» Articles » PMID: 38231599

Willingness to Pay a Higher Price for Pork Obtained Using Animal-Friendly Raising Techniques: A Consumers' Opinion Survey

Overview
Journal Foods
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2024 Jan 17
PMID 38231599
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In Italy, the consumption of pork meat is increasing, despite consumers' attitudes being addressed toward a greater sensitivity about animal welfare and its link with safe food. Considering the relatively high animal welfare standards and the divergence in public interest in farm animal welfare and ethical issues, the objective of this study-in continuation of our previous paper relating to consumer behavior and preferences in welfare-friendly pork breeding-was to investigate habits of pork consumers regarding pig welfare, principally evaluating their willingness to pay (WTP) a higher price for pork obtained using raising techniques with an approach based on animal welfare. An ad hoc questionnaire-based survey was submitted to consumers (n = 404) in Messina province, Italy. Results suggest that 47% of consumers were willing to pay an additional price for pork from farms that apply specific animal welfare standards. Positive correlations were between WTP and farming techniques ( = 0.001), organic farming methods ( = 0.001), and farms in which animal welfare is taken care of and guaranteed ( < 0.001). These findings suggest that consumers intend to pay a higher price for pork, like other animal products obtained using animal-friendly raising techniques. The sensitivity to the animal welfare of a single human being may influence consumers' attitudes toward pork consumption.

Citing Articles

Text Mining and Topic Analysis for Ostriches' Welfare Based on Systematic Literature Review from 1983 to 2023.

Previti A, Biondi V, Or M, Bilgic B, Pugliese M, Passantino A Vet Sci. 2024; 11(10).

PMID: 39453069 PMC: 11511584. DOI: 10.3390/vetsci11100477.


Green Purchase Behaviour Gap: The Effect of Past Behaviour on Green Food Product Purchase Intentions among Individual Consumers.

Witek L, Kuzniar W Foods. 2024; 13(1).

PMID: 38201164 PMC: 10779137. DOI: 10.3390/foods13010136.

References
1.
Vermeir I, Weijters B, De Houwer J, Geuens M, Slabbinck H, Spruyt A . Environmentally Sustainable Food Consumption: A Review and Research Agenda From a Goal-Directed Perspective. Front Psychol. 2020; 11:1603. PMC: 7381298. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01603. View

2.
Miranda-de la Lama G, Estevez-Moreno L, Villarroel M, Rayas-Amor A, Maria G, Sepulveda W . Consumer Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Products and Willingness to Pay: Exploration of Mexican Market Segments. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2018; 22(1):13-25. DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1456925. View

3.
Grunert K, Sonntag W, Glanz-Chanos V, Forum S . Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Sci. 2017; 137:123-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.11.022. View

4.
McGlone J, Guay K, Garcia A . Comparison of Intramuscular or Subcutaneous Injections vs. Castration in Pigs-Impacts on Behavior and Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2016; 6(9). PMC: 5035947. DOI: 10.3390/ani6090052. View

5.
Pejman N, Kallas Z, Dalmau A, Velarde A . Should Animal Welfare Regulations Be More Restrictive? A Case Study in Eight European Union Countries. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(4). PMC: 6523126. DOI: 10.3390/ani9040195. View