Premium
Value conflicts in food ethics – causes and possible resolutions
Author(s) -
Schröder M.J.A.,
McEachern M.G.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
international journal of consumer studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.775
H-Index - 71
eISSN - 1470-6431
pISSN - 1470-6423
DOI - 10.1046/j.1470-6431.2003.00308_18.x
Subject(s) - production (economics) , value (mathematics) , marketing , transparency (behavior) , product (mathematics) , animal welfare , business , purchasing , quality (philosophy) , ambivalence , food processing , psychology , social psychology , economics , microeconomics , political science , law , computer science , philosophy , ecology , geometry , mathematics , epistemology , machine learning , biology
Ethical attitudes in relation to meat purchases were studied among urban and rural consumers in Scotland. All subjects perceived at least some ethical issues in relation to animal production systems, in particular, systems keeping animals in close confinement. Welfare friendly production systems were viewed as adding value to a food, but this value was not necessarily realisable to producers if purchases occurred only when foods were on special offer. Statements made by a particular individual were often contradictory, revealing ambivalence, unresolved value conflicts and a general lack of involvement in the nature of meat production. A number of barriers to the establishment of stable attitudes and behaviours in relation to the ethical treatment of food animals were identified, including a lack of transparency of competing production systems, problems with product availability and a general aversion to confront animal production. Whilst adequate labelling implies that labels are transparent and revealing all the essential features of a food, this is not the case with most farm assurance quality marks. Free‐range chicken may be widely available as a complete carcass, but portions often are not. Attitude‐inconsistent purchasing behaviours were thereby related to a lack of perceived control on the part of the purchaser in certain food choice scenarios. A key finding of the study is that individuals can hold two views on animal welfare. On the one hand, they may think as citizens influencing societal standards, and on the other, as consumers at the point of purchase. As citizens, they support the notion of animals being entitled to a good life, as meat consumers, they avoid the mental connection with the live animal. The paper explores this citizen/consumer relationship and strategies used by consumers to resolve any resultant value conflicts. Lessons for public and commercial policy are highlighted in the context of the Curry Report (2002), which advocates more effective market segmentation where markets are finely attuned to their customers, with the development of higher‐level assurance schemes based on the existing ‘Little Red Tractor’ standard.