To better understand the purchasing decision-making process of humane pork, and examine the internal relationship between consumers’ preferences in rational consumption and irrational decoy scenarios, 405 consumers in Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, and China were surveyed. Attributes were set for breeding time, breeding mode, diet cleanliness label, and price, and the first three among them reflect animal welfare conditions. The results show that in the rational consumption scenarios, consumers pay the most attention to the price attribute, followed by the attribute (...) of diet cleanliness label, breeding mode, and breeding time. In the irrational decoy scenarios, consumers are most likely to be affected by the attribute decoy of diet cleanliness label, which have the utility of avoiding food safety risks. In addition, the decoy effect triggered by the price attribute which owned the highest degree of rational preference among consumers is also substantially higher, but lower than that of the diet cleanliness label attribute. The decoy effect caused by the breeding time attribute with the lowest degree of consumers’ rational preference is also the lowest. Therefore, the government should strengthen the publicity of the humane treatment of pigs before slaughter, and improve the certification and management system of pigs’ diet cleanliness. Besides, marketers are suggested to emphasis the product attributes that customer’s value the most in their advertising. (shrink)

Communicating the process quality of ethically produced food effectively is of highest interest to policy makers, organizations, retailers and producers in order to enhance ethical food production and increase ethical label use. The objective of this paper is to unveil the effectiveness of different communication treatments in regard to changing purchase behavior of different consumer groups. Different communication material for beef produced according to consumer expectations was compiled and applied in a consumer survey—incorporating a choice experiment and a questionnaire—with 676 (...) respondents in three cities of Germany. A Latent Class Mixed Logit Model was basis to identify different consumer segments and their response to the different communication treatments. The effects of different communication treatments unveil the importance to address information in an objective manner. Target groups could be enlarged through the assessment of clear, objective information. Moreover, most consumers were more likely to refrain from choosing a cheap beef product from conventional, barn-based rearing. Hence, consumers might be interested in reducing their overall consumption of beef and prefer the consumption of high value ethical beef with less frequency. Producers, market actors and policy makers should realize that a high share of consumers, not only smaller target groups, value ethical food and may be ready to change their consumption habits, if they are adequately informed. (shrink)

There is widespread and growing concern among U.S. consumers about the treatment of farmed animals, and consumers are consequently paying attention to food product labels that indicate humane production practices. However, labels vary in their standards for animal welfare, and prior research suggests that consumers are confused by welfare-related labels: many shoppers cannot differentiate between labels that indicate changes in the way animals are raised and those that do not. We administered a survey to 1,000 American grocery shoppers to better (...) understand the extent to which consumers purchase and pay more for food with certain labels based on an assumption of welfare improvement. Results showed that 86% of shoppers reported purchasing at least one product with the following labels in the last year: “cage or crate-free”, “free-range”, “pasture-raised”, “natural”, “organic”, “no hormone”, “no antibiotic”, “no rBST”, “humane”, “vegetarian-fed”, “grass-fed”, “farm-raised”. Of those who purchased one of the aforementioned labels, 89% did so because they thought the label indicated higher-welfare production practices, and 79% consciously paid more for the product with the label because they thought that the label indicated better-than-standard animal welfare. However, many of these labels lack uniform standards for the production practices they represent, and some labels represent production practices that do not influence animal welfare, thus the degree of the animal welfare impact of a given label is highly variable. These results indicate that labels need to clearly and accurately specify their animal welfare benefits to improve the consumers’ ability to purchase products that align with their expectations. (shrink)