Heather J. Bray

Happy Chickens Lay Tastier Eggs: Motivations for Buying Free-range Eggs in Australia

ABSTRACT Recent public interest in so-called “ethical” food production, and in particular the welfare of intensively housed farm animals, has been linked to an increase in sales of free-range eggs in several countries including Australia. Animal activist groups around the world have campaigned for the abolition of caged-egg production, retailers and large food companies are now sourcing less of these products, and governments in various locales have placed restrictions on caged-egg production. In addition, the recent focus on food production and preparation in popular culture including books, films, and television has made these practices, including those associated with eggs, more transparent to mainstream audiences. Previous studies have examined consumers’ willingness-to-pay for free-range eggs, and community attitudes to animal welfare, but there has been little qualitative work that unpacks a key assumption which underlies much discussion of these issues: that free-range egg purchases are primarily or solely linked to consumers’ desires to have egg production systems changed from intensive to free-range. This paper analyses qualitative research undertaken in Australia that explores consumers’ motivations for buying free-range (or cage-free) eggs, which was part of a larger study examining ethical foods. Qualitative analysis of focus groups and interviews involving 73 participants revealed that free-range and cage-free eggs are perceived as being better quality, more nutritious, and safer, and having better sensory characteristics, than caged eggs. In response to open-ended questions, free-range and cage-free eggs were mentioned much more frequently than free-range meats, and were described as easy to identify and affordable, compared with other products with humane production claims. Several participants even had begun keeping their own hens in order to have an alternative to purchasing caged (or expensive free-range) eggs. Although caged-egg production was described by many participants as cruel, the desire to purchase free-range eggs was more often described in connection to efforts to avoid “industrialized” food than in relation to taking a stance on the issue of caged-hen welfare.

Not appropriate dinner table conversation? Talking to children about meat production.

Although Australians on average consume large quantities of meat, their attitudes to farm animal welfare are poorly understood. We know little about how farm animal production is discussed in Australian households or how children learn about the origins of meat. This study consisted of an online survey completed by 225 primary carers throughout Australia recruited through social media. Findings include that conversations about the origin of meat were generally stimulated by meal preparation within the home rather than visits to agricultural shows or similar activities. Parents preferred to initiate conversations with children about meat production before they were 5 years of age. Urban parents were more likely than rural parents to reveal that they were conflicted about eating meat and would be more empathetic to children who chose to stop eating meat. Rural parents were more likely than urban parents to feel that children should eat what they are given and that talking about meat is not a major issue. Both groups felt that it was important that children should know where their food comes from. The findings of this study suggest that parental attitudes to meat production and consumption influence conversations about meat origins with children.

Not just about “the science”: science education and attitudes to genetically modified foods among women in Australia

Previous studies investigating attitudes to genetically modified (GM) foods suggest a correlation between negative attitudes and low levels of science education, both of which are associated with women. In a qualitative focus group study of Australian women with diverse levels of education, we found attitudes to GM foods were part of a complex process of making “good” food decisions, which included other factors such as locally produced, fresh/natural, healthy and nutritious, and convenient. Women involved in GM crop development and those with health science training differed in how they used evidence to categorize GM foods. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how GM food, and the role of science and technology in food production and consumption more broadly, is understood and discussed amongst diverse “publics” and across different “sciences,” and to research related to deepening public engagement at the intersection of science and values.

Keeping it ‘inside the fence’: an examination of responses to a farm-animal welfare issue on Twitter

Social media sites have become common sources of information about current affairs, and animal-activist organisations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), use these networks as campaign tools to raise awareness against animal agriculture. The aim of the present study was to understand how an animal-welfare issue was discussed in Twitter, in Australia. Twitter Application Programing Interface data featuring keywords and hashtags were initially collected between April and May 2014 to examine tweets on animal-welfare issues in the absence of a triggering event. In July 2014, PETA released footage portraying ill-treatment of sheep in Australian shearing sheds, generating 9610 tweets in 7 days, including themes such as disgust, condemnation of the cruelty, and calls to boycott the wool industry. PETA’s social-media campaign began 24 h before comment in conventional news media online, highlighting the role of social media in leading conventional media campaigning. Associated Twitter activity from the wool industry was limited. It is concluded that Twitter is not currently an effective medium for conversations between producers and the community about farm-animal welfare, despite encouragement from industry. While there are positives for producers and industry to be on Twitter, including the promotion of their business and communication within their micro-publics, Twitter as a platform may not be ideal for generating a dialogue between producers and the community. Further research into how people engage with the content, not just through the study of retweets and amount of traffic, is required to understand whether social media has potential to change attitudes towards animal production.

What are they thinking? Consumer attitudes to meat production in Australia

Meat production has come under increasing scrutiny from consumers and citizens who feel that certain practices are unethical and negatively affect farm-animal welfare. Animal welfare can be viewed as both a scientific and social concept, and purchasing products with animal welfare claims can be considered an act of ‘ethical consumption’. The present paper reviews research that examines consumer attitudes to animal welfare and highlights tensions between consumer and citizen attitudes and behaviours, and assumptions that are made within these studies. We present our own research into motivations to purchase free-range eggs as an example of research that attempts to unpack these assumptions, in particular, that such purchases are made out of concern for animal welfare. We present a further example of our own research that attempts to identify how attitudes to meat production are socially constructed. We conclude with recommended strategies to engage the broader community in discussions about animal production, so as to improve industry–community communication about farm-animal welfare in meat-production industries.

Why would we believe them? Meat consumers’ reactions to online farm animal welfare activism in Australia

ABSTRACT The use of social media by animal activist organisations is of interest to those in the livestock production industries because of the perceived increased use and effectiveness of this medium for influencing consumers. Using qualitative data derived from focus groups and interviews, we explore how Australian meat consumers interact with animal welfare activism content posted to social media, either by activist organisations or members of the participants’ networks. Results indicate that meat consumers dismiss online animal welfare activism due to a perceived lack of credibility and being associated with a vegetarian or vegan ‘agenda’. Activists also were considered by participants to be ‘ignorant’, with participants suggesting they needed to experience animal farming first hand. Online activism was described as ‘slacktivism’ by our research participants, who felt that sharing something online does not create actual change in the real world and hence is not an authentic or meaningful form of activism. While farm animal welfare is of increasing concern to Australian consumers, this research suggests that information generated by activist organisations and shared via social media is unlikely to change meat eaters’ perceptions, at least in the current form in which it is being provided.

Australian Consumers’ Awareness and Acceptance of Insects as Food

Insects have long been consumed as part of the diets of many Asian, African, and South American cultures. However, despite international agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations advocating the nutritional, environmental, and economic benefits of entomophagy, attitudinal barriers persist in Western societies. In Australia, the indigenous ‘bush tucker’ diet comprising witchetty grubs, honey ants, and Bogong moths is quite well known; however, in most Australian locales, the consumption of insects tends to occur only as a novelty. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the awareness and acceptance of insects as food. An online survey of 820 consumers found that 68% of participants had heard of entomophagy, but only 21% had previously eaten insects; witchetty grubs, ants, grasshoppers, and crickets were the most commonly tasted insects. Taste, appearance, safety, and quality were identified as the factors that were most likely to influence consumer willingness to try eating insects, but consumer attitudes towards entomophagy were underpinned by both food neophobia (i.e., reluctance to eat new or novel foods) and prior consumption of insects. Neophobic consumers were far less accepting of entomophagy than neophilic consumers, while consumers who had previously eaten insects were most accepting of insects as food. Incorporating insects into familiar products (e.g., biscuits) or cooked meals also improved their appeal. Collectively, these findings can be used by the food industry to devise production and/or marketing strategies that overcome barriers to insect consumption in Australia.

“I Feel Sorry for Them”: Australian Meat Consumers’ Perceptions about Sheep and Beef Cattle Transportation

Simple Summary Understanding what concerns about animal welfare are most prominent among members of the public is critical to improve processes in the meat production industry. Hence, this study uses qualitative data to explore how Australian meat consumers viewed one aspect of the production process, livestock transportation. Participants in this study were concerned about the close packing of animals into trucks and ships, and their experiences during long-distance voyages; their views on this topic may be motivated by genuine concerns about animal welfare, together with anthropomorphic tendencies to project human feelings onto these animal experiences and emotional responses, due to transport being associated with slaughter. Given the importance of transport to the Australia red-meat production industry, we argue that public views should be considered as the sector modifies its practices; in addition, higher levels of transparency and communication about practices associated with good animal welfare are needed. Abstract Concern for livestock welfare is significantly increasing in many parts of the world. One area of concern is the transportation of livestock. Using qualitative research methods, this research explores the concerns of Australian meat consumers related to livestock transportation practices, both on land by truck and on sea by ship. Participants were predominantly concerned about animals being “crammed” into trucks and ships, and the long distances over which livestock were transported. Likely contributors to these reactions are the high visibility of truck transport in urban areas, and recent media and political attention to the live-export issue in Australia. We argue that participants’ concerns about transport are arising for a variety of reasons, including anthropomorphic tendencies, genuine concern for the welfare of farm animals, and emotional responses related to the discomfort experienced by meat consumers when they are reminded of the meat-animal connection. Given the importance of transport to the red-meat production industry, these results suggest that the sector may need to reconsider some of their practices and increase transparency and communication about the practices, which they utilise to ensure good animal welfare.