? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: On a week day 2: Any day 3: During weekend 4: Only on special occasions

*SHOW SCREEN We would now like to know in whose company you normally eat these products.

*VRAAG 15

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*PROG: SEE LIST Q 13

Normally, I eat this product…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: Alone 2: With family 3: With friends 4: In other company

ANNEXES

*SHOW SCREEN Now we would like to know where you normally eat these products.

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*VRAAG 16

*PROG: SEE LIST Q 13

Normally I eat this product…? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: At home 2: At a restaurant 3: On the go 4: Somewhere else

*SHOW SCREEN Now we would like to know how much preparation you normally do at home for each of these products.

*VRAAG 17

*PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*FRESH FIRST CUT Tenderloin Mignonette Pork roast, chop Pork ribs Pork offal/entrails such as liver or kidneys

*FRESH MINIMALLY PROCESSED Minced pork meat Sausages (fresh, braadworst) Pork based brochette Small cuts (fondue, barbecue, etc.)

*FURTHER PROCESSED Pork Escalope/Schnitzel Pork cordon bleu

ANNEXES

Stuffed meat Mixed gyros-pita meat Remaining mixed meat Other pork (roasted, cooked baked)

*DISHES Lasagne Spaghetti Bolognese Pizza

Normally, this product …? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

1: Is prepared at hom from scratch before I eat it 2: Is finalized at home before I eat it 3: Is bought ready to eat

*SHOW SCREEN Now we could like to know how satisfied you are about different aspects of each of these products.

*PROG: ASK Q 18-22 DIRECTLY IN A ROW FOR ONE PRODUCT BEFORE GOING TO THE FOLLOWING PRODUCT – ASK ONLY FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE EATEN AT LEAST 2-11 TIMES PER MONTH (AND THUS HAVE RECEIVED CODE 3-13 ON QUESTION 11) *PROG: ROTATE ITEMS

*VRAAG 18

Overall, how satisfied are you with this product? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘not satisfied at all’ and 7 means ‘very satisfied'. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between. (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

*PROG: SHOW PRODUCT 7: Very satisfied 6: 5: 4: 3: 2: 1: Not satisfied at all

ANNEXES

*VRAAG 19 How satisfied are you with the taste of the product? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘not satisfied at all’ and 7 means ‘very satisfied'. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between. (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) *PROG: SHOW PRODUCT 7: Very satisfied 6: 5: 4: 3: 2: 1: Not satisfied at all *VRAAG 20

How satisfied are you with the health-giving qualities of the product? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘not satisfied at all’ and 7 means ‘very satisfied'. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between. (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) *PROG: SHOW PRODUCT 7: Very satisfied 6: 5: 4: 3: 2: 1: Not satisfied at all

*VRAAG 21 How satisfied are you with the convenience of preparing a meal including the product? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘not satisfied at all’ and 7 means ‘very satisfied'. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between. (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) *PROG: SHOW PRODUCT 7: Very satisfied 6: 5: 4: 3: 2: 1: Not satisfied at all

ANNEXES

*VRAAG 22

How satisfied are you with the price of the product? You can answer with a number from 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘not satisfied at all’ and 7 means ‘very satisfied'. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.(PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER)

*PROG: SHOW PRODUCT 7: Very satisfied 6: 5: 4: 3: 2: 1: Not satisfied at all

*SHOW SCREEN Finally we would like to know how you combine each of these meat products with other food or drinks within a hot meal.

*PROG: ASK ONLY FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE EATEN AT LEAST 2-11 TIMES PER MONTH (AND THUS HAVE RECEIVED CODE 3-13 ON QUESTION 11)

*VRAAG 23

*FRESH FIRST CUT Tenderloin Mignonette Pork roast, chop Pork ribs Pork offal/entrails such as liver or kidneys

*FRESH MINIMALLY PROCESSED Minced pork meat Sausages (fresh, braadworst) Pork based brochette Small cuts (fondue, barbecue, etc.)

With which of the following products do you normally combine within a hot meal? *(PROG: INSERT MEAT PRODUCT) (YOU CAN TICK SEVERAL ANSWERS)

ANNEXES

STAPLES/FIBRES 1: Potatoes 2: Rice 3: Pasta 4: Other staple/fiber product VEGETABLES 5: Cabbage 6: Carrot 7: Cucumber 8: Lettuces 9: Onion, leek 10: Beans, peas and lentils 11: Sweet pepper 12: Tomato 13: Other vegetables TRIMMINGS 14: Hot sauces, cold sauces, melted butter, and other 15: Pickles 16: Condiments (ketchup, soy sauces, mustard and other) 17: Jellies and jams 18: Other trimmings BEVERAGES 19: Wine 20: Beer 21: Spirits 22: Hot drinks (coffee, tea, and other) 23: Juice and soft drinks (juice, lemonade, carbonated soft drinks) 24: Water 25: Milk 26: Other beverages

ANNEXES

PART 10: ANIMAL BIOTECH ITEMS

*PROG: SHOW SCREEN

The technical possibilities in agriculture and food production are progressing rapidly. In the final part of this study, we would like to know your opinion about typical applications of these new techniques. Please tell us how good or bad you find each of them. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to these questions - we are only interested in your opinion about the applications.

*VRAAG 24

You are now going to see several statements. Can you please indicate for each statement whether you think they are good or bad? You can answer with a number from -5 to 5, where -5 means ‘extremely bad and 5 means ‘extremely good. 0 means neither good nor bad. You can shade your answer with the numbers in between.

*PROG: THE ORDER OF THE NEXT 7 ITEMS SHOULD BE RANDOM AND ASKED TO EVERYONE

- Male piglets that have been castrated by means of pharmaceuticals (e.g., synthetic vaccines, in order to avoid the off-flavours known as "boar taint") instead of surgical castration, reducing pain and improving animal welfare - Animals that that have been raised on special feeds containing natural alternatives to antibiotics (e.g., enzymes, antioxidants, herbs and spices) - Meat (e.g., pork, beef, poultry) that has been specially marinated in order to improve its taste and texture - Foods that have been treated with enzymes in order to improve their structure (e.g., fat-free yoghurt with a texture just like full-fat yoghurt) - Healthy food ingredients that have been encapsuled in such a fine way that their uptake in the stomach and gut becomes much easier - New surface materials on which bacteria cannot grow (e.g., for use in food packaging and on kitchen appliances) - Tiny sensors in food that can instantaneously detect food safety problems (e.g., the presence of bacteria, antibiotics, heavy metal residues, and allergens)

*PROG: THERE ARE FOUR SPLIT-BALLOT VERSIONS. THEY SHOULD BE ALLOCATED AT RANDOM TO EQUALLY SIZED GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS. THE ORDER OF ITEMS WITHIN EACH SPLIT BALLOT SHOULD ALSO BE RANDOM.

*SPLIT BALLOT 1 - RANDOMISE - Fish that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., fish that grow faster)

ANNEXES

- Fish that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to eat them (e.g., because the fish are more resistant to viruses and bacteria) - Fish that have been bred in such a way that their nutritional quality is improved (e.g., because they contain less fat) - Fish that have been bred in such a way that their protein composition is changed (e.g., ornamental fish with fluorescent proteins that glow in the dark) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., livestock that can better digest fibre-rich feed) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to eat their meat (e.g., for people with meat allergies) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that the nutritional quality of their meat is improved (e.g., meat that contains healthier fats such as omega-3s) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that the protein composition in their meat is changed (e.g., animals whose organs can be used as transplants for people with incurable organ diseases) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., cows that can give milk longer throughout their lives) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to drink their milk (e.g., because the cows transfer less e. coli to the food chain) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that the nutritional quality of their milk is improved (e.g., milk with less saturated fat) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that the protein composition in their milk is changed (e.g., cows that produce spider-silk protein in their milk, an extremely robust material that can be used in bulletproof vests, parachutes, ropes, and airplane hulls) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., hens that lay more and larger eggs) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to eat their eggs (e.g., for people with egg allergies) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that the nutritional quality of their eggs is improved (e.g., eggs with a higher omega-3 content) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that the protein composition in their eggs is changed (e.g., eggs that contain interferon, a pharmaceutical that is used for the treatment of leukemia and hepatitis)

*SPLIT BALLOT 2 - RANDOMISE - Fish that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., predatory fish such as salmon that can also digest fishfeed from plant origin) - Fish that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to eat them (e.g., for people with fish allergies) - Fish that have been bred in such a way that their nutritional quality is improved (e.g., because they contain more healthy fats such as omega-3s) - Fish that have been bred in such a way that their protein composition is changed (e.g., fish that produce insulin for the pharmaceutical treatment of diabetes in their cells)

ANNEXES

- Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., livestock that grow faster) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to eat their meat (e.g., because the livestock transfer less salmonella and campylobacter to the food chain) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that the nutritional quality of their meat is improved (e.g., meat that contains less fat) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) that have been bred in such a way that the protein composition in their meat is changed (e.g., animals who better utilise their feed and excrete less phosphorous, lowering the environmental burden) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., cows that give more milk) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to drink their milk (e.g., for people with milk allergies) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that the nutritional quality of their milk is improved (e.g., milk with healthier fats such as omega-3s) - Dairy cows that have been bred in such a way that the protein composition in their milk is changed (e.g., cows that produce lactoferrin in their milk, a pharmceutical that is used in the treatment of iron deficiency) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., hens that reach egg-laying age sooner) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that it is safer to eat their eggs (e.g., because the hens are more resistant to salmonella infections) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that the nutritional quality of their eggs is improved (e.g., eggs that contain less cholesterol) - Laying hens that have been bred in such a way that the protein composition in their eggs is changed (e.g., eggs that contain a high amount of collagen, a substance that is used in anti-aging treatments in the cosmetics industry)

*SPLIT BALLOT 3 - RANDOMISE - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., fish that grow faster) - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to eat them (e.g., because the fish are more resistant to viruses and bacteria) - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that their nutritional quality is improved (e.g., because they contain less fat) - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that their protein composition is changed (e.g., ornamental fish with fluorescent proteins that glow in the dark) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., livestock that can better digest fibre-rich feed) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to eat their meat (e.g., for people with meat allergies) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that the nutritional quality of their meat is improved (e.g., meat that contains healthier fats such as omega-3s)

ANNEXES

- Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that the protein composition in their meat is changed (e.g., animals whose organs can be used as transplants for people with incurable organ diseases) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., cows that can give milk longer throughout their lives) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to drink their milk (e.g., because the cows transfer less e. coli to the food chain) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that the nutritional quality of their milk is improved (e.g., milk with less saturated fat) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that the protein composition in their milk is changed (e.g., cows that produce spider-silk protein in their milk, an extremely robust material that can be used in bulletproof vests, parachutes, ropes, and airplane hulls) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., hens that lay more and larger eggs) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to eat their eggs (e.g., for people with egg allergies) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that the nutritional quality of their eggs is improved (e.g., eggs with a higher omega-3 content) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that the protein composition in their eggs is changed (e.g., eggs that contain interferon, a pharmaceutical that is used for the treatment of leukemia and hepatitis)

*SPLIT BALLOT 4 - RANDOMISE - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., predatory fish such as salmon that can also digest fishfeed from plant origin) - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to eat them (e.g., for people with fish allergies) - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that their nutritional quality is improved (e.g., because they contain more healthy fats such as omega-3s) - Fish whose genes have been modified in such a way that their protein composition is changed (e.g., fish that produce insulin for the pharmaceutical treatment of diabetes in their cells) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., livestock that grow faster) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to eat their meat (e.g., because the livestock transfer less salmonella and campylobacter to the food chain) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that the nutritional quality of their meat is improved (e.g., meat that contains less fat) - Livestock (pigs, cattle, poultry) whose genes have been modified in such a way that the protein composition in their meat is changed (e.g., animals who better utilise their feed and excrete less phosphorous, lowering the environmental burden) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., cows that give more milk)

ANNEXES

- Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to drink their milk (e.g., for people with milk allergies) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that the nutritional quality of their milk is improved (e.g., milk with healthier fats such as omega-3s) - Dairy cows whose genes have been modified in such a way that the protein composition in their milk is changed (e.g., cows that produce lactoferrin in their milk, a pharmceutical that is used in the treatment of iron deficiency) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that they can better utilise their feed (e.g., hens that reach egg-laying age sooner) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that it is safer to eat their eggs (e.g., because the hens are more resistant to salmonella infections) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that the nutritional quality of their eggs is improved (e.g., eggs that contain less cholesterol) - Laying hens whose genes have been modified in such a way that the protein composition in their eggs is changed (e.g., eggs that contain a high amount of collagen, a substance that is used in anti-aging treatments in the cosmetics industry)

*PROG: THE ORDER OF THE NEXT 3 ITEMS SHOULD BE RANDOM AND ASKED TO EVERYONE AGAIN - Using nanotechnology in food production - Using biotechnology in food production - Using genetic modification in food production

How good do you find …? (PLEASE TICK ONLY 1 ANSWER) 11: 5 extremely good 10: 4 9: 3 8: 2 7: 1 6: 0 Neither good nor bad 5: -1 4: -2 3: -3 2: -4 1: -5 extremely bad

ANNEXES

Annex 2 Questionnaire Used in Chinese Study

Introduction

Dear,

At this moment we realize a big international survey for a European university and some parts of it are related to my master thesis. This survey aims at better understanding consumers’ perception and attitudes towards animal welfare. This questionnaire will take about 10 minutes to complete.

We would like to ask you to complete the attached questionnaire before 28.Feb.2010

The questionnaire will be sent back to us immediately after you have filled in the last question.

Your participation on this study is very important!

We would like to remind you that the anonymity of your answers is always guaranteed, since they are treated in a tables format (percentages) and never in a personalized way.

Whenever you have a question, you can always send an email to [email protected] or [email protected]

Thank you very much in advance for your participation.

Kind regards

ANNEXES

PART 1: SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS Question 1 Are you a ? 1. man 2. woman

Question 2 In which year were you born? (Please Note Correct Year) 19 / /

Question 3 Which of the following describes best your current martial status? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. Married 2. Not married 3. Divorced 4. Widowed

Question 4 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. lower Secondary school 2. Secondary school 3. High school 4. University 5. Master or beyond

Question 5 How would you describe the financial status of you household? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. Not well off 2. Difficult 3. Modest 4. Reasonable 5. Well off 6. Don’t know

Question 6 What is your current occupation? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. Farmer 2. Self-employed in general 3. Managing employee 4. Salaried employee

ANNEXES

5. Skilled worker 6. Student 7. Retired 8. Unemployed or on leave 9. Other

Question 7 Which of the following describe best the area where you live in? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. A big city 2. The suburbs of outskirts of a big city 3. A town or small city 4. A country village 5. Don’t know

Question 8 Do you have a pet or pets at home? 1. Yes 2. No

Question 9 How many people are currently living in your household in each of the following age brackets, including yourself? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer Per Line- Proceed line per line)

Age Number of people

0-2 years old

3-5 years old 6-9 years old 10-13 years old 14-17 years old 18-21 years old

22-25 years old

26-29 years old 30-39 years old 40-49 years old 50-59 years old 60 years old or older

Question 10 What is your ZIP code? (Please Note Your ZIP Code) |__|__|__|__|__|__|

ANNEXES

PART 2: PRELIMINARY PRODUCT QUESTION Question 1 Do you know any animal producer? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. Yes 2. No

Question 2 Do you have any animal farm nearby? (Please Tick Only 1 Answer) 1. Yes 2. No

Question 3 Have you ever visited a farm? 1. Yes 2. No

If your answer is “Yes”, which kind of animals are kept there? (Can Tick More than 1 Answer if you want) 1. Pig 2. Beef cattle 3. Dairy cattle 4. Chicken 5. Duck 6. Goose 7. Fish

Question 4 Do you eat animal (pork, beef, egg, fish, chicken, fish, duck, goose, milk) products? 1. Yes 2. NO

For only these who eat animal products Question A How often do you eat …? (Cross only 1 possibility per line) Yearly or Several Several Several less times a Monthly times a Weekly times a Daily frequent year year week Pig Beef Chicken Duck Goose Fish

ANNEXES

Milk Egg

Question 5 How important are the following product attributes for you when you make your choice for animal food products (meat, eggs, and dairy products)? (Cross only 1 possibility per line)

Totally Unimportant Neutral Important Very unimportant important Price 1 2 3 4 5 Taste 1 2 3 4 5 Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 Quality 1 2 3 4 5 Origin 1 2 3 4 5 Health 1 2 3 4 5 Safety 1 2 3 4 5 Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 Freshness 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental 1 2 3 4 5 friendliness Availability 1 2 3 4 5 Animal welfare 1 2 3 4 5 Religion 1 2 3 4 5 Political 1 2 3 4 5 Dietary restraint(weight 1 2 3 4 5 control, disease...)

Eating style / Familiarity 1 2 3 4 5 conveniënte 1 2 3 4 5 Production method 1 2 3 4 5

ANNEXES

PART 3: Evaluation of animal welfare Question 1 Have you ever heard about “animal welfare”? 1. I have never heard of it 2. I have heard of it but do not know much about it 3. I have heard of it and know a lot about it

Question 2 What do you think is included in the concept of “animal welfare” (Can Tick More than 1 Answer if you want) 1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour. 2. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area. 3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. 4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind. 5. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

Question 3 What kind of animal do you think should be included in the concept of “animal welfare? (Can Tick More than 1 Answer if you want) 1. Only Mammals for food production 2. Any animals for food production 3. Only Mammals for food production with the animals for experiments 4. Any animals for food production with the animals for experiments

 Mammals are warm-blooded animals and feed their young with mile.for example pigs, sheeps, cattles, dogs, rats;  Animals including mammals and other species like fish, docks, gooses…

Question 4 Do you believe the current state of farm animal welfare in China in general is…? (Cross only 1 possibility per line) Rather Rather Very poor Poor Moderate Good Very good poor good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ANNEXES

Question 5 How do you evaluate the welfare of production animals in China for the following species? (Cross only 1 possibility per line) Very Poor Rather Moderate Rather Good Very poor poor good good Pigs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beef cattle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chicken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Duck 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Goose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dairy cattle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Question 6 How do you think the concern of Chinese people for animal welfare? Totally More or less Neither More or Totally disagree disagree disagree nor less agree agree agree Information about animal welfare is too little 1 2 3 4 5 available

Animal welfare should be 1 2 3 4 5 controlled more severely

Animal welfare should be guaranteed through a label 1 2 3 4 5 on the product I am willing to pay a price premium for products 1 2 3 4 5 with more attention for animal welfare More information about animal welfare would 1 2 3 4 5 influence my meat consumption

Question 7 Are you concerned about “animal welfare” while you have to buy animal products? Not at all Almost not Very much Neutral Concerned concerned concerned concerned 1 2 3 4 5

ANNEXES

Question 8 Will you buy the products produced by the animal with higher animal welfare? Very likely to Never buy Unlikely to buy Neutral Likely to buy buy 1 2 3 4 5

Question 9 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? What do you think if gives more attention to animal welfare, the products will be...?

Totally Disagree Neutral Agree Totally

disagree agree More healthy 1 2 3 4 5 Better hygiene 1 2 3 4 5 More safe 1 2 3 4 5 Better taste 1 2 3 4 5 Expensive 1 2 3 4 5 More trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 More easily available 1 2 3 4 5 Better acceptable for me 1 2 3 4 5 More environmental 1 2 3 4 5 friendly Better quality 1 2 3 4 5

More profitable for 1 2 3 4 5 producer More traditional 1 2 3 4 5 More authentic 1 2 3 4 5

Question 10 Do you wish to know more information about animal welfare when buying animal products? Not at all Almost not Very much Neutral Willing willing willing willing 1 2 3 4 5 Question B Which way do you prefer to get these information? Very Not at all Not Neutral much much

ANNEXES

Television 1 2 3 4 5 Radio 1 2 3 4 5 Newspaper 1 2 3 4 5 Family/friends/acquaintances 1 2 3 4 5 Magazine/leaflet 1 2 3 4 5 Internet 1 2 3 4 5 Science 1 2 3 4 5 Government 1 2 3 4 5 Farmer 1 2 3 4 5 Retail/shop 1 2 3 4 5 Animal welfare organization 1 2 3 4 5 School/University 1 2 3 4 5 Food industry 1 2 3 4 5 Food label 1 2 3 4 5 Animal welfare label 1 2 3 4 5