Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural
https://revistasober.org/article/doi/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790560101
Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural
Artigo original

Welfare-friendly Products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil,2

Bruna Maria Remonato Franco; Ana Paula Oliveira Souza; Carla Forte Maiolino Molento

Downloads: 0
Views: 4206

Abstract

Abstract:: The market for welfare-friendly products (WFP) is increasing worldwide; however, there is a lack of information on this topic in Brazil. We investigated availability, product information and opinion of retailers about WFP in Curitiba, Southern Brazil. We visited 36 strategically located retailers, conducting product evaluation and interviews with managers. The availability of WFP, mostly eggs and chicken meat, was low; no other type of meat was available as WFP. Labeling was deficient, with little information about animal rearing systems. Labeling of regular products displaying images of happy animals was observed and may be a relevant confusing effect. Few certification seals for WFP were also observed, on organic products and free-range chickens. Welfare-friendly products costed 1.7 to 2.5 times more than regular products and great price variability was observed among retailers. Most retailers seemed not aware of the subject and considered that there is low availability of WFP to be offered in the markets. Low availability of WFP and poor label information of both regular and welfare-friendly products are barriers to better understand and meet the demand for higher welfare products. It is our perception that these are constraints for consumers to develop and perform ethical choices related to purchasing behavior.

Keywords

animal welfare, animal product, consumer market, farm animal, labeling, product availability

Referências

ABNT - Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. ABNT NBR 16389:2015 - Avicultura - produção, abate, processamento e identificação do frango caipira, colonial ou capoeira. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2015. 9 p.

AERTS, S. The consumer does not exist: Overcoming the citizen/consumer paradox by shifting focus. In: RÖCKLINSBERG, H.; and SANDIN, P. The ethics of consumption. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2013. p. 172-176.

AFS. Red Tractor Assurance Annual Review. London: AFS. 2012. Available in:<Available in:http://www.redtractor.org.uk/contentfiles/RedTractor-522.pdf >. Accessed:20.06.2016.

BONAMIGO, A., BONAMIGO, C. B. dos S. S. and MOLENTO, C. F. M. Atribuições da carne de frango relevantes ao consumidor: foco no bem-estar animal. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 41, n. 4, p. 1044-1050, 2012.

CALLEGARI-JACQUES, S. M. Bioestatística: princípios e aplicações. Porto Alegre: ArtMed, 2003. 255 p.

CASTELLINI, C. et al. Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. World’s Poultry Science Journal, v. 64, n. 04, p. 500, 2008.

COLE, M. et al. Animal foods and climate change: shadowing eating practices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, v. 33, n. 2, p. 162-167, 2009.

DE BARCELLOS, M. D. et al. Investigating the gap between citizens’ sustainability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: empirical evidence from Brazilian pork consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, v. 35, n. 4, p. 391-402, 2011.

FONT-I-FURNOLS, M.; and GUERRERO, L. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Science, v. 98, n. 3, p. 361-371, 2014.

FRANCO, B. M. R. Perspectivas em bem-estar animal: foco em frangos de corte. 2014. 112 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências Veterinárias) - Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, 2014.

GRANDIN, T. Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat science, v. 98, n. 3, p. 461-469, 2014.

GRUNERT, K. G. and AACHMANN, K. Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels on food products: a review of the literature. Food Control, v. 59, p. 178-187, 2016.

GRUNERT, K. G.; BREDAHL, L.; and BRUNSØ, K. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector - a review. Meat Science, v. 66, n. 2, p. 259-272, 2004.

GRUNERT, K. G.; WILLS, J. M; and FERNÁNDEZ-CELEMÍN, L. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite, v. 55, n. 2, p. 177-189, 2010.

GUIVANT, J. S. Os supermercados na oferta de alimentos orgânicos: apelando ao estilo de vida ego-trip. Ambiente & Sociedade, v. 6, n. 2, p. 63-81, 2003.

HARVEY, D.; and HUBBARD, C. Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: an anatomy of market failure. Food Policy, v. 38, p. 105-114, 2013.

HEERWAGEN, L.; CHRISTENSEN, T.; and SANDØE, P. The Prospect of Market-Driven Improvements in Animal Welfare: Lessons from the Case of Grass Milk in Denmark. Animals, v. 3, n. 2, p. 499-512, 2013.

HÖTZEL, M. J. Improving farm animal welfare: is evolution or revolution needed in production systems? In: APPLEBY, M.; WEARY, D. M.; and SANDOE, P. (Eds.). Dilemmas in animal welfare. Boston: CAB International, 2014. p. 67-84.

HÖTZEL, M. J. et al. Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: does providing information increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science, v. 100, n. 5, p. 4150-4160, 2017.

IBGE. Estimativas da população residente nos municípios brasileiros com data de referência em 1º de Julho de 2015. 2015. Avalilable in:< Avalilable in:ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Estimativas_de_Populacao/Estimativas_2015/estimativa_2015_TCU_20160211.pdf >. Accessed: 25.04.2016.

INGENBLEEK, P. et al. EU animal welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy, v. 37, n. 6, p. 690-699, 2012.

IPPUC. A cidade que queremos. 2010. Available in:<Available in:http://www.ippuc.org.br/planodiretor2014/arquivos/oficinas/BQ%20-%20A%20CIDADE%20QUE%20QUEREMOS_opt.pdf >. Accessed:13.02.2016.

IPPUC. Abastecimento familiar - supermercados e hipermercados. 2013. Available in:<Available in:http://www.ippuc.org.br/listaDetequipamentospdf.php >. Accessed:10.12.2013.

KEHLBACHER, A.; BENNETT, R; and BALCOMBE, K. Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy, v. 37, n. 6, p. 627-633, 2012.

KJAERNES, A.; BENNETT, R; and BALCOMBE, K. Welfare Quality Reports n. 7 - Consumption, distribution and production of farm animal welfare - opinions and practices within the supply chain. Wales: Cardiff University. 2008.

LAGERKVIST, C. J; and HESS, S. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, v. 38, n. 1, p. 55-78, 2011.

MAPA. Instrução normativa17 de 18/06/2004. Brazil, 2004.

MAPA. Instrução normativa 46 de 06/10/2011. Brazil, 2011.

MAPA. Projeções do agronegocio Brasil 2012/13 a 2022/23. Brasília, DF, 2013.

MAPA. Instrução normativa 17 de 18/06/2014. Brazil, 2014.

MCINERNEY, J. Animal welfare, economics and policy: report on a study undertaken for the farm & animal health economics division of DEFRA. London: DEFRA, 2004. 68 p.

MIRANDA-DE LA LAMA, G. C. et al. Attitudes of meat retailers to animal welfare in Spain. Meat Science, v. 95, n. 3, p. 569-575, 2013.

OECD. Meat consumption (indicator). 2016. Available in:<Available in:https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm >. Accessed: 04/14/2016.

QUEIROZ, M. L. D. V. et al. Percepção dos consumidores sobre o bem-estar dos animais de produção em Fortaleza, Ceará. Revista Ciencia Agronomica, v. 45, p. 379-386, 2014.

RIBEIRO, C; and HOFFMANN, R. Consumo de alimentos orgânicos e de produtos light ou diet no Brasil: fatores condicionantes e elasticidades-renda. Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, v. 22, n. 1, p. 541-557, 2015.

ROE, E; and MURDOCH, J. Welfare Quality reports no. 3. UK market for animal welfare friendly products: market structure, survey of available products and quality assurance schemes. Cardiff: Cardiff University, 2006.

ROE, E.; MURDOCH, J; and MARSDEN, T. The retail of welfare-friendly products: a comparative assessment of the nature of the market for welfare-friendly products in six European countries. In: BUTTERWORTH, A. (Ed.). Welfare quality conference proceedings. Brussels: Welfare Quality, 2005. 10 p.

SOUZA, A;. and MOLENTO, C. The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification at Farm Level to Enhancing Overall Animal Welfare: the case of Brazil. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, p. 1-19, 2015.

SPOOLDER, H. et al. EconWelfare findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning effective policy instruments in the route towars higher animal welfare in the EU. Lelystad, The Netherlands: EconWelfare. Available in: <Available in: http://www.econwelfare.eu/publications/EconWelfareD0.5_Findings_conclusions_and_recommendations.pdf >. Accessed:20.03.2015

TEAS, R. K; and AGARWAL, S. The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, v. 28, n. 2, p. 278-290, 2000.

UMBERGER, W. J.; BOXALL, P. C.; and LACY, R. C. Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers’ willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, v. 53, n. 4, p. 603-623, 2009.

VANHONACKER, F.; and VERBEKE, W. Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science, v. 88, n. 12, p. 2702-2711, 2009.

VANHONACKER, F.; and VERBEKE, W. Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, v. 27, n. 1, p. 153-171, 2014.

VEISSIER, I. et al. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 113, n. 4, p. 279-297, out. 2008.

VERBEKE, W. et al. Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta, v. 586, n. 1-2, p. 2-7, 2007.
 

5cee8ef80e88250450a63c0f resr Articles

resr

Share this page
Page Sections