Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare.

As consumers have become more interested in understanding how their food is produced, scrutiny and criticism have increased regarding intensified food animal production methods. Resolution of public concerns about animal agricultural practices depends on understanding the myriad factors that provide the basis for concerns. An online survey of 798 U.S. households was conducted to investigate relationships between household characteristics (demographics, geographic location, and experiences) and level of concern for animal welfare as well as sources used to obtain information on the subject. Because recent media attention has focused on animal care practices used in the U.S. swine industry, respondents were also asked specific questions pertaining to their perceptions of pig management practices and welfare issues and their corresponding pork purchasing behavior. Respondents reporting higher levels of concern about animal welfare were more frequently female, younger, and self-reported members of the Democratic Party. Fourteen percent of respondents reported reduction in pork consumption because of animal welfare concerns with an average reduction of 56%. Over half of the respondents (56%) did not have a primary source for animal welfare information; those who identified a primary information source most commonly used information provided by animal protection organizations, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Midwest participants were significantly, at the 5% significance level, less concerned about domestic livestock animal welfare and more frequently reported not having a source for animal welfare information than those from other regions of the United States. Overall, the U.S. livestock and poultry industries and other organizations affiliated with animal agriculture appear to be less used public sources of information on animal welfare than popular animal protection organizations. Improved understanding of the factors that contribute to consumers' evolving perceptions of the care and welfare of farm animals is an essential step toward enhanced sustainability and social responsibility in contemporary food production systems.

BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM II: current factors influencing perceptions of animals and their welfare.

To address escalating concerns about livestock animal care and welfare it is necessary to better understand the factors that may predispose people to develop such concerns. It has been hypothesized that experiences with, beliefs about, and emotional connections to animals may influence level of perceived obligation toward and therefore concern for animals. However, the extent to which people's classifications of animals and their status as pet owners may impact their views on food animal care and welfare practices remains unclear. An online survey of 798 U.S. households was therefore conducted in June 2012 to understand differences in consumer sentiment towards various animal species, classification of certain species (as pet, livestock or neither), and variations in food animal welfare concerns between dog and/or cat owners and those who do not own such species. Sixty-six percent of households in the survey owned at least 1 animal. Forty-eight percent owned dogs, 41% owned cats, 3% owned horses, and 10% owned other animals. As expected, dogs and cats were classified by most respondents (90%) as pets. Most respondents similarly categorized rabbits (58%) and horses (55%) as pets, although consensus was not found for horses with 27% classifying them as livestock animals and 18% as neither pets nor livestock. Over 80% of respondents classified beef cows, dairy cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys as livestock. The majority of survey respondents were opposed to eating cats and dogs followed closely by horses due to ethical and/or spiritual reasons. Dog and/or cat owners more often reported having a source for animal welfare information (68%) than those who did not own these species (49%). Additionally, dog and/or cat owners were more concerned about food animal welfare for both domestically raised food animals and those raised outside the United States (dog and/or cat owners mean level of concern was 3.88 for domestic animal welfare and 5.16 for those raised outside the United States compared with non-dog or -cat owners with means of 4.46 and 5.46, respectively). Although a causal relationship cannot be established, pet ownership and increased concern for food animal welfare appear to be correlated. These data suggest that increased interest in protecting food animals may stem from interactions with and emotional connections to pets, especially when combined with other factors such as having a source for animal welfare information, education level, age, and gender.

Bioethics Symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture?

Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of animal production on animal welfare, the environment, and on the efficacy of antibiotics required to ensure human health with demands for abundant, affordable, safe food. Clearly, the broad implications for US animal agriculture of what appears to be a burgeoning movement relative to ethical food production must be understood by animal agriculture stakeholders. The potential effects of such developments on animal agricultural practices, corporate marketing strategies, and public perceptions of the ethics of animal production must also be clarified. To that end, it is essential to acknowledge that people's beliefs about which food production practices are appropriate are tied to diverse, latent value systems. Thus, relying solely on scientific information as a means to resolve current debates about animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.

Invited review: ruminating conscientiously: scientific and socio-ethical challenges for US dairy production.

Despite the predominantly positive depictions of dairy production, public concern about farm animal production practices in the United States is currently higher than at any point in recent history. Many standard industry practices, including some used by the US dairy industries, are increasingly challenged not just on scientific grounds, but also on ethical grounds. Concerns include the environmental impacts and sustainability of modern farm animal production practices, food safety and security, and the increasingly complex issue of animal welfare. As the impetus increases to achieve broad stakeholder engagement in discussions of US food policy, understanding and addressing the ethical concerns associated with contemporary dairy production is critically important to ensure the industry's autonomy and long-term viability. Animal welfare assessment or accountability tools such as the Ethical Matrix or Campbell's Ethics Assessment Process can provide a structured, transparent method of making appropriate ethical choices about the care and welfare of farm animals that are also scientifically grounded.

Engaging science in a climate of values: tools for animal scientists tasked with addressing ethical problems.

In the United States, escalating concerns about current farm animal science and production methods have resulted not only in increased food animal protection policies, but also in animal welfare legislation. Animal scientists and industry leaders are apprehensive that such policies may be driven primarily by emotion and a lack of scientific understanding, and thus may have unforeseen consequences. However, decisions about animal care, and particularly animal welfare, cannot be made solely on the basis of science because the potential effects on producers, animals, and concerned citizens and the implications for the environment and on food prices must also be considered. Balancing the interests and values of all stakeholders in regard to animal welfare problems has presented a considerable challenge. Ethical accounting processes, such as the Ethical Matrix and the ethics assessment process by Campbell, offer models to combine socioethical concerns with relevant factual information, thereby facilitating decision making that is ethically responsible and that offers viable solutions. A case study is used to illustrate application of the ethics assessment process by Campbell that includes identification of the ethical problems, the embedded values, the relevant facts, and moral tests that can be applied. Awareness of these emerging ways of examining ethics that offer real solutions to conflicts of interests and not merely "one size fits all" answers should be an asset to animal and poultry scientists.

The ethics of semantics: do we clarify or obfuscate reality to influence perceptions of farm animal production?

According to linguists, the discourse of animal production uses metaphors, pronouns, and definitions that consistently represent animals as objects, machines, and resources instead of as distinct, unique individuals. Thus, it is argued that genuine concern for animal welfare is either obscured by financial concerns or circumvented entirely, which permits animals to be kept and treated in ways many people would otherwise find objectionable. Substituting euphemisms like crops, units, and harvest for herds, animals, and slaughter, respectively, which are more likely to evoke images of grape plucking than of killing animals for food, might indeed seem disingenuous, especially given the common industry refrain that the public needs to be better educated about food production. However, the implication that the animal industries deliberately use such techniques is debatable. What is clear is that the semantic obfuscations rampant in the language of modern farm animal production reflect underlying ambivalence about transparency relative to many standard industry practices. First, consumers are unlikely to want full disclosure of all aspects of animal production. Second, there is real risk that certain realities of animal production would be aversive to consumers, who might consequently refuse (as is their right) to purchase particular products, thus potentially causing significant short-term industry losses. Yet, the reluctance of animal industries to come clean in public education efforts raises another problem-that adopting innocuous terminology and withholding information deemed likely to be unpalatable to the public may be morally questionable in itself. Moreover, this provides an avenue for opponents of animal agriculture to exploit, because it may appear that the industry is hiding something. In truth, animal extremists are currently in a position to reveal facts about livestock production that might not only disturb consumers but also cause speculation about the failure of the industries to be forthcoming. As a matter of professional ethics and viability, animal industry members should objectively and aggressively evaluate the discourse of farm animal production to ensure that what is conveyed is accurate and intended.

Board-invited review: the ethical and behavioral bases for farm animal welfare legislation.

Concerns about farm animal welfare vary among individuals and societies. As people increasingly consider the values underlying current farm animal production methods, farm animal welfare policy debates have escalated. Recent food animal protection policies enacted in the European Union have fueled highly contentious discussions about the need for similar legislative activity in the United States. Policymakers and scientists in the United States are apprehensive about the scientific assessment, validation, and monitoring of animal welfare, as well as the unforeseen consequences of moving too hastily toward legislating farm animal welfare. The potential impact of such legislation on producers, food prices, animals, and concerned citizens must also be considered. Balancing the interests of all stakeholders has therefore presented a considerable challenge that has stymied US policymaking. In this review, we examine the roles of ethics and science in policy decisions, discuss how scientific knowledge relative to animal behavior has been incorporated into animal welfare policy, and identify opportunities for additional refinement of animal welfare science that may facilitate ethical and policy decisions about animal care.

Defining a middle ground for philosophers and production: bioethics.

From the perspective of most animal scientists and producers, animal agriculture has become increasingly contentious over the last 10 to 20 years. Furthermore, our critics seem to be extremists whose views are biased and unreasonable. But guess what? The critics say the same thing about animal producers and scientists (us). So where is the middle ground and how do we get there? Should we even worry about trying to define the middle ground? Are these contentious issues a fad that will go away? Are these "extremist" critics so far outside reason that they will be ignored by society? Ignoring "them" is not likely to work because we have seen society changing its mind (developing a new social ethic) with regard to farm animals, in part because of what these critics are saying. As a result, it is vitally important for us to know and understand what is happening and why. For example, there isn't just one voice among the critics. There is actually a spectrum of opinion among the group which conventional agriculturalists usually call their critics. The WCC-204 committee generally agrees that the key to finding the middle ground between what is perceived as a polarized set of issues between "us" (animal scientists and producers) and "them" (philosopher critics) is for both sides to learn about the reasons why each side says what they do. Only then can all parties rationally begin to identify where the middle ground lies.